Upgrading an M4 Pro Mac mini's storage for half the price
208 comments
·July 11, 2025dylan604
bob1029
The latency of modern NVMe is what really blows my mind (as low as 20~30 uS). NVMe is about an order of magnitude quicker than SAS and SATA.
This is why I always recommend developers try using SQLite on top of NVMe storage. The performance is incredible. I don't think you would see query times anywhere near 20uS with a hosted SQL solution, even if it's on the same machine using named pipes or other IPC mechanism.
Numerlor
Then there's optane that got ~10us with. The newest controllers and nand is inching closer with randoms but optane is still the most miraculous ssd tech that's normally obtainable
robaato
But they've retired it??
adastra22
Optane is no longer available :(
teaearlgraycold
Eventually we'll have machines with unified memory+storage. You'll certainly have to take a bit of a performance hit in certain scenarios but also think about the load time improvements. If you store video game files in the same format they'd be needed at runtime you could be at the main menu in under a second.
jorvi
It's not really the SSDs themselves that are incredibly fast (they still are somewhat), it's mostly the RAM cache and clever tricks to make TLC feel like SLC.
Most (cheap) SSDs their performance goes off a cliff once you hit the boundary of these tricks.
forrestthewoods
> once you hit the boundary of these trick
Tell me more. When do I hit the boundary? What is perf before/after said boundary? What are the tricks?
Tell me something actionable. Educate me.
jdiff
Your tone is quite odd here. I'm having difficulty parsing your intention, but I'm going to assume you're being genuine because why not.
For the RAM cache, you hit the boundaries when you exhaust the RAM cache. It performs faster, but is smaller and once full, data has to be off/loaded at the rate of the slower backing NAND. It might not be RAM, either, sometimes faster SLC NAND is used for the cache.
It's not really possible to describe it much more concretely than that beyond what you've already been told, performance falls off a cliff when that happens. How long "it" takes, what the level of performance is before and after, it all depends on the device.
There are many more tricks that SSD manufacturers use, but caching is the only one I know of related to speed so I'll leave the rest in the capable hands of Google.
dylan604
[flagged]
redman25
It can be good to know that SSDs are fast until you exhaust the cache by copying gigs of files around.
It doesn’t hurt to be aware of the limitations even if for the common case things are much better.
jorvi
Not sure what warranted such an aggressive response.
I grew up in the 90s, on 56kb modems and PCs that rumbled and whined when you booted them up. I was at the tail end of using floppies.
I never said I didn't love the speed of SSDs, and when they just started to become mainstream it was an upgrade I did for everyone around me. I made my comment in part because you mentioned dumping 4K into the SSD and/or editing it. It can be a nasty surprise if you're doing something live, and suddenly your throughout plummets, everything starts to stutter and you have no idea why.
geerlingguy
This hits home even more since I started restoring some vintage Macs.
For the ones new enough to get an SSD upgrade, it's night and day the difference (even a Power Mac G4 can feel fresh and fast just swapping out the drive). For older Macs like PowerBooks and classic Macs, there are so many SD/CF card to IDE/SCSI/etc. adapters now, they also get a significant boost.
But part of the nostalgia of sitting there listening to the rumble of the little hard drive is gone.
SpecialistK
I've just finished CF swapping a PowerBook 1400cs/117. It's a base model with 12MB RAM, so there are other bottlenecks, but OS 8.1 takes about 90 seconds from power to desktop and that's pretty good for a low-end machine with a fairly heavy OS.
Somehow the 750MB HDD from 1996 is still working, but I admit that the crunch and rumble of HDDs is a nostalgia I'm happy to leave in the past.
My 1.67 PowerBook G4 screams with a 256GB mSATA SSD-IDE adapter. Until you start compiling code or web surfing, it still feels like a pretty modern machine. I kind of wish I didn't try the same upgrade on a iBook G3, though...
hollandheese
>I kind of wish I didn't try the same upgrade on a iBook G3, though...
Oh god. Those were the worst things ever to upgrade the hard drive. Just reading this gave me a nightmare flashback to having to keep track of all the different screws. This is why my vintage G3 machine is a Pismo instead of an iBook.
thepryz
I just picked up a 1.5GHz Powerbook G4 12-inch in mint condition. RAM is maxed out but I've been putting off the SSD-IDE upgrade because of how intrusive it is and many screws are involved.
thecosas
> But part of the nostalgia of sitting there listening to the rumble of the little hard drive is gone.
