Can't Decide if I should get the SSD hard drive for the iMac

[jon_kobeck1]

I'm ordering a new iMac and can't decide if I should spend the extra $540.00 for the SSD hard drive. Is it worth it?

[peter_cohen]

<p>That better be one huge SSD at that price. SSDs are great for improving boot time and application launch, but don't expect much difference with Photoshop or Lightroom, other than the launch times. Save your money, buy as much RAM as you can cram in there, and then add the SSD later if you find yourself waiting for apps to open or your Mac to start up.</p>

<p>I have a year-old 256 gig SSD that's fantastic, but I paid <$400 more than a year ago. Most folks just keep their OS and apps on the SSD, so 256 gigs is generally plenty for that use.</p>

<p>As they say, your mileage may vary. Apple tends to have predatory pricing, and $540 is big money.</p>

[prendy]

<p>Same set up as Peter Cohen and similar experience - no noticeable difference in processing images in Aperture. In fact, now that I have the D800 there is a noticeable slow down especially when going to and from plug-ins, such as Nik. This reminds me yet again that I need to RAM up.<br>

The other thing to bear in mind if you will be processing large MB images is how you are going to store them. A 1TB HD may run out relatively quickly, especially if you are an active user filling it up from a variety of sources.</p>

[prendy]

<p>Same set up as Peter Cohen and similar experience - no noticeable difference in processing images in Aperture. In fact, now that I have the D800 there is a noticeable slow down especially when going to and from plug-ins, such as Nik. This reminds me yet again that I need to RAM up.<br>

The other thing to bear in mind if you will be processing large MB images is how you are going to store them. A 1TB HD may run out relatively quickly, especially if you are an active user filling it up from a variety of sources.</p>

[greg_campbell1]

Only if you want to pay almost 3x the commodity rate for the SSD. I assume iMacs are user serviceable? If so, a 128GB drive can be bought for about a hundred bucks. ~$200 for a 256gb. Either will provided plenty of storage for system and oft-used files and apps.

 

Installing the OS, Apps, and WIP files on a SSD will do wonders for your computer's responsiveness. File browsing, indexing, etc. will be much faster. As mentioned, actual image editing won't benefit much at all.

[jon_kobeck1]

I was going to get the 27 inch iMac with a 256 SSD and 1T internal HD. If I dont get the SSD I would

upgrade to the 2T internal drive.

And I made a mistake in my post, the SSD with the 1T drive is actually an additional $600!

1TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive [Add $600.00]

27-inch: 2.7GHz

2.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5

2560 x 1440 resolution

4GB (two 2GB) memory

1TB hard drive1

AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB

[raymond_ocampo]

For the speed alone and you never experienced an SSD, I would do it if I had the extra funds. Like what everyone said above SSD is for

the OS and apps performance. For photo processing then you would not benefit and that's where your conventional hard drive comes in.

If the iMac isn't user serviceable then I would get the SSD as OEM. All my computers have SSD and I wouldn't go back. For actual

storage, I have two home servers with one backing up the other.

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Apple products have a 30% profit margin.</p>

[EricM]

Disagree with Raymond. ssd's sure do speed

up Photoshop performance when reading

and wrting your data.

[charles_wood]

<p>If you own an older 32 bit copy of Photoshop, using a section of the SSD as a Scratch drive, will speed up scenarios where Photoshop would normally be reading/writing to a conventional harddrive. Particularly so when you're stitching large file panoramas, as an example. If you're using a 64 bit version, then RAM is the key to improving speed, as others have posted.</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

Guys I really dont care about Photoshop performance so much, I just want an overall faster more efficient machine. But

is it worth $600 ?

[michael_elenko]

<p>Due to the iMac’s unique design (and I think they are excellent computers), determining hard drive configurations can be a challenge. In most other computers an SSD is a user replaceable component. That means that one can start out with a smaller, cheaper SSD and upgrade later when commodity costs decline. I just got a 120GB fast Samsung for about $90 which was unthinkable a couple of years ago.<br /><br />With the 27-inch iMac, however, the pre-requisite for eventual SSD upgrades, is to order one installed so that the mounting infrastructure is baked into the iMac. According to Other World Computing (a highly reputable vendor whom I have purchased from), retrofitting an SSD is about impossible. But they can upgrade an iMac with an existing SSD.<br /><br />I have found that an SSD does wonders for the overall performance of my Mac, but 16GB of RAM and an i7 chip helps a lot too. Disk storage on an iMac is also compounded by the challenge of upgrading the single hard drive. If this is a user-replaceable part (and you should research this), then I’d go for the smallest hard drive and go big soon. <br /><br />If this is not a user-replaceable part, then I’d get the largest possible hard drive, and the smallest possible SSD. That should keep you good for a year or two. You can later have Other World upgrade the SSD if needed.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>You'd better understand the iMac warranty before you order anything. iMacs are not user serviceable, beyond adding or swapping memory modules. IOW, you cannot do anything with the internal HD without voiding your warranty. When OWC upgrades the internal HD, etc, they provide their own warranty, but, I don't know if it's an exact match to Apple's warranty. If you do the labor, you have zero warranty, period, end of story.</p>

