New 27" 5K iMac question

[NateS]

^^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.

I've always bought mine about 10 months into the first year, from one of the discounters like Amazon. See for example:

Amazon.com: AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac (NEWEST VERSION): Computers & Accessories

Note also:
"The AppleCare Protection Plan can be purchased only while your Mac is still covered under the standard one-year limited warranty."


Best wishes, Nate

 

[pigoo3]

As an FYI. If you purchase Extended Applecare (maybe Apple is now calling it the "Applecare Protection Plan") near the end of the original 12 months...free phone support ends after 90 days. If you purchase Extended Applecare at the time of purchase (or maybe it's within the first 90 days)…then free phone support is extended for the entire 3 years. Which can be really helpful if someone is not near an Apple Store to visit.

Of course if free phone support is not a big deal…then purchasing Extended Applecare at any time during the first 12 months works.

https://www.apple.com/support/products/mac.html

- Nick

 

[NateS]

What you guys are forgetting about recommending purchasing Extended Applecare close to the end of the original 12 month period is free phone support.

If you purchase Extended Applecare near the end of the original 12 month Applecare free phone support ends after 90 days. If you purchase Extended Applecare at the time of purchase (or maybe it's within the first 90 days) Then free phone support is extended for the entire 3 years. Which can be really helpful if someone is not near an Apple Store to visit.

Of course if free phone support is not a big deal then purchasing Extend Applecare at any time during the first 12 months works.

https://www.apple.com/support/products/mac.html

- Nick

Nick, I'm confused, because I've never had to pay for telephone support under extended AppleCare during the second and third years after purchase, and since I've owned Macs since the original 1984 128K, there have been instances over the years.

Of course, I've only called when something didn't seem to be acting right. Sometimes the tech has me perform actions which makes everything right again (like re-setting PRAM, SMC etc. which I've since learned for myself plus a few other actions I've never found mentioned on the internet) -OR- sometimes it results in them sending me a well-cushioned box with which to pack up the Mac for the FedEx man who soon thereafter appears at my door.

Is "complimentary telephone technical support" different than calling because something is not working quite right? I don't remember ever calling AppleCare just to ask them how to make the Mac do things, so I can't dispute you if that's what it means, but how would the Apple tech on the other end of the phone know the difference at the start of the call before deciding to charge you or not?

Best wishes, Nate

 

[pigoo3]

Nick, I'm confused, because I've never had to pay for telephone support under extended AppleCare during the second and third years after purchase...

Is "complimentary telephone technical support" different than calling because something is not working quite right? I don't remember ever calling AppleCare just to ask them how to make the Mac do things, so I can't dispute you if that's what it means, but how would the Apple tech on the other end of the phone know the difference at the start of the call before deciding to charge you or not?

I think this is what I would call a "good problem". I think that Apple has such good customer service & gray-area in how they handle things…that even when Apple should be charging customers for a call…they don't. But I think technically…if someone calls with a software or hardware issue…Apple is supposed to charge some sort of minimum fee if the person has no active Applecare telephone support.

This of course applies to issues for hardware or software someone already owns (talking with technical support). Obviously if someone is calling with questions about purchasing software or hardware…this is free…and the person would be speaking with a customer service person & not technical support.

- Nick

 

[NateS]

I think this is what I would call a "good problem". I think that Apple has such good customer service & gray-area in how they handle things…that even when Apple should be charging customers for a call…they don't. But I think technically…if someone calls with a software or hardware issue…Apple is supposed to charge some sort of minimum fee if the person has no active Applecare telephone support.

This of course applies to issues for hardware or software someone already owns (talking with technical support)….

- Nick

Nick, of course, I can't imagine someone expecting free AppleCare phone support when they don't own AppleCare, so that distinction doesn't really address the issue you originally raised in your earlier post, where you said:

If you purchase Extended Applecare near the end of the original 12 month Applecare free phone support ends after 90 days. If you purchase Extended Applecare at the time of purchase (or maybe it's within the first 90 days) Then free phone support is extended for the entire 3 years.