I remember this being a key troubleshooting step. Listen/feel for the hum of the hard drive OR the telltale click clack, grinding, etc that foretold doom.
dylan604
Thank the gawds we no longer have to worry about the click of death
dylan604
I had a 2011 MBP that I kept running by replacing the HDD with an SSD, and then removed the DVD-ROM drive with a second SSD. The second SSD had throughput limits because it was designed for shiny round disc, so it had a lower ability chip. I had that until the 3rd GPU replacement died, and eventually switched to second gen butterfly keyboard. The only reason it was tolerable was because of the SSDs, oh and the RAM upgrades
geerlingguy
Did you ever have the GPU issue? My sister had a 2011, I had to desolder a resistor (or maybe two?) on it to bypass the dGPU since it was causing it to boot loop. But now it's still running and pretty happily for some basic needs!
starkparker
While these are geared toward retrocomputing, there are things that attempt to simulate the sound based on activity LEDs: https://www.serdashop.com/HDDClicker
brailsafe
> For older Macs like PowerBooks and classic Macs, there are so many SD/CF card to IDE/SCSI/etc.
Would those be bandwidth limited by the adapter/card or CPU? Can you get throughput higher than say, a cheap 2.5" SSD over Sata 3/4?
eptcyka
You are limited at first by the IDE/SCSI interface, so below SATA speeds.
lvl155
You should try now-discontinued Intel Optane especially p5800x. I got my OS running on them and they are incredible.
MrDrMcCoy
I'm running 12 of them for ZFS cache/log/special, and they are fast/tough enough to make a large array on a slow link feel fast. I shake my fist at Intel and Micron for taking away one of the best memory technologies to ever exist.
OptionOfT
The endurance on those drivers is amazing.
I have (stupidly) used a too small Samsung EVO drive as a caching drive, and that is probably the first computer part that I've worn out (bar a mouse & keyboard).
the8472
Just a few more years until we get MRAM as viable storage technology. And affordable fusion, and hovercars.
gchamonlive
> I come from the old days of striping 16 HDDs together (at a minimum number) to get 1GB/s throughput
Woah, how long would that last before you'd start having to replace the drives?
nordsieck
If you're interested in some hard data, Backblaze publishes their HD failure numbers[1]. These disks are storage optimized, not performance optimized like the parent comment, but they have a pretty large collection of various hard drives, and it's pretty interesting to see how reliability can vary dramatically across brand and model.
---
1. https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive...
dylan604
The Backblaze reports are impressive. It would have been very handy to know which models to buy. They break it down to capacity of the same family of drives so a 2TB might be sound, but the 4TB might be more flaky. That information is very useful when it comes time to think about upgrading capacity in the arrays. Having someone go through these battles and then give away the data learned would just be dumb to not take advantage of their generosity.
dylan604
Depending on the HDD vendor/model. We had hot spares and cold spares. On one build, we had a bad batch of drives. We built the array on a Friday, and left it for burn-in running over the weekend. On Monday, we came in to a bunch of alarms and >50% failure rate. At least they died during the burn-in so no data loss, but it was an extreme example. That was across multiple 16-bay rack mount chassis. It was an infamous case though, we were not alone.
More typically, you'd have a drive die much less frequently, but it was something you absolutely had to be prepared for. With RAID-6 and a hot spare, you could be okay with a single drive failure. Theoretically, you could lose two, but it would be a very nervy day getting the array to rebuild without issue.
gchamonlive
I asked because I did a makeshift NAS for myself with three 4tb ironwolf, but they died before the third year. I didn't investigate much, but it was most likely because of power outages and a lack of a nobreak PSU at that time. It's still quite a bit of work to maintain physical hard drives and the probability of failure as I understand tend to increase the more units the array has because of inverse probability (not the likelihood of one of them failing but the likelihood of none of them failing after a period of time, which is cumulative)
wslh
So, now someone can strip several SSDs to gain more performance as well for other purposes than video editing, right?
AStonesThrow
[dead]
GeekyBear
The article speculates on why Apple integrates the SSD controller onto the SOC for their A and M series chips, but misses one big reason, data integrity.
About a decade and a half ago, Apple paid half a billion dollars to acquire the patents of a company making enterprise SSD controllers.
