SSD idea is really confusing

[jackcohn]

What is an SSD's advantage (for photo and video editing) if all my pics and videos must be located on the 7,200-rpm HD (since there is a lot of them). And even if I import files to a Lightroom's or iMovie/FCP's Library on SSD, the SSD's space will be filled momentarily... and as we mentioned in previous thread it is not so easy to delete files form SSD

 

[TheBritishBloke]

No advantage to that directly. There are just advantages to bootup times and application loading times.

 

[rotobadger]

I have an Intel SSD and I can boot into OSX in 19 seconds (that's from button push to desktop). Also, apps like Word open in about 1.5 seconds and Photoshop will open in about seconds for me.

Downside for me is limited space. My SSD is 160GB.

 

[wirelessness]

I think you are supposed to import the photos from you camera to the SSD drive initially and then store them on the HDD after you complete the edit/review process.

If you want to see how much faster photo's open with an SSD check out this youtube video

 

[kernkraft]

I'm not questioning the SSD technology and I'm confident that it will get cheaper and cheaper, more people will buy it and it has the potential to replace HDDs; but I think many people make the mistake of believing that SSDs will make their computers generally work better. That is not the case. Apart from applications, certain files launching quicker, there are no dramatic differences.

In a way, if we save a few seconds on loading each applications, that hardly makes the hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/etc worthwhile. Besides, the disadvantages of the SSD (apart from the silly prices) will appear later on. I'm looking forward to the complaining from people who wasted a small fortune on storage to see their 'investment' diminish in a few years.

 

[rotobadger]

I'm not questioning the SSD technology and I'm confident that it will get cheaper and cheaper, more people will buy it and it has the potential to replace HDDs; but I think many people make the mistake of believing that SSDs will make their computers generally work better. That is not the case. Apart from applications, certain files launching quicker, there are no dramatic differences.

In a way, if we save a few seconds on loading each applications, that hardly makes the hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/etc worthwhile. Besides, the disadvantages of the SSD (apart from the silly prices) will appear later on. I'm looking forward to the complaining from people who wasted a small fortune on storage to see their 'investment' diminish in a few years.

There are a number of advantages to having an SSD installed in one's computer depending on how it is used. I have found that, in my line of work, the loading speeds associated with with this hard drive are extremely beneficial.

Your comment about there not being any "dramatic differences" is not qualified in any way. Also, the perception of what a dramatic difference is can be subjective based on how the hard drive is used and who is using it.

And you're looking forward to seeing people lose their "investment" of a small fortune on hard drives? Why? Why would that give you pleasure? I'm one of those people who have invested a "small fortune" and have found that it has paid off.

If you don't think the SSD is for you, don't buy one.

 

[joejoejoe]

Faster app load times and faster boot up just seams so gimicky to me.

I'm going to wait till SSD prices drop and replace the 2TB drive in my iMac with a 2TB SSD. I know this'll be three to four years from now, but it'll make my machine feel brand new, and be affordable by then.

Right now SSD's just aren't worth the money unless you're OCD about how fast your apps open.

 

[xraydoc]

Faster app load times and faster boot up just seams so gimicky to me.

I'm going to wait till SSD prices drop and replace the 2TB drive in my iMac with a 2TB SSD. I know this'll be three to four years from now, but it'll make my machine feel brand new, and be affordable by then.

Right now SSD's just aren't worth the money unless you're OCD about how fast your apps open.

Faster processors just seem so gimicky to me. Not worth the money unless you're OCD about how fast your apps run.

Everyone has their wants and needs. Some people want their apps to launch faster and their computer to boot faster. If all you do is write email and browse the web, an SSD will make a computer with a slow processor seem way, way faster than it "really" is.

 

[juicedropsdeuce]

Faster app load times and faster boot up just seams so gimicky to me.

I'm going to wait till SSD prices drop and replace the 2TB drive in my iMac with a 2TB SSD. I know this'll be three to four years from now, but it'll make my machine feel brand new, and be affordable by then.

Right now SSD's just aren't worth the money unless you're OCD about how fast your apps open.

