Other World Computing Releases Aftermarket SSD Upgrade for Retina MacBook Pro

[kodeman53]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

It's all about control. Apple loves control over absolutely everything that they're involved with.



I didn't buy a MacBook Air. In fact, those reasons are exactly why I'm buying a non-retina MacBook Pro over a MacBook Air or a retina MacBook Pro. Yet when those two become my only options in the next year or two, I will be forced to buy one of them if I am to have a laptop capable of running OS X, which I need. So, really, your attitude and solution really don't help me (or you or anyone) worth crap. You really just wasted perfectly good forum space. Thanks for trying anyway.

From your sig, "Don't Cry, Eat Pie". Clearly you decided not to Eat Pie.

And complaining about something you can't change isn't a waste of space? And you need a laptop that runs OSX? Right.

[Fandongo]

Originally Posted by undies1993

You really think 8gb isn't fast enough? It was a $2,000 computer and I don't need it to be future proof forever. I just need it to last me at least the next four years which I am pretty sure it will do fine. The other MBP upgrade options used to max out at 8gb.

The previous models can at least be upgraded with two increasingly cheap 8gb sticks.

8 is more than enough for most people. You can allocate Ram usage in most new programs, so if you run multiple programs at once, one won't choke it all up. It all depends on your usage.

Heavy adobe/audio work should probably be done on a tower... But these are remarkably powerful workstations. My criticisms reflect my uncommon demands for a true desktop replacement.

99.5% Will need a better graphics card before 16 gigs of Ram, and that has never been replaceable.

[golf1410]

Outlaw upgrade is going to void the warranty?

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

That's a gross exaggeration and misunderstanding of my comment. The guy I commented referenced the five-sided screws, not the soldered on RAM. The screws are about control. Plain and simple.

The soldered on RAM is about saving space so they can make the computer thinner. While the move in 2008 to the unibody enclosure still present on the non-retina MacBook Pros made the machine thinner than it was before, there was no downside to it doing so. Now, to keep such a powerful machine so thin, the battery cells are built into the unibody frame/top case and the RAM is soldered onto the logic board. That's bad. RAM failures happen, and on a non-retina/non-air MacBook, you pay $40 to replace the faulty RAM module and you keep on chugging. Now, if your RAM fails, you have to replace the entire logic board, and if you're out of AppleCare, that means you're replacing your laptop. How the hell is this a GOOD move?

The screws are a statement that Apple thinks the computer is unsafe to open for non-experts. If somebody wants to open the computer, they will get the correct screwdrivers, somebody ready to plonk down several hundred dollars for an SSD won't really be deterred by a set of screwdrivers (and in this case OWC provides them to you for no extra charge). The batteries are less protected in the rMBP than before and already the fixed batteries in all but the very first unibody MBPs make opening the computer more dangerous. I know this myself, I trashed a computer by touching the wrong thing with a screwdriver and creating a short-circuit.

And regarding RAM, I definitely heard a lot about faulty RAM but very, very little about failing RAM (but I have seen three failing batteries, two HDDs, one HDD enclosure, four optical drives, one fan, one trackpad, one iPhone home button, one Time Capsule. If you see a pattern, it is very much moving parts that fail, incl. batteries where ions move compared to mere electrons in other things.) In my 20+ years of owning computers, I have never encountered failing RAM. Sure, the larger the number of components that are soldered or glued on, the larger the likelihood that the whole assembly needs to be replaced at some point. But in the end, why cry about integrated RAM more than about integrated graphic cards [in laptops]?

Again, if it were largely only about control, why did they not change the screws on all MBs? And why did they make the second generation Mac mini easier to open than the first one?

[dyn]

Originally Posted by HishamAkhtar

A lot of people who over-payed to future-proof their laptops might not be too pleased

I don't think so. The OWC ssd's all use a Sandforce controller which are known for their endless list of bugs. It is only up to now that the bugs are contained and the Sandforce controller is usable. Intel has seen that and is now using those controllers. Unfortunately it will take Sandforce quite some time to get rid of that negative image they have now.

The other problem is the difference between compressible and incompressible data. Sandforce controllers are the only ones that make a difference between the two where they favour the first one: compressible data. If you have the latter it will slow down quite a lot. This does not happen with other ssd controllers, they offer the same speed for any kind of data. Apple uses Samsung ssd's for the MBP Retina which uses a Marvell controller and thus does not have this data-difference thing. It therefore gives better all round performance. Why is this important? Because Apple offers Filevault 2, a whole disk encryption technology that encrypts all the data on your drive. Encrypted data can not be compressed, it is incompressible. In other words: if you use Filevault 2 than a Sandforce controller ssd is a bad idea. Since we're talking about a professional notebook you can imagine that encryption can be a big deal.