> Anobit appears to be applying a lot of signal processing techniques in addition to ECC to address the issue of NAND reliability and data retention. In its patents there are mentions of periodically refreshing cells whose voltages may have drifted, exploiting some of the behaviors of adjacent cells and generally trying to deal with the things that happen to NAND once it's been worn considerably.
Through all of these efforts, Anobit is promising significant improvements in NAND longevity and reliability.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/5258/apple-acquires-anobit-br...
throw0101c
> The article speculates on why Apple integrates the SSD controller onto the SOC for their A and M series chips, but misses one big reason, data integrity.
If they're really interested with data integrity they should add checksums to APFS.
If you don't have RAID you can't rebuild corrupted data, but at least you know there's a problem and perhaps restore from Time Machine.
For metadata, you may have multiple copies, so can use a known-good one (this is how ZFS works: some things have multiple copies 'inherently' because they're so important).
Edit:
> Apple File System uses checksums to ensure data integrity for metadata but not for the actual user data, relying instead on error-correcting code (ECC) mechanisms in the storage hardware.[18]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System#Data_integri...
GeekyBear
> If they're really interested with data integrity they should add checksums to APFS.
Or you can spend half a billion dollars to solve the issue in hardware.
As one of the creators of ZFS wrote when APFS was announced:
> Explicitly not checksumming user data is a little more interesting. The APFS engineers I talked to cited strong ECC protection within Apple storage devices. Both NAND flash SSDs and magnetic media HDDs use redundant data to detect and correct errors. The Apple engineers contend that Apple devices basically don't return bogus data.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/a-zfs-developers-ana...
APFS keeps redundant copies and checksums for metadata, but doesn't constantly checksum files looking for changes any more than NTFS does.
throw0101c
> Or you can spend half a billion dollars to solve the issue in hardware.
And hope that your hardware/firmware doesn't ever get bugs.
Or you can do checksumming at the hardware layer and checksumming at the software/FS layer. Protection in depth.
ZFS has caught issues from hardware, like when LBA 123 is requested but LBA 456 is delivered: the hardware-level checksum for LBA 456 was fine, and so it was passed up the stack, but it wasn't actually the data that was asked for. See Bryan Cantrill's talk "Zebras All the way Down":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE2KDzZaxvE
And if checksums are not needed for a particular use-case, make them toggleable: even ZFS has a set checksums=off option. My problem is not having the option at all.
protimewaster
That solution doesn't help anyone who's using external storage, though, so it kinda feels like a half billion dollars spent on a limited solution.
sitkack
That is a weak excuse to rely on data integrity in the hardware. They most likely had that feature and removed it so they wouldn't be liable for a class action lawsuit when it turns out the NAND ages out due to bug in the retention algorithm. NTFS is what, 35 years old at this point? Odd comparison.
brookst
Believing that giant companies are monolithic “theys” leads to all sorts of fallacies.
Odds are very good that totally different people work on the architecture of AFS and SoC design.
dylan604
Even still, those people report to people that report to people until you eventually get to the person in charge of the full product.
bell-cot
Worth noting, for ZFS - you can use the "copies" property of the dataset to save 2 or (usually) 3 separate copies of your data to the drive(s).
wpm
Note that this isn't too long after Apple abandoned efforts to bring ZFS into Mac OS X as a potential default filesystem. Patents were probably a good reason, given the Oracle buyout of Sun, but also a bit of "skating to where the puck will be" and realizing that the spinning rust ZFS was built for probably wasn't going to be in their computers for much longer.
throw0101c
> Patents were probably a good reason, given the Oracle buyout of Sun
There is no reason to speculate as the reason is know (as stated by Jeff Bonwick, one of the co-inventors of ZFS):
>> Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms.
> I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it.
* https://archive.is/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs...
* https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pi...
dylan604
How is it known when the quote you gave says "may be" which implies it's not known and is speculation on their part as well?
GeekyBear
When Apple announced the creation of APFS they mentioned that their intent was to handle data integrity at the hardware level.
throw0101c
See:
> Apple File System uses checksums to ensure data integrity for metadata but not for the actual user data, relying instead on error-correcting code (ECC) mechanisms in the storage hardware.[18]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System#Data_integri...
kjkjadksj
More evidence they thought hdds were on their way out was the unibody macbook keynote. They made a big deal about how the user can access their hdd from the latch on the bottom without any tools as they said ssd was on the horizon.
vlovich123
Not just durability. Performance too. Apple has a much better SSD controller that is vertically integrated into the stack.
pkaye
Do Apple SSDs have a much longer longevity and reliability? I've not looked at the specific patents nor am I an expert on signal processing but I've worked on SSD controllers and NAND manufacturers in the past and they had their own similar ideas as this.
fckgw
From my experience working on Mac laptops, yeah. SSD failures are incredibly rare but on the flip side when they do go out repairs are very costly.
