New 27" 5K iMac question

[MyMac8MyPC]

Couldn't agree more. Two totally reliable companies with good prices are:
Crucial Crucial.com - DRAM, solid state drive (SSD) memory upgrades for Dell, Mac, Apple, HP, Compaq, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS
and
Other World Computing aka OWC Other World Computing (OWC) - Performance Upgrades For Your Mac

Crucial makes very good RAM. On the other side of the coin never use PNY RAM. If possible buy all your RAM at the same time.

 

[sailor#1]

Hoping this will last us a long time. We currently seem to buy a new computer every 2 years now and we are sick of that.

I have two MBPs that are 3-years old and an almost fully dressed out MP from 2006. All are going strong. My pevious PCs really did not last that long at all but, look inside a MP and compare with the typical PC. HUGE difference in quality!

 

[sailor#1]

Here's the deal. CPU benchmarks:

- 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5 = 11958
- 4.0GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 = 16558

This is approx. a 37.5% CPU performance gain. This is pretty massive. Usually I don't find the CPU upgrades that Apple offers to be that tempting. Usually the CPU upgrades will be about 12-15% better. But 37.5% (again) is pretty massive!!!

Here's what I would do if I were you. Get the 3TB fusion drive…and get the CPU upgrade. Why…you can upgrade the ram later (the ram is user upgradable)! So upgrade the ram later (if you feel you need it). And do it later when the budget allows!

- Nick

I agree 100% with Nick. You don't need a RAM upgrade until you start to do a lot of VM swapping which really slows down performance. This is why you need more, otherwise it does not improve performance...it's the same speed as original, just more room so it's like building an extra bedroom on your house before you have children to fill it.

 

[sailor#1]

I know my luck, if I don't purchase the warranty I'll end up needing it. If I do purchase it nothing will go wrong with the computer.

In the end if I know my wife we'll end up with the extended warranty which is probably for the best. Now I'm over budget

With Mac quality, the extended warrantee probably wouldn't pay dividends. However, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, unless you are a real OS X/Mac Guru, you will find that the phone support is worth its weight in gold.

 

[MacInWin]

Amazon has a WD My Book 4TB 3.0USB for $139? Good or bad? Any known issues with the My Book line and Mac?

I have two of them, a 2TB and a 3TB, both Firewire. They are great. I've looked at that particular drive and it's very tempting, if I can get the Chair(wo)man of the Exchequer to approve another toy.

 

[sailor#1]

Amazon has a WD My Book 4TB 3.0USB for $139? Good or bad? Any known issues with the My Book line and Mac?

I have been using WD's for a long time and never had a failure. Your price for a 4 TB external is just what I just paid to use with my 17-in MBP.

Note that you don't really care about the speed of your external HD if the only thing you use it for is backup using time machine or whatever. It can take all day to do backups and it doesn't bother you.

 

[chas_m]

I don't have full trust of fusion drives yet, and if either component fails (the SSD or the HD) then you lose everything on both.

There is no logic to this statement.

If your all-SSD drive fails, you lose everything.

If your all-HD drive fails, you lose everything.

If your Fusion logical volume fails, you lose everything.

There is no difference whatsoever in your "risk" between a Fusion Drive and a hard drive, since there is plenty of documented evidence that proves HDs are more prone to fail than any other type of popular storage drive.

The "solution" to the Fusion drive "problem" is -- amazingly -- to make a backup. Gosh, that's just like what you should do to avoid data loss from a "pure" HD! Or a "pure" SSD! Amazing!

 

[MacInWin]

There is no logic to this statement.

If your all-SSD drive fails, you lose everything.

If your all-HD drive fails, you lose everything.

If your Fusion logical volume fails, you lose everything.

There is no difference whatsoever in your "risk" between a Fusion Drive and a hard drive, since there is plenty of documented evidence that proves HDs are more prone to fail than any other type of popular storage drive.

The "solution" to the Fusion drive "problem" is -- amazingly -- to make a backup. Gosh, that's just like what you should do to avoid data loss from a "pure" HD! Or a "pure" SSD! Amazing!

If you have an SSD and if you lose that SSD you lose everything on it.

If you have an HD and if the HD fails, you lose everything on it.

If you have both an SSD from which to boot, and an HD holding data, if you lose the SSD, you lose the data on the SSD, but the HD is fine. If you lose the HD, you lose the data on the HD, but the SSD is fine.

If you have both an SSD and an HD and you have them in fusion, if you lose EITHER of them, you lose the data on BOTH of them. That's the nature of fusion.

Now, given that the reliability of a fused drive is the PRODUCT of the reliability of each one independently, a fused drive MUST be less reliable than the individual drives themselves. Consider, if the SSD is 99% reliable and the HD is also 99% reliable, the reliability of a fused drive is 98% (.99 * .99).

