13" Mbp Only 1.5gb Sata ? - SOLVED!!!!!!!!!

[stylinexpat]

Let's not forget the new 13" MacBook Pro has the exact same controller as the previous 13" MacBook and is fully capable of 3.0. Apple has just done something in software/firmware to cap this to 1.5. It has been suggested that if you order one with an SSD from Apple they "flip the switch" so to speak and allow 3.0. I guess that means firmware not software then. It has also been suggested that the only retail model to have 3.0 is the 17" version. We don't know if this is true yet but the evidence is mounting. I will add that when I called my local Apple Store they mentioned the price cuts as the reason for this. That makes no sense whatsoever of course as crippling firmware does not save any money.

They probably may have done this so you buy the SSD's from them instead of someone like OCZ so they can charge you more money for them then???

Anyone here buy a new one with a SSD from Apple that can chime in to whether they are seeing 1.5 or 3.0 Gbps??

 

[ecstasy]

Simple answer:

Unless you plan on purchasing one of the few SSDs on the market right now that can provide sustained transfer rates greater than 150MB/sec, you will notice absolutely no - zero, zilch, nada - difference. Except maybe a possible increase in battery life over a similarly-equipped machine with a 3.0Gbps bus.

Given all the articles floating around about how the new systems' battery life is markedly better than it should be based on just the battery improvements alone, this would not surprise me in the least.

Would a hard drive replacement (ie: 500GB 7200RPM) be affected in all of this?

I was considering a SSD purchase, also.

 

[mikethebigo]

I have the new 2.8, and I'm at 1.5. That is kind of a bummer. I currently am using the stock HD but I was planning to eventually upgrade to SSD. I would be pleased to know for certain that it's a firmware and not hardware issue that will probably be fixed in future updates.

 

[knownikko]

Would a hard drive replacement (ie: 500GB 7200RPM) be affected in all of this?

Nope. Not a single hard drive on the market today that will push greater than 150MB/sec.

I was considering a SSD purchase, also.

There are lots of valid reasons to get a SSD outside of getting the absolute maximum performance when it comes to sequential reads and writes.

 

[stylinexpat]

Jesus H. Christ.

Apple did this so the mechanically inclined/tinkerer won't go open up their machines and update them with SSDs, after purchasing the cheaper hard drive model. What a friggin' sham. SSDs are expensive enough on their own without applying the Apple Tax to them.

So everyone out there who was planning on buying the base 13" MBP to later upgrade the memory and swap the hard drive with a nice speedy SSD variant, Apple just screwed you.

Basically unless some geek out there can Jailbreak this one as well

 

[knownikko]

They probably may have done this so you buy the SSD's from them instead of someone like OCZ so they can charge you more money for them then???

Anyone here buy a new one with a SSD from Apple that can chime in to whether they are seeing 1.5 or 3.0 Gbps??

I will eat my foot if Apple ships a custom 3.0Gbps-enable firmware for users that purchase an SSD from them. Not gonna happen.

 

[ecstasy]

Nope. Not a single hard drive on the market today that will push greater than 150MB/sec.

So I'm safe to invest in a 500GB 7200RPM hard drive? No problems there?

There are lots of valid reasons to get a SSD outside of getting the absolute maximum performance when it comes to sequential reads and writes.

I'm bummed about this now. Crap.

This is a situation worthy of the dreaded 3-letter word: FML.

 

[Wild-Bill]

Would a hard drive replacement (ie: 500GB 7200RPM) be affected in all of this?

I was considering a SSD purchase, also.

No soup for you.

ANYONE who was planning on self-upgrading to SSD is either going to be hampered by the 1.5G interface, or will have to fork over extra $$$ to Apple to buy one configured with their overpriced option, which entirely defeats the purpose of buying stock and slapping your own cheaper SSD in.

I, for one, will NOT buy one of these machines specifically because of this.

 

[Nistilian]

As a quick poll, how many fretting out about this actually intend to mod their MacBook to have SSD?

When the prices come down some more, I plan to. It's an upgrade option I'd like to have available.

If the 1.5 gets more battery life and I'm using a regular HDD, fine. But if/when I want to toss in a SSD, there better be an end user method to change it to 3.0.

 

[t0mat0]

Is there the possibility that they've only just shipped it, and that they're likely to open up the setting to switch to 3.0 if you want to use SSD (which seems the only reason you'd want it at 3.0, given the extra power usage?). 10.5.8 perhaps?

 

[knownikko]

So I'm safe to invest in a 500GB 7200RPM hard drive? No problems there?

Not a one.

I'm bummed about this now. Crap.

This is a situation worthy of the dreaded 3-letter word: FML.

Must be nice to be you if this is the heaviest thing weighing on your mind.