I know if my previous job at a large hard drive manufacturer we had special Apple drives that ran different parts and firmware than the regular PC drives. Their specs and tolerances where much different than the PC market at a whole.
rasz
Main reason was capturing 100% of storage upsell/upgrade money. They did same thing with RAM.
jeffbee
> Through all of these efforts, Anobit is promising significant improvements in NAND longevity and reliability.
Every flash controller does this. Modern NAND is just math on a stick. Lots and lots of math.
dontlaugh
Presumably Apple want to be able to guarantee the quality of such logic.
Still sucks that you can’t use standard parts.
daneel_w
Contrary to popular belief, you can run many different off-the-shelf brand NVMe drives on all of the NVMe-fitted Intel Macs. All you need is a passive adapter. My 2017 MacBook Air has a 250GB WD Blue SN570 in it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/upgrading-2013-2015-mac...
jeffbee
Sure, and I agree with that goal. In fact I would like NVMe controllers to simply not exist. The operating system should manage raw flash, using host algorithms that I can study in the the source code.
Andrew_nenakhov
Non upgradeable storage and ram is ridiculous.
Interestingly, when M4 mac mini went on sale, version with 32GB RAM/1TB drive was priced exactly 2x as 16GB RAM / 512GB drive version. This kinda implies that Apple sells only RAM and storage, and gives away the rest for free.
FireBeyond
There is someone on YT (Doctor Feng, or similar, though I can't find) who literally will have people ship him entry level iPhones/iPads/MBPs, etc, and he'll upgrade them to 4 and 8 TB SSDs. And create ASMR videos of the process.
Even with upgradable memory:
When I bought my "cheesegrater" Mac Pro, I wanted 8TB of SSD.
Except Apple wanted $3,000 for 7TB of SSD (considering the sticker price came with a baseline of 1TB).
I bought a 4xM.2 card and 4x2TB Samsung Pro SSDs, which cost me $1,300. However, I kept the 1TB "system" SSD, which was faster, at 6.8GBps versus the system drive's 5.5 GBps.
Similar to memory. OWC literally sells the same memory as Apple (same manufacturer, same specifications). Apple also wanted $3,000 for 160GB of memory (going from 32 to 192). I paid $1,000.
radley
I bought one during their preorder period. The first SSD started to fail due to overheating. I just received and installed the replacement this week. Fingers crossed that it will be okay.
Important note: the seller provides no warranty for the SSDs. I was fortunate that they offered a 1-year warranty when I bought mine, but that is no longer the case now. $700 is a pretty big risk when there's no warranty.
FWIW, the non-Pro-compatible SSDs were overpriced initially as well, but they came down in price as they became more prevalent. Wait a few months, and we'll probably see the same with Pro-compatible SSDs.
yread
700$ for 4TB! Getting robbed in broad daylight and writing a happy blogpost about it
tuananh
> I was provided the $699 M4 Pro 4TB SSD upgrade by M4-SSD. It's quite expensive (especially compared to normal 4TB NVMe SSDs, which range from $200-400)...
pjmlp
Yes, that kind of culture is why while I appreciate many of Apple's technologies, I rather let customers or employers provide hardware if they feel so inclined for me to use Apple.
Privately it is all about Linux/Windows/Android.
Very good insights,
kevincox
Getting robbed less is better than getting robbed more.
master_crab
True. But I don't know if I’d be gleeful if the robber left me the credit cards and took the cash.
Looks like you also have to do the upgrade yourself (so it’s not all just cash money being forked over).
apparent
Also surely voids AppleCare, if you have it.
flkenosad
[flagged]
encom
Behold the power of the Reality Distortion Field. Apple marketing is insane.
teaearlgraycold
Custom low volume hardware is going to be more expensive.
dewey
I did the same a few weeks ago (https://blog.notmyhostna.me/posts/ssd-upgrade-for-mac-mini-m...), usually I’m far into the “just pay for convenience” camp but this was so easy to do and the price difference was just too big.
Saving $500 for 30 min of actual work that’s also easily reversible if needed for a support case is too good to ignore.
gigatexal
Not worth the hassle and the faffing. Just pay Apple their tax. Your time is far more valuable. And if it’s not then you have bigger fish to fry.