It also has some influence in what you are able to do with the ssd in the future. The OWC one isn't future proof because if you ever decide to use Filevault 2 it will be crippled. Mind you, it is still usable and will probably also be faster than an ordinary drive. However, the Apple ssd simply is the better one.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by kodeman53

From your sig, "Don't Cry, Eat Pie". Clearly you decided not to Eat Pie.

No, I did neither. Instead I decided to engage people on these forums in pointless arguments over semantics.

Originally Posted by kodeman53

And complaining about something you can't change isn't a waste of space? And you need a laptop that runs OSX? Right.

Yes, I need a laptop running OS X for my job. I need my job so I can make money. I need money so I can eat, put clothing on my back, and have shelter to live in. I need all of those things because without them, I risk my health and well-being. I need my health and well-being so that I may continue to live. I need to continue to live because otherwise, I die. I do not want to die, at least, not yet. Satisfied?

As for complaining, that's what this forum is for. Pro-tips that do nothing are out of place here and otherwise serve no function. Even if complaining serves no function, THAT'S WHAT THIS SITE IS FOR.

Originally Posted by manu chao

The screws are a statement that Apple thinks the computer is unsafe to open for non-experts. If somebody wants to open the computer, they will get the correct screwdrivers, somebody ready to plonk down several hundred dollars for an SSD won't really be deterred by a set of screwdrivers (and in this case OWC provides them to you for no extra charge). The batteries are less protected in the rMBP than before and already the fixed batteries in all but the very first unibody MBPs make opening the computer more dangerous. I know this myself, I trashed a computer by touching the wrong thing with a screwdriver and creating a short-circuit.

And regarding RAM, I definitely heard a lot about faulty RAM but very, very little about failing RAM (but I have seen three failing batteries, two HDDs, one HDD enclosure, four optical drives, one fan, one trackpad, one iPhone home button, one Time Capsule. If you see a pattern, it is very much moving parts that fail, incl. batteries where ions move compared to mere electrons in other things.) In my 20+ years of owning computers, I have never encountered failing RAM. Sure, the larger the number of components that are soldered or glued on, the larger the likelihood that the whole assembly needs to be replaced at some point. But in the end, why cry about integrated RAM more than about integrated graphic cards [in laptops]?

Again, if it were largely only about control, why did they not change the screws on all MBs? And why did they make the second generation Mac mini easier to open than the first one?

I'll buy the argument on safety for the retina MacBook Pro given all of the crap that I had to study in order to take and pass the "MacBook Pro (Mid 2012 Retina) Qualification Exam" (I work as an Apple Certified Macintosh Technician at an Apple Authorized Service Provider and in order for us to be able to service that machine, we needed to take and pass that exam, which is the only discrete exam required to service a specific product), but given that those same screws are featured on the MacBook Airs from Late 2010 and newer and given that said machine is much safer to service, I don't fully buy that argument. As for why they didn't incorporate those screws on the pre-retina Unibody design, Apple tends to make more subtle changes in internal designs from rev to rev, while the major changes tend to be done when a new design is unveiled. Bottom case design (and thusly, choice of screws) fell into the latter category of changes. Still though, whether it be for safety or for control, it's a poor design. Plain and simple. Compromises to function were made for form and as someone who values Apple for its form:function ratio, this is a bad move no matter what adjectives are used to describe it.

As for the second generation Mac mini, while it's easier to get at the RAM in this current design; it's arguably harder to get at the hard drive. It's still nowhere near as easily serviced as the non-retina MacBook Pros have been since the switch to Unibody, and for a desktop to be less repairable than a laptop, is plain stupid. That I won't attribute to control, but rather form over function. In the non-retina MacBook Pros today, form and function are given more of a fair share than any Mac, let alone name brand computer ever. In just about every other Mac, this is not the case, and really it ought to be.

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

No, I did neither. Instead I decided to engage people on these forums in pointless arguments over semantics.



Yes, I need a laptop running OS X for my job. I need my job so I can make money. I need money so I can eat, put clothing on my back, and have shelter to live in. I need all of those things because without them, I risk my health and well-being. I need my health and well-being so that I may continue to live. I need to continue to live because otherwise, I die. I do not want to die, at least, not yet. Satisfied?

As for complaining, that's what this forum is for. Pro-tips that do nothing are out of place here and otherwise serve no function. Even if complaining serves no function, THAT'S WHAT THIS SITE IS FOR.



