[gooser]

i have always believed that a desktop computer should be able to do things that a laptop can't. and have more flexibility. the new imac seems to drop the ball on this. it seems to me that this is nothing more than a larger, non portable macbook air. no dvd drive, firewire, audio input port and i suspect very limited upgradeability and repairability. i will admit that it looks better than the last model but who cares how thin a desktop computer is or how much it weighs. and for those who watched the presentation, apple was real proud of how thin it is. i am intrigued with the fusion drive idea. but it makes me wonder just who apple is targeting with this thing. i welcome opinions. it is certainly not an all-in-one computer anymore.

[Thorzdad]

Apple is targeting the same group of consumers it always has with the iMac...Households and small offices. About the only item in your list that might be problematic for those groups is the lack of an optical drive. Otherwise, the vast majority of homes and offices really have no use for Firewire, audio inputs, or upgradeability or ease of repair. The fact of life is that such things are issues only for a very small (and diminishing) portion of the user base.

[mattyb]

Fat is so 90s man. This is the 21st century!!

[P]

The iMac does things their laptops can't - the 27" can have more RAM, a faster CPU and a GPU that absolutely crushes anything in any MBP Apple ever made. In fact that gap is bigger than it has ever been before. It also has significantly more storage, and seems to be about as serviceable as before. The only thing it lost in the thinning was the integrated optical - the two ports it lost were unrelated to that. The 21.5" is more a case of "more for less", because it would cost significantly more to get that sort of power in an MBP, but again, it didn't lose much. Is it useful to have it that thin? Maybe not, but it doesn't much hurt either. One of the biggest complaints with the iMac design - the glossy display - was actually solved by the redesign, so it's not like they don't listen at all.

[Spheric Harlot]

Also, the iMacs have the option of a fusion drive, which the laptops sadly don't.

The audio and FireWire options are still there; Apple just no longer builds them into the box.

I'm not being apologetic, mind you: the cases where these things are absolutely necessary are not mainstream, and an extra adapter will not matter much to those customers, considering the scale of things and the rest of the equipment they already need to have lying around.

I certainly won't mind much when it's time to replace my current machine with a 13" retina MacBook Pro sometime next year or the year after.

I'd just like to eventually find a nice breakout box with usb3, two FireWire 800 ports, and thunderbolt pass-through. No more; no less, please.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by gooser 

...it makes me wonder just who apple is targeting with this thing. i welcome opinions. it is certainly not an all-in-one computer anymore.

My 02...

It certainly is an all-in-one computer. IMO it will be hugely popular and deservedly so if the display has been improved as claimed.

A huge issue is resolved now that the display (allegedly) has lost the untenable-to-many-image-pros gloss/glare of previous iMacs. Every image-oriented user and graphics shop in the world will want them for everything but what I would call the back end heavy processing machines and for super-color-critical work. And folks like me will stop dissing iMacs.

Apple targets people who want modern style in a strong-performing desktop and are willing to pay for it.

But a better question is who do the new iMacs not target?

• Folks who think computers should be ugly utilitarian devices built at lowest cost. Apple intentionally cedes that segment to the crapware vendors.

• Folks who want full portability. Their needs are met by MBPs, MBAs, iPads and iPhones. However note that the new iMacs at 12 and 21 pounds become transportables. Look for a boon in iMac carry cases. Personally I used even the older clunkier iMacs at weddings, funerals and other events so I know there is a usage there.

• The hard core desktop users who benefit from more than 32 GB RAM. The 4 RAM slots are a serious future limitation with developers now designing for cheap RAM, but 95+% of 2012-2013 buyers will not care.

• Folks who need adjustable or really color-critical displays. The fixed height of iMacs frankly sucks, and I think the display back should have a vertical slot for adjustability, but IMO the beauty overwhelms that limitation for most.

• Folks who want multi-display identical-display setups. I am guessing that once display production demand for new iMacs is met Apple will resolve this by making external displays available that closely match the new iMacs.

• The hard core desktop users who benefit from top graphics processors with their associated power supply and heat removal demands.