+1

And the one's provided by Apple don't have over-provisioning and will get slower over time. They are bottom of the line, a total ripoff. A decent one may be worthwhile, if it's worth it to you.
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty.html

 

[rnb2]

Unless you've actually used a computer with a decent SSD, you have no idea what you're talking about. Once you've used one, it's very hard to go back to a normal hard drive. I bought an 80GB Intel X25m for my unibody MacBook, and was so impressed that I bought one to install in my 1st-generation Mac Pro. When the Mac Pro started getting long in the tooth, I wouldn't commit to buying an i7 iMac until I was sure that running the X25m in a FW800 enclosure would give good enough performance as a boot drive (which it does).

In a laptop, an SSD gives you the fastest available storage solution, something no spinning hard drive will ever give you, and it also increases battery life. It's the single biggest upgrade you can do for the performance of a laptop.

In a desktop, an SSD is a different sort of upgrade. Yes, it gives faster boot times and faster application launches, but it also helps eliminate contention between the OS/Applications and user data - instead of one hard drive madly thrashing around loading libraries, applications, and data, everything runs much more smoothly. On an iMac, even an SSD in a FW800 enclosure is faster and more responsive than running the OS off of the internal HD. You just don't spend nearly as much time waiting for things to happen with the OS on an SSD, which makes the whole computer feel faster.

That said, I haven't heard great things about the SSDs that Apple uses (Samsungs?), and a 256GB SSD is really overkill for this application - even a 60-80GB SSD is fine (my 80GB is only half full), and would dramatically cut the cost of the SSD option. I can't see paying close to $3k for the i7 with SSD, but getting an aftermarket SSD installed is still problematic.

 

[mangrove]

I'm not questioning the SSD technology and I'm confident that it will get cheaper and cheaper, more people will buy it and it has the potential to replace HDDs; but I think many people make the mistake of believing that SSDs will make their computers generally work better. That is not the case. Apart from applications, certain files launching quicker, there are no dramatic differences.

In a way, if we save a few seconds on loading each applications, that hardly makes the hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/etc worthwhile. Besides, the disadvantages of the SSD (apart from the silly prices) will appear later on. I'm looking forward to the complaining from people who wasted a small fortune on storage to see their 'investment' diminish in a few years.

Keep in mind if you own any piece of technology, that "investment" will diminish in value like any other piece of technology-SSD or not. That's just the way advancement of technology works. Just look at the first buyers of the MBA vs. 1, 2 years later for the same (or better) insides.

For those who do not want their system fast-go get a dial modem.

 

[joejoejoe]

Faster processors just seem so gimicky to me. Not worth the money unless you're OCD about how fast your apps run.

Everyone has their wants and needs. Some people want their apps to launch faster and their computer to boot faster. If all you do is write email and browse the web, an SSD will make a computer with a slow processor seem way, way faster than it "really" is.

OCD has nothing to do with wanting your apps to run faster. When your job and paycheck rely on actually using apps like avid, fcp, photoshop etc to get clients what they want faster, having your apps run as fast as possible is more important than waiting for them to boot up. Notice what the OP started this thread about: photo and video editing, not browsing and sending emails.

I'm not knocking those who got SSDs, like yourself, no need to get defensive.

But wouldn't you agree that actually using an app (rendering video, editing photos, formatting a document, mixing tracks, etc) is more important than waiting for it to boot up?

Sure, SSDs are the future of computing. HD's are the bottleneck of current systems.

But if I can't put a terabyte's worth of photos, video, and sound files on a drive that's as fast and solid as SSDs are, there's really no point. For those that don't need that much space, sure, it makes total sense to go the SSD route. Like you said, if all someone is doing is operating a browser then yes, SSD's are the best way to make your computer feel as speedy as can be. But for a $650 premium? Your browser will pop up faster. Woohoo. Chrome pops up in a second on my four year old macbook pro with 2 gigs of ram. If my photo libraries, video files, and redering could all happen with that speed then sure, an SSD would be the best possible investment I could make for my computer.

To the OP: for those looking to push all four cores to their max so as to make their workflows and processes operate as fast as possible, the current price and capacity of SSDs aren't worth it.

