How crazy to buy an iMac with the 256GB drive.

[kpluck]

Buying an iMac with only 8GB of ram has been discussed ad nauseam, but what about going light on the SSD and getting only a 256GB drive?

I have a windows machine that’s 12 years old. It came with a 120GB SSD and I upgraded it to a 256GB SSD. It’s currently sitting about 60% full and I have a lot of stuff I could take off it like several years of Turbo Tax. I only use it for the system and programs. I have a 1TB drive that I store all my data. I’m going to replicate that on my iMac by using the cloud and an external drive. I’m really looking at the new computer as an opportunity to start over and streamline my system - only keeping the programs and data files I actually use.

Any thoughts on configuring my iMac with only the 256GB SSD? I’m getting 16GB of ram.

It sounds to me you have a pretty good handle on your current storage needs so I wouldn't say getting just 256 is crazy. However, there are a few things that come to mind…

Buying an all in one computer only to commit to adding external drives seems a little inelegant to me. Of course, you will probably have at least one for backup, but in that situation I think I would go with a Mac Mini and not an iMac. If spending less money is important, do a little research, there are plenty of nice monitors out there and you could save even more money with a Mini and external monitor.

Judging by how long you owned your PC this may not be important, but if you ever go to sell that iMac on the used market 4-5 years from now, it will be easier to sell a 512GB (or higher) model than the 256GB and you may get a lot, if not all, of that upgrade fee back.

Whatever you do, I am sure you will enjoy your new machine!

-kp

 

[picpicmac]

Sure if you don't store any data 256GB is fine

The OP already mentioned they have an external drive.

iMacs work great with external drives. A TB enclosure +SSD stick can be had for less than $200 and will have enough room for nearly any user of an iMac.

 

[picpicmac]

You’re likely making a huge mistake!

MaxTech loves their clickbait videos.

SSD speeds do not matter to almost all users, once you get past SATA speeds.

Using an external SSD for data is fine, and even TB enclosures are over-kill for many people who could get by with regular old USB 3 speeds.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Buying an iMac with only 8GB of ram has been discussed ad nauseam, but what about going light on the SSD and getting only a 256GB drive?

I have a windows machine that’s 12 years old. It came with a 120GB SSD and I upgraded it to a 256GB SSD. It’s currently sitting about 60% full and I have a lot of stuff I could take off it like several years of Turbo Tax. I only use it for the system and programs. I have a 1TB drive that I store all my data. I’m going to replicate that on my iMac by using the cloud and an external drive. I’m really looking at the new computer as an opportunity to start over and streamline my system - only keeping the programs and data files I actually use.

Any thoughts on configuring my iMac with only the 256GB SSD? I’m getting 16GB of ram.

I have a M1 iMac with 8GB/256 and get by just fine. I use it mainly as a Plex server, and use an external SSD for all my media. Even with main daily driver (Mac Studio), I'm only using ~100GB. Cloud and external storage is just fine by me.

 

[BeatCrazy]

The OP already mentioned they have an external drive.

iMacs work great with external drives. A TB enclosure +SSD stick can be had for less than $200 and will have enough room for nearly any user of an iMac.

This is my setup. I use a piece of VHB tape to secure the enclosure to the iMac's stand. Can't see it from the front, speeds are 2500MB/s.

 

[Agincourt]

The only saving grace about limited storage is that you can use an external drive. Still $200 can easily give you more than 1 TB extra storage whereas Apple offers an extra... +256 GB? Am I seeing this right?

 

[Agincourt]

Sorry. 5 years since a new MEANINGFUL iMac was launched

I agree completely. iMac used to be on par or better than MacBook Pro. Now it's amongst the most watered down and overpriced computer on the market.

 

[JamesMay82]

I’ve done 10 years with a 256GB drive and keep all my main files like photos and movies etc on an external.

The problem is you then need additional drives to backup the external which is a cost so you might as well just buy more storage on the internal drive if you need it just to simplify the back up process in my mind.