If we exclude mobile users and the folks seeking crapware that Apple does not target anyway IMO the users described in the not-targeted list comprise less than a quarter of potential desktop computer buyers. So the answer to whom is targeted becomes "almost everyone."

My 02.

-Allen

[Spheric Harlot]

One point of note:

You could always get a VESA adapter for the larger-sized iMac models and mount them on an adjustable stand or arm.

I assume this is still the case for the new revision.

[SierraDragon]

Thanks, I wondered about that.

-Allen

[Spheric Harlot]

Also, note that Apple pointed out that all iMacs' displays are individually hardware-calibrated at the factory.

[besson3c]

What I don't understand is who the target audience is for the Mac Mini?

I always thought that the Mini was a way to get an entry level Mac into the hands of people for as cheap a price as possible while not sacrificing too much as to make the experience lousy. $600 for a PC is not cheap, nor necessary for a decent computing experience.

I kind of get the intent with the Server model, but even then, this is so incredibly niche market the overall picture still doesn't make sense to me. If you want to go after a viable niche market, why not also go after the market of people that might want a $350 Mac to coincide with what Apple offers now in the iPad Mini?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you want to go after a viable niche market, why not also go after the market of people that might want a $350 Mac to coincide with what Apple offers now in the iPad Mini?

Because, as you write, the idea is to go after a VIABLE niche market.

The zero-margin shit-PC market niche works because they're shit PCs sold at near-zero margins, cross-financed by including swathes of crapware pre-installed as per promotion deal conditions. Additionally, the market for these machines is dwindling, in no small part due to low-end laptops and the iPad.

Not a single one of the conditions dictated by the market you mention is of even the *remotest* interest to Apple as a company.

In fact, this has been so abundantly obvious and well-known for years that I'm quite surprised you even bring it up…?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Because, as you write, the idea is to go after a VIABLE niche market.
The zero-margin shit-PC market niche works because they're shit PCs sold at near-zero margins, cross-financed by including swathes of crapware pre-installed as per promotion deal conditions. Additionally, the market for these machines is dwindling, in no small part due to low-end laptops and the iPad.
Not a single one of the conditions dictated by the market you mention is of even the *remotest* interest to Apple as a company.
In fact, this has been so abundantly obvious and well-known for years that I'm quite surprised you even bring it up…?

The market for competitively priced products never dries up. There is no reason for the Mini to be as over-priced as it is at this point, especially since the design hasn't changed in a long time. The components simply do not add up to costing $600.

There are still plenty of PC dorks who will do this price comparison based on component costs, you *know* this to be the case (they exist with comparing Android phones to iPhones as well). That market is at least as viable as the small market of people that want a minimally powered Apple server that consumes as little power as possible.

[besson3c]

Apple is clearly interested in tapping into the low end with the iPad Mini, what sort of hardware would a Mac Mini need that an iPad Mini wouldn't? An Intel processor instead of an Apple processor, a larger SSD, maybe a little more RAM, that's about it. The Mini also obviously has a screen.

There is no way the things I have listed account for nearly double the price of the Mini.

[gooser]

i'm listening guys. keep the comments coming.

[P]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple is clearly interested in tapping into the low end with the iPad Mini, what sort of hardware would a Mac Mini need that an iPad Mini wouldn't? An Intel processor instead of an Apple processor, a larger SSD, maybe a little more RAM, that's about it. The Mini also obviously has a screen.

There is no way the things I have listed account for nearly double the price of the Mini.

It does come close... ARM CPUs like the one in the iPad mini costs maybe $10-15 including chipset and onpackage RAM. The Intel CPU in the low-end mini costs $225 if I have correctly identified which one it is, and pretty close if I missed by some variable. The RAM is another maybe $20, HD maybe $60, and you need a chipset, cooling, some patent licenses for standards... Then the bundled software costs more on a Mac, but obviously that's Apple's choice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

It does come close... ARM CPUs like the one in the iPad mini costs maybe $10-15 including chipset and onpackage RAM. The Intel CPU in the low-end mini costs $225 if I have correctly identified which one it is, and pretty close if I missed by some variable. The RAM is another maybe $20, HD maybe $60, and you need a chipset, cooling, some patent licenses for standards... Then the bundled software costs more on a Mac, but obviously that's Apple's choice.