I always have purchased my Extended AppleCare near the end of the first year, and I have never been charged for a call to AppleCare during the 1st, 2nd or 3rd year of my contract, in all the years I have owned Macs. I have never taken a Mac into an Apple Store for problems or for repairs. It has always started with a phone call to AppleCare, and I have never been asked to pay. When the tech has not been able to walk me through a resolution over the phone, they have always had FedEx pick up my Mac after sending me the shipment box, and they have always returned it to me via FedEx after repairs - usually only 3-4 days turnaround. This has also been the experience of all my friends and associates who have owned Macs.

Keep in mind that AppleCare started long before there was such a thing as an Apple Store and, since the creation of Apple Stores, the only thing that changed for me with AppleCare was that the tech person on the phone was able to offer me the option of either taking it in to the nearest Apple Store or having it picked up by FedEx and I always chose the latter, so if I couldn't call Apple without charge, how would they be able to assist me?

To be fair, I asked you whether the distinction you are making was about someone calling to just ask - "How do I use my Mac?" or "How do I write a letter?" or "How do I plug something in?" That is something I have had no experience with calling Apple for, because when that occurred back in the early days of Mac purchases, it was always easier to ask friends or fellow Mac owners.

So I was asking you, is that the sort of question they would or can charge a person for if they owned AppleCare coverage but did not purchase it at the time they purchased their Mac? Although I've never heard of that, I would like to see something from Apple which specifically says that, because in that case it would be important for me to change the advice I normally give friends as to buying AppleCare at discount near the end of the 1st year, instead of paying Apple full retail for it when the Mac is purchased.

It would help a lot if you could provide a citation to something from Apple with the pertinent language, if that is the case, as I would not want to mis-advise anyone on the subject of the wisest way to purchase AppleCare.

Best wishes, Nate

 

[chscag]

Read this article by Macworld Magazine. What Nick stated is a fact... The normal US warranty for an Apple product is one year and 90 days of free telephone support. The purchase of Apple care extends the warranty to 3 years and 33 months additional free telephone support. If you received free telephone support previously after the initial 90 days without purchasing Apple care, consider yourself lucky. We have had numerous questions about this in our forums coming from folks who were required to pay for telephone support after their 90 days of free support had expired.

 

[NateS]

Read this article by Macworld Magazine. What Nick stated is a fact... The normal US warranty for an Apple product is one year and 90 days of free telephone support. The purchase of Apple care extends the warranty to 3 years and 33 months additional free telephone support. If you received free telephone support previously after the initial 90 days without purchasing Apple care, consider yourself lucky. We have had numerous questions about this in our forums coming from folks who were required to pay for telephone support after their 90 days of free support had expired.

Here is the contract, which I have gone over with a finetooth comb:

APP Mac - North America English

I don't see anything in your post, nor in the contract, which contradicts what I said in my post.

The way you are defining "free telephone support" apparently refers to what I would call "hand-holding for first time users" and I don't disagree that it ends in 90 days if you haven't purchased AppleCare to extend the coverage.

What I am talking about is calls involving malfunction of the Mac, and it is always in Apple's self-interest to have the tech first walk you through various efforts to possibly resolve the problem before Apple incurs the cost of repairs and they do not charge for that if it gets your Mac back up and running normally and eliminates costs to Apple under AppleCare.

Nobody in the first year of purchase is going to get turned down for repairs as defined in the APP for Mac when they call, and nobody is going to get charged if the tech's telephone instructions eliminate the need to send in the computer.

If people are calling for hand-holding after 90 days and have not purchased the Extended Care, then yes they are often going to be told that there is a charge, as there should be. I will stand corrected if someone can document where they called with a non-functioning or malfunctioning Mac beyond 90 days but within the first year and was told the Apple Tech wouldn't get it functioning either on the phone or by sending it in for repairs, unless the user agreed to be charged.