I'll buy the argument on safety for the retina MacBook Pro given all of the crap that I had to study in order to take and pass the "MacBook Pro (Mid 2012 Retina) Qualification Exam" (I work as an Apple Certified Macintosh Technician at an Apple Authorized Service Provider and in order for us to be able to service that machine, we needed to take and pass that exam, which is the only discrete exam required to service a specific product), but given that those same screws are featured on the MacBook Airs from Late 2010 and newer and given that said machine is much safer to service, I don't fully buy that argument. As for why they didn't incorporate those screws on the pre-retina Unibody design, Apple tends to make more subtle changes in internal designs from rev to rev, while the major changes tend to be done when a new design is unveiled. Bottom case design (and thusly, choice of screws) fell into the latter category of changes. Still though, whether it be for safety or for control, it's a poor design. Plain and simple. Compromises to function were made for form and as someone who values Apple for its form:function ratio, this is a bad move no matter what adjectives are used to describe it.

As for the second generation Mac mini, while it's easier to get at the RAM in this current design; it's arguably harder to get at the hard drive. It's still nowhere near as easily serviced as the non-retina MacBook Pros have been since the switch to Unibody, and for a desktop to be less repairable than a laptop, is plain stupid. That I won't attribute to control, but rather form over function. In the non-retina MacBook Pros today, form and function are given more of a fair share than any Mac, let alone name brand computer ever. In just about every other Mac, this is not the case, and really it ought to be.

I am still not sure what this 'control' motivation is. Does Apple take pleasure in controlling other people? I didn't think that cooperations can have such feelings like pleasure, I thought only people can have feelings (which would imply that people at the top of Apple take pleasure in bossing their customers around).

Or do you actually mean that Apple wants to make it harder for people to repair or upgrade their computer such that they buy a new Mac earlier? But does a $10 tool charge really makes a significant difference in that?

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by manu chao

I am still not sure what this 'control' motivation is. Does Apple take pleasure in controlling other people? I didn't think that cooperations can have such feelings like pleasure, I thought only people can have feelings (which would imply that people at the top of Apple take pleasure in bossing their customers around).

Or do you actually mean that Apple wants to make it harder for people to repair or upgrade their computer such that they buy a new Mac earlier? But does a $10 tool charge really makes a significant difference in that?

Apple wants control over who touches the products they make. Case in point: Apple Authorized Service Providers; Apple Authorized Resellers. APPLE AUTHORIZED. In this case, they'd much rather go with a screw type that requires a screw that most people are likely to not have. Just about every household has a #00 Philips head screw-driver around their house somewhere. Not so much with this screw driver. And from $3 to $10, while still not that much money is still a screw driver that has a much more limited use and costs three times as much.

If the SSD drive is easily replaceable, allow consumers to replace it! It, itself, is no more delicate of a component to handle than RAM. The battery is dangerous, substantially more so than the one in the non-retina models, but not THAT dangerous. Or...make a two-part bottom case like on the first rev of Unibody 15" MacBook Pros and allow the top part to come off so that the SSD might be replaced. Though then there's the other problem of there only being OWC making only a 480GB drive, which, while better than nothing, isn't exactly a ton of options.

[undies1993]

Originally Posted by dyn

I don't think so. The OWC ssd's all use a Sandforce controller which are known for their endless list of bugs. It is only up to now that the bugs are contained and the Sandforce controller is usable. Intel has seen that and is now using those controllers. Unfortunately it will take Sandforce quite some time to get rid of that negative image they have now.

The other problem is the difference between compressible and incompressible data. Sandforce controllers are the only ones that make a difference between the two where they favour the first one: compressible data. If you have the latter it will slow down quite a lot. This does not happen with other ssd controllers, they offer the same speed for any kind of data. Apple uses Samsung ssd's for the MBP Retina which uses a Marvell controller and thus does not have this data-difference thing. It therefore gives better all round performance. Why is this important? Because Apple offers Filevault 2, a whole disk encryption technology that encrypts all the data on your drive. Encrypted data can not be compressed, it is incompressible. In other words: if you use Filevault 2 than a Sandforce controller ssd is a bad idea. Since we're talking about a professional notebook you can imagine that encryption can be a big deal.

It also has some influence in what you are able to do with the ssd in the future. The OWC one isn't future proof because if you ever decide to use Filevault 2 it will be crippled. Mind you, it is still usable and will probably also be faster than an ordinary drive. However, the Apple ssd simply is the better one.

You lost me at the part in Bold.

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Apple wants control over who touches the products they make.

