yeah 8 hour non user replecable batteries are not good news
...they are best in the bussiness good news, vs. the crapware sony/hp/dell and assorted vendors that are user replacleable 3 hour tops crap....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" and 15" MacBook Pros Have a Slower SATA Interface
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
yeah 8 hour non user replecable batteries are not good news
...they are best in the bussiness good news, vs. the crapware sony/hp/dell and assorted vendors that are user replacleable 3 hour tops crap....JensenJJ said:
No way dude. Cuz, there is no way I am opening 250 MB of photos on a machine that doesn't have a replaceable battery. Say this is the typical situation where you are on a crowded train and you are doing "PRO" work or say we are at the north pole or something. There is no way that I am going to be able to flip through these 100 images, cuz this additional 30 seconds will mean that my original battery will die and I can't plug it in, and I can't use the 4 extra charged batteries that I constantly have with me, because this is my "typical" work day.
What is wrong with you people. PRO's have to work too. And we never have a place to plug-in, we are PRO's. And I don't have 30 seconds either. What do you think I am made of time.
Snow Leopard would be awesome on these machines, if they just didn't suck so bad. Apple is INSANE leaving these specs like these. I am going to buy a 2 year old machine of Craigslist, they'll be much faster.
Other than relatively very small number of folks were using it?
[ Can argue whether computed stats badly, but if less than 1% of users are using something... that isn't a motivator to removing something? ]
The glass plate does offer better protection of the actual panel.
Most of the "gloss" is coming from the glass over the panel. Not the actual panel that lies below.
If go look at a matte 17" you'll see there is no glass over the panel (or bezel ) at all.
Downgraded is a huge stretch on this SATA issue. The equipment ( the drives they are using and the 9400M ) are still 3.0 Gb/s capable. It is just being underclocked. If someone sells you something that is underclocked is very different from using cheaper/less capable components or removing them.
For example some of the MacBook Airs were running at reduced speeds to meet thermal/power constraints. Where those "downgraded"?
Your MBP is more likely choked by rotational (or block write ) latency problems than it is by raw, sustained bus speed.
Um, no there probably was a shortage of supplies and they HAD to put that controller in and they will update it as soon as they have the right supplies at hand. In any case they didn't really screw them did they? The hds run at much lower speed than the 1.5 sata and only the super super expensive ssds dont...so why is that a rip off? Even if they opt for apple ssds the 256 the controller suffices....
...oh wait I get it...you just want to whine...
Please show me where this new controller is.Um, no there probably was a shortage of supplies and they HAD to put that controller in and they will update it as soon as they have the right supplies at hand. In any case they didn't really screw them did they? The hds run at much lower speed than the 1.5 sata and only the super super expensive ssds dont...so why is that a rip off? Even if they opt for apple ssds the 256 the controller suffices....
...oh wait I get it...you just want to whine...
Um, no there probably was a shortage of supplies and they HAD to put that controller in and they will update it as soon as they have the right supplies at hand. In any case they didn't really screw them did they? The hds run at much lower speed than the 1.5 sata and only the super super expensive ssds dont...so why is that a rip off? Even if they opt for apple ssds the 256 the controller suffices....
...oh wait I get it...you just want to whine...
How do you know? Were you in the factory at the time they decided to go ahead with that idea? Your theory is only a theory. They should have waited to release them if they had a shortage of 3 satas (which itself to believe is ridiculous) and not rush them out.
Your calling people idiots and whiners is not much appreciated. Lots of apple loyalists dished out A LOT of money, only to find out their SSD is not going to perform as well as it SHOULD. Please just stop inciting crap. Let the people who actually spent the freaking money on these laptops vent, it's their right. Thanks.
I have a theory...
I think that Apple overlooked this. I bet this model is based on the original design that pre-dates the MacBook Pro launched October 14, 2008. It was the design that was supposed to launch with the MacBook Air at Macworld in January 2008.
I think that Apple overlooked this. I bet this model is based on the original design that pre-dates the MacBook Pro launched October 14, 2008. It was the design that was supposed to launch with the MacBook Air at Macworld in January 2008.
