Mac Hard Drives Underwhelming

[AutoMac]

I made the mistake of buying a 2019 iMac 21.5” with 8GB RAM and a 1TB internal drive when one of my main uses is photography involving Adobe Lightroom. The slow internal HDD was rapidly ‘replaced’ for booting and running data and photos from a fast external 2TB Seagate hybrid HDD - fine - but the impossible part was trying to live with 8GB RAM and being alerted continually that “memory full”. A Mac dealer said they ‘could’ upgrade the on-board RAM but it was a tough job. My fault because I chose that model but I think it was really spec‘d by Apple for emails and light paperwork only. After the event I finally read that Adobe recommend minimum of 12GB RAM for Lightroom…. Cue for new 27” iMac with user-replaceable RAM on a ‘friendly’ credit card… Anybody want to buy a cheap 2019 iMac?

 

[Nukeban]

My basic needs don't warrant the newer models?

Consider a Chromebook for basic operations such as you've described. They're a lot cheaper, and you'll find many models to choose from.

 

[Howard Brazee]

I probably wasted money buying a 2T 24" iMac. But a couple of years ago, I had to purge data on my iT iMac.

I don't trust the cloud to work the way I want reliably. Every time I have tried it, it didn't. (Well, neither does synchronizing my iDevices with my iMac and watch either)

 

[Nukeban]

Cue for new 27” iMac with user-replaceable RAM on a ‘friendly’ credit card… Anybody want to buy a cheap 2019 iMac?

I'll admit to knowing nothing about Lightroom, and not being an Adobe fan in general.

However, I'm doing a lot of video editing on a 10 year old 27 inch iMac with 16GB Ram and a 1TB non-ssd drive. I got it used for $900 a few years back. I run Gimp and Graphic Converter a bit. Everything seems to work Ok.

But I'm not in a position to ride the cutting edge. As example, I can't use the latest versions of Hitfilm, my video editor of choice. I don't really care because a five year old version of that software does what I need.

Point being, you might be able to replace the 2019 Mac for a used machine with better specs and come out even on the deal. The problem here is finding a reliable source of used machines.

 

[Michael the T]

Hello, I want to buy a new iMac for use in a small plant nursery - really just stock lists and photos. I am happy with the older 21.5 inch screen and wondering which of the 3 models are best for me. The screen resolution is a lot higher on the retina 4K displays and they area faster but figure I just need the 2.3GHz 246GB? These models are not available through Apple so will be buying from JBHiFi probably. Or am I missing something?? My basic needs don't warrant the newer models?

Yeah you should buy what you need. Unless you think there is a possibility that you will need something stronger in the next couple of years. Then buying a Mac with a bit more oomph might be worth thinking about. You might also consider looking at the Mac Mini. Mate whatever monitor that will do the job and still have the power in the computer.

 

[Nukeban]

Yeah you should buy what you need

If it's just text and photos, email and the web, a Chromebook will get the job done at a fraction of the price of a new Mac. Best ballpark guess, something like half the price or less.

 

[Nukeban]

Within 48 hours they had someone come to my house and install a new modem. That's the way premium priced products should work.

But that's not the way premium priced products will work so long as we accept the status quo. All the big corporations shift the burden of quality control on to their users. Sure, the warranty may cover whatever the issue is, but the problem is still dumped in your lap. You have to take the machine somewhere, ship it somewhere, do it again when the fix doesn't work, be without the product you paid big money for, etc etc.

What my little story above illustrates is that none of that is necessary. Apple used to send repair techs to your house, and doing so didn't drive them out of business.

The bottom line problem is us. We put up with too much, and wind up getting what we deserve.

 

[AutoMac]

I'll admit to knowing nothing about Lightroom, and not being an Adobe fan in general.

However, I'm doing a lot of video editing on a 10 year old 27 inch iMac with 16GB Ram and a 1TB non-ssd drive. I got it used for $900 a few years back. I run Gimp and Graphic Converter a bit. Everything seems to work Ok.

But I'm not in a position to ride the cutting edge. As example, I can't use the latest versions of Hitfilm, my video editor of choice. I don't really care because a five year old version of that software does what I need.

Point being, you might be able to replace the 2019 Mac for a used machine with better specs and come out even on the deal. The problem here is finding a reliable source of used machines.

Thanks Nukeban - that's useful info!! I rather suspect that Lightroom, like so many 'modern' programs is probably made up of far more 'bloated and lazy RAM hungry' code than it could perhaps be if market forces and available technology demanded. Older software HAD to be coded much more efficiently to let it properly run on the lower spec hardware and miniscule RAM of years gone by. Even with 32GB RAM in my 'new' 2020 27" iMac I can still see my available RAM trickle down to 12 and even 8GB when multitasking... Happily the RAM boost was relatively inexpensive and I could (if I really needed - but unlikely) load up to 64GB.