Dylan16807
> Your time is far more valuable.
Damn I wis--
> And if it’s not then you have bigger fish to fry.
You make it sound like anyone in tech that isn't making giant piles of money screwed up their career.
And if I take that literally, wouldn't I have to be making at least a thousand dollars an hour?
radley
Dunno... $500 for 30 minutes of fun work?
To be fair, I did this upgrade and actually ended up wasting several hours because the first SSD failed after a few weeks.
hollerith
That is a sensible attitude, but some of us welcome an excuse to get out the box of tools and take something physical apart.
bigyabai
Apple won't upgrade the storage for you aftermarket, as far as I'm aware. There's no tax you can pay them to take your current machine and bump the spec.
Frankly, this is exactly the sort of head-up-ass attitude that will end with Apple being smacked around by investigatory commissions like what happened to John Deere and Microsoft.
Andrew_nenakhov
I'd rather start with replaceable batteries in smartphones.
jeroenhd
You can replace the battery on an iPhone yourself these days. Apple's terrible design makes the process involve shipping specialized hardware to your joke, for which you need to hand over a good chunk of change in collateral to be able to use, but it can be done.
My suspicion for their shitty process is that it was set up purely so Apple can tell regulators "see, consumers can't be trusted to replace their own batteries, look what it takes", but they do offer a programme for it.
The stupidest part about the whole thing is that the official URL looks like a total scam: https://selfservicerepair.com/en-US/home
gandalfian
Mothers mac mini 2014? Slow as a dog, 30 second pauses, became unusable. Extremely tricky to reach the 5400rpm hard disc. Found a third party adaptor could bodge an nvme under the easily removable base flap. Suddenly transformed it to a fast nippy useable machine. (She paid up for the 8gb ram originally). But still rather annoyed that Apple essentially crippled their own product and it could only be fixed by chance. Wasn't a cheap pc...
gpm
Honestly the external option seems a lot better value for the money for almost all use cases. Something like half the cost. No tinkering with the internals of the very expensive thing. You can move it between computers, upgrade the stick in it, etc.
I'm sure there are cases where you really do care about speeds >3GB/s (and USB-4, the port on the mac, should max out at ~5 which is still marginally lower than the internal one). But I doubt they are common. It's hard to process most data in a meaningful way that fast.
whartung
My only nit with that is that with external storage there’s definitely a race when it comes to mounting.
More than once I’ve had, say, Photos complain that it couldn’t find its library because I have apps relaunch on startup, my library has been moved to external storage, and the drive was not ready yet.
Also there’s no guarantee, at least naively, that what was /dev/disk4 on the last boot will be /dev/disk4 on this boot. Normally not necessarily an issue, but if you care about actual drive devices vs volume names, it can be an issue. (And there well be some low level config file wizardry to fix that issue, I just haven’t bothered to research it.)
porphyra
There are also shops in China that will upgrade the SSD in a mac mini for cheaper and they will do all the work of the DFU restore etc.
daneel_w
But Jeff doesn't live in China.
jayd16
Could such a place exist in the US or would Apple shut it down?
kjkjadksj
I think it could since a lot of shade tree iphone repair shops exist. Probably not enough demand to pay for the overhead unlike in china though.
ttul
And when the machine arrives back in the States, it even has a fresh CPC ROM soldered onto the back of the SOC!
hollerith
I'm not a security researcher, but I get the distinct impression that Apple's hardware security is good enough that if you actually had an evil-maid attack on the M4 Pro Mac mini, it would instantly become the hottest news in the security community.
adrian_b
I would not be so sure that Apple's hardware security is good enough, taking into account that for several years it has been possible to take complete control remotely and undetectably over any iPhone, because of a combination of hardware and software bugs.
The Apple Mx CPUs had some secret test registers that allowed the bypassing of all hardware memory protections and which could be accessed by those who were aware of their existence, because they were not disabled after production, as they should have been. Combined with some software bugs in some Apple system libraries, this allowed an attacker to obtain privileged execution rights by sending an invisible message to the iPhone.
It is unknown whether the same secret test registers were also open in the laptop versions of the Apple Mx CPUs. There the invisible message attack route would have been unavailable, but malicious Web pages might have been able to use the same exploit.