And they want this control because they revel in having control over others? You did not answer my question what is their real motivation?

[kodeman53]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Yes, I need a laptop running OS X for my job. I need my job so I can make money. I need money so I can eat, put clothing on my back, and have shelter to live in. I need all of those things because without them, I risk my health and well-being. I need my health and well-being so that I may continue to live. I need to continue to live because otherwise, I die. I do not want to die, at least, not yet. Satisfied?

You made a choice to have a career based on OSX. Complaining about the largely closed hardware platform OSX requires is evidence you can't accept the logical consequences of your decision.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by manu chao

And they want this control because they revel in having control over others? You did not answer my question what is their real motivation?

I have no clue as to what their actual motivation. I don't think it has to do with control over actual people beyond controlling what customers who are dependent on OS X and the Mac platform use and how they do so. I think the control is more over who is able to service it. Why? Likely to cut out as many middle-men as they possibly can. Beyond that I couldn't say.

Originally Posted by kodeman53

You made a choice to have a career based on OSX. Complaining about the largely closed hardware platform OSX requires is evidence you can't accept the logical consequences of your decision.

Then your criticism of my use of the word "need" is solely to nitpick, which I can respect, but won't entertain any further as it only wastes both of our times. Good day.

[squash4dave]

Originally Posted by longofest

Because Thunderbolt is incredibly expensive, and USB 3 is plenty fast for this purpose.

As a non-tech geek, does anybody care to take a guess as to when Thunderbolt devices will come down in price? And what makes them so much more expensive in the first place? Speed alone?

[undies1993]

Originally Posted by squash4dave

As a non-tech geek, does anybody care to take a guess as to when Thunderbolt devices will come down in price? And what makes them so much more expensive in the first place? Speed alone?

Speed is not what makes it expensive. New, rare technology is what makes it expensive. Remember when memory cards for cameras first came out? It would cost of $50 for a GB. Now you can get 16GB for like $20 because more devices use them and they are not so new. Give it time. Let people adopt then prices will come down.

[kodeman53]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Then your criticism of my use of the word "need" is solely to nitpick, which I can respect, but won't entertain any further as it only wastes both of our times. Good day.

No, not nitpicking. You made a choice, OSX, grow up and live with the consequences of your decision.

[ThomasJL]

On all Apple-provided SSD's, TRIM support is enabled. In OS X, it is not possible to enable TRIM support on an aftermarket SSD. There are hacks, but they are unsafe and could potentially destroy your data.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by kodeman53

No, not nitpicking. You made a choice, OSX, grow up and live with the consequences of your decision.

I have done exactly that. Doesn't mean I HAVE to be happy about it. Or do your standards not allow for such behavior?

[dyn]

Originally Posted by undies1993

You lost me at the part in Bold.

Simply put: a Sandforce ssd is a good ssd but if you are going to use Filevault 2 the standard Apple ssd is a much better choice because it will be faster. If you are unsure are decide later on you want to use Filevault 2 and you bought the Sandforce ssd to replace the Apple ssd it means you will be going backwards in terms of performance. You can't consider a step backwards to be future proof.

Originally Posted by ThomasJL

On all Apple-provided SSD's, TRIM support is enabled. In OS X, it is not possible to enable TRIM support on an aftermarket SSD. There are hacks, but they are unsafe and could potentially destroy your data.

And even better: they are not needed since the average ssd has garbage collection (GC). The end result is the same as with TRIM, the both technologies simply accomplish the end result differently.

[kodeman53]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

I have done exactly that. Doesn't mean I HAVE to be happy about it. Or do your standards not allow for such behavior?

Mine don't, but then I have always believed adults should act like adults, clearly a quaint and old fashioned idea in the age of discussion forums where people vent every time the universe and everything in it doesn't revolve around them or work they way they want it to work.

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

I have no clue as to what their actual motivation. I don't think it has to do with control over actual people beyond controlling what customers who are dependent on OS X and the Mac platform use and how they do so. I think the control is more over who is able to service it. Why? Likely to cut out as many middle-men as they possibly can. Beyond that I couldn't say.

Finally we are getting there. Having some degree of control over who is able to service Macs in order to cut out some middleman is whole different statement than your original one:
"It's all about control. Apple loves control over absolutely everything that they're involved with."

And the only middleman they are cutting out is third-party part sellers which will have less sales because people are deterred from upgrading a Mac themselves or because they take it either to an Apple Store or any competent (preferably even authorised) repair shop and buy the parts directly from that place.