Also don’t forget that iCloud Drive isn’t a backup so risky to rely on that.

 

[WilliApple]

Actually DONT!

The 256 GB Model SSD is slower than the 512. I would get 512 even if you don't need it because the SSD is throttled on the M3 iMac 256.

 

[Agincourt]

Give me a huge monitor, lots of storage, super fast processor and tons of RAM. I want more than I currently have on my ancient ailing iMac 2013. I have NEVER downgraded those features and I never will. I only upgrade. Plus, No crayon colors please.

End of story.

Same. I've same configuration you do with pre Retina display 32 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD... I AM NOT paying such extreme prices for something which falls short on a unit over a decade more advanced.

New iMac should AT LEAST be able to compete with Mac mini + have same 27 inch screen. Otherwise I'm not buying!

 

[BeatCrazy]

I agree completely. iMac used to be on par or better than MacBook Pro. Now it's amongst the most watered down and overpriced computer on the market.

The iMac is no longer a top-performer, because we now have Studio Display + Mac mini/Studio options that took the place of that particular product category.

For years people around here just bitched and moaned that they wanted to buy a separate 5K display and something more powerful than the (relatively weak) Mac minis we had for the past couple of decades.

Apple gives us just that, and keeps the iMac around for the casual users and guess what? People still complain.

 

[nathansz]

Selling

Give me a huge monitor, lots of storage, super fast processor and tons of RAM. I want more than I currently have on my ancient ailing iMac 2013. I have NEVER downgraded those features and I never will. I only upgrade. Plus, No crayon colors please.

End of story.

This is why I haven’t bought a new Mac since 2012 even though I pretty much only use macOS

Sonoma runs like a dream on 14th gen intel btw

 

[Analog Kid]

The single 256GB NAND chip in the M3 iMac is at best half as fast as a 512GB SSD with two chips and at worst only one-sixth as fast when you copy very large folders.

MaxTech is garbage and the fact they keep promoting that M2 MBP video as meaningful is proof of it. That result, which they are apparently still promoting, is pure and utter ********.

Copy large folders from where? It makes zero difference for copies on your local drive or from anything but the highest cost Thunderbolt drives and even then the difference is laughable.

If you're copying folders on your local drive, APFS makes that instantaneous as no new data is written until something is modified. If you're copying from an external drive, the 256GB drive is faster than USB 3.2 which tops out around 1000MB/s. 3.2 2x2 isn't supported by Mac. So you'd need to shell out for a Thunderbolt drive before you even notice a change in speed.

You might find an external TB drive that can run at 3000MB/s. So if you're doing a 200GB copy, meaning you're filling your entire drive, except the OS, with new data from an external SSD, it will take you 1 extra minute to do that copy.


So first, how many times are you going to replace your entire drive contents in a day? Is your dinner going to get cold in that 60 seconds?

Second, you need access to that much data quickly then keep the external drive connected and use it rather than your internal storage.

Third, do you really think the base Mac Mini is aimed at people carrying high priced Thunderbolt drives and trying to copy 200GB at a time? They cost half of what the Mac does.


Do people use their machines or just run benchmarks all day? The arguments being given here are absurd...

 

[Agincourt]

The iMac is no longer a top-performer, because we now have Studio Display + Mac mini/Studio options that took the place of that particular product category.

For years people around here just bitched and moaned that they wanted to buy a separate 5K display and something more powerful than the (relatively weak) Mac minis we had for the past couple of decades.

Apple gives us just that, and keeps the iMac around for the casual users and guess what? People still complain.

No it's no longer such because Apple is greedy and wants to impose its overpriced display and demand an equally overpriced Mac mini to bring the price up from $1300 all the way up to a DISPLAY costing more than that plus min spec mini bringing that up to $1900 USD AT MINIMUM w/out including keyboard or mouse.