My Seagate 'hybrid' HDD is way faster than the 1TB HDD that came in my 2019 iMac but I am very impressed by the additional speed of the SSD (being the first that I have used).

 

[Dekinekind]

Yeah I agree the future is cloud based storage. It's not here yet though. The cost is just too high. The lag is too long. And it is about as safe as your data on Windows 98. We know the bad guys can hack into virtually any system on the planet. How safe is my data?

Frankly I find that terrifying. All my data on some server farm in who knows where. And who knows who can get to see it whenever they want. Privacy in this modern world is nonexistent.

With the cloud not yet ready for prime time I want my large hard drives.

Not to mention the shut down of the cloud or internet for a number of possible technical or nefarious reasons. I prefer to have my programs, photos, writings, articles, information, movies, etc. accessible to me stored in my own home that I can access should something catastrophic occur.

 

[Dekinekind]

Not to mention the shut down of the cloud or internet for a number of possible technical or nefarious reasons. I prefer to have my programs, photos, writings, articles, information, movies, etc. accessible to me stored in my own home that I can access should something catastrophic occur.

Hi folks, not sure I entered this comment correctly in response to this article so I'm posting it again as I wasn't signed in at the time when I previously posted it. Apologies from a novice.

 

[nevw]

The, small 256GB drives on modern machines seems gigantic compared to my first PC, an Amstrad PC2086/30 which had a 30MB drive

View attachment 3983

The, small 256GB drives on modern machines seems gigantic compared to my first PC, an Amstrad PC2086/30 which had a 30MB drive

View attachment 3983

Whoo 30 MB my first was a Tandy with a tape drive and then I fitted a whopping 5MB HD. later replaced with a 10Mb drive.

 

[nevw]

Whooo 30 Mb My first was a Tandy with a tape drive. I fitted a HUGE 5 Mb HD , later replaced it with a 10 Mb HD and a 360 5" floppy Drive

 

[brianwmay]

p.s. I'm just in a ranting mood tonite. lol. Don't mind me.

I absolutely agree. I replaced my Apple 512Gb SSD with an NVME one with adapter 1TB at about half the cost or less. My MBP is a 2015 one with loads of ports. I replaced the stuck in battery with one that fits snugly and doesn't need gluing in place.

I get the distinct impression the folks at Apple are making it as difficult as possible for anyone to do ANYTHING with their hardware. The Cloud is the last place on Dog's earth I'd store any of my data.

So rant away, many of us agree with you.

 

[Allen Davis]

Okay so this is mostly a gripe post so if that kind of thing bothers you please scroll along.

Would someone tell me why Apple in their infinite wisdom decided that modern Macs need hard drives that are sized for computers of 25 years ago? Does everyone really keep their entire life on clouds? Inquiring minds and all that.

It's because Apple, in its infinite wisdom (as you call it) is hell bent for leather on making more and more of us ever more dependent upon cloud storage. Sure, it keeps you perfectly synced across all your devices, making things convenient as all get out, AND it puts money into Apple's pockets as well.

Face it: Apple can't remain the Number One company on earth forever simply by selling iPhones, watches, iPads, earbuds, etc., etc. They've stated publicly dozens of times that the company's strategy is to position itself more as a services company as opposed to a provider of the world's coolest hardware.

I myself have an iMac, a MacBook Pro, and an iPhone. It used to drive me nuts to need a piece of data, a file, whatever, only to be out on the road and learn what I needed was in residence on the hard drive of my iMac on my desk at home. Cloud storage and syncing has saved my bacon more than once.

The downside is that we can be hostage to the availability (or lack thereof) of WiFi, or even a cellular signal!

With the cost of SSDs plummeting, it gets under my skin that Apple puts such dinky drives in their machines these days, too. And to compound my aggravation (and yours, too I'm sure) is that Apple has also gone back to Steve Jobs' ancient days in which all their devices are closed again! We can't even upgrade RAM anymore, and that's another pisser to me. I think Apple exhibits its greed to a good degree by requiring customers to pre-order, predetermine, etc., how much RAM and storage they'll need two-three years down the road since we can't upgrade our devices later.

These dinky little drives makes us more dependent on having external devices in my opinion. And that runs counter to Apple's desire we be more dependent on their cloud services.

I've stuck with my i7 2012 MacBook Pro so long because it was upgradeable, and has remained a monster machine all these years despite its age. I was able to upgrade to 16GB of RAM, and it has now has a 1TB SSD, both of which I did myself. The fact that I can't do that with a newer Apple laptop is the reason I'm still running the mid-2012 model!

I think the bean counters are the ones making the final decisions on this one.

 

[brianwmay]

Well said Allen and I suspect its content will have diddly squat effect on the young thrusters at Apple who think they know better or the said bean counters probably sacked by Boeing for leading their company into disaster.