I also don't see anything in the contract that says that the AppleCare has to be purchased from Apple or on the same invoice as the Mac purchase. (Apple does have certain contracts which require certain peripherals to be on the same invoice with the Mac purchase in order to be covered but I see nothing in the Mac APP to that effect.) If it can be demonstrated that I have overlooked something as to how soon the contract must be purchased, I will stand corrected, but I still see nothing preventing the buyer from purchasing the AppleCare contract at substantial discount from Amazon, B&H Photo, etc. Perhaps we need to clear this up directly with Apple.

Respectfully,
Nate

 

[pigoo3]

What I am talking about is calls involving malfunction of the Mac, and it is always in Apple's self-interest to have the tech first walk you through various efforts to possibly resolve the problem before Apple incurs the cost of repairs and they do not charge for that if it gets your Mac back up and running normally and eliminates costs to Apple under AppleCare.

Tthe best place for the most accurate & up to date answer is Apple.

I'm sure they can explain if someone calls (Example: it's month 10 of the original Applecare & they have not purchased Extended Applecare or Applecare+). Let's say they have a hardware problem…and they no longer have active Applecare phone coverage (that ran out after 90 days). You can ask will they be charged for the call.

And if not. Then maybe Apple can also be asked what the free Applecare telephone support does cover for free (that other folks without the coverage would have to pay for).

- Nick

 

[joema]

...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....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%....So I stand by my statement that fused drives must be less reliable....backups are important, even more so in a fused drive because the probability of failure is higher.

Ah, but we are not comparing FD reliability vs the exact same-sized SSD and HDD components. Rather the comparison is FD reliability vs same total size SSD -- e.g, 1TB FD vs 1TB SSD. In this case the 1TB SSD is eight times larger than the 128GB SSD on the FD and will have different failure characteristics.

Will the 1TB SSD be more reliable than the 128GB SSD? Less? It has a lot more cells to potentially fail, but we don't know.

We do know that SSD itself can have significant failure rates. Worse, unlike an HDD which often gives off warning signs of an impending hard failure, SSD often just totally dies. SSD reliability studies and discussions:

SSD vs. HDD: Performance and Reliability - EnterpriseStorageForum.com
Week In Tech: Are SSDs Really Reliable? | Rock, Paper, Shotgun
Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive? - SSD Reliability: Is Your Data Really Safe?

What most studies show is a huge variation in SSD reliability. So you can't say the 128GB SSD component in FD is more or less reliable than a 1TB iMac SSD, much less a 3rd-party external SSD. In some studies SSD failure rate was 66%.

So the idea that FD is *operationally* less reliable in a meaningful way so as to necessitate more frequent backups is not really evident. Whether you have HDD, FD or SSD, they should be backed up with equal frequency and stringency.

Lloyd Chambers (Mac Performance Guide) is one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry who writes disk drive diagnostics for a living. His balanced view of FD reliability:

MPG - Fusion How To - Are Two Drives 'Fused' as Reliable?

"How much less reliable is this approach? With good engineering, perhaps still far beyond the concern of most users. Over time, the relative reliability of a two drive Fusion volume will emerge."

 

[MacInWin]

CLIP...

Lloyd Chambers (Mac Performance Guide) is one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry who writes disk drive diagnostics for a living. His balanced view of FD reliability:

MPG - Fusion How To - Are Two Drives 'Fused' as Reliable?

"How much less reliable is this approach? With good engineering, perhaps still far beyond the concern of most users. Over time, the relative reliability of a two drive Fusion volume will emerge."

Nice to know an authorative source (I think you say he was one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry, right?) says just what I've been saying, to wit:

It is also fair to say that a Mac with a Fusion drive has its own reliability characteristics which cannot be as high as a single drive, but might nonetheless prove to more than reliable enough so that the difference is of no real significance. Most users who want it to just work without regard to the underlying technology will find this proposition quite acceptable.(emphasis added)

Two devices, fused together CANNOT be as reliable as the individual devices themselves. That's not an opinion, that is simple fact. And I agree with him that the difference may be of no significant to the average user, but there is a difference.

