Sidebar Sidebar
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
turkay said:
I don't think that's gonna make any difference. If some higher ranked Mac people, like Rob Griffiths moans about it then apple may take the issue serious or aware of it.
Click to expand...
Eh, if we make Page 1 news on Tom's Hardware or Anandtech I'd consider it a small victory.
 
torbjoern said:
That says more about the current SSDs (even the hi-end ones) than the SATA-II standard per se.
Click to expand...

The funny part is that SATA II has just been (or very close to officially) superseded. (the new upper bound will be 6 Gbs. ) So all the folks bent out of shape about future (hardware 2-3 years down the road ) won't being able to run the SATA III stuff from that era either.

There are other constraints out there though. These Southbridge chips. No way they can run a constant sustained 3 Gbs off of SATA and also multiplex in the USB/ PCI 1-x / etc. other streams that they also have to deal without latency/bandwidth hiccups.

The SATA upper bound is for several storage devices to be connected. When it becomes just one device sucking all the bandwidth that would introduce other problems. ( no quite a big a deal when there is only one device though as often the case in a laptop. )
 
Honestly, that's a pathetic decision by Apple.

There was no logical reason to downgrade like that. Same goes for replacing ExpressCard with an SD card slot. Same goes for the glossy screens with no matte option. In every case, Apple has actually downgraded. It's not that they haven't adopted some new technology, it's that they're downgrading to older tech.

Don't call me a fanboy for complaining, I'm complaining because Apple has downgraded their computers. If you can defend a ridiculous decision like this, you are the fanboy.

My Macbook Pro is already choked by hard drive speed, this won't help.
 
If the 13 and 15 are usig ICH7 then the following may be applicable. taken from the ICH7 spec sheet

23:20
(Desktop Only)
Interface Speed Support (ISS) — R/WO. Indicates the maximum speed the
SATA controller can support on its ports.
2h =3.0 Gb/s.
23:20(Mobile)Only
Interface Speed Support (ISS) — RO. Indicates the maximum speed the SATA
controller can support 1h =1.5 Gb/s.
 
Bait and Switch!!!!

Talk about a SHAM! Apple supposedly "lowers" the price of the laptops to make them more affordable but they SECRETLY lower the quality too (and UPGRADE the NAME to PRO????).

Total scam. I'm extremely disappointed by Apple in this bait and switch.

If Apple had revealed the NEW specs and/or EVERYTHING they changed, no problemo...consumers would know what they are buying.

I won't doubt that within days there will be Petitions...heck, maybe even a lawsuit. Sure, some claim that "most users" will not notice the difference in every day use, but when you look at everything Apple changed, more disclosure was needed. Forget about all the "reasons" you believe/feel Apple did this...the fact remains that this is really misleading.

-Eric
 
Early 2008 MBP. I went into the system profiler under Serial-ATA Device Tree and found this info above my Hard Drive listing.

Product ICH8-M
1.5 Gigabit

Is it suppose to be 3.0 on this model? Was it changed with a software update? I can't remember if it was ever 3.0.
 
Jethryn Freyman said:
Honestly, that's a pathetic decision by Apple.

There was no logical reason to downgrade like that. Same goes for replacing ExpressCard with an SD card slot. Same goes for the glossy screens with no matte option. In every case, Apple has actually downgraded. It's not that they haven't adopted some new technology, it's that they're downgrading to older tech.

Don't call me a fanboy for complaining, I'm complaining because Apple has downgraded their computers. If you can defend a ridiculous decision like this, you are the fanboy.

My Macbook Pro is already choked by hard drive speed, this won't help.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. It is depressing to see how Apple tends to do this and seemingly in such a way that you feel like you need to buy a top of the line machine to get exactly what you need.

Technically if all Macbook Pros are the same, then why doesn't the 13" Macbook Pro have an option for a 7200 RPM drive? Why can't it have the same video card options as the larger models? Maybe it can only have the 9400M due to the small size of the 13" macbook Pro, but there is no excuse to leave out the option of a faster HD.

Anyway, I'd just love to see Apple upgrade new models, lower prices and do it without cutting back on specs.
 
it's a bit amusing that the previous post was: "Macbook's Battery life is friggin awesome!!" (or something like that)

So perhaps now we are starting to hear exactly how this was accomplished ;)
 
Jethryn Freyman said:
Honestly, that's a pathetic decision by Apple.
Click to expand...
It's an unfortunate decision, no doubt. But we don't know whether it's pathetic, dumb, unnecessary or [insert adjective here] until they've explained why it was done.

When Lenovo did the same thing (downgraded to 1.5 Gbit SATA on some models), it had nothing to do with cutting corners, it was strictly technical -- they had found that the SATA-to-PATA conversion chip couldn't handle 3.0Gb/s speed reliably, so they put an artificial cap on it for compatibility/reliability reasons. At least, that was the official explanation, but it's been suggested that the culprit was the Intel ICH8 component on the 965GM-chipset based motherboards, but Lenovo didn't want to deal with a blame war between themselves and Intel so they took the fall.
 
Totally UNSAT, Apple. UNSAT.

This is a poor move on Apple's part and they ought to be ashamed.

This is clearly designed to force people to buy an SSD-equipped model instead of buying the stock model and upgrading with SSD yourself. I'd really like to hear an answer from Apple on this decision.

I'd much rather buy the SSD of my choosing than one Apple has selected for me, complete with a ridiculous price hike for the drive.

Lower the price, lower the quality I guess is their new mantra.

I saw a thread on this on the official Apple forums but you can pretty much guarantee once the mods sniff it out it will be DELETED.
 