I've kept my 2008 MacBook Pro because it's user upgradable in terms of hard drive (mine's an SSD), battery and it has lots of ports for connectivity.

IF I have to buy another computer it'll almost certainly be running Linux Mint. My Love Affair with Apple is in its twilight - I think they are going in the wrong direction and I can only vote with my feet.

Shame really as my Macs have been OUTSTANDINGLY reliable but I feel they've lost sight of their public. I wouldn't touch a Windows machine with a barge pole (although I do run 10 in a virtual machine courtesy of Parallels).

 

[Nukeban]

They've stated publicly dozens of times that the company's strategy is to position itself more as a services company as opposed to a provider of the world's coolest hardware.

I read somewhere a few years back that the Mac now makes up something like 15% of Apple's profits. I have geezer brain memory, so feel free to correct me on that.

I wonder if one problem with the Mac is that there isn't compelling new software which uses the new speeds. Or at least, I don't know of any. You know, I'm not going to spend a grand or two just so my files open faster. But I might buy a new Mac if there was something really cool that I could only do on a new Mac.

In order to gain wide acceptance, the really cool new thing would have to be reasonably priced ($100 or less) and reasonably easy to use. A week in the manual is good, having to get an advanced degree to use the software isn't.

I don't have any fantastic ideas of what the new software might be. The closest I can come is Poser, software for animating 3D characters. Any 3D software is likely going to be significantly helped by more horsepower. I got Poser on sale for $80, so that's a price many people would be willing to pay. And if you enjoy animating, Poser is the best consumer grade option on the Mac, imho. It's pretty cool overall.

However, I don't use Poser much because it still involves a considerable amount of arcane nerdology. It's a significant time investment in the learning curve. Point being, I wouldn't buy a new Mac for Poser, as a blazing fast Mac wouldn't address the primary obstacle to my use of Poser.

Why do I need a faster Mac? Apple hasn't answered that question yet imho.

 

[37Shannon]

30mb is really all anyone requires. I mean, after all, once you have a few custom icons, what else does a person need? Also, never buy a Mac made in this century, very bad idea!!

Seriously, I got my first Mac in 1994, before the Internet was readily available to average citizens. I figured out how to connect to a local BBS over the phone wires, and we spent HOURS trading icons, showing off our new custom icons, arguing over who had the best icons etc. Sounds so ridiculous now, but at the time, it was thrilling.

And then the Net came along. This was before Netscape, or any kind of graphical browser. Text and links, that was the Web, nothing else. I started surfing from one city's web page to another. I would holler out to my wife in the other room, "I'm in Chicago!!" and then a few minutes later, "I'm in San Diego!!!" and she'd holler back, "Wow, really???"

Yeah, and there was this guy Bill Gates who at one time said he could not imagine why anyone would need more than 640K on the motherboard. And now, on my Windows development PC, I'm running 16G on the mboard, and 8G on my Mac mini. Times they are a changing ...

 

[MarkHarris]

Nothing in the cloud here. I do have some files on a server for a website, but I don't use the cloud to store anything else.

It would be nice if Apple offered the option between a larger non-ssd drive, and a smaller but faster ssd drive, at around the same price point. Then everyone could order their Mac to fit their situation, and there would be a lot less confusion and griping.

I have no data to back up this claim, but my guess is that only a small minority of Mac users really need the extra speed provided by ssd drives. That said, probably only a small minority need a 1TB drive too.

My guess is that Apple morphed in to a phone company because many or most people just don't need the features being added to new desktop computers. That makes it harder for the manufacturers to persuade us to buy a new machine.

I might have this wrong, but I believe I read awhile back that the Mac accounts for only something like 15% of Apple's profits these days. If true, that could explain a lot.

 

[MarkHarris]

Yeah I agree the future is cloud based storage. It's not here yet though. The cost is just too high. The lag is too long. And it is about as safe as your data on Windows 98. We know the bad guys can hack into virtually any system on the planet. How safe is my data?

Frankly I find that terrifying. All my data on some server farm in who knows where. And who knows who can get to see it whenever they want. Privacy in this modern world is nonexistent.

With the cloud not yet ready for prime time I want my large hard drives.

200 GB iCloud storage for $3/month. Great for photos and video. SSD drives are more money, but smaller and less heat. The same reason optical drives are not in MacBook Pros.

 

[Calperon]

The, small 256GB drives on modern machines seems gigantic compared to my first PC, an Amstrad PC2086/30 which had a 30MB drive

View attachment 3983

Indeed, in the dawn of time I calculated the value of a leasing company I wanted to buy out on a Sinclair ZX whose only memory was on an audio cassette and used a TV as a monitor. But I still winge at some of the unfriendly aspects of my iMac.