Flash vs. Fusion: What’s the best choice for an iMac?

Posted on by

Recently, I bid adieu to my 7-year-old Mac Pro and replaced it with a 27-inch 5K Retina display iMac. Overall, I couldn’t be more pleased. The display alone has been enough to justify the upgrade.

However, my indecision over one sticking point almost wound up derailing the move. It’s the reason it took me several months from the announcement of the new iMacs last October to finally make the purchase a few weeks ago. Even after the iMac arrived, my uncertainty remained. So much so, that I almost returned the machine. The dilemma? Whether to get a Fusion Drive or Flash (SSD) Storage? And, especially if the latter, what size drive?

While I believe there is no single best choice that applies to everyone, after much internal debate, I found the right one for me.

Internal

At first, it seemed so simple. I planned to get the 3TB Fusion drive. While I could have gotten by with a 2TB drive, it was worth a $100 to have the roominess of an extra TB. I figured I’d be buying a new Mac before I outgrew that much space.

My wife already had an iMac with 3TB Fusion Drive. So I knew that the drive was adequately fast and very quiet. Done deal.

Except…my inner geek was not satisfied.

True, a Fusion Drive is fast. But an SSD is even faster. In fact, thanks to design improvements in the 2015 iMacs, Apple claims the iMac’s Flash Storage is “up to 2.5 times faster” than the SSD in 2014 iMacs.

A Fusion Drive is quiet, but an SSD is not only quieter, it’s completely silent. Plus, SSDs are the future. Within a few years, I expect HDDs (hard disk drives) to be history. Even the Fusion Drive (which is a combination of SSD and HDD) will likely be gone. I wanted to go with the future.

Further, Flash Storage, because it has no moving parts, is more reliable than a Fusion Drive. Of special note, the technology that “melds” the SSD and HDD components of a Fusion Drive can fail, even if the separate components are otherwise fine, leaving you with an inaccessible drive. This will require Apple to fix it. While not common, this has happened to a few friends of mine.

The HDD component of a Fusion Drive spins at 5400 RPM. Most internal drives sold today are 7200 RPM. Obviously, I would prefer the faster RPM speed. I also don’t like that, with a Fusion Drive, I have no control over what files are shunted to the SSD portion; it is all determined by Apple’s software. While such matters might not significantly impact the performance of a Fusion Drive, they still irked me.

On the other hand, the biggest problem with pure SSDs is that they are much more expensive than Fusion Drives. The largest capacity Flash Storage you can get preinstalled in an iMac is only 1TB — and it costs $700 more than a 2TB Fusion Drive.

The result? Indecision! After mulling things over for a couple of months…and changing my mind numerous times, I finally settled on the Flash Storage.

I was not quite done. I still had to decide which size to get. The 512GB option, at only $100 more than a 3TB Fusion, quickly emerged as my preferred choice. The lesser, 256GB drive, although twice the size of the SSD portion of the Fusion Drive, was too small to hold my essential files (System and Home Libraries, Applications and Documents). At the other extreme, the 1TB Flash Storage still wasn’t large enough to hold all my files; not worth the extra cost.

External

With the main dilemma decided, I had one more problem to resolve: What sort of external storage would I use?

The 512GB SSD was 1/6 the size of the 3TB Fusion Drive I had initially planned to get. To accommodate all my data, external storage was now a requirement. Even if I could fit all my data on the internal SSD, I would still need external storage for mirrored backups. In other words, I would need at least 2 external drives.

Initially, I decided to buy an OWC ThunderBay 4 ($400). With this unit, I could transfer the three drives that had previously lived in my Mac Pro, saving the cost of having to purchase new drives. In addition, the ThunderBay provided the fastest possible transfer speeds (Thunderbolt 2) with the greatest capacity for future expansion, all via a single compact box that needed only one connection to the iMac.

This was a fine, albeit still expensive, solution. I would have stuck with this setup except for one thing: noise. Don’t get me wrong. The ThunderBay is quiet overall. Depending on your sensitivity, it may not bother you at all. But it is far from silent.

For starters, the ThunderBay has a constantly running fan. While not a noisy fan, the sound is definitely noticeable, even with the unit placed under my desk. Compared to my wife’s Fusion Drive iMac, I could instantly hear the difference.

Second, the 3.5-inch HDDs inside the ThunderBay made significant noise during read and write access. The noise was not annoyingly loud, but, once again, it was much more noticeable than similar sounds from my wife’s iMac Fusion Drive.