<p>You might be ahead to consider using external HDs in addition to the internal drive(s) which will serve you very well. My personal choice is to buy external enclosures and HDs separately, that makes it easy to swap out the actual HD at will if it has an issue, or if it just becomes to full, and you need more storage. You can make ext HDs bootable, which is very handy with an iMac. They allow you to create clones and incremental backups, such as the use of Time Machine.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I use a late 2009 2.66Ghz i5 four core iMac. I have 16GB RAM installed. Recently I had a 256 Gb 3G Mercury Elite SSD

from Other World Computing installed in place of the optical drive (anyone need a spare one? Write me). On the SSD i

have My OS (OS X 10.6.4),applications (creative Suite 6, Lightromm, various color management, panoramic stitching,

iTunes, and about a dozen or so other programs), and Lightroom Catalog installed (the images themselves about

170,000 high res files - the library) are stored on an external RAID array.

 

The existing 1TB internal drive is now used for "hot files" and as a scratch disk for Photoshop.

 

Beyond boot and application launch times now being lightning fast, Lightroom, Photoshop and PTGui performance and

responsiveness are markedly faster and make me seriously more efficient.

 

While installing the SSD can be done by a careful person at home, I opted to have an authorized Apple repair shop (Onyx

ConsultIng in Atlanta) install it for me. I'm a small business owner and weighed the cost of doing it myself (I'm capable) vs. the repair shop and from an opportunity cost perspective it just made more sense for

the pros to do it.

[scottelly]

<p>I used to work on a 24" iMac with a 2.1 Ghz dual core Intel processor and 3 GB of RAM. I now have a 1.8 Ghz dual core Intel processor and 4 GB of RAM, with a 256 GB SSD HD. There is NO COMPARISON. The new machine is a MacBook Air (13"), and it is WAY faster than the old desktop computer. I am SO happy now. Image processing using various programs is MUCH faster. No, I don't have two identical computers running the same programs, but with one computer using an SSD and the other using a conventional drive, but I can tell you that the SSD in this tiny 3 lb. notebook computer is so much faster than any other computer I have ever used that it is shocking. I not only shuts down in 3 seconds and starts up in about 10 seconds, but programs that used to take 30 to 40 seconds to start now take 5 seconds or less. I start and stop programs a lot, so that makes a big difference to me. Most of all though, I view a lot of photos. I shoot thousands of photos each week, and when I am reviewing photos or opening a library that has 30,000 or more photos in it, I see real benefits in using an SSD.</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>Guys I really dont care about Photoshop performance so much, I just want an overall faster more efficient machine. But is it worth $600 ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, it would definitely be worth the cost. A comparable SSD from OWC would run about $250. And I'd need to buy the install kit with cables for another $45. Then I'd have to go through opening the iMac, installing the SSD, possibly moving the HDD to the other location (all 27" iMacs have the internal space, if not the cabling, for two drives).</p>

<p>A big issue is (or was...) that a non-Apple drive (SSD or HDD) is missing something and, as I recall, the least bothersome issue that brings is that the fan now runs full speed all the time. I don't know if all that was corrected or not by OWC and others.</p>

<p>And then after having done all that work inside the iMac, I'd want to move the OS to the SSD for best performance. <strong>When you buy the SSD/HDD combo from Apple, it comes with Mountain Lion and your Apple Apps already installed on the SSD, leaving the 1TB HDD free for other storage.</strong> That's at least a couple hours I don't need to waste moving stuff.</p>

<p>So, in reality, since the SSD will end up costing you near to $300 anyway, is it worth another $300 to you to get all the rest of the stuff done by Apple? For me, it would be a definite yes. An added bonus would be that, should I have a problem, I can take it to a Genius Bar and not need to worry if they'll support the configuration with a third-party drive inside.</p>

<p>On a different note, though, when you buy the iMac from Apple, get the minimum RAM configuration, and max it out with RAM from OWC. <a href="http://eshop.macsales.com/MyOWC/Upgrades.cfm?sort=pop&model=430&type=Memory">OWC can give you more RAM for a lot less!</a></p>

[Carl Stone]

Adding, or swapping memory modules in a new iMac is trivial. Changing, or adding internal HDs in a new iMac is

decidedly non-trivial. That is not to say that it can't be done, but it is to say that success is highly dependent on the

expertise of the person doing it. OWC does not recommend this procedure for inexperienced folks.

 

OWC has an online video showing the step by step procedure for those who want to tackle the job.