For a hypothetical low end computer you definitely don't need a $225 CPU. There are plenty of Core 2 Duos which would be perfectly find for this thing that are well under $100: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008599+500011 57&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark= False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcate gory=759&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=& amp;CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1 &srchInDesc=

[Waragainstsleep]

When you are buying CPUs by the millions, I expect those prices are much lower than that. Maybe low enough that it benefits Apple to tack Mac Mini CPU orders onto those for the other machines rather than buy different ones.

The Mac Mini (and the iPad Mini for that matter) are overpriced for one important reason: Apple has no interest cannibalising sales of more expensive kit. There will always be a section of people who desperately want a Mac or iPad but will always buy the cheapest thing they possibly can. It may be they have no cash, it may be they are using credit, or it may be they are just short-sighted skinflints, but there are enough of them to matter. They are priced that way to be an easy upsell to an iMac.

[SierraDragon]

IMO the Mini is basically an experimental product like the Newton was - and look what the Newton brought us.

The current Apple TV IMO is largely the same.

Imagine all the ongoing prototypical experiments Apple must have masquerading in those innocuous little boxes...

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, note that Apple pointed out that all iMacs' displays are individually hardware-calibrated at the factory.

There is hella more to what an experienced eyes/brain perceives in a displayed image than what simple hardware calibration meters. The old iMacs gag many of us.

Admittedly the average viewer has untrained eyes/brain (just look at the average display image delivered by TVs in a big box electronics store) but just by regular viewing well-displayed imagery almost anyone's perception can be trained fairly easily. Apple's improving displays and domination of the supply chain indicate an intent to get away from pretending simple hardware calibration accuracy is all that it takes to serve the upper end.

-Allen

[Spheric Harlot]

I was under the impression that the displays used in the iMacs/Thunderbolt display were pretty damn good (for those who can get past the glossiness)?

[Waragainstsleep]

They are pretty damn good for those who can get past the gloss. Or rearrange their lighting.

[mdirvin]

Well, for one I am. Right now I am using an older Mac Pro and looking to update. My computer is used almost exclusively for Photoshop, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro Studio with e-mail and some web surfing thrown in. Factory monitor calibration isn't important to me since I calibrate my own. Having the anti glare coating is important. I can see a 27" iMac with a second 27" monitor to replace my existing 30". The fastest processor, max memory, upgraded video, SSD main drive, and fusion second drive if available. Then a thunderbolt drive to be partitioned for video, and stills. I have two 8TB NAS units that I use for backup, just connect them up to the ethernet port, and purchase a stand alone optical drive if I ever decided I need one. Works for me.

[DrSkywalker]

Does anyone know whether the new iMac will be able to act like a Thunderbolt display when an MBP or MBA is connected? Or is it video-only?

[Billg55]

The target is everyone. This is typical apple progression to new technology. Moving away from physical media and wires. Your average user connects a drive for time machine or not and that's it. Everything else can be wi-fi and Bluetooth. With thunderbolt and USB 3.0 FireWire which has never gone mainstream doesn't make sense anymore. For those of us that do use the DVD and FireWire, we will complain and buy a breakout box and separate DVD drive. I can easily see going down to one shared DVD in my household. My kids laptops have been without optical for years and I can't remember the last time they used the shared drive on my iMac. I consider myself a power user, but when I price out a Mac Pro, it has always seemed to be a better value to get a top end iMac and attach hobby accessories for audio, video...... A new Mac Pro in 2013, I'll be interested again, but after I price it out, I imagine I'll determine a new maxed out iMac will have the processing power I need and plenty of ways to attach my accessories. I agree with others, I would like to see more breakout boxes hit the market. Reality is most people don't see the need so demand is just not that high. I agree the obsession with thinness accross product lines is getting to the point of diminishing return. It takes more and more engineering to get thinner and people are less and less impressed. It is the OS and apps or software for us old folks that makes the hardware. Apple needs more focus on iOS, OSX, iLife, iTunes, and iCloud if they want to continue their momentum. All are starting to look dated. Use some of that cash hoard to bring in some fresh ideas on the software side.