 

[rotobadger]

But if I can't put a terabyte's worth of photos, video, and sound files on a drive that's as fast and solid as SSDs are, there's really no point.

That's why a dual drive system is ideal. SSD for apps and booting and HDD for storage.

Can't wait for the 1TB SSD though! Someday...

 

[bolen]

+1

And the one's provided by Apple don't have over-provisioning and will get slower over time. They are bottom of the line, a total ripoff. A decent one may be worthwhile, if it's worth it to you.
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty.html

Over-provisioning has nothing to do with performance degradation over time. Over-provisioning is used so that the drive can "switch out" exhausted cells (no more write cycles) with the ones that has been "hidden". Performance degradation over time is solved by intelligent garbage collection and TRIM, hopefully we'll see TRIM in OSX soon.

OCD has nothing to do with wanting your apps to run faster. When your job and paycheck rely on actually using apps like avid, fcp, photoshop etc to get clients what they want faster, having your apps run as fast as possible is more important than waiting for them to boot up. Notice what the OP started this thread about: photo and video editing, not browsing and sending emails.

I'm not knocking those who got SSDs, like yourself, no need to get defensive.

But wouldn't you agree that actually using an app (rendering video, editing photos, formatting a document, mixing tracks, etc) is more important than waiting for it to boot up?

Sure, SSDs are the future of computing. HD's are the bottleneck of current systems.

But if I can't put a terabyte's worth of photos, video, and sound files on a drive that's as fast and solid as SSDs are, there's really no point. For those that don't need that much space, sure, it makes total sense to go the SSD route. Like you said, if all someone is doing is operating a browser then yes, SSD's are the best way to make your computer feel as speedy as can be. But for a $650 premium? Your browser will pop up faster. Woohoo. Chrome pops up in a second on my four year old macbook pro with 2 gigs of ram. If my photo libraries, video files, and redering could all happen with that speed then sure, an SSD would be the best possible investment I could make for my computer.

To the OP: for those looking to push all four cores to their max so as to make their workflows and processes operate as fast as possible, the current price and capacity of SSDs aren't worth it.

You obviously haven't used a SSD, if you had you wouldn't have said what you said. Of course it isn't just application load times, the application will also execute much faster due to the faster access to libraries and application data that isn't loaded from the beginning. Using the SSD for storing move material that you're working with will also increase the performance very much. SSD is an overall performance boost.

Mechanics can be used for long time storage, they're growing old - quickly.

I'm not questioning the SSD technology and I'm confident that it will get cheaper and cheaper, more people will buy it and it has the potential to replace HDDs; but I think many people make the mistake of believing that SSDs will make their computers generally work better. That is not the case. Apart from applications, certain files launching quicker, there are no dramatic differences.

In a way, if we save a few seconds on loading each applications, that hardly makes the hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/etc worthwhile. Besides, the disadvantages of the SSD (apart from the silly prices) will appear later on. I'm looking forward to the complaining from people who wasted a small fortune on storage to see their 'investment' diminish in a few years.

Why would the investment dimish more than any other electronics you buy? According to Intel test data their 80GB drive can endure over 100GB of writes each day for five years before starting to fail. That's five years of simply overwriting the whole disk (1.25x) each day - regular usage doesn't even come close to that so I would expect the SSD to last ~10 years. After ten years you have bought severals new drives anyway. The 160GB model has double the write endurance and as the drives get larger each year we'll see insane write endurance values. Also, the good thing about SSD's are that when all blocks have been exhausted the data isn't lost, it's just that you simply can't write to the disk. When a regular HDD fails the data is lost.

Once you've actually used a SSD drive you'll see that it's worth every penny.

 

[jackcohn]

Of course it isn't just application load times, the application will also execute much faster due to the faster access to libraries and application data that isn't loaded from the beginning.

Bolen, it is not so simple. I have huge capacity apps (e.g. CS5, Logic Studio, FCP, Lightroom...). If I keep libararies on the same SSD it will be filled pretty quickly. So, it looks like I would need to move all libraries to 7,200 HD anyway. Will SSD be any help in speed in this cofiguration?

