Apple day again.
I think a certain somebody's beginning to feel a little sensitive about the bad press a certain company's been getting very recently.
25 October 2012, 09:35 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northampton, Xbox GamerTag - Neanderthal1976
Posts: 6,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it can, then he is a giant of a man and must not be messed with.
I've had the iPhone 3GS and the 4. My next phone will be something different, just because I fancy a change.
I like the features of the S3 but the size puts me off so going to look at the S3 mini or the Nokia 920.
I've had the iPhone 3GS and the 4. My next phone will be something different, just because I fancy a change.
I like the features of the S3 but the size puts me off so going to look at the S3 mini or the Nokia 920.
25 October 2012, 01:20 PM
#38
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...-drive-details
25 October 2012, 02:27 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - can't say I agree with his conclusion that integrating it with the OS is the best way to do it.
The reason for that is if you have a large file only a part of which you only need regular, performance access to, you need to move the whole file onto the SSD. As for his comment of recovering files if one part of the 'fusion' fails, that's only even remotely possible if the data you require is on the part that remains.
It also doesn't detail how frequently data is assessed as to whether it deserves promotion to the SSD, and the comment of it caching writes is interesting; how much of the SSD layer is given over to writes, as that will impact the total amount of usable storage space? Not to mention what will happen when the cache is exceeded.
The superior method is instead to work at a block (or page) level, which is what some of the hardware solutions work to. They still have some of the above issues, but the granularity is often much finer than simply file-level.
The reality is that this isn't a particularly special or especially well engineered feature - it's simply the first time I have heard of it being included as a standard option for a consumer desktop, and the first time that many will have encountered SSD tiering at all. My main hope is that it will reinvigorate the market for tiered consumer storage, and then we will all benefit from hardware-based solutions that can offer still greater performance along with being platform agnostic.
The reason for that is if you have a large file only a part of which you only need regular, performance access to, you need to move the whole file onto the SSD. As for his comment of recovering files if one part of the 'fusion' fails, that's only even remotely possible if the data you require is on the part that remains.
It also doesn't detail how frequently data is assessed as to whether it deserves promotion to the SSD, and the comment of it caching writes is interesting; how much of the SSD layer is given over to writes, as that will impact the total amount of usable storage space? Not to mention what will happen when the cache is exceeded.
The superior method is instead to work at a block (or page) level, which is what some of the hardware solutions work to. They still have some of the above issues, but the granularity is often much finer than simply file-level.
The reality is that this isn't a particularly special or especially well engineered feature - it's simply the first time I have heard of it being included as a standard option for a consumer desktop, and the first time that many will have encountered SSD tiering at all. My main hope is that it will reinvigorate the market for tiered consumer storage, and then we will all benefit from hardware-based solutions that can offer still greater performance along with being platform agnostic.
25 October 2012, 06:30 PM
#40
If it can, then he is a giant of a man and must not be messed with.
I've had the iPhone 3GS and the 4. My next phone will be something different, just because I fancy a change.
I like the features of the S3 but the size puts me off so going to look at the S3 mini or the Nokia 920.
I've had the iPhone 3GS and the 4. My next phone will be something different, just because I fancy a change.
I like the features of the S3 but the size puts me off so going to look at the S3 mini or the Nokia 920.
My next phone will be the 1080p 400ppi 5" HTC Butterfly or whatever the name becomes after the release with quad core snapdragon, 2GB of Ram
25 October 2012, 07:12 PM
#41
25 October 2012, 08:18 PM
#43
Just read the mac book pro is virtually impossible to repair and is not upgradeable. Also it contains Samsung memory
http://www.slashgear.com/teardown-ti...tina-25253987/
http://www.slashgear.com/teardown-ti...tina-25253987/
Last edited by andy97; 25 October 2012 at 09:11 PM.
25 October 2012, 09:10 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
25 October 2012, 11:25 PM
#47
Apple are taking steps to reduce their reliance on Samsung and will be moving their supply chain of components such as memory, cpu and screens to other manufacturers. Fanboys best get those Retina equipped devices soon as they're going from iDevices, case point with the iPad Mini, inferior and lower resolution than many of its competitors with its LG supplied screens. Issues already exist for MBP with LG sourced "Retina" displays. Talk about cutting their nose off to spite their face.
26 October 2012, 12:00 PM
#48
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can Apple justify Ł269 for the mini when you can get a Kindle Fire for Ł129?
OK, the iPad Mini may be a better product technically, but more than double the price?!?!?!?
Apple have just become the new rip off merchants, I should be amazed that peope still pay for it, but I'm not
Geezer
OK, the iPad Mini may be a better product technically, but more than double the price?!?!?!?