So no, Apple doesn't give that... unless you're going to pay a significant premium for what used to be a high-tier all-in-one computer.

$1300 USD vs. $1900+ that's not all-in-one.

Yeah... we all very much love paying more to Apple for less.

 

[Agincourt]

MaxTech is garbage and the fact they keep promoting that M2 MBP video as meaningful is proof of it. That result, which they are apparently still promoting, is pure and utter ********.

No, the external drive is needed because the internal storage is terrible and buying your own external drive is demanded. In the process you get at least 4x the storage for the price Apple charges and you get an external drive that you may plug into another computer if you want.

So what would the casual user think? Pay $200 USD for only an extra 256 GB because Apple is greedy or buy your own 1 TB drive for ~$100 which can also serve as an external drive?

 

[BeatCrazy]

No it's no longer such because Apple is greedy and wants to impose its overpriced display and demand an equally overpriced Mac mini to bring the price up from $1300 all the way up to a DISPLAY costing more than that plus min spec mini bringing that up to $1900 USD AT MINIMUM w/out including keyboard or mouse.

So no, Apple doesn't give that... unless you're going to pay a significant premium for what used to be a high-tier all-in-one computer.

$1300 USD vs. $1900+ that's not all-in-one.

Yeah... we all very much love paying more to Apple for less.

You still have a $1300 iMac choice, that runs circles around the $1300 Intel iMac equivalent.

Vote with your dollar. HP makes some amazingly-craptastic stuff at this price point.

 

[Analog Kid]

No, the external drive is needed because the internal storage is terrible and buying your own external drive is demanded. In the process you get at least 4x the storage for the price Apple charges and you get an external drive that you may plug into another computer if you want.

So what would the casual user think? Pay $200 USD for only an extra 256 GB because Apple is greedy or buy your own 1 TB drive for ~$100 which can also serve as an external drive?

Terrible for what? And if you've already decided to buy a 1TB external, then the copy speed to the local drive is irrelevant.

I get that people want to moan and complain, but the arguments being given are comical.

 

[Agincourt]

Terrible for what? And if you've already decided to buy a 1TB external, then the copy speed to the local drive is irrelevant.

I get that people want to moan and complain, but the arguments being given are comical.

Yeah that Apple is still using specs of machines from a decade ago. That's quite comical.

Meanwhile everyone else is moving forward and not descending into the non-upgradable path. For Apple users this is bad, for everyone else they're laughing at us.

 

[MBAir2010]

hey, listen to me!
yes
me!

anyways,
both my macs have that dreaded 256 GB of space which always have 50 gb free at the end of the day.
but have 4 external ssd drives attached for space.
instead of paying the extra $$$ i purchased the drives instead.

 

[JinxVi]

MaxTech is garbage and the fact they keep promoting that M2 MBP video as meaningful is proof of it. That result, which they are apparently still promoting, is pure and utter ********.

No doubt MaxTech are garbage Youtube drama queens, but that doesn't mean their numbers are false. Sure we're talking about extreme edge cases, but that's true for all benchmarking. You won't discover the limits of performance by not going to the limit.

I don't find it unusual at all that an internal 256 GB SSD might be filled to the brim. They should've mentioned it, instead of blaming it on the cache. But this is still closer to how I use my Macs than any of their other tests.

Copy large folders from where?

From my movies drive. Where else do you store the library with all the files that don't fit inside the computer?

It makes zero difference for copies on your local drive or from anything but the highest cost Thunderbolt drives and even then the difference is laughable.

Not to me. File transfer speed is the reason to upgrade. Performance wise I could probably still live with a Core2Duo Mac, but not with SATA 3 and USB 2.

If you're copying from an external drive, the 256GB drive is faster than USB 3.2 which tops out around 1000MB/s. 3.2 2x2 isn't supported by Mac. So you'd need to shell out for a Thunderbolt drive before you even notice a change in speed.

Yes, I do and I might. Still the most likely scenario to use that Thunderbolt port at all.