According to Intel test data their 80GB drive can endure over 100GB of writes each day for five years before starting to fail. That's five years of simply overwriting the whole disk (1.25x) each day - regular usage doesn't even come close to that so I would expect the SSD to last ~10 years.

This calculation is not so simple eigher especially when you would like to keep all libraries on the SSD. When you use a couple of apps daily and make changes to music files, hundreds of pictures, video editing, filters, rendering etc.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Really?

Snip...

.....On an iMac, even an SSD in a FW800 enclosure is faster and more responsive than running the OS off of the internal HD. You just don't spend nearly as much time waiting for things to happen with the OS on an SSD, which makes the whole computer feel faster.

Seriously? An SSD in a FW800 enclosure is faster than running the OS on the internal drive? That's really amazing. As soon as the prices get reasonable I will have to try that.
But 256 gb is a little smallish for me yet. I could do 500-750.... smaller - real problems.

 

[wirelessness]

When the SSD drive reaches it's maximum number of writes the data is still available for READING. When an HDD reaches it's end of useful life your data is lost.

 

[martinomac]

Bolen, it is not so simple. I have huge capacity apps (e.g. CS5, Logic Studio, FCP, Lightroom...). If I keep libararies on the same SSD it will be filled pretty quickly. So, it looks like I would need to move all libraries to 7,200 HD anyway. Will SSD be any help in speed in this cofiguration?

I too am interested to hear about this configuration. I'm strongly considering the 256GB SSD + 2TB HDD option but the $800 upgrade (CAD) is hard to swallow.

 

[mangrove]

Hello, you out there with SSD's and HDD's.

1. Do you keep large data files primarily on the HHD and work on the files in the SSD saving them back to the HDD when finished?

2. Also do you keep most Applications and the OSX on the SSD?

3. Have any SSD owners figured out how to put email+email folders and bookmarks on the HDD in order to clear up the SSD?

Would love to here from actual SSD owners, please.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Hello, you out there with SSD's and HDD's.

1. Do you keep large data files primarily on the HHD and work on the files in the SSD saving them back to the HDD when finished?

2. Also do you keep most Applications and the OSX on the SSD?

3. Have any SSD owners figured out how to put email+email folders and bookmarks on the HDD in order to clear up the SSD?

Would love to here from actual SSD owners, please.

I've got a new iMac 27" with stock SSD and a 2TB drive.

For #1, I moved the "home" folder to the 2TB, and keep the rest on the SSD. You can right click the account in Preferences Accounts to get to the "advanced options" and then point all "home" references wherever you like. In my case, it's to the (moved Home directory on the) 2TB drive. So far this has worked well without any issues. In another thread, someone warned that if the 2TB disconnected, OS X might recreate the home directory on the SSD, but if the 2TB disconnects (dies?), I'm pretty much finished until it reconnects (come back to life or is replaced).


For #2, yes. There is so much room on the stock SSD that I'm storing more there than I might had I got a smaller- and cheaper- SSD. So, all applications go there. I've also put all my Garage band loops there, and a couple of those massive (multi-DVD) clip art/art libraries for my work. I'm generally running to a concept of slower loading, but regular access, optional stuff goes on the SSD.

FYI: I also partitioned off 60GB for boot camp on the SSD, installed Windows 7 64 bit and Office 2010, as well as a few programs that aren't native for OS X. Still got about 18GB left on that partition, and more than 100GB left on the OS X side. Windows 7 roars relative to my old setup. I've since installed Parallels 5, so that I have easy access to Office (and the few other Windows-only programs) from within OS X; this also works amazingly well (such that I think I won't get Office for Mac 2011 when it comes out).

For #3, see that part of the answer in #1.

 

[DesmoPilot]

Faster app load times and faster boot up just seams so gimicky to me.

Mechanical HDDs have long been the biggest bottleneck in computers (you really have no idea how much of a bottleneck HDDs really are), SSDs solve that. Once you go SSD, you don't go back to mechanical drives let me tell you.

 

[MacMur]

Expense Involved check this out

So it does look like we are paying a premium for the SSD technology. It reminds me of a purchase that I made in 1984. It seems that I needed an external hard drive for my computer as it had no internal HD. I was tired of dealing with 5 1/4" floppies so my company approved the external unit.