It may NOT be a big issue NOW but what about in the next year or two? I have a late '07 MBP LED lit mat display that came with a 120GB SATA HD at 4200RPM. I knew I would eventually upgrade the HD to a much better performing unit when I was able to find on on-line or on CL. I found a 320GB 7200RPM drive with 16MB cache for NEW in sealed bulk packaging for $40. What happens to the users who are waiting for better, faster and cheaper SSD drives that will easily push the 1.5Gb interface in a couple of years?
MOST Mac users keep their systems for a MUCH LONGER period of time than a Windows user - almost THREE TIMES as long! I have the original CD White MB with 80GB HD, PB G4 1.33GHz 15" with 120GB HD and my MBP - all have been upgraded and as a result increased performance to such a level that I was able to keep the computers for YEARS and still use them for EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION I have including CS4 and Windows 7 - sans the PB of course. So - as the end consumer I would be upset if this is anything MORE than a driver issue that will be rectified in 10.5.8 or at the worst - 10.6.
I believe this is nothing more than a simple fix for Apple and was not something they chose to delay the roll-out of the re-design for. I hope this is the case - and since they brought back FW800 to the uMB I can only hope and pray they bring back the mat display as that is the only thing that is keeping me from moving the PB and MB down the supply chain in order to get the re-design. I am not into the whole mat display screen cover option. I would even pay a couple hundred bucks more for a factory option mat display and NOT a third-party install.
D
What???? It is the same hardware as was there before. They are just underclocking it. The 9400M and the harddrives they are shipping are all capable of 3.0 Gb/s. So it isn't "cheaper parts".
The major difference between 1.5 Gb/s and 3.0 Gb/s is lower power. That's it.
At some point I suspect someone will have to ugly hack which turns the clock back up. What the thermal ramifications are of that perhaps some folks won't care. ( Hey I'm cooking my chips but I'm going faster. Faster is all that matters. ). Nor it is going to make the battery last longer. There will be other folks ( who never trade up off of hard drives... always will be cheaper or looking for maximum lifetime of their investment.) that will stick with what Apple gave them with factory settings.
This (driver) problem has likely been around for a while...
Here's an interesting article regarding OCZ's Vertex Series Mac Edition SATA II 2.5" SSDs:
OCZ had to slow down its SSDs because Mac OSX can't handle the speed
The article quotes Tobias Brinkmann, OCZ's Director of Marketing EMEA, as saying, "The Mac version has different read and write specs due to Mac OS limitations."
The article offers this (below) regarding the issue:
Here's an interesting article regarding OCZ's Vertex Series Mac Edition SATA II 2.5" SSDs:
OCZ had to slow down its SSDs because Mac OSX can't handle the speed
The article quotes Tobias Brinkmann, OCZ's Director of Marketing EMEA, as saying, "The Mac version has different read and write specs due to Mac OS limitations."
The article offers this (below) regarding the issue:
Ooh carefull there, or you might get the...
Treatment...
But seriously, you're alright applecultvictim, just chill when people have complaints with the all seeing-all knowing Apple Inc.
I'm surprised that no one else had posted this. It's two month old news for me.Here's an interesting article regarding OCZ's Vertex Series Mac Edition SATA II 2.5" SSDs:
OCZ had to slow down its SSDs because Mac OSX can't handle the speed
The article quotes Tobias Brinkmann, OCZ's Director of Marketing EMEA, as saying, "The Mac version has different read and write specs due to Mac OS limitations."
The article offers this (below) regarding the issue:
But they are taking a step back here.
If anything, the 2009 models would have more flexible thermal constraints. There is no longer working around latches, covers, and easily removed batteries. And I honestly don't think that optimizing the charging systems of these batteries are adding such thermal constraints that they need to downgrade the SATA. It just seems to me like the obvious answer would be to put a little less battery in there, not take a step back with the bus interface.
There are only two things that extra space will rectify: thermal constraints, and power constraints.
According to you, extra power was not a contributing factor. So therefore, thermal constraint was an issue. But I'm not seeing where these additional thermal constraints are coming from compared to the 2008 model. The memory, processor, graphics...*they're all the same. The only different thing is the battery, but I'm not sure how a more efficient battery is putting such thermal constraints on the computer.
Well, I'm having trouble seeing how that one chip is causing such thermal problems when it was a just fine a week ago.
You could get a (flush) sd card inside an express slot for a few cents worth of parts. Irrelevent of who uses what, they've made it a less useful machine.