You might find an external TB drive that can run at 3000MB/s. So if you're doing a 200GB copy, meaning you're filling your entire drive, except the OS, with new data from an external SSD, it will take you 1 extra minute to do that copy.

Or 10 × 20GB transfers each with those annoying 6 seconds.

Do you really think the base Mac Mini is aimed at people carrying high priced Thunderbolt drives and trying to copy 200GB at a time? They cost half of what the Mac does.

Absolutely! Everybody tries to buy their Mac as cheap as possible and use it as long as possible. Even into a future where cheap Thunderbolt drives are abundant and the standard resolution of a Youtube video is 4K. If it wasn't possible to extend storage in this way, nobody should buy a 256GB iMac. That's clearly not enough longterm.

 

[Analog Kid]

Sure we're talking about extreme edge cases, but that's true for all benchmarking.

No it is absolutely not. Benchmarks rely on controlled environments to be interpretable. You need to know what was done to learn anything from the results. What MaxTech is doing is just going through the theater of testing but with so little testing discipline that their results are meaningless.

And it's not just that they're running uncontrolled tests, but they're not even running the same test on the machines they're comparing-- then they're deliberately hiding that truth in an effort to stoke outrage.

Watching their videos has you repeating things that simply aren't true and giving bad advice to someone who is trying to make a decision.

From my movies drive. Where else do you store the library with all the files that don't fit inside the computer?

Not to me. File transfer speed is the reason to upgrade. Performance wise I could probably still live with a Core2Duo Mac, but not with SATA 3 and USB 2.

Yes, I do and I might. Still the most likely scenario to use that Thunderbolt port at all.

Or 10 × 20GB transfers each with those annoying 6 seconds.

Absolutely! Everybody tries to buy their Mac as cheap as possible and use it as long as possible. Even into a future where cheap Thunderbolt drives are abundant and the standard resolution of a Youtube video is 4K. If it wasn't possible to extend storage in this way, nobody should buy a 256GB iMac. That's clearly not enough longterm.

My point is that very few users will have external drives that exceed the internal speed of the 256GB SSD. Even 8 years after Thunderbolt 3 was introduced, it's still a specialty item. Those that do, are likely to lose a few seconds a day due to the speed difference.

If you consider yourself among the people who need to transfer 20GB files from a costly high speed external drive a few times a day and can't bear the fact that it takes 12 seconds instead of 6, and that extra minute a day means that much to you then you are not a customer for the base model and fortunately Apple does offer a 512GB option.

But those are your priorities, not those of the OP who is seeking advice on a purchase and explained their use case-- which is nothing like what you're describing... Are they going to spend hundreds of extra dollars on a Thunderbolt SSD and then worry about a few extra seconds here and there when they transfer files? No, they're keeping their data in the cloud. Telling them "You’re likely making a huge mistake!" is a disservice.

 

[BanjoDudeAhoy]

The 256 GB “issue” is always entertaining.

For me, 256 is plenty - except on my gaming computer because games are ridiculously large these days.
On a Mac, I have no issues with 256 because I only ever keep files locally I need daily or will likely need in the near future. Everything else is a combination of cloud storage (especially when that stuff needs to be shared between devices or with other people) and external drives.

The SSD speed is also only an issue for me in that Apple used to have faster ones for 256 GB. In terms of real world scenarios, I‘m sure professional users with huge files will notice the difference. But they would of course not go for 256 GB. For my purposes, if I were to transfer large files, I’d go and make a tea, visit the bathroom.

Now, would I go with 512 if the upgrade prices were less ridiculous? Maybe. I had a 512 GB Windows laptop not too long ago and it was nice to see all that empty space, but with my way of working, I never used more than on a 256 GB machine.

It is an entirely subjective thing, though. If you can get by with 256, you likely know that. If you absolutely can’t get by with it, you know that too. Your average “browsing, word/excel, streaming” person will probably be fine with 256, though.