This incredible security failure has been hot news for a couple of weeks, together with the long list of CVEs associated with it, and it has been also discussed on HN, but after that it has been quickly forgotten. Now most people still think that the Apple devices have good security, despite their history showing otherwise. I do not think that any other hardware vendor except Apple has been caught with a security bug so dumb as those unprotected hardware test registers.
This was not a theoretical security failure, but it was discovered because some unknown attackers had used it for a long time to spy on some iPhone owners. The attack had been discovered by studying the logs of WiFi access points, which had shown an unusually high outbound traffic coming from the iPhones, which were exfiltrating the acquired data.
FireBeyond
It is mindboggling simple to override Apple MDM and device enrollment for MBPs. In a manner that is one and done, survives upgrades etc.
Two minutes or less, 4 DNS entries.
I'm a lot less convinced than you are of the hardiness of Apple's security.
chvid
Do you actually believe this?
bigyabai
Don't be rude, your NSA ROM gets lonely sometimes.
mmh0000
I feel that you're being downvoted by people who don't know history.
I'll add some references:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
999900000999
Weird product.
For the desktops you can always just plug in an external drive.
That said, SSDs eventually have to go bad.
This is probably more important as a RTR( right to repair ) issue.
wpm
I was quite pleased with the iBoff 2TB SSD I got for my M4 Mini. It's sad how badly Apple has some of us conditioned with the pathetic amounts of storage they include. I haven't had a Mac with more than 512GB of storage, basically, ever? And recently I was on my Mini, digging through some old backups, and hesitated as I normally would downloading a 40GB zip from my NAS, because "oh geeze this is 40GB plus another 40 after decompression, do I have enough space?" because 80GB is normally 15% of my Mac's storage space. Then I remembered, oh yeah, heaps of storage, this'll only cost me 4% of the total. I bought this Mac with the 256GB base SSD knowing I could upgrade, and nearly 40% of the drive was taken up out of the box.
It's pure robbery on Apple's part. Completely beyond the pale now. Their ridiculous RAM and storage prices were never that big of a deal back in the PowerBook/early Macbook Pro days, because you could always opt out if you were a tiny bit handy with a small screwdriver (my 2008 unibody lets me swap storage with *1* screw, swap a battery with zero!). Now? It's unforgivable. I don't care about soldered RAM, I get it, but it is despicable charging as much as the entire computer to upgrade the RAM a paltry 16GB.
There's profit, and there's actively making your entire product experience worse in pursuit of profit. Having to constantly hem and haw over oh god oh geeze do I have enough local storage for this basic task, having to juggle external storage and copying files back and forth (since plenty of their own shit doesn't work if its installed on an external SSD), or constantly deleting and redownloading larger apps, makes the product experience worse. Full stop. At the very least every Mac they sell should have 512GB, if not a TB, stock. I'm tired of acting like SSDs are some insanely expensive luxury like it's 2008 again.
gmanley
The RAM has always been the biggest issue, for me. I'd almost always prefer to have my larger data on an external system. In my case an NAS or several RAID enclosures. Having the data "mobility" is important. My normal workflow is to have my active work on the system in question and then move it back forth as I finish or swap projects. In recent years, I have never maxed out my storage on my Macs. To be fair, I don't work with a bunch of 4K video editing, or other huge datasets, so maybe that's where it becomes more of a problem.
dylan604
man, perspective here is quite funny to me. I just wrote a diatribe about SSD speeds vs my HDD experience in life. At $699 to have 5+GB/s throughput would make a younger me look at you like you had two heads and just walked out of UFO. There's no way it could be that fast/small/cheap in any future without alien tech. I get that Apple's pricing is higher than other options. Even still, it's dirt cheap compared for the performance that allows high-end to consumers.
Even still, I'm a huge fan of taking advantage of the cheaper options with an portable external chassis and a nice thunderbolt cable. While not quite as fast as the internal version, it's still 2+GB/s worth of speed that exceeds my needs/use.
So from my perspective, it's dirt cheap compared to your insanely expensive perspective
wpm
>taking advantage of the cheaper options with an portable external chassis and a nice thunderbolt cable.
This has a number of downsides on macOS. I am well aware of the cheapness of this, but you also get a worse user-experience. I have a huge NAS that I could connect to over 10GbE too, save for no native iSCSI drivers. I have a handful of external SSDs in enclosures, but I can't easily boot off of it (and if I do, certain features of the OS get disabled). I can't easily or reliably move my home folder to it. I can't clean up my desk without buying expensive external "docks" or something that in addition to a standard M.2 SSD, come out to more expensive than the iBoff upgrade. I have to waste my time juggling files back and forth from the external to the internal in situations where I either want to (for faster speeds) or need to (in cases where Apple's software refuses to work if its not on the internal SSD).