[Brad Bradley]

Originally Posted by gooser 

i have always believed that a desktop computer should be able to do things that a laptop can't. and have more flexibility. the new imac seems to drop the ball on this. it seems to me that this is nothing more than a larger, non portable macbook air. no dvd drive, firewire, audio input port and i suspect very limited upgradeability and repairability. i will admit that it looks better than the last model but who cares how thin a desktop computer is or how much it weighs. and for those who watched the presentation, apple was real proud of how thin it is. i am intrigued with the fusion drive idea. but it makes me wonder just who apple is targeting with this thing. i welcome opinions. it is certainly not an all-in-one computer anymore.

I agree. I think Apple has anorexia? Give me back the old iMac form factor. Either make the back removable or put a port or window that I could open up for hard drive/SSD updates or changes. Put the optical drive back in, a bluray, and give me at least one (2 preferably) USB ports on the side or front, and put the damn SD card reader either on the side again or on the front. What good it a thin computer on the desk worth if I have to dig all over the back of it to use it... I think the work is supposed to get done on the side the screen is on, not the back??

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, note that Apple pointed out that all iMacs' displays are individually hardware-calibrated at the factory.

Of course the displays have always been able to be calibrated. The point is that there is hella more to viewing a display all day long than just calibration.

-Allen

[gooser]

interesting comments. most everyone here seems to think that this is no big deal. however on the apple forums people are complaining like crazy. unfortunately i believe that some people will buy this thing assuming that an optical drive is there without thoroughly reading the specs. apple is already ticking off some folks who buy the iphone 5 and when they try to upgrade to their free itunes 10.7 find out that they have to pay for os 10.6.8. i hope i'm wrong though.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by gooser 

apple is already ticking off some folks who buy the iphone 5 and when they try to upgrade to their free itunes 10.7 find out that they have to pay for os 10.6.8. i hope i'm wrong though.

This has been the case basically with all generations of the iPhone, and with iPods as well.

Frustrating, but not new.

[herojig]

Anyone know if power requirements is lower for new iMac? if they are substantially, perhaps the target audience is like myself: running an off-grid office, where every watt counts. The mac minis as servers have been fantastic in that regard...

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes.

Phil specifically drew attention to the fact that the new iMacs were substantially more efficient than the previous generation.

http://www.apple.com/imac/design/

More energy efficient.

Not only does the new iMac offer higher performance than any previous iMac, it’s also more energy efficient, using up to 50 percent less energy in the idle state with the display on. And its hardware components work hand in hand with the operating system to conserve even more power.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by mdirvin 

Well, for one I am. Right now I am using an older Mac Pro and looking to update. My computer is used almost exclusively for Photoshop, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro Studio with e-mail and some web surfing thrown in. Factory monitor calibration isn't important to me since I calibrate my own. Having the anti glare coating is important. I can see a 27" iMac with a second 27" monitor to replace my existing 30". The fastest processor, max memory, upgraded video, SSD main drive, and fusion second drive if available. Then a thunderbolt drive to be partitioned for video, and stills. I have two 8TB NAS units that I use for backup, just connect them up to the ethernet port, and purchase a stand alone optical drive if I ever decided I need one. Works for me.

I am not sure you have grasped the concept of the fusion drive. Or the NAS if you are hooking them up as a direct point to point connection.

[mdirvin]

Actually I grasp the concept of the fusion drive quite well. As for the NAS units I use two of them connected to my network as backup devices. Every night at 11pm the changes to my aperture libraries are copied to each unit. Along with updating remote copies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple is clearly interested in tapping into the low end with the iPad Mini, what sort of hardware would a Mac Mini need that an iPad Mini wouldn't? An Intel processor instead of an Apple processor, a larger SSD, maybe a little more RAM, that's about it. The Mini also obviously has a screen.

There is no way the things I have listed account for nearly double the price of the Mini.

In general, what you are paying extra for is the ability to walk into an Apple Store and get the thing fixed, no questions asked.