The overall reliability of Fusion drives also depends on the individual reliability of the two components, so if Apple has put drives in fusion that are higher reliability than they put in their non-fusion system, it could turn out that Apple Fusion drives are as reliable (or even more reliable) than those single drives, but that's comparing apples and oranges. The bottom line remains, fused drives CANNOT be as reliable as the two devices in them are when unfused.

 

[MacInWin]

And until you can produce any documentation that establishes that Fusion Drives are less reliable than any other sort of drive, I stand by my statement that your statement is errant and illogical nonsense you pulled out of your backside.

EDIT: Snarky comment removed.

Chas_m, I never said "Fusion Drives are less reliable than any other sort of drive," I said that fused drives are not as reliable as the two components independently installed. Don't set up a straw man I never said and then use that to attack the logic of my argument. It's not illogical, it's statistical reliability, a subject I spent considerable time studying as part of my post graduate work. The more complex a device is, the greater the probability is that it will fail. A fused drive is two devices, each with a failure probability, that needs BOTH working successfully to be successful itself. Statistically, that device CANNOT be as reliable as the two devices independently, as the article linked in the previous post discusses.

I have to stand on the facts. It's not an opinion, or nonsense, it's statistical reality.

 

[Sharkz]

Back with another question,

Been reading up on Time machine. I'm trying figure out my external HD setup. I know I my internal HD will be the 1TB Fusion.I'm going to go with these external drives from OWC
OWC 3.0TB Mercury Elite Pro 7200RPM FW800 &USB3... in stock at OWC

My question is with my video files and Time machine should I purchase 2 separate drives? Like a 2TB for video files and 1TB for Time Machine? Or just get one bigger 4TB drive? Your thoughts about this?
Also how quiet are these drives? They have great reviews?

Let me know your thoughts please.. Thanks..

 

[NateS]

Back with another question,

Been reading up on Time machine. I'm trying figure out my external HD setup. I know I my internal HD will be the 1TB Fusion.I'm going to go with these external drives from OWC
OWC 3.0TB Mercury Elite Pro 7200RPM FW800 &USB3... in stock at OWC

My question is with my video files and Time machine should I purchase 2 separate drives? Like a 2TB for video files and 1TB for Time Machine? Or just get one bigger 4TB drive? Your thoughts about this?
Also how quiet are these drives? They have great reviews?

Let me know your thoughts please.. Thanks..

Others may disagree, but I believe that drives reserved for backup should be used for that purpose exclusively and not for original data. All drives fail sooner or later and if you've got some of your original data on the same drive as the backup, and that drive fails, you will lose both your data and your backup! You've sacrificed redundancy, which is what backup is all about.

In addition, I keep two separate drives for backup only - one for Time Machine which runs continuously; and one for SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner, which makes an exact clone on a schedule you set - daily, weekly or whatever.

Time Machine is great for savings incremental versions of each project, but if your entire data drive fails, it would take hours and hours and hours for Time Machine to re-create your data drive contents; whereas an SuDu or CCC backup will restore your entire drive and get you up and back on your project in about an hour or less; or immediately if you are willing to run from its backup disk - it is an exact clone of your data drive as of the last time it ran.