It was a 20 megabyte hard drive. Compare that to a 32 GB flash drive (about $60). What did this, by today's standards, minuscule drive cost:

$2,700

That's right it is just possible that we have come a really long way.

 

[300D]

and as we mentioned in previous thread it is not so easy to delete files form SSD

Dragging files to the trashcan picture.....really hard....

 

[dagomike]

Buy more memory and leave apps running.

No boot time benefit when the computer/apps are already booted.

 

[mangrove]

I've got a new iMac 27" with stock SSD and a 2TB drive.

For #1, I moved the "home" folder to the 2TB, and keep the rest on the SSD. You can right click the account in Preferences Accounts to get to the "advanced options" and then point all "home" references wherever you like. In my case, it's to the (moved Home directory on the) 2TB drive. So far this has worked well without any issues. In another thread, someone warned that if the 2TB disconnected, OS X might recreate the home directory on the SSD, but if the 2TB disconnects (dies?), I'm pretty much finished until it reconnects (come back to life or is replaced).


For #2, yes. There is so much room on the stock SSD that I'm storing more there than I might had I got a smaller- and cheaper- SSD. So, all applications go there. I've also put all my Garage band loops there, and a couple of those massive (multi-DVD) clip art/art libraries for my work. I'm generally running to a concept of slower loading, but regular access, optional stuff goes on the SSD.

FYI: I also partitioned off 60GB for boot camp on the SSD, installed Windows 7 64 bit and Office 2010, as well as a few programs that aren't native for OS X. Still got about 18GB left on that partition, and more than 100GB left on the OS X side. Windows 7 roars relative to my old setup. I've since installed Parallels 5, so that I have easy access to Office (and the few other Windows-only programs) from within OS X; this also works amazingly well (such that I think I won't get Office for Mac 2011 when it comes out).

For #3, see that part of the answer in #1.

Hey there Martin County. Thanks for the tips. I might need more advice once I'm set up. Just to be sure before I go and do something stupid-by Home folder, you mean the little house with myusername next to it?

I must say I was thinking of installing XP and even bought Parallels 4.0 some months back. But after reading an article in Macworld about the possibility of viruses on the Windows partition, I have done nothing since I really would only be using 1 applications on Windows and left PC's 3 years ago due to Dell **** and all that virus software slowing everything I did! Haven't been happier since.!!

This next week plan to:

1. Get a HHD for cloning to put in safe deposit box-OK, but I lost everything due to Andrew years ago.

2. Make sure I know how to take my 114GB of ripped music (still probably have another 20GB of vinyl to rip when I find a good vinyl-to-digital turntable. In other words do I take the Media folder (the real content) over to HDD and leave the Media Database on the SSD?

3. Make sure I take 6GB of recent photos over to the HDD safety since I have another 15GB of old photos to scan into a computer some day. I traveled the world for 20+ years and have many interesting shots I hope to preserve. These are the ones that Andrew did not take.

3. I have about 150GB of LD (low definition) videos to make sure they get on another hard drive from a LaCie 4TB mirrored external I have them on right now.

4. I must think about your second sentence under #1 before I do that, but sounds very tempting. Right now my plans are to put my 256GB OWC SSD in the 2009 Mini (2.53) main bay and put a 500GB 7200 Momentus XT (Ok maybe over kill, but could prove nice to have if my Home folder was on the HDD like yours) in an OBHC where the SD currently sits and up the RAM to 8GB. OK so the CPU is C2D, but that's what I got.

5. If that works then I 'll do almost the same (larger SSD) to our 2010 Mini (2.66+8GB RAM) we use as an HTPC-so to speak which works great with Netflix via HDMI at 1080p on our 60"

Anyhow thanks for your kind reply. Maybe I will see you at the Catfish House on US1 one of these days or maybe Harry & the Natives. You must figure by now, I also live in Martin County. Congrats on your new iMac. From what threads I read on here, they sound pretty darn fast and the dual drives hit a home run. Did you go for the 2.93?