Taken to its logical conclusion, when Apple asserts some indirect control over who opens their machines, they de facto limit the access to those who generally know better what they are doing. When a car manufacturer modifies it gas tank opening such that it is more difficult to fill in the wrong fuel, it also asserting some sort of control what fuel you can fill in. It doesn't make it impossible (one can always use a funnel). Of course, if you feel incensed by such nannying, then that's something I cannot argue about. I just think it is a bit silly to react so emotionally about such a minor issue.

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by iMacFarlane

The Apple software is not huge. The OS and iLife together weighs in at 20-30GB, depending on your installation.

I love how 20-30 GB "isn't huge"

It used to be that computers could boot to a full OS and BASIC interpreter in an 8k ROM, and the first Macs could boot a GUI using a 64k ROM and one 400k 3.5" diskette.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by kodeman53

Mine don't, but then I have always believed adults should act like adults, clearly a quaint and old fashioned idea in the age of discussion forums where people vent every time the universe and everything in it doesn't revolve around them or work they way they want it to work.

In the same vein, you chose to be a part of a discussion forum where people "vent every time the universe and everything in it doesn't revolve around them or work the way they want it to work". By your standards, being a part of such a forum is your choice and you should live with it without asserting your beliefs and views when they are not a part of the minority. Personally, I'm not bothered by it, but I felt inclined to point out that little hypocrisy. Also, I do not feel like I, as an Apple user, need to be in full support of everything Apple elects to do. I recognize that my opinion holds no weight to them, but that doesn't mean that I am not allowed to have it or express it. Plus your statement is a gross exaggeration; they, at the same time as their release of the retina MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air, released a computer that I will happily buy and that perfectly serves my needs. That satisfies me for today. But again, I don't have to like where they are going tomorrow even if my line of work demands that I have to go there. Complaint IS an option, even if your world is too narrow to allow for it.

Originally Posted by manu chao

Finally we are getting there. Having some degree of control over who is able to service Macs in order to cut out some middleman is whole different statement than your original one:
"It's all about control. Apple loves control over absolutely everything that they're involved with."

I'm pretty sure I established the above a while ago. But whatevs.

Originally Posted by manu chao

And the only middleman they are cutting out is third-party part sellers which will have less sales because people are deterred from upgrading a Mac themselves or because they take it either to an Apple Store or any competent (preferably even authorised) repair shop and buy the parts directly from that place.

Taken to its logical conclusion, when Apple asserts some indirect control over who opens their machines, they de facto limit the access to those who generally know better what they are doing. When a car manufacturer modifies it gas tank opening such that it is more difficult to fill in the wrong fuel, it also asserting some sort of control what fuel you can fill in. It doesn't make it impossible (one can always use a funnel). Of course, if you feel incensed by such nannying, then that's something I cannot argue about. I just think it is a bit silly to react so emotionally about such a minor issue.

I'll put it to you this way. Macs are expensive. I personally cannot afford to buy them once every year or every other year or even every three years like a lot of people on here. I can only afford to buy one, use it for five to six years, and then buy a new one. The thing that caused me to discard my previous Mac a year ago instead of now was the lack of easily removable internal storage; were it not for that, I'd still be using it today. Even with the right screw-driver, internal storage options are limited. There is ONLY a 480GB kit for the retina MacBook Pro and ONLY from Other World Computing. Add to that the problem of the RAM being integrated. This isn't a big deal once a maxed-out machine is purchased, because 16GB is the maximum that machine's chipset will handle anyway. But if a RAM chip fails or becomes faulty six months after AppleCare is done (which DOES happen), that retina MacBook Pro is essentially totaled as the cost of the replacement logic board is more than the machine itself. I, personally can't afford to buy a new retina MacBook Pro that early on in my ownership lifecycle of the previous one. Nor should I have to. I'm not emotionally adamant about this, I'm presenting it as a problem because it is one. If a low-end MacBook Air has that problem outside of AppleCare, I can afford to replace it. If a retina MacBook Pro has that problem outside of AppleCare, I cannot. Some people on here can afford to buy Macs like they're iPod shuffles, and for them, that's awesome. Sadly, I'm not that well off, and I get the feeling that I'm not alone there.

[dasmb]

Originally Posted by hyperipod

ha, and iFixit said the rMBP wasn't upgradeable at all!

When they said that, it was true.

[aolbites]

Keep an eye out for your Envoy's. I just got mine in the mail yesterday. I love it!

[mcdj]

Originally Posted by aolbites

Keep an eye out for your Envoy's. I just got mine in the mail yesterday. I love it!

$80 for the retina envoy? Seriously? The MBA model, which uses more metal, costs $30 less. For $80 I could get a 1TB WD drive.