Best wishes, Nate

 

[MacInWin]

Backup philosophy is an interesting area. There is no one single "right" answer. Nate's idea of not putting data and backup on the same drive is a good one. Here is some food for thought:

IF you put your important data on an external drive and only have the OS on the internal drive, then the need for a backup of that internal drive is reduced. After all, you can always reinstall the OS and your applications from the originals and your data is all there on the external. If you follow that philosophy, then the internal drive only needs to be big enought to hold the OS and applications, plus maybe the scratch area for your applications to use when working. That approach makes your 1TB internal drive massively oversized. However, that approach also brings into play the speed of the interface to the external drive. Up to recently, the speeds at which data moved in and out of the iMac were not large, so the way to improve performance was to have a massive internal drive, use that for OS, apps and data. Then back up all of that to an even more massive external drive (for history storage) and to a second drive of the same size as the internal for emergency booting. SuDu or CCC make that clone easy to do and to automate, and TM makes a good second backup that has the entire system but is not bootable like the clone. So, if you choose to do that, and if you have an internal drive of 1Tb, then your backup with CCC needs to be 1Tb, and the TM drive should be 2Tb as a general rule. Given that configuration, you have something less than 1Tb available to you for your data. Every byte you add to that by making the internal drive bigger needs to be mirrored in the backups, so if you moved to a 2Tb internal, the clone should be 2Tb and the TM drive 4TB, etc.

Now, if you decide to separate the OS/Apps drive and keep your files on an external data drive, then the geometry changes. For example, if you have that same 1Tb internal drive with just the OS and Apps on it, it won't take up very much of that drive. Let's assume 500Gb, which is generous. And now you have a large external for backup of your data files, let's say that's a 2Tb USB3 or Thunderbolt drive, for the speed. What I would use in that envirohment is a SuDu or CCC clone drive of 500Gb and a separate 4GB drive to use TM for backing up both the external drive and the internal. In this geometry you have one bootable backup on the CCC drive and one backup of your data on the TM drive, along with a backup of the OS and apps on that same drive. This geometry is a bit more risky, as you only have ONE backup of the data files, so if you are really paranoid, you can get a second 2TB drive and use CCC or Chronosync to keep the two in sync. Now you have two backups of the OS, two backups of the data.

And there are other combinations and permutations of the configurations. It all depends on budget and your own desires/paranoia levels. In my personal system, I have a MBP with two internal drives, both 500Gb. One is my boot drive, on which I keep files that I consider important. The second drive holds deeper storage of files I could lose and not feel that much pain. I clone the boot one to a 500Gb external, use TM to back it up to a separate 1Tb. The deeper storage drive is backed up with CCC to a second 500Gb external. So I end up with two backups of the boot, one of which is bootable, and one backup of the deeper storage. The bootable one is a portable drive I take with me when I travel. (My Mac is a MBP, so it moves.) The TM backup doesn't move with me, it catches up when I get home and reconnect. The bootable gets reconnected each night for the nightly backup clone. Doing the math, for 1GB of boot and data, I dedicate 2 GB to backup, which is about right. I end up with three devices, the portable clone, the 1Tb backup drive and the deeper storage 500Gb backup.

Yes, I'm paranoid, but as I've said other places, I have HAD a backup drive fail and not known it until I needed it, so my paranoia comes from experience.

Hope this rambling helps somehow!

 

[Sharkz]

Nice reply^^ I wrote mine before reading this.

Ok I'm still learning so let me see if I understand this. Time Machine has its one drive, is 1TB big enough for time machine? Then I should get another drive to back up the Time machine drive? I must not be understanding fully. Because that seems very excessive and costly. I do plan on using SuperDuper. as I would like an exact clone of my drive.

My video files I'm not so concerned with. Because when I'm done editing my projects they get burned to discs and given to parents. Then they are deleted and removed from my drive. But I still need some storage space because of the sizes of my files. So I would like to get 2TB strictly for storage of those files.

My main concern is having an exact clone of my system so I can be up and running as quick as possible. Not much else will be stored on the internal drive other then APPS.

 

[joema]

...A fused drive is two devices, each with a failure probability, that needs BOTH working successfully to be successful itself. Statistically, that device CANNOT be as reliable as the two devices independently, as the article linked in the previous post discusses...

The reason we are here is to help switchers. That means practically meaningful assistance, not theoretical statements they may misunderstand.