For comparison, if you have an SSD and an HD, use the SD to boot and put data on the HD, the probability of losing EVERYTHING at once (both drives failed simultaneously) is also a product, but the product of the probability of failure of each drive. IN the example above, that is .01 for each, so the product of the two is .01 * .01, or .0001.

So, give the same equipment, an SSD and an HD, if each is 99% reliable, the probability of losing EVERYTHING is, if fused, 2%, if not fused 0.01%.

Now drives are much more reliable than 99%, so I did the math assuming 99.999% reliability. The probability of losing everything if fused is 0.002%, if not fused is 0.00000001%.

So I stand by my statement that fused drives must be less reliable.

And yes, backups are important, even more so in a fused drive because the probability of failure is higher.

 

[NateS]

If you have an SSD and if you lose that SSD you lose everything on it.

If you have an HD and if the HD fails, you lose everything on it.

If you have both an SSD from which to boot, and an HD holding data, if you lose the SSD, you lose the data on the SSD, but the HD is fine. If you lose the HD, you lose the data on the HD, but the SSD is fine.

If you have both an SSD and an HD and you have them in fusion, if you lose EITHER of them, you lose the data on BOTH of them. That's the nature of fusion.

Now, given that the reliability of a fused drive is the PRODUCT of the reliability of each one independently, a fused drive MUST be less reliable than the individual drives themselves. Consider, if the SSD is 99% reliable and the HD is also 99% reliable, the reliability of a fused drive is 98% (.99 * .99).

For comparison, if you have an SSD and an HD, use the SD to boot and put data on the HD, the probability of losing EVERYTHING at once (both drives failed simultaneously) is also a product, but the product of the probability of failure of each drive. IN the example above, that is .01 for each, so the product of the two is .01 * .01, or .0001.

So, give the same equipment, an SSD and an HD, if each is 99% reliable, the probability of losing EVERYTHING is, if fused, 2%, if not fused 0.01%.

Now drives are much more reliable than 99%, so I did the math assuming 99.999% reliability. The probability of losing everything if fused is 0.002%, if not fused is 0.00000001%.

So I stand by my statement that fused drives must be less reliable.

And yes, backups are important, even more so in a fused drive because the probability of failure is higher.

I've never had a fusion drive, so I am asking this question for educational purposes and not to join the argument.

Since all drives fail sooner or later, I am obsessive about backups and think everyone who isn't is either extremely foolish or enjoys living on the wild side, but is there something special or unique about backing up a fusion drive?

Is the process different?

Do both the SSD and HD parts get backed up at the same time to one's backup drive, or does it require two separate steps, or two separate backup drives?

If one's secondary backup system is offsite or in the cloud, e.g. CrashPlan, is there anything more complicated about backing up a fusion drive rather than an HD or SSD?

This dispute has made me curious.

Best wishes, Nate

 

[MacInWin]

Nope, the fusion drive LOOKS like one drive. It's just faster than an HD by itself because it first does writes/reads to and from the SSD, then the fusion moves the material to the HD when the reads and writes for that file have ceased. To the system (and at backup), it's all seen as one drive.

 

[NateS]

Nope, the fusion drive LOOKS like one drive. It's just faster than an HD by itself because it first does writes/reads to and from the SSD, then the fusion moves the material to the HD when the reads and writes for that file have ceased. To the system (and at backup), it's all seen as one drive.

So am I to conclude from that explanation that, at any given moment in time, there is no greater risk of as-yet unbacked up new/changed data with a fusion drive than with having just an SSD being backed up or just an HD being backed up?

Regards, Nate

 

[MacInWin]

No, the risk of losing unbacked up data is higher with fusion than with separate drives. Once it's backed up, it's all the same.

 

[NateS]

No, the risk of losing unbacked up data is higher with fusion than with separate drives. Once it's backed up, it's all the same.

Even if the interval between (incremental) backups of new or changed data is the same in all three examples? I think your answer will be "yes" but I want to be sure I've got it.

Thanks, Nate

 

[MacInWin]

Yes, because the issue is not the backup, or the frequency of backup. What makes fusion more risky is the addition of complexity to the "drive" adds more devices that CAN fail, so the probability of lost goes up.

Now, so that we don't go all crazy, the probability of loss is very, very low, but if I have a system with separated SSD and HD as I described, it has a lower risk of loss of EVERYTHING than the same system with the SSD and HD fused.

 

[NateS]

Yes, because the issue is not the backup, or the frequency of backup. What makes fusion more risky is the addition of complexity to the "drive" adds more devices that CAN fail, so the probability of lost goes up.

Now, so that we don't go all crazy, the probability of loss is very, very low, but if I have a system with separated SSD and HD as I described, it has a lower risk of loss of EVERYTHING than the same system with the SSD and HD fused.