While all of this was tolerable, I wanted better. Better than even the Fusion Drive. I wanted to maintain the near total silence afforded by my iMac’s Flash Storage. So I looked for another solution.

Eventually, I settled on Seagate portable drives. These USB 3 drives are essentially noiseless. At least I can’t hear them. They are also about as small and unobtrusive as a drive can get. And, as they get their power from the iMac’s USB port, there are no power cords or bulky adapters to worry about.

As a bonus, they are a cheaper alternative to the ThunderBay. The two drives I got (1 2TB and 1 4TB) cost about $200: half the price of an empty ThunderBay. You could save even more money if you could fit all your data on the iMac’s internal Flash Storage (perhaps needing only a 256GB SSD?) and thus could get by with only one external drive.

The one downside is that transfer speeds via USB 3 are distinctly slower than via Thunderbolt 2. If you need maximum speed, the ThunderBay remains the preferred solution. In my case, as I use the external drives only to hold my media libraries (iTunes and Photos), archival data and backups, I didn’t think the speed difference would matter at a practical level. Most of the time, the drives would not be in use at all.

[By the way, overall, I prefer to keep my media libraries on a separate drive from my System and other Home directory files; it makes the media files less likely to become collateral damage in the event of a disaster with the startup drive.

I do have some concern regarding the long-term reliability of keeping fan-less portable drives connected to a Mac 24/7. However, my past experience doing this with other Seagate portable drives has been excellent, so I am willing to take the risk. Still, I have my data backed up elsewhere — via the cloud-based BackBlaze as well as a separate networked Time Machine drive.]

Wrapping up

So here I am typing on my new iMac. With its 512GB Flash Storage, it is both superfast and completely silent. The external portable Seagate drives provide the extra space I need without adding noise or detracting from the iMac’s curb appeal.

If your requirements are at all similar to mine, I highly recommend this solution.

The almost death of the telephoto/zoom lens

Posted on by

This column started out as a eulogy — marking the anticipated end for a long-time friend. But, even as the grave was being readied, word came that my friend was showing signs of a remarkable recovery.

Who is this friend? How did things get so dire? And what’s behind the potential recovery? Read on…

The story begins decades ago, as unboxed my first SLR (single lens reflex) camera: an Olympus OM-1. It was a big step up from the point-and-shoot cameras I had been using. For the first time, whatever I saw in the camera’s viewfinder was the same thing the lens was seeing. Further, I could adjust f-stops, shutter speeds, white balance, and much more. And, perhaps most critically, I could swap lenses.

Not wasting any time, I purchased my first accessory lens the same day I bought the camera: a 28-150mm zoom lens. With it mounted, I could easily shift from a decent wide-angle shot to 3X telephoto. Yes, the lens was bulkier than the standard 50mm one that came with the camera, but it was worth the bulk. By far, the most useful aspect of the zoom lens was its telephoto range. Until then, the most common frustration I had when taking photos was an inability to get close enough to the subject. Instead of capturing that gorgeous bird I saw in a nearby tree, all I got was a photo of a tree, albeit one that contained a barely perceptible blob of color that I presumed was the bird. A telephoto zoom lens changed all that. It not only got me closer but allowed me to experiment for the exact optimal magnification, without having to keep changing my position. Fantastic!

Flash forward to today. The telephoto lens is on its deathbed, as are zoom lenses in general. Hold on. Before you jump in to contradict me, allow me to elaborate.

Yes, there are still SLR cameras (now digital) that offer the same options as my old Olympus. But, back in the “old days,” every budding amateur photographer bought an SLR. These days, they are primarily the domain of the most serious hobbyists and professionals. Far fewer people use them.

It’s also true that a zoom capability remains in today’s consumer-focused compact fixed-lens cameras. In fact, the capabilities here are incredible. My wife, for example, owns a Canon SX700. This pocket-sized camera has a 30X zoom lens — and yet the entire camera is smaller and lighter than the 3X zoom lens alone for my old Olympus! Even so, sales of these cameras are also in a steady decline.

So what are people using to take photos these days? Their smartphones of course. Recent studies have estimated that well over 90% of the photos taken today are taken with smartphones. The trouble is that smartphones, including the iPhone, have no telephoto or optical zoom options. You can buy an add-on lens to get a 2X zoom; but it’s not practical; the lenses are too much trouble for too little gain. Very few people go this route.