Your statement "...backups are important, even more so in a fused drive because the probability of failure is higher...." implied that Fusion Drive is sufficiently less reliable to warrant a different operational strategy. IOW it's not just a theoretical difference but sufficient evidence exists to adjust operational practices.

I don't see it that way. You are absolutely correct that aggregate failure probability of components in series is product of their individual probabilities. The formula is:

1-(1-r1)*(1-r2)..., where r1=drive 1 failure rate in %, and r2=drive 2 failure rate in %

But does that make any real-world difference? If I live on a mountain there's a greater risk of health problems from cosmic radiation than in the valley. But should that difference -- while real -- strongly determine home site selection?

The article I referenced by Lloyd Chambers noted that Fusion Drive was theoretically less reliable than the exact same un-fused components, but stopped short of saying this required more frequent backups.

We don't want to give any switchers the idea they don't need to back up SSD because it's more reliable, or that they must more frequently back up Fusion Drive because it's less reliable, or that their purchasing decision of SSD vs Fusion Drive should primarily weight reliability. Nobody knows if there is any meaningful real-world difference.

 

[sailor#1]

Nice reply^^ I wrote mine before reading this.

Ok I'm still learning so let me see if I understand this. Time Machine has its one drive, is 1TB big enough for time machine? Then I should get another drive to back up the Time machine drive? I must not be understanding fully. Because that seems very excessive and costly. I do plan on using SuperDuper. as I would like an exact clone of my drive.

My video files I'm not so concerned with. Because when I'm done editing my projects they get burned to discs and given to parents. Then they are deleted and removed from my drive. But I still need some storage space because of the sizes of my files. So I would like to get 2TB strictly for storage of those files.

My main concern is having an exact clone of my system so I can be up and running as quick as possible. Not much else will be stored on the internal drive other then APPS.

I, too, am paranoid about the possibiliy of losing data and I agree mostly with both Nate and Jake. I have used the following philosophy for 50 years if you include old high speed tape drives on my HP real time data collection. I immediately cloned tapes and locked them up and worked only with the clones. When PCs came around, when most people were using floppy disks for backup I started using secondary hard disks to mirror my working HD. As machines got larger and larger with respect to disk space, I went to larger and larger internal HDs and then to external HDs. Now, in my MP, I have two 1TB Hitachi HDDs labeled HD-0 and HD-1, and two 500GB HDDs configured as a 1TB raid.

I generally use HD-0 for operating system and apps. I use HD-1 for a spare incase HD-0 dies so I can immediately restore and run some more. I occasional use HD-1 for scratch and temporare miscellaneous storage but it's really just a standby. Then, on the raid drive, I save all my photos and music...all the audio and visual information collected. I call this drive "HD-2 & 3." This configuration is really just from historical reasons, nothing practical as the raiding is not single-drive failure proof.

Then I have a 3-TB external Western Digital drive connected by firewire and used exclusively for Time Machine back-ups. I initiated this volume in June of 2012 and it now has about 2TB used out of the original 3. I plan to replace it at about 2.5TB used and simply keep it for archival storage.

The point of this story is that over 50 years of using the dual storage, use + backup, philosophy, I have not really lost anything. This is not to say I haven't had failures, I have. However I was always able to recover my files from back-up.

Why is this? Consider if your storage device has a failure rate of 2% per year (currently about right for 1GB+ drives shown by the attached figure from backblaze.com. Using two of such drives, one for use and one for back-up, your combined failure rate is the product of the two or 0.04%, four-parts in 10,000 or 2% of the original times. Instead of two out of 100 drives failing in one year, it would instead four failures of 10,000 dual-drive configurations in one year or one per 2500 configurations per year. To me, this is pretty good odds so I don't have to spend lots of dollars for multiple disk, data-loss proof, raid arrays or some such.

But...if I was really paranoid, I would have two houses with a drive in each hoping they wouldn't both burn down simultaneously.

Hope this helps...OJ

 

[sailor#1]

Missing Graphic

Here is the graphic on failure rates I mentioned above from backblaze.com.

