There's a big difference between your NAS and an end-user system though. On your NAS your HDDs are presumably being used to store media and various large archives. Whereas on an end user system there's going to be a lot of application storage - the OS, individual application binaries, etc. For storing media 5400RPM is generally fine as you don't need the improved access times, but for accessing binaries it's going to make a distinct difference (and an SSD a bigger one yet).Like I said, I actually made the conscious decision to put 5400 rpm platter drives in my NAS, and don't regret it.
At least I can see that adding a higher resolution screen adds considerable cost. Apple is for the most part at least on par, if not better than their competitors with screen resolution.Well, I think it's beneath Apple to put crappy screens in the MacBook Air too, but they do it.
I get that the point is to drive customers to spend a $200 premium above the base price. I just think it's a sucky forced choice, especially since its an all-in-one that most people will not open up themselves to change the hard drive.If you really want an improvement, you need to go Fusion or SSD.
As said, kind of apples/oranges. NAS is going to be limited by the network connection more than platter speed.Like I said, I actually made the conscious decision to put 5400 rpm platter drives in my NAS, and don't regret it.
The problem with the Airs is the poor viewing angles.At least I can see that adding a higher resolution screen adds considerable cost. Apple is for the most part at least on par, if not better than their competitors with screen resolution.
Well, I get more than 100 MB/s out of my NAS, but the main reason to go 7200 is not to increase max transfer speed. It's to reduce latency.As said, kind of apples/oranges. NAS is going to be limited by the network connection more than platter speed.
your paying a lot for OS X huh...What's to say it's overpriced? You're paying a lot for OSX which many of us prefer.
your paying a lot for OS X huh...
If your going to spend money an iMac get an SSD or even the fusion drive.
External hard drives are so cheap there is no reason whatsoever to skimp out on the internal drive.
It's your money, but clearly you don't know how to spend it well.
Sorry, there's no PC laptop on the level of the rMBP. With the iMac, I might agree with you but it's not THAT expensive.
Smartazz said:What's to say it's overpriced? You're paying a lot for OSX which many of us prefer.
You had said:
Which is what Shephard was focusing on. He was also re-iterating that if one is in the market for an iMac, and already to throw down the money for one, it would behoove them to spend a little extra to get at least Fusion Drive since it makes a world of difference.
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to use a hard drive again as a main drive.
It's a Mac. You already paid for an overpriced computer with average hardware.
It makes no sense you got a worse drive and are complaining about it.
It makes even less sense you didn't wait for the new model.
You got the money though, you just don't know how to spend it.
Uh maybe you should go read the first page.I'm unsure why you are so concerned about his Mac's spec. If it is just a stop-gap purchase, why would he spend $500 more for an SSD/RAM/GPU upgrade to go all out?
If it was me, I would have probably purchased a custom 2012 with everything I needed and wouldn't have worried about the Haswell model. The performance difference is negligible. If I really wanted the Haswell model but needed something immediately, I may have done what the OP did. I have a bunch of spare computers, so hopefully I'm never stuck in a bad spot like the OP was.
EDIT: Didn't realize this thread was so old...
Who spends money on an low end iMac just to get a new model later when released a few months down the line? It makes no sense whatsoever.
I have to agree with the "I don't see why you care so much" sentiment. From the very start the OP has stated his only real concern was the difference in coming from an SSD, but it wasn't a show stopper, and he was just temp-replacing a comp that failed.Uh maybe you should go read the first page.
The OP was excited when he got his new stock iMac.
Then he complained that it had a 5400rpm drive...
Then he said it was just a 'temporary' model.
Who spends money on an low end iMac just to get a new model later when released a few months down the line? It makes no sense whatsoever.
This is a point I've wondered about. No doubt some of the cost of a Mac pays for OSX development. Apple alone has to shoulder the cost of OS development, so the cost is higher. IE: "You pay more because the same company develops the hardware and the software." line of reasoning.What's to say it's overpriced? You're paying a lot for OSX which many of us prefer.
(And he asked first in this thread the same question I have: why do companies -actually only Apple as near as I can tell- still sell 5400rpm hard drives?)
This is a point I've wondered about. No doubt some of the cost of a Mac pays for OSX development. Apple alone has to shoulder the cost of OS development, so the cost is higher. IE: "You pay more because the same company develops the hardware and the software." line of reasoning.
True. But in the PC world, it's not like Windows is ever given away free. The cost of a license is also included in the cost of a new PC. Granted, Dell or Gateway or whoever don't make the OS, but they certainly have to kick Microsoft money to use it on their systems.
Also granted, all PC-makers benefit from all others kicking MS money for the OS rather than any one of them shouldering the entire burden- but then they also don't have the burden of manufacture/sales/support of the other PC-makers' marketshare.
So it's always made me wonder if really the whole OS development/cost balance is really a wash, or is Apple really justified in higher costs to cover OSX development.
I tend toward the later, that the higher price of Macs is (for the most part) justified. Then things like using the middle of last-decade's hard drives is pure profiteering.