Yeah, 20 years ago the thought of 5GB/s for less than a grand was fantasy. It's not fantasy anymore, and it's not 20 years ago. I'm tired of pretending it is to justify these outrageous prices Apple is extracting from their customers.
dylan604
There maybe some Stockholm Syndrome, but to be clear, I'd be much happier with cheaper anything too.
You're also acting like I'm suggesting running the OS from the external. That's just a weird way to think about it. The system drive is just that, for the system and apps and home folder. Media belongs on a different volume. Granted, I'm a media person with professional workflow mentality where the media is never small enough to fit on a system drive. Plus, "back in the day" the media drives were much faster than the system drive. So it's all turned up on its head in that regard
skeezyboy
cant you just install macOs on your own hardware or are they typically Apple in that department as well?
dylan604
Are you familiar with Hackintosh? That's what people did with Intel based platforms. Apple Silicon put an end to the Hackintosh.
MYEUHD
Source? Last year I installed macOS 14 on a Thinkpad X230
delfinom
Hackintosh still exists. macOS 16 will be officially the last x86 supporting release.
But I think it's point, the performance of Hackintosh is terrible for many reasons as its all a hackjob.
nordsieck
> It's pure robbery on Apple's part. Completely beyond the pale now. Their ridiculous RAM and storage prices were never that big of a deal back in the PowerBook/early Macbook Pro days, because you could always opt out if you were a tiny bit handy with a small screwdriver (my 2008 unibody lets me swap storage with 1 screw, swap a battery with zero!). Now? It's unforgivable. I don't care about soldered RAM, I get it, but it is despicable charging as much as the entire computer to upgrade the RAM a paltry 16GB.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you.
But.
I suspect that Apple isn't solely doing this for profit. Apple's pricing structure aggressively funnels people into the base config for each CPU.
Thinking about getting an M4 with upgraded ram? A base config M4 pro starts to look pretty good.
In practice, this means that Apple's logistics is dramatically simplified since 95% of people are ordering a small number of SKUs.
> There's profit, and there's actively making your entire product experience worse in pursuit of profit.
It was really egregious when the base config only came with 8 GB of ram. I'll admit that storage can be a bit tight depending on what you're trying to do, but at least external storage is an option, however ugly and/or inconvenient it may be for some.
int0x29
Don't want to deal with the logistics of lots of SKUs? Don't sell them. Trying to upsell people is a money move. Selling a SKU where the 80+gb OS is like 40% of the disk is a good SKU to cut. Especially if some consumers are unlikely to realize how little space they will actually have.
nordsieck
> Don't want to deal with the logistics of lots of SKUs? Don't sell them. Trying to upsell people is a money move. Selling a SKU where the 80+gb OS is like 40% of the disk is a good SKU to cut.
This isn't a profitable move from Apple's perspective - they try to keep the base unit at about the same price across generations. That's what happened when they moved from 8 GB of ram to 16 GB.
kjkjadksj
The idea is to then also funnel them into icloud drive plans
SSD speeds are nothing short of miraculous in my mind. I come from the old days of striping 16 HDDs together (at a minimum number) to get 1GB/s throughput. Depending on the chassis, that was 2 8-drive enclosures in the "desktop" version or the large 4RU enclosures with redundant PSUs and fans loud enough to overpower arena rock concerts. Now, we can get 5+GB/s throughput from a tiny stick that can be used externally via a single cable for data&power that is absolutely silent. I edit 4K+ video as well, and now can edit directly from the same device the camera recorded to during production. I'm skipping over the parts of still making backups, but there's no more multi-hour copy from source media to edit media during a DIT step. I've spent many a shoot as a DIT wishing the 1s&0s would travel across devices much faster while everyone else on the production has already left, so this is much appreciated by me. Oh, and those 16 device units only came close to 4TB around the time of me finally dropping spinning rust.
The first enclosure I ever dealt with was a 7-bay RAID-0 that could just barely handle AVR75 encoding from Avid. Just barely to the point that only video was saved to the array. The audio throughput would put it over the top, so audio was saved to a separate external drive.
Using SSD feels like a well deserved power up from those days.