Okay, now I think I've got it, and I thank you.

In addition, considering the way SSD prices are dropping, it looks like the popularity of fusion drives may soon peak which, on a somewhat related subject, makes me wonder what OWC is up to, with the pre-announcement of their "Transwarp" system for later this year:

CES 2015: OWC Previews Revolutionary Transwarp Software

I wonder why they expect this concept to take off this late in the game of SSD pricing?

Best wishes, Nate

 

[MacInWin]

Well, depending on how fast they move the data from the SSD to the HD, that might be an interesting solution. This paragraph:

Transwarp is unique in that it allows the SSD caching drive to be removed without damaging the volume or compromising any data on the hard drive, and unlike conventional cache, Transwarp persists even when the power is turned off. Once the SSD is reconnected, Transwarp seamlessly picks up where it left off, making it a great option for laptop users looking for the flexibility to be light on the road, but fast at home or in the office. Converting a drive from Transwarp happens as quickly as it is created, returning both drives to regular volumes within minutes.

seems to say that the SSD is not Fused into one logical drive with the HD, but sits between the OS and the drive as a true cache. If the algorithm then moves the cache to the HD quickly, the exposure could be small. And if what they say is true, then a failure of one does not cause the loss of the pair. Could be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[NateS]

Well, depending on how fast they move the data from the SSD to the HD, that might be an interesting solution. This paragraph:seems to say that the SSD is not Fused into one logical drive with the HD, but sits between the OS and the drive as a true cache. If the algorithm then moves the cache to the HD quickly, the exposure could be small. And if what they say is true, then a failure of one does not cause the loss of the pair. Could be interesting to see how it plays out.

True. It will be interesting also to see what the pricing on large capacity SSDs is at the time, later this year, when they plan to introduce this product, as the price on low-capacity SSDs is already cheap. OWC has always been a fascinating company to follow.

Nate

 

[Sharkz]

MacMaster thanks for the reply. I've been reading a lot of great reviews like yours in the last few days.

You are correct I live on my computer and it will be on 24hrs a day. Doing lots of video editing. Problem now is I have to start researching the heck out of video software for macs. Don't suppose there is a great easy all in one video editor that has an easy learning curve is there

 

[NateS]

Hi Sharkz,

…
Next question was Apple Care... I think this should be a definite yes for many reasons... your Mac is an elegant beast of the finest quality... would you buy a high end car, full of gadgets and not get the warranty. I love calling Apple Care, they are geniuses and have never let me down. I had a custom 17" Macbook Pro made for me when they made 17" versions. Fully Loaded. I used it every day for my company, it was on 24 hours a day, slept some times, but I used it so much, it started throwing some quirks, long story short, Apple Care replaced the ENTIRE mother board for Free because I had the warranty. They took exquisite care of me, my machine and all my concerns. If you are going to have your iMac on 24 hours a day and punish it with video editing like I do from multiple Go Pro Cameras and other HD devices, not to mention the world of 4K which is now here around us every day, get Apple Care, you can thank me later.…

Hi Sharkz!
Just to add to what MacMaster007 said about AppleCare:

About 8-9 years ago, I had what was then called an iBook laptop. Under Applecare, a similar failure was repaired twice under my AppleCare during the 3rd year. About 6 months after the AppleCare contract expired, the same problem occurred. I called them, was transferred up the line of authority and was promised a callback.

I wasn't too optimistic, since it was past the AppleCare contract and, in addition they had stopped making the iBook. While waiting for the callback, I shopped used iBooks online, and found that I could probably buy 3-4 year old used one for about $200, so my mental goal was to try to persuade them on callback to consider giving me $200.

But I never got to open my mouth. When the more senior woman Apple rep called me back, she said that if the same thing happened twice under AppleCare and a third time after AppleCare expired, it obviously had been misdiagnosed; and since they were no longer selling the iBook, she said that if I would take mine to the local FedEx to be shipped to them at their expense for teardown and study, they would ship me a brand-new MacBook to replace it free of charge! She even matched the upgraded ram I had installed in the iBook!

I don't know whether that would ever happen again, but it is one more reason why I always buy Macs and also buy AppleCare, usually just before the included one-year warranty included in the Mac price runs out, so that it doesn't feel like part of the initial cost - just added insurance bought afterward.

Best wishes, Nate

 

[Sharkz]

but it is one more reason why I always buy Macs and also buy AppleCare, usually just before the included one-year warranty included in the Mac price runs out, so that it doesn't feel like part of the initial cost - just added insurance bought afterward.

^^This right there. Am I understanding you correctly, I can wait to purchase the Extended warranty at a later date? Any little bit would help at the initial cost of purchase.