In specific, I'm paying for a 1U rackable quad i7.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by mdirvin 

Actually I grasp the concept of the fusion drive quite well. As for the NAS units I use two of them connected to my network as backup devices. Every night at 11pm the changes to my aperture libraries are copied to each unit. Along with updating remote copies.

You said SSD main drive and Fusion drive as a secondary. The Fusion drive requires an SSD primary and HDD secondary as its comprised of both.

[Jeff Stephen]

Although I agree with most of your 02, the new iMac lost it's all in one status once it removed the optical drive from the case and made it a plug in extra for $80 with no $80 price reduction I might add.
The DVD drive is on its way out but until every home has fiber and super speeds it is still viable way to get video files to and from your Mac. In my case I do video's of my kids school concerts and plays. These are sold as a fund raiser. It would be cost prohibitive for me to put these on USB sticks. Now if Apple created a special place in iTunes were I could sell these as digital downloads then DVD be gone. Also I think the DVD drive should have been made with Thunderbolt and had a built in SD card slot as the placement of this slot on the back is absolutely stupid, is was bad enough on the side but who wants to reach around the back of their computer every time they want to pull photo's and video off their Camera SD cards?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Jeff Stephen 

Although I agree with most of your 02, the new iMac lost it's all in one status once it removed the optical drive from the case and made it a plug in extra for $80 with no $80 price reduction I might add.
The DVD drive is on its way out but until every home has fiber and super speeds it is still viable way to get video files to and from your Mac. In my case I do video's of my kids school concerts and plays. These are sold as a fund raiser. It would be cost prohibitive for me to put these on USB sticks. Now if Apple created a special place in iTunes were I could sell these as digital downloads then DVD be gone.

If you're spending your time burning tens of dozens of DVDs, then the last thing you want is to use the internal drive. That WILL fail eventually, and replacing an external one is FAR cheaper than the internal drive (apart from the downtime). Plus, depending upon what you're using, you may be able to burn to multiple external drives concurrently.

Originally Posted by Jeff Stephen 

Also I think the DVD drive should have been made with Thunderbolt and had a built in SD card slot as the placement of this slot on the back is absolutely stupid, is was bad enough on the side but who wants to reach around the back of their computer every time they want to pull photo's and video off their Camera SD cards?

Why on Earth should they make the DVD drive $40 more expensive just to add an interface that is utterly irrelevant to the completely antiquated transfer speeds provided by optical media, and to add a slot that a) is already present on the machine, and b) can be added more conveniently via a $15 USB card reader?

Why? Just so you can go out and have some buzzword-compliant new gadget?

[D R Turbo]

I fail to understand why anyone is complaining about the I/O and the lack of an optical drive.

About 7 years ago, a lot of electronics companies (Sony, Hitachi, Samsung, etc. etc. etc) started producing DVD+/-R/W recorders for TV use. I went through 2 of them, and it was always the same story - works fine, for about 6 months, then the DVD recorder craps out. All of these companies typically had "rave reviews" for their products, but when you would read the reviews for the DVD recorders it was always the same thing: They drop dead under heavy use. Apparently the lasers used in DVD and CD ROM readers have a much longer life span than their R/W counterparts, and the malfunction wasn't really malfunction, it was actually the normal end-of-life of the units.

People complained about them so much because they were using them just like VCRs. VCRs can last 10 years under constant use easily, but a DVD+/-R/W can't. People frequently complain about the Apple DVD/CD R/W units failing, but that isn't an "Apple thing" that's a DVD/CD R/W thing. CD R/W seem to last better, but the DVD R/W units don't.

My question would be "Why would anyone in their right mind even want one?" They're slow, they're unreliable, you can get the software from the manufacturer and burn it onto a much more reliable (and faster, as far as optical drives go) flash drive, so why even bother with one? I can safely tell you that every DVD+/-R/W unit I've had has had a very short life, regardless of the type of system it's in.

