Hardware specs after more than a decade

[martin_k13]

Dear all,

I own a late-2009 iMac, which is still working and a great job. Recently I noticed that many applications require a more recent Mac OS, that's the reason I think about an upgrade.

However, the specs of today's iMac and Mac mini computers are disappointing. 8GB of RAM seems to be the default selection. My old iMac has 16GB. 256GB of SSD storage is also default on most models. My old iMac has 1 TB. It's possible to configure more, but Apple has steep prices, 1TB next to 16GB of memory adds almost 1000€ to the standard models.

Why is that? After more than one decade of progress, the specs of newer models seem to be disappointing. I'm sure computing power has increased a lot, but memory consumption definitely increased in all aspects. Why are today's standards so low? Any comments?

Martin

 

[Brian OReilly]

Hi Martin

Good points you make...

But, the architecture of the newer Macs means that we need to readjust our perceptions.

I have a fully loaded MacPro 2012 model with 64GB of RAM. It is totally matched by my Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM.

Forget the perception as to how much RAM is needed - the reality is that Apple know what they are doing. I can, as a (pointless) test, open every application on my machine in a breeze.

Storage? Now that's a different matter. I tend to use the internal storage for the OS and current work. Everything else is stored on larger external drives using various connection standards.

My advice - 16GB Mac mini will cover most photo requirements

Hope this helps

Brian

 

[Tom_N]

Dear all,

I own a late-2009 iMac, which is still working and a great job. Recently I noticed that many applications require a more recent Mac OS, that's the reason I think about an upgrade.

However, the specs of today's iMac and Mac mini computers are disappointing. 8GB of RAM seems to be the default selection. My old iMac has 16GB.

All stock Late 2009 iMacs came with 4 GB of RAM; 16 GB is the official maximum.



Today's Apple Silicon Macs can have anywhere from 8 GB of RAM to 128 GB of RAM – depending on the SoC. All of the stock models that have 8 GB of RAM are based upon the entry-level M1 and entry-level M2 chips.

256GB of SSD storage is also default on most models. My old iMac has 1 TB.

The Late 2009 iMacs had HDDs. Current Macs use SSDs, which are much, much faster. Both HDDs and SSDs have gotten better over time (higher capacity, lower cost per GB), but in general, SSDs cost more per GB than HDDs.

There have been a lot of posts about "slow" SSDs in M2 machines with the base 256 GB SSD. In terms of sequential reads and writes, those "slow" SSDs are probably 8x to 10x faster than the HDD in your iMac, and at least 2x faster than USB 3 / SATA 3 SSDs. They will also slaughter any HDD in terms of suitability for use as startup drives.

 

[Tom_N]

Some more data points:

Late 2009 Minis came with 2 GB or 4 GB of RAM. The official maximum was 4 GB, although MacTracker says you can go up to 8 GB. M2 Minis come with 8 GB (default), 16 GB, or 24 GB. M2 Pro Minis come with 16 GB (default) or 32 GB.

2009 and 2010 MacBook Airs came with 2 GB (default), non-expandable. The 2010 MacBook Airs could have 4 GB, but only if you custom-ordered it.

 

[lightandaprayer]

In 2023 you can do a lot with only 8GB RAM in an Apple Silicon Mac. . . However, depending on what you are doing, the system is going to doing a lot of writing to disk because of the limited RAM.

For example, I have a 2018 Intel Mac Mini with 8GB RAM and a 512GB SSD. (My 2012 Mini has 16GB.) I've been running the 2018 Mini daily for a little over 2 1/2 years. According to Drive Dx it has 99% of its lifetime remaining, with a current total of 13TB of data units written.

On the other hand, my wife has a 2020 M1 Mac Mini with 8GB RAM/256GB SSD. It's been her daily user for 1 1/2 years now. . . The SSD lifetime remaining indicator is at 94% with 92.2 TB written. Heck if I can figure out what she is doing to rack up that many writes to disk!

In both cases we are only doing basic computing processes. I used my Mac more before retiring but even then I did only basic image edits because the kind of photography I did didn't require more. (My timing was such that I was able to avoid doing video, which isn't my thing at all.)

I suppose that the moral of the story is that if you have less RAM you may wind up using up your SSD faster. RAM vs. SSD. . . One way or the other, Apple is going to extract additional $ from our pockets. ;-)

 

[kelpdiver]

Why is that? After more than one decade of progress, the specs of newer models seem to be disappointing. I'm sure computing power has increased a lot, but memory consumption definitely increased in all aspects. Why are today's standards so low? Any comments?