Who cares what the components are or how much they cost? It's how they perform that counts. Apple hardly use the 'best' components in their machines anyway, just look at the nic/fw/sata offerings in any of their machines?
Apple like to run their machines hot for the sake of minimalism, and it sounds like a pretty blatant downgrade to me.
Obviously they should have just built the thing properly in the first place - testing it before sending out the tv adverts would have been an idea too.
It's unacceptable to call people idiots only because they bought a computer without checking its hardware specs carefully enough, but how well the SSD should perform is up to Apple anyway. And Apple loyalists? Do you mean "Apple employees who would never switch side", or is it more in the direction of "consumers with a rock-solid preference for Apple products"? Nobody has denied anyone the right to ventilate their frustration. However, if I had buyer's remorse after buying the 13" or 15" MBP, I would choose to waive that right and return the computer to the Apple Store instead.
I've realized it for a while. It is an annoyance I've learned to live with. BTW, many successful companies such as Honda are just like Apple. Look up a Civic for instance. Want a sunroof in the base or LX? Good luck, you need to upgrade the the more expensive EX to get it. Annoying.
excuse me but this is stupid approach, I am not calling you stupid I am calling the approach you are taking here, so please let's not start a food fight.
I for once think this issue will change soon, it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, thatmust have been forced to use it. There out for a profit sure, but we are talking here about peanuts...they wouldn't put their reputation at stake for peanuts.
It's a matter of shortage of supplies imo.
What are you talking about?
1) If Apple had a problem getting a part, they wouldn't just toss something else in it in the interim. It is impossible to do that, you need to test it and send it to manufacturing. If there was a shortage, how come all off the other products they have that use the same parts, including the predecessor of the replacements didn't have a shortage issue?
2) How did you come to your opinion?
A year from now, a lot of people will be using SSD's, and then this problem becomes relevant again.
How do you KNOW someone will not be doing that on a laptop? I only own laptops and my wife is a designer and I am a recording engineer so I use my gear for uncompressed audio and video - so with the performance gap declining between an entry-level computers and high-end notebooks why not expect the premium of an Apple computer from a hardware standpoint to INCREASE as Apple claims to do (and has done so many times) and NOT decrease?
Again - I say this is nothing more than a BUG - but if it is NOT a bug then there will be a big backlash in a year or two when that limit is far surpassed with even entry-level SSD drives. People want the ability to upgrade even an Apple computer and even one such as a notebook. Why remove that option from something that performs at the level the new re-design does with the exception of the reduces SATA interface...
D
There is overhead in the SATA protocol, so you will never get the maximum theoretical speed. Dividing the gbps speed by 10 instead of 8 gives you a good approximation of the real-world speed, though based on all the benchmarks I have seen, it might be more accurate to divide by 12 for SATA, which gives you 250mb/s for SATA3 and 125mb/s for SATA1.5
With USB2, dividing by 14 will give you approximate real-world speed (about 34mb/s), while with Firewire you only have to divide by 10. That's why Firewire 400 is faster than USB2 (480mbps). What you divide by depends on the protocol, but it will almost always be more than 8. The only way to find the number to divide by is to look at real-world benchmark tests and work backwards.
Not with those prices, they're not. At least another generation until widespread SSD adoption.
Still going to be there.
What folks keep skipping over is that SSDs only break the gap when use non standard block sizes for read. I don't think the standard block size is going to change in the next year or two. ZFS may/maynot be pervasive so won't be making non sequential files, sequential.
SSDs are making tradeoffs. Intel's current speed demeon has problems with smaller files and mismatches between file system block and internal drive block sizes. They get the speed but also greater wear in that context.
Additionally, isn't like rotational hard drives won't still be cheaper 2 years from now. Could have flash/rotational hybrid drives which get closer to 1.5 Gb/s but do so with a better $/GB tradeoff than pure SSD a couple years from now also.
Besides 2-3 years from now 8GB of RAM will be much more affordable and more RAM is pragmatically much more useful than SSD or SATA 3.0 . Avoiding the disk (SSD or not) is better.
[ I suspect most of the folks yelping the loudest are not the ones who are maxing out RAM right now. They are folks on a budget who think tomorrow can get something better cheaper. That's right .... it is RAM.... then disk... ]
People who buy their hardware solely on synthetic benchmarks program results are hardly "pros". Benchmarks on your specific workload and program mix. That is a better rationale.
- Status