My wife and I fit the typical demographic. Most of the time, our Canon sits on a shelf. The only time it gets any use is when we anticipate that a telephoto capability will be critical. And sometimes not even then. That’s because our iPhone 6 and 6S take photos (and video) that equal or exceed the quality of the Canon — at least to our eyes. Further, the iPhone is far superior to the Canon for any sort of media sharing. And we always have our iPhones with us, even if we have no intent to use a camera. If we don’t expect to need a telephoto lens, there’s no reason to carry around an extra piece of equipment.

So, here I am, decades later, back to the same inability to get an unplanned shot of that bird up a tree. Ironic. Most of the time, I’m okay with this. It’s the sort of trade-off that often comes with technological advances. You lose something worthwhile from the “good old days” in order to get a myriad of desirable new features that were unimaginable years ago.

Overall, if telephoto/zoom lenses were animals, they would be on the endangered species list. It was thinking about this that led me to pen my intended eulogy. Except a funny thing happened. The telephoto/zoom lens may not be as near death as I anticipated. The latest rumors (which seem increasingly solid) suggest that Apple is preparing a dual-lens version of the iPhone 7 Plus (due out this fall) — a set-up that would include a true optical zoom. At last! Other rumors indicate that single-lens zoom technologies may be arriving in Apple’s more distant future.

For now, if the iPhone 7 Plus camera turns out to be as good as the rumors suggest, it will be a happy day for me. It will also assuredly hasten the demise of most, if not all, consumer stand-alone cameras. Perhaps there’s a eulogy to write after all.

Adieu to my Mac Pro

Posted on by

I finally did it. After months of internal debate, and many wild swings back and forth, the needle at last crossed the critical threshold. A decision has been made. I bought a new desktop Mac. It arrives next week.

For those interested in the tech specs, I purchased a top-end 5K iMac, with an upgraded processor, 16GB of RAM and the 512GB SSD. To handle additional storage requirements, I have an OWC ThunderBay, which will house the drives currently in my Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro in question is a “cheese grater” model from 2009. You heard correctly. This powerhouse has been my primary computer for the last seven (7) years! I’m using it right now to compose this article. This is, by far, a personal record. I haven’t kept another Mac on my desk for more than three years since I bought by first Mac back in 1984.

How did my Mac Pro manage to survive so long? Mainly because of its superb and easily accessible internal expansion options (4 hard drive bays, 2 optical drive bays, RAM slots and PCI card slots). This far exceeds anything that Apple currently offers (Apple has essentially eliminated internal expansion from its line-up). Expansion capability has  allowed me to keep pace with the most critical technological advances. Over the years, I’ve upgraded the RAM, added newer higher capacity hard drives and an SSD drive. While still not as fast as current top-end Macs, my Mac Pro remains fast enough to comfortably move along as I do demanding tasks such as editing iMovie files.

Sure, it’s missing some niceties — no Thunderbolt, no USB-3, no Retina display. And it’s a relatively noisy heat-generating behemoth that can warm up my office better than a space heater. But it gets the job done.

As for software, Apple still supports this Mac Pro for running the latest El Capitan version of OS X. It doesn’t support every new feature; it won’t work with Continuity for example. And when I compare it to my wife’s 2014 iMac, it’s clear that the Mac Pro’s software/hardware combination is significantly more prone to bugs and glitches. But it runs and works very well most of the time.

On the one side, the thought of losing the Mac Pro’s internal expansion options held me back from upgrading. On the other side, the promise of forthcoming major hardware additions, such as Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C, similarly convinced me to keep delaying an upgrade. Plus, I was immobilized by indecision as to which storage option to choose: Fusion drive vs. one of the SSD drives.

But, in the end, I decided it was time to move on. The lure of the current new technology finally brought me to the tipping point. The speed and upgraded capabilities of the Skylake processor, the new super-fast SSD drive, the incredible Retina display — all packaged in an attractive compact lightweight design — I could no longer resist. Seven years was long enough. If a much improved iMac comes along later this year, I’ll worry about that when the time comes. I’m ready for a change now!

Still, I’ll miss my old Mac Pro. We’ve been together for a long time. So, before we part, allow me to bid the machine one last fond farewell: So long old friend. It’s been great knowing you. I doubt we will ever see the likes of you again.