 

[MacInWin]

CLIP...

The article I referenced by Lloyd Chambers noted that Fusion Drive was theoretically less reliable than the exact same un-fused components, but stopped short of saying this required more frequent backups.

We don't want to give any switchers the idea they don't need to back up SSD because it's more reliable, or that they must more frequently back up Fusion Drive because it's less reliable, or that their purchasing decision of SSD vs Fusion Drive should primarily weight reliability. Nobody knows if there is any meaningful real-world difference.

Exactly where did I say that you don't need to backup an SSD, or that an SSD is more reliable? If you go back to my original post that first talked about this, in Post #21 I said

I'll chime in and say that you'll also want some sort of external drive for backups of that "puppy," (as Nick called it, frankly it's more of a "beast" with those specs). 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. Generally backup drives should be twice the size of the drive they are backing up, so by that rule you need a 6TB backup, but you can go smaller until you see how full the fusion drive is getting. As long as you keep the external at twice what it is being used to back up, you'll be ok. And I concur what what's been said, get the CPU upgrade, do the memory yourself later. OWC and Crucial have memory much less pricey than Apple.

Where in that does it say SSDs are so reliable they don't need backup? Again, you set up a straw man argument to ignore the facts. The article cited said

More complexity, especially with data storage, implicitly carries a negative implication in terms of reliability (excluding RAID redundancy), and possible bugs at all levels.

Now the degree to which the fused drive is less reliable than the two components separately may be totally acceptable to you, and to others, but as I said "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." Both of those assertions are true, regardless of the fact you don't want to accept it. I don't trust fusion drives yet, I'm waiting for the first sets of failure reports to be generated and if either drive fails you lose everything in the fusion. And if it is true that WD, for example, is at 98% reliability as the chart shows (I have no idea where sailor#1 got that chart from, so I can't say anything about the accuracy of it.) then a 98% reliable HD, fused with a, let's say 99% reliable SSD (I also don't have any stats on that, it's an assumption. The only science I could find was a study done in 2011 that found SSD's had a 1.44% failure rate, so I'll round that to just 1% to be generous.), will end up at .98 * .99, or 97%, which IS below either of them separately. Does that 1% difference make any real-world difference? That's up the user. It's a fifty percent increase over a straight HD and at least double the straight SSD rate.

All I have been saying is that a buyer needs to know what is in that magic box his or her hard earned cash is obtaining for them and make an informed decision. I, for one, think the loss of reliability is more than I want to take for my money, but others may decide for themselves. But in both cases, backups are critical to recovery when and if any of it does fail! And, oh, by the way, the author of your article DID say to make backups:

Casual users won’t care about any of this; when the thing breaks it will be careted [sic] over to the Apple Store. And if appropriate backups are kept, one has it fixed, then resumes.

So, no matter what the end user decides, backups are critical.

 

[joema]

Exactly where did I say that you don't need to backup an SSD, or that an SSD is more reliable?

You did not, and I'm not saying you did. However you did say ""...backups are important, even more so in a fused drive because the probability of failure is higher...."

That means you are advising new Mac users on a forum where they come for advice that Fusion Drive is so unreliable that backups are more important on that drive type. That is misleading, especially to new people.

"...if either component fails (the SSD or the HD) then you lose everything on both." Both of those assertions are true, regardless of the fact you don't want to accept it.

Why do you think I don't accept that when in my previous post I said I did and I posted the exact series network failure equation corroborating that? BTW I have four Macs -- two with Fusion Drive and two with SSD. My next iMac will probably have SSD but not because of reliability.

I, for one, think the loss of reliability is more than I want to take for my money, but others may decide for themselves....

That is fine and such facile reasoning may eventually be proven correct, regardless of the current lack of evidence. However all the new Mac users should understand there is so far no evidence that a Fusion Drive has significantly worse real-world reliability than the same size SSD, and certainly not sufficiently different to change their backup policy.