 

[AlmightyKang]

I'm currently running on a 256 gig Mac Mini. I started using computers in around 1982. I have a fairly large immediate family and several thousand photos including stuff scanned back to 1957. I also wrote a fair bit of software over the years. On top of all of that I'm in the middle of doing a degree which has about 4Gb per module of footprint.

Curate your stuff carefully and 256 gig is fine.

Only buy more storage if:

• You're a crazy data hoarder and can't possibly deal with losing any bytes at all.
• You are lazy.
• You're editing 4k streams all day to post on YT about how 256Gb is not enough storage.
• You deal with raw files out of $5000 cameras.
• Adobe owns your entire existence.
• You play games any more complicated than Gris.

Honestly at this point I did something damn stupid when I bought all this Apple stuff. I bought an ass end 8/256 M1 mini first to replace my i3 mini which had a 32gb of RAM and a 1TB SSD in it. I panicked and sold that and bought a 14" M1 Pro MBP which was overkill to be frank. Then the display sucked on that because it was too small (excellent quality though!) and I bought a studio display. Then someone sold me an ass end M2 mini cheap which turns out to be absolutely fine.

If my house burned to the ground now I'd just buy the absolute bottom end M3 iMac and be done. I'm actually tempted to do that still because I'll be up cash and I can go and spend it on beer and floozies.

 

[JinxVi]

Watching their videos has you repeating things that simply aren't true and giving bad advice to someone who is trying to make a decision.

I wrote at worst the speed can be one-sixth, which is about as correct as Apple's claim the M3 iMac is up to 2× faster than the M1. It isn't in most cases and most people would be fine buying the previous base iMac. We've not yet talked about SSD lifetime and wear-leveling, for which a user should leave a large part of the drive empty to allow the SSD controller to equally distribute write commands over all cells.

My point is that very few users will have external drives that exceed the internal speed of the 256GB SSD.

Very few users have a need for 8GB of RAM let alone 16. Swap memory usage isn't the big issue either, nor is it 27-inch displays, USB-C peripherals or any of the other topics widely discussed. The base iMacs are just fine as they are.

Even 8 years after Thunderbolt 3 was introduced, it's still a specialty item. Those that do, are likely to lose a few seconds a day due to the speed difference.

And those who pay up $200 for 16GB RAM are likely seeing no gains at all. Only a few seconds the one day when they cut a wedding video or something.

If you consider yourself among the people who need to transfer 20GB files from a costly high speed external drive a few times a day and can't bear the fact that it takes 12 seconds instead of 6, and that extra minute a day means that much to you then you are not a customer for the base model and fortunately Apple does offer a 512GB option.

I bought a base model iMac a year ago. I'm not (yet) a customer for a costly high-speed external drive. But I'm very curious to explore the options. My movie library is constantly growing and one day I will need to buy more storage and hopefully be able to ditch spinning drives.

Telling them "You’re likely making a huge mistake!" is a disservice.

He's making a huge mistake by only thinking about SSDs in terms of storage capacity and not system performance (and longevity). He's making a small mistake by thinking 40% free capacity is space than can be filled with data, without detrimental effects on performance (and longevity). And he's making a bigger mistake by already having decided for 16GB of RAM as the ideal way to future-proof his purchase. This money could buy him the fastest TB drive in the world or double the internal storage and maybe eliminate the need to manage external storage completely. Not to worry about running a lean system and which data to store internally or external is a quality of life improvement.

 

[eddie_ducking]

I might be missing something here guys, but we're talking about a desktop device, not a laptop ... has anyone heard of networks and NAS's ? 256GB is fine, nothing's really stored on the desktop anyway ... I've 3x Mac Mini M1's, all 256GB (2x16GB RAM, 1x8GB RAM) and a Studio M1 Ultra that was ordered with 512GB, I'd have had 256GB if they'd let me ... none of them are using over half the local 256GB