As far as the I/O goes, what's the big deal? An older iMac I use has 3 USB 2.0 ports, 2 FireWire ports, ethernet, video out, and an audio in and audio out ports. The new unit has 2 Thunderbolt ports, 4 USB 3.0 ports, ethernet, and an audio out port, plus an SDXC port. Thunderbolt supports FireWire, and FireWire is peer-to-peer technology that can be daisy chained. Thunderbolt also supports other formats including video. Just exactly how many devices is someone planning to connect to a system? About the only shortcoming I can see is from someone using a line level audio input device to make recordings, which I think for most people would be unusual (most people don't even know what a line-level device is!). This can be circumvented with a USB adapter, and since there's an extra USB 3.0 port available, I fail to see the problem.

Now what I find interesting is the lack of SSDs as an option. I've been toying with the idea of using an SSD for some time, but even though the vendors claim otherwise, there seem to be problems with both reliability and longevity. The Fusion drive appears to be a hybrid that essentially combines an SSD with a standard HD, with the SSD acting like a "Giga-Cache," at least that's how it appears to me. When I was looking at SSDs I found that those implementing them most successfully were data centers essentially doing the same thing - Use the SSD as a cache that doesn't get written to very often and rely on the HD for mass storage that get's written to frequently. As I read on another site, "SSD's are a moving target."

Another concern I would have is the longevity of the boards due to heat. The first photos of the iMac you encounter on the Apple web site make it look like the entire unit is paper thin, but other photos seem to indicate a degree of bloat as you move to the center of the unit. Lower power consumption means lower heat generation, so maybe it's not a big deal, but I have to wonder if these units will be problematic in the long run.

So much for my opinions, enjoy and have at me if you will!

[P]

Originally Posted by D R Turbo 

Now what I find interesting is the lack of SSDs as an option. I've been toying with the idea of using an SSD for some time, but even though the vendors claim otherwise, there seem to be problems with both reliability and longevity.

Longevity is basically solved by cycling through all available blocks. With appropriately sized drives and a regular workload, an SSD has a theoretical longevity far longer than the average of an HDD. Reliability has been a problem due to the free-for-all gold-digging market we've enjoyed for a few years, but it is improving. Samsung and Intel have excellent reputation - not really surprising, as they have strong brands that they can't stand being tarnished by a small SSD division.

Originally Posted by D R Turbo 

The Fusion drive appears to be a hybrid that essentially combines an SSD with a standard HD, with the SSD acting like a "Giga-Cache," at least that's how it appears to me.

It looked like that to me as well at first, but that's not what it is according to Apple. There is a small 4GB cache on the SSD, but the main function is tiering: The SSD and HDD are joined into one drive, and the OS then moves files (or really allocation blocks) around depending on how much use they've seen.

Originally Posted by D R Turbo 

When I was looking at SSDs I found that those implementing them most successfully were data centers essentially doing the same thing - Use the SSD as a cache that doesn't get written to very often and rely on the HD for mass storage that get's written to frequently.

That's a straight read cache. Certain hybrid drives (like the Seagate sells) work like that, and I'm sure there are datacenter solutions like that, but a write cache can be very useful as well. If the drive wears out when it's only a cache, you don't have a problem - just pull the cache drive and insert a new one, the data is on the HDD (when SSDs fail, it's the write that fails, and the drives remain readable for months after that happens).

Originally Posted by D R Turbo 

As I read on another site, "SSD's are a moving target."

They are, but things are stabilizing. Controllers aren't changing so much anymore. Seagate's takeover of OCZ has reportedly failed, but the consolidation continues. The old situation with a drive manufacturer that buys flash from one company and a controller from another and just add a label is going away - OCZ bought Indilinx, LSI bought Sandforce. Samsung makes everything internally, and while Intel uses a Sandforce controller right now, they're working on their own controllers. Together this will stabilize things a bit and simplify testing.

Originally Posted by D R Turbo 

Another concern I would have is the longevity of the boards due to heat. The first photos of the iMac you encounter on the Apple web site make it look like the entire unit is paper thin, but other photos seem to indicate a degree of bloat as you move to the center of the unit. Lower power consumption means lower heat generation, so maybe it's not a big deal, but I have to wonder if these units will be problematic in the long run.
So much for my opinions, enjoy and have at me if you will!

I think Apple relies on the new components running rather cool when idle. Both the CPU and GPU, the two biggest sources of heat, will go into lower power modes when not stressed, so the average temperature inside the case shouldn't be so high. As long as they have adequate fan capacity for when the machine is really loaded, the iMac should keep working fine (except for being loud).