After the Oscar boycott, then what?

Posted on by

Something’s rotten in Hollywood.

For the past two years, not one person of color has received an Academy Award nomination for acting. In protest, several prominent members of the film industry (including Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith) have called for a boycott of the Awards ceremony.

One could make an argument that the recent nominations don’t represent a consistent bias. You could for example point out that, in the years from 2001-2006, the Best Actor award went to a person of color three times (Jamie Foxx, Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker). During that same stretch, Will Smith, Terrence Howard, Don Cheadle and Ben Kingsley were all nominated.

But that was more the exception than the rule. There hasn’t been anything close to that ever since. While the situation may not be as dire as some suggest, I believe a problem does exist.

Even if we agree with the motivation behind the boycott, some thorny questions remain: What are people hoping to achieve by the boycott? What specific changes would be required to call off the boycott or at least not boycott again next year?

The most obvious answer seems simple enough: Have people of color get the nominations they deserve.

But it’s not quite that simple.

It’s too late to change this year’s nominations. So there’s no chance that this will end the boycott. It’s also just about impossible to imagine the Academy saying or doing anything in the next few weeks that would be radical enough to get the boycott cancelled.

So…a boycott is almost certain to happen this year. Some people will be skipping this year’s ceremony in protest.

Okay. But then what? What can be done to prevent a recurrence of the boycott next year?

Perhaps a few people of color will get nominated next year. Will that be the end of it? Maybe. But, as I’ve already pointed out, there have been years previous where people of color were nominated. That didn’t prevent what happened these past two years. So, no matter who gets nominated next year, there is no guarantee that it signals a long term shift. So what else should be done?

I doubt that anyone wants an “affirmative action” solution — one that would require a certain minimum number of people of color be nominated each year — regardless of the relative quality of their work. That would be at least as unfair as what now exists.

There is also the danger of a slippery slope here. Once you start imposing such rules, where does it stop? Many people complained that Carol did not get a Best Picture nomination this year. Speculation was that this was due to sexism —  because women were in all Carol’s major roles. Is this answer here that the Academy be required to nominate at least one film that features women in the lead roles? I think not.

More generally, with Academy members voting via secret ballots, there seems no way to guarantee a desired outcome — any more than you could in a government election. The longer term solution, it seems to me, is to alter the composition of the Academy voters…which (as has been frequently pointed out) is currently made up predominantly of older white males. But this takes time, perhaps years.

Even here, a knotty problem remains. Since the Academy members are drawn from the people who do the work of making films, getting an increase in minority, female and younger members would likely require an increase in the number of those people working in films (and I don’t mean just actors here). Adding more knots, membership requires a recognition of one’s status by the very (potentially biased) people who are already in the Academy. As stated in the rules for actors as potential members:

“Membership shall be by invitation of the Board of Governors.  Invitations to active membership shall be limited to those persons active in the motion picture arts and sciences, or credited with screen achievements, or who have otherwise achieved distinction in the motion picture arts and sciences and who, in the opinion of the Board, are qualified for membership.”

If the Board is biased, due in part to the current composition of its members, it will be hard for the Academy membership to change under the current rules. Perhaps there should be more objective criteria for membership, not so dependent on the “opinion of the Board.”

Still, the ultimate cause is higher up the chain. If the power structure in Hollywood is predominately white male, it likely makes it harder for people of color (and, to a similar extent, women) to achieve positions of power. This, in turn, likely makes it harder for people of color to get hired for the best acting roles. This is similar to the point that Spike Lee has made: you can’t give an award to a black person who never is given a chance to be cast in a role for which they might have won. You can’t give a Best Picture award to a movie that features black actors if that movie never gets made.

Even if you believe that the best actors this year were the ones that got nominated and there was no bias in the award selection process, the probability remains that a bias exists due to hiring decisions that trickle down from the very top.

Until the power structure in Hollywood changes, it’s difficult to see a happy ending here. Unfortunately, this is another thing that isn’t likely to happen with great haste. Many other industries, such as the tech industry (with which I am more familiar) are still struggling to resolve similar issues — such as how to get more women in positions of executive power or get jobs as entry level engineers. It hasn’t been easy.

So…by all means boycott the Academy Awards this year. But while you’re doing that, give some thought to what might realistically be done to make the situation better…so that there isn’t a reason to have another boycott next year. If you have a good idea, now’s the time to speak up.