Apple have just become the new rip off merchants, I should be amazed that peope still pay for it, but I'm not
Geezer
26 October 2012, 12:26 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - can't say I agree with his conclusion that integrating it with the OS is the best way to do it.
The reason for that is if you have a large file only a part of which you only need regular, performance access to, you need to move the whole file onto the SSD. As for his comment of recovering files if one part of the 'fusion' fails, that's only even remotely possible if the data you require is on the part that remains.
It also doesn't detail how frequently data is assessed as to whether it deserves promotion to the SSD, and the comment of it caching writes is interesting; how much of the SSD layer is given over to writes, as that will impact the total amount of usable storage space? Not to mention what will happen when the cache is exceeded.
The superior method is instead to work at a block (or page) level, which is what some of the hardware solutions work to. They still have some of the above issues, but the granularity is often much finer than simply file-level.
The reality is that this isn't a particularly special or especially well engineered feature - it's simply the first time I have heard of it being included as a standard option for a consumer desktop, and the first time that many will have encountered SSD tiering at all. My main hope is that it will reinvigorate the market for tiered consumer storage, and then we will all benefit from hardware-based solutions that can offer still greater performance along with being platform agnostic.
The reason for that is if you have a large file only a part of which you only need regular, performance access to, you need to move the whole file onto the SSD. As for his comment of recovering files if one part of the 'fusion' fails, that's only even remotely possible if the data you require is on the part that remains.
It also doesn't detail how frequently data is assessed as to whether it deserves promotion to the SSD, and the comment of it caching writes is interesting; how much of the SSD layer is given over to writes, as that will impact the total amount of usable storage space? Not to mention what will happen when the cache is exceeded.
The superior method is instead to work at a block (or page) level, which is what some of the hardware solutions work to. They still have some of the above issues, but the granularity is often much finer than simply file-level.
The reality is that this isn't a particularly special or especially well engineered feature - it's simply the first time I have heard of it being included as a standard option for a consumer desktop, and the first time that many will have encountered SSD tiering at all. My main hope is that it will reinvigorate the market for tiered consumer storage, and then we will all benefit from hardware-based solutions that can offer still greater performance along with being platform agnostic.
26 October 2012, 01:17 PM
#50
It doesn't matter, it'll all go over the head of most Apple users. It's a halfway house solution but all that matter, it's a "FUSION DRIVE" "invented" by Apple and makes my Mac faster! "WOAH!" 
26 October 2012, 02:17 PM
#51
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
What would you prefer, everyone goes to Currys to buy a 'not a fusion' drive and have someone fit it? How this feature can be in any way considered negative is beyond me. I suppose Time Machine integration was a bad idea too, because Windows geeks 'could' do it better??
26 October 2012, 03:24 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you prefer, everyone goes to Currys to buy a 'not a fusion' drive and have someone fit it? How this feature can be in any way considered negative is beyond me. I suppose Time Machine integration was a bad idea too, because Windows geeks 'could' do it better??
26 October 2012, 04:15 PM
#54
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
It's so simple everyone can understand it, even you.
Apple didn't invent it Jon, but they sell a **** load of computers, the best selling computers in fact, and their buyers will benefit from it without having to understand it, that's the point isn't it, making things easier and not just on the eye.
Apple didn't invent it Jon, but they sell a **** load of computers, the best selling computers in fact, and their buyers will benefit from it without having to understand it, that's the point isn't it, making things easier and not just on the eye.
26 October 2012, 04:57 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you prefer, everyone goes to Currys to buy a 'not a fusion' drive and have someone fit it? How this feature can be in any way considered negative is beyond me. I suppose Time Machine integration was a bad idea too, because Windows geeks 'could' do it better??
I do think it is a positive feature - but what they need to be careful of is that buyers may well expect SSD-level performance in all situations, which will not be the case.
My preference for doing things in hardware is simply because I feel that for low-level tasks like this that's where they should be; virtualisation (a common Mac use case) started in software, but hardware support is the better and now standard way of doing it.
Introducing tiering to consumers is a good thing, and by making it a standard option there will be some who choose it simply because it's there. This will prompt other companies to do the same, but as they don't have the same control over the software-hardware relationship hardware will be the natural place for it.
What I then expect will happen is once consumers come to not just accept but expect tiering, Apple will take some of those hardware-based offerings (or develop their own) and also do it in hardware. Until they know the demand is there however it's much cheaper to rig up something software.
26 October 2012, 05:17 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
i'm quite happy with beef's post its the one that follow which make it a pissing contest
26 October 2012, 05:21 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
like these...
the thread will go the same like all the others do even a "disciple" like is getting bored of it, beefs post is logical al the others is just baiting