[angkordave]

<p>I'm considering a 27" iMac too; but at present an SSD and 2TB HDD is to special order.<br>

Its frustrating to me that Thunderbolt drives are not available in my location. This would be a posible solution. Has anyone out here used one?<br />I have tried working direct from a WD 2TB FW800 drive, with a MacBook Pro i7 8GB, but it slows processes down a lot. I'm using my MBP with an external monitor at present and waiting to see if Apple come out with New iMacs before the end of the year.<br>

I'd like to see the 27" iMac with 2TB HDD + 256GB SSD as standard with 8GB RAM, FW800 + USB3. I know I can get most of that spec to order but I'm sure that it will be cheaper to wait a few months.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Nobody knows what Apple is going to do, or when they will do it. However, a refresh of the iMac line is due. I can't say that a new iMac will have an SSD drive as a standard no-extra-cost option, but I doubt it. USB 3 is probably a safe bet, along with Thunderbolt. Not so safe is the assumption that new models will have a Firewire connection. A minimum of 8 GBs of memory is very unlikely, but not impossible. <br>

As for waiting, or not, the time to buy is when you need it, if you can wait great. But, the not yet released models are always going to be an improvement on current offerings. Even as the new model hits the sales floor it's replacement is in the wings being fine tuned. </p>

<p>I'd like to see a user serviceable iMac, that would allow the simple swapping of HDs the way that a MacPro does. I'm not holding my breath for that one! That would probably be the death knell for the MacPro, as many folks would see that the iMac is capable of providing more performance than most need. Not many folks actually need the performance capabilities of a MacPro, they buy for the expandability and HD access that the MacPro provides, and the iMac denies.</p>

[angkordave]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to see a user serviceable iMac, that would allow the simple swapping of HDs the way that a MacPro does. I'm not holding my breath for that one! That would probably be the death knell for the MacPro</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The MacPro is looking seriously outdated and totally overpriced now. The way Apple is going with it's consumer products, suggests the next version of the iMacs will be even less upgradable. Apple have been guilty of sacrificing function for appearance; just look at the difficulty in opening up an iMac for maintenance and the silly position of the on/off switch on the rear. </p>

 

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>The MacPro is looking seriously outdated and totally overpriced now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is why a lot of folks, including me, have built a souped up Hackintosh for a whole lot less.</p>

<p>A poster on my local geeky e-list suggested that the next Mac Pro will be very modular in design, with Thunderbolt-attached beautiful boxes providing the higher performing components as needed. </p>

<p>ME</p>

[ljwest]

<p>If you don't absolutely need the new iMac TODAY, I would definitely wait to see what happens next Wednesday, September 12. Apple has scheduled a press event where the newest iPhone models will be announced. It is possible, <em>but by no means certain</em> that they will also announce a refresh/update/speed bump/redesign of the iMac line, and bring them up to the Intel "Ivy Bridge" standard. You need something new to program for the new iPhones, right?</p>

<p>The current MacBook Pro line is all "Ivy Bridge" and they benchmark as fast as the current "Sandy Bridge" iMacs, even though the iMac is available with a faster i7 processor.</p>

<p>And, if you can wait a few weeks more, the rumor mill has Apple hosting another event in October. Nobody is sure what that will bring, but as has been mentioned, both the iMac and MacPro lines are in need of updating...</p>

<p>If you can't wait, though, by all means go ahead and buy it and use it. The iMac on your desk is a much more useful thing than the rumor of a new iMac...</p>

<p> </p>

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>Last year I put a 128GB SSD from Crucial in an old 2006 Imac that had a failing HDA and it boots quicker photoshop is quicker too. This Imac from early 2006 is Intel based and called a core duo and only a 32bit machine and holds only 2 gigs of ram. The 32bit Intel Imac limits the OS to 10.6.</p>

<p>One CAN replace a HDA in an Imac oneself. once can develop color film at home or repair cameras and lenses too.</p>

<p>The Imac of mine has some web PDF's and some youtube videos to help one replace the hda. There are many weird things, flex cables to untape to get to the HDA. For most users having a mac service place replace a HDA is the best bet.</p>

<p> Not all SSD are faster than rotating disk HDA's. There are actually some older poor SSD's sold on ebay that are slower. I know I bought a few of them. One SSD I have in use now for 4 years is a 32Gb IDE drive. It reads quick and writes slower than a 10 year old 5400 rpm drive. Sometimes the issue with a slow SSD drive is backing down in mode type.</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

I bit the bullet and went with a 256 SSD and 2T HD. The 2T HD is probably overkill because my entire photo catalog is

only about 500mb in in size, but the extra 1T was only $150 more so I'm thinking maybe in the future

[scottelly]

<p>Your entire photo catalog is only about 500 mb in size? You mean 500 GB, right?</p>