Well I think nobody likes a downgrade... If the old macbooks pro had 3.0GHz SATA , the new ones have to have 3.0GHz or Better !!

Only if exists a very good explanation for the downgrade! Better batery life doesn't count.. or apple could start putting core 2 duo 1.xx GHz processors in their macbooks for better battery.... :apple:
 
deconstruct60 said:
The funny part is that SATA II has just been (or very close to officially) superseded. (the new upper bound will be 6 Gbs. ) So all the folks bent out of shape about future (hardware 2-3 years down the road ) won't being able to run the SATA III stuff from that era either.

There are other constraints out there though. These Southbridge chips. No way they can run a constant sustained 3 Gbs off of SATA and also multiplex in the USB/ PCI 1-x / etc. other streams that they also have to deal without latency/bandwidth hiccups.

The SATA upper bound is for several storage devices to be connected. When it becomes just one device sucking all the bandwidth that would introduce other problems. ( no quite a big a deal when there is only one device though as often the case in a laptop. )
Click to expand...

Hi

SATA is a point to point bus. The 6 gbits/s doesnt have a single controller supporting it yet. No single SSD can saturate the 600 mb/sec mark. And the 9400m combines Northbridge (MCH) and Southbridge (ICH) functionality. On desktop boards and previous gen Apple laptops, the 9400m provides 2 to 6 SATA 3 ports, supports DDR2 800 to DDR3 1066, integrated graphics and doesn't have much problems doing so. USB 2.0 doesn't consume that much bandwidth ( think DDR3 ) and also the laptop doesnt have as many PCIe connections as a common 9400m equipped desktop board. So I don't really agree with this theory.
 
Furrybeagle said:
Yes, but the 2009 13" and 15" uMBPs still have larger batteries than the 2009 13" and 15" uMBPs. Yet they still cut features? I'm confused... what's more important, 30 more minutes (at most), or faster interfaces?
Click to expand...

If faster interfaces are the penultimate requirement why not a Mac Pro.

Constructing laptops is all about making compromises. You're sure that the late 2008 and these 2009 13" and 15" have identical thermal constraints?
Was Apple setting expectations that the batteries will last 5 years in the late 2008 versions?

Seriously, you think the Express Card slot is sucking up power when nothing is in it?
Click to expand...

Why Express Card getting lopped in here? The clocking difference between the 13"/15" and the 17" is on SATA. Or is better power management suppose to the root cause of every design decision difference between the 3 models? Seriously?

The fact that the inserted SD cards don't sit completely inside the new models means that internal volume is at a extremely high premium. (versus the relatively cavernous space the express card consumed.). Much more likely space not power was an additional contributing factor (besides the ones Apple explicitly give) to evicting Express Card.

Besides... an empty Express Card slot .. nothing better to motivate keeping it than for it to be canonically empty all the time. Don't need a power budget problem if it isn't being used.


Does the hard disk interface really take up so much power that it needs to be downgraded? What is this crap?
Click to expand...

Less power also means less heat? Have you looked at airflow and heatpipe dissipation constrains of the design?
 
Hopefully this will be a firmware tweak. If it's a hardware issue, I'll wait to buy until it is fixed ... as my next MacBook Pro will have an SSD.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Constructing laptops is all about making compromises. You're sure that the late 2008 and these 2009 13" and 15" have identical thermal constraints?
Click to expand...

iFixIt found that the 13" 2008 and 2009 models were identical - a casual glance wouldn't be enough to distinguish between them - except for the battery.

And the new battery is a LiPo which is more resistant to thermal degradation and also its non cylindrical construction is what makes it increase in capacity. Granted that the 60Wh battery might require more thermal consideration than the previous 45Wh battery BUT logic dictates that the charging current/voltage cycle will be kept similar or constant by Apple so as not to shift too far from the existing thermal envelope of the enclosure ( the enclosures are pretty much the same ) Proof of this is that the uMBP 13" charges slower than the uMB 13" and has the same charging voltage (within a .2 volt difference )
 
atomicshark said:
I have to agree with you. It is depressing to see how Apple tends to do this and seemingly in such a way that you feel like you need to buy a top of the line machine to get exactly what you need.
Click to expand...

That's Apple in a nutshell. Wonder when people will realize it.
 
whoa...

to me, the computers went from AWESOME + OUT OF MY BUDGET

to AWESOMER + LESS OUT OF MY BUDGET

and that = win.

Just because SSD speeds are lower doesn't mean I'm a cheated or unhappy customer "not getting my money's worth"

random number or not, I would still love a new MPB more than anything else

and for 100% of what I do, my current 1st-gen Macbook is more than fast enough

so stop whining...or...whine, but don't act cheated. I'm a proud Mac user not because of the tech stuff, but because I feel like I got my money's worth from the experience. Apple can do whatever they want (at least so far) and I'm certain my experience won't change one bit from this downgrade.
 
I'm really enjoying everyone getting their knickers in a twist about a change that virtually nobody is affected by.

Nice one.
 
Burned,

Next refresh we'll get!

USB 1.1
802.11b
10/100 base ethernet
640 X 480 CRT displays
PATA HDs
4X CD Rom
Maybe a floppy too for good measure :)

And many more "Upgrades"!

But seriously though, there's got to be some logical reason, because even though I can't see this crippiling any notebook for the bulk of their userbase, they surely can't have done this on purpose, could they?

Plus I'd imagine SATAII being cheaper to implement now, as it is pretty much the standard, no other vendors use SATA 1.5 anymore, do they?

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm genuinly interested to see if anyone else is selling hardware with SATA 1.5 hardware on there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back