[Brad Bradley]

If you are a creative professional such as video, large image processing (photographer) or anyone else that uses large files I would stay away from the Fusion Drive. The continual scrambling and descrambling files is a great way to lose your work.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Brad Bradley 

If you are a creative professional such as video, large image processing (photographer) or anyone else that uses large files I would stay away from the Fusion Drive. The continual scrambling and descrambling files is a great way to lose your work.

Since you're obviously talking about FileVault, your post is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Nothing is scrambled/descrambled in a Fusion Drive.

[Brad Bradley]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Since you're obviously talking about FileVault, your post is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Nothing is scrambled/descrambled in a Fusion Drive.

This is very relevant to this thread. I am not talking about file vault. I am talking about the way the fusion drive handles your date... it is written from on drive to another as the system deems fit. Files are automatically moved from the hard drive to the SSD drive as the system chooses. Since the SSD is only 128 gig you could end up with a mess when some files, such as video files are larger than the entire SSD. Any time you move files you increase the chance for corruption.

http://www.zdnet.com/mac-fusion-drive-pro-users-beware-7000006661/

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Brad Bradley 

This is very relevant to this thread. I am not talking about file vault. I am talking about the way the fusion drive handles your date... it is written from on drive to another as the system deems fit. Files are automatically moved from the hard drive to the SSD drive as the system chooses. Since the SSD is only 128 gig you could end up with a mess when some files, such as video files are larger than the entire SSD. Any time you move files you increase the chance for corruption.
http://www.zdnet.com/mac-fusion-drive-pro-users-beware-7000006661/

This is a good point about HFS+ being a very unsafe file system as far as data integrity goes, but then again, it's unsafe whether you use the Fusion drive or not.

[P]

Fusion Drive makes it more unsafe. Since it apparently does not rely on files but on blocks being tiered, that means that a file that is on more than one drive will be lost if either drive dies - it's basically scary RAID 0 from that point of view. Time Machine just became freaking mandatory. I almost wish that Apple had gone with something like SRT, where all the files are on the HDD and some are also on the SSD - a limited RAID 1 - but I can see why they didn't: if you have reached the conclusion that everyone needs backups anyway, why bother with any type of redundancy.

HFS+ is less safe than ZFS when it comes to data integrity, but it is about as safe as anything else out there. It is more correct to say that ZFS is a great OS for data integrity. After the addition of journalling (which was a LONG time ago now), HFS+ isn't especially unreliable for directory structures either - it's about average. The problems with HFS+ are more about performance - it can't be multithreaded at all, because all the directory entries are in one file, and the two additions that make it behave like a modern file system - Spotlight and journalling - are bolted on and steal even more performance.

[besson3c]

What is your basis for saying that, P? HFS+ IS the least safe modern file system out there, no question. It's journal provides very little in the way of integrity, other than "what we think should have been written was written". It does not check to see that what was written was actually written without corruption, because it can't.

[P]

All I'm saying is that all widely used file systems except for ZFS are more or less as bad. NTFS doesn't journal data - e3fs can be configured to journal data, but doing so is way slow, and it is rarely done.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

All I'm saying is that all widely used file systems except for ZFS are more or less as bad. NTFS doesn't journal data - e3fs can be configured to journal data, but doing so is way slow, and it is rarely done.

ext4 actually supports storing checksum data now too, as does btrfs. Other than this, you're right, these other file systems don't provide absolute integrity in the way of checksum tracking, but they do provide some modern features that minimize data loss, such as the ext3 write barriers, snapshots, etc.

HFS+ is the weakest file system out of anything in widespread existence today, including NTFS.

[P]

Wikipedia says that e4fs only stores checksums for the journal itself. That doesn't provide data integrity, only metadata integrity. Is Wikipedia incorrect in this instance?

Btrfs does indeed provide checksums, but I would still be loath to rely on btrfs for anything production quality. It is usually still considered an experimental filesystem.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ext4 actually supports storing checksum data now too

It also progressively corrupts your data, perhaps not the best example.