A lot? The typical iphone has more RAM, higher resolution, more and vastly better compute capability than the 2009 Imac had. The desktops rip it to pieces. Even in interactive use like a web browser, the difference is responsiveness should be rather noticeable.

If you have one with 16gb of memory, someone paid a small fortune back then, or was able to upgrade it themselves. For better and worse, the M1/M2 have soldered memory and storage. This lets it be smaller and faster, but not user serviceable, so you get to pay the vendor dearly. Same is true with Dell or HP, but there you may be able to DIY it.

 

[Tom_N]

If you have one with 16gb of memory, someone paid a small fortune back then, or was able to upgrade it themselves.

The Late 2009 iMacs had four user-accessible RAM slots.

My memory's hazy – but I believe that at the time, 16 GB of RAM would have cost you $1000 from a third-party supplier; probably more from Apple. My 27" Late 2009 iMac (based on the $1999) model cost $2649 – the extra $650 went for upgrades from 4 GB of RAM and a 1 TB HDD to 8 GB of RAM and a 2 TB HDD.

For better and worse, the M1/M2 have soldered memory and storage. This lets it be smaller and faster, but not user serviceable, so you get to pay the vendor dearly. Same is true with Dell or HP, but there you may be able to DIY it.

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I bought a 27" iMac in 2010. See order confirmation below.





Add on the VAT at 17.5% and the total cost was £1656.92.

A base config 24" (can't get a 27") iMac today with iTB SSD would cost me £1799 inc. VAT

Not a lot of difference for a huge leap in technology and power. Inflation alone over the 12 years since would have added 25% to the price; I'd say Apple now sell a vastly more powerful machine for less.

--
Nick on the Baltic

 

[Gesture]

Apple tax.

$200 to go from 256GB to 512 GB internal storage.

Now, what does a 256 GB SSD cost these days. I am seeing 2 TB NVMe SSDs for $120 on sale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gesture]

The SSD lifetime remaining indicator is at 94% with 92.2 TB written. Heck if I can figure out what she is doing to rack up that many writes to disk!

How do you determine that? Thanks.

Realistically, I have given up and don't expect any Mac I buy these days, even expensive ones, to have the life span I am used to with Macs. My 2012 Mac Mini was just fine until Apple had more and more security issues.

 

[lightandaprayer]

The SSD lifetime remaining indicator is at 94% with 92.2 TB written. Heck if I can figure out what she is doing to rack up that many writes to disk!

How do you determine that? Thanks.

At the moment I do not know how but I am going to try and find out. . . If I come up with anything I'll come back and share what I learned. If not in this thread, I'll start another one.

 

[Gesture]

Thanks.

 

[Mike Boreham]

The SSD lifetime remaining indicator is at 94% with 92.2 TB written. Heck if I can figure out what she is doing to rack up that many writes to disk!

How do you determine that? Thanks.

At the moment I do not know how but I am going to try and find out. . . If I come up with anything I'll come back and share what I learned. If not in this thread, I'll start another one.

There is a 142 page thread on MR on the topic. To save you reading it there are no simple answers, many causes, no consistency, huge variations in experience, Swap is one factor for same but not for many others.

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

 

[D Saul]

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Mike,

Can you elaborate on the terminal methods?

 

[Mike Boreham]

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Mike,

Can you elaborate on the terminal methods?

https://github.com/jamesdbailey/smartTBW

https://www.macworld.com/article/334283/how-to-m1-intel-mac-ssd-health-terminal-smartmontools.html

The first is probably simplest/

 

[D Saul]

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Mike,

Can you elaborate on the terminal methods?

https://github.com/jamesdbailey/smartTBW

https://www.macworld.com/article/334283/how-to-m1-intel-mac-ssd-health-terminal-smartmontools.html

The first is probably simplest/

Thanks for the link, but even though I'm somewhat computer savvy, figuring out how to run the smartTBW file is beyond me!

 

[Mike Boreham]

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Mike,

Can you elaborate on the terminal methods?

https://github.com/jamesdbailey/smartTBW

https://www.macworld.com/article/334283/how-to-m1-intel-mac-ssd-health-terminal-smartmontools.html

The first is probably simplest/

Thanks for the link, but even though I'm somewhat computer savvy, figuring out how to run the smartTBW file is beyond me!

You sound on a par with me! I had trouble but succeeded. Here is a comment I made on that thread about the SmartTBW app which may help. Not sure you need Terminal for it. I can't try out on my Mac at the moment.

The author is jdb167 on MR so if you search "SmartTBW" by author "jdb8167" you will see any other tips.

 

[D Saul]

will check this out, thanks!

 

[lightandaprayer]

There is a 142 page thread on MR on the topic. To save you reading it there are no simple answers, many causes, no consistency, huge variations in experience, Swap is one factor for same but not for many others.

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Hey Mike. . . Thanks for the heads-up. Your synopsis sums it up very nicely (I hope you didn't read the entire MacRumors thread!).

But I already spent part of last evening getting reacquainted with this brouhaha, which I had conveniently forgotten about after the initial rush of online chatter

Fortunately, I immediately stumbled upon a more succinct discussion (3 pages) on the official Apple Forum which lead me to pretty much the same conclusion as you: M1 SSD high read and write usage per smartctl .

Some of the user experiences are on the extreme side of the spectrum, where it appears that their brand new Mac's SSD could become compromised with a couple of years. My wife's MBA isn't even close to what they are seeing. . .

If the Mac is out of warranty the owner could be looking at paying for a new computer (I can't imagine that a repair would be cost-effective or if it can be done at all.) Apple's lack of communication on the subject of SSD lifespan (much like its silence regarding certain anti-malware protocols) certainly does not help.

In my further online meanderings I did find the info about the disparity between SMART reporting by various utilities like DriveDx interesting, not to mention the lack of support by hardware companies. (I'm not the only one who has been frustrated by the lack of SMART compatibility and external USB drives/enclosures.)

For my part, I supplemented DriveDx with Activity Monitor to obtain a broader picture of what might be going on. But just for kicks I think that I will try smartctl on the MBA to see how much it agrees with Drive Dx.

At any rate, here are a couple more articles on SMART monitoring including free and commercial options:

Monitoring SSD wear and ageing Howard Oakley at The Eclectic Light Company

S.M.A.R.T.ypants Howard Oakley Note: SMARTreporter is no longer available via the App Store. But it can be downloaded here .

 

[Mike Boreham]

There is a 142 page thread on MR on the topic. To save you reading it there are no simple answers, many causes, no consistency, huge variations in experience, Swap is one factor for same but not for many others.

As LightandPrayer said, the simplest way of seeing the SSD life used is DriveDx but there are free terminal methods.

Hey Mike. . . Thanks for the heads-up. Your synopsis sums it up very nicely (I hope you didn't read the entire MacRumors thread!).

But I already spent part of last evening getting reacquainted with this brouhaha, which I had conveniently forgotten about after the initial rush of online chatter

Fortunately, I immediately stumbled upon a more succinct discussion (3 pages) on the official Apple Forum which lead me to pretty much the same conclusion as you: M1 SSD high read and write usage per smartctl .

Some of the user experiences are on the extreme side of the spectrum, where it appears that their brand new Mac's SSD could become compromised with a couple of years. My wife's MBA isn't even close to what they are seeing. . .

If the Mac is out of warranty the owner could be looking at paying for a new computer (I can't imagine that a repair would be cost-effective or if it can be done at all.) Apple's lack of communication on the subject of SSD lifespan (much like its silence regarding certain anti-malware protocols) certainly does not help.

In my further online meanderings I did find the info about the disparity between SMART reporting by various utilities like DriveDx interesting, not to mention the lack of support by hardware companies. (I'm not the only one who has been frustrated by the lack of SMART compatibility and external USB drives/enclosures.)

For my part, I supplemented DriveDx with Activity Monitor to obtain a broader picture of what might be going on. But just for kicks I think that I will try smartctl on the MBA to see how much it agrees with Drive Dx.

At any rate, here are a couple more articles on SMART monitoring including free and commercial options:

Monitoring SSD wear and ageing Howard Oakley at The Eclectic Light Company

S.M.A.R.T.ypants Howard Oakley Note: SMARTreporter is no longer available via the App Store. But it can be downloaded here .

Thanks.

I have read most of the pages over the two and quarter years since it started!

There are some major discussions within the thread about:-

1. Are the the third party apps obtaining the correct TBW data ?

2. Are the third party apps using correct life criteria for Apple SSDs ?

The answer to both is pretty convincingly yes. The second one wasn't resolved until someone discovered the "percentage of life used" deep within the Mac Analytics Data section in Console. The Apple number is the same as the DriveDx number.

My own monitoring of SSD life and TBW revealed a quite extraordinary event that I wasn't aware of at the time. My M1 MBA wrote 28TB in a single 31 hour burst as detailed here . Later other people also reported single very high write bursts.