 

[ayeying]

Apple kept 3.0gbp/s on the new MacBook Air... lol

not thats relevant to your situation but yeah, just throwing it out there

 

[ecstasy]

Must be nice to be you if this is the heaviest thing weighing on your mind.

Not exactly heaviest, but certainly a dilemma, mainly because I'm soon to pull the trigger on a 13" this Monday and hope to invest in a SSD (obviously when prices drop).

 

[drew7]

Me think it's a bug with OSX. Let me explain:

1. Hard disk used IS really a 1.5Gb/s drive, as in the stock 160gb:
Based on the screenshot posted in this thread and the photos on ifixit.com, it would appear that the model used is: HTS545016B9SA02. If anyone could be bothered to check on hitachi's site, SA = Serial ATA = 1.5Gb/s. [Link]
I guess this applies for the 15" MBP too?
*Insert blablabla why Apple/Hitachi did this here.* (Based on what's on the hard disk's stick, I would assume it's custom made for Apple?)

2. Er, OSX bug? Won't update system profile? /shrugs. That would explain why it would show up as SataII/3.0Gb/s in Windows and not on OSX when someone upgrades their hard disk?

Hoo-haa over nothing, no?

 

[bcaslis]

I will eat my foot if Apple ships a custom 3.0Gbps-enable firmware for users that purchase an SSD from them. Not gonna happen.

I agree this would be insane. For example, if they did this to make extra money off the SSD, then they need to TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT. Otherwise you wouldn't buy one from them would you?

I just don't get it. It's the same chip. There can't be a cost savings in doing this.

 

[stylinexpat]

Apple kept 3.0gbp/s on the new MacBook Air... lol

not thats relevant to your situation but yeah, just throwing it out there

They also are not using the standard 2.5" drives as well

 

[Canuckistan]

Seeking clarification...

I'm not technically inclined, and am confused by this "vigorous" thread. I want to understand because I'd like to buy a 13" MBP in the next few days.

Is it correct to say that:

1) If you never plan to install a SSD in your MBP, this 1.5 business will affect you in no negative way; indeed you will benefit from energy (battery) saving?

2) If you order your MBP with SSD installed, Apple will permit 3.0, the consequence of which is your drive will be faster than under 1.5, but there will be a heavier drain on the battery?

3) If you plan to install a SSD down the road, it will never respond as quickly as if factory installed by Apple because it will be limited to (crippled by) the 1.5 rate?

 

[stylinexpat]

Hopefully OCZ will be ablet offer some sort of firmware in their SSD's to switch to 3.0 Gbps for these new Macbooks provided that this is not a hardware problem.

 

[knownikko]

Not exactly heaviest, but certainly a dilemma, mainly because I'm soon to pull the trigger on a 13" this Monday and hope to invest in a SSD (obviously when prices drop).

Out of curiosity, what sort of workload are you anticipating where the difference between 150MB/sec and ~200MB/sec maximum sequential transfer rates are going to so drastically alter your computing experience that you're re-thinking your purchase?

To put that in another perspective, that will be an extra ~1.5 seconds per gigabyte transferred - assuming you can find another device that can actually push data to the disk that fast (a 1gbps network connection caps out at a theoretical 125MB/sec for comparison).

 

[stylinexpat]

I agree this would be insane. For example, if they did this to make extra money off the SSD, then they need to TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT. Otherwise you wouldn't buy one from them would you?

I just don't get it. It's the same chip. There can't be a cost savings in doing this.

Perhaps their SSD's are not selling as well they want them to??

 

[BaronvdB]

What would you do?

As a quick poll, how many fretting out about this actually intend to mod their MacBook to have SSD?

I just placed an order lastnight for the 2.53ghz uMBP and was planning on upgrading the an SSD after a few months.

Should I return it before I open it so i don't get charged a restocking fee?

Thanks.

 

[bcaslis]

Me think it's a bug with OSX. Let me explain:

1. Hard disk used, as in the stock 160gb:
Based on the screenshot posted in this thread and the photos on ifixit.com, it would appear that the model used is: HTS545016B9SA02. If anyone could be bothered to check on hitachi's site, SA = Serial ATA = 1.5Gb/s. [Link]
*Insert blablabla why Apple/Hitachi did this here.* (Based on what's on the hard disk's stick, I would assume it's custom made for Apple?)

2. Er, OSX bug? Won't update system profile? /shrugs. That would explain why it would show up as SataII/3.0Gb/s in Windows and not on OSX when someone upgrades their hard disk?

Hoo-haa over nothing, no?

Possible, but I just tried it under Snow Leopard and it's reporting the same speed.

 

[knownikko]

1) If you never plan to install a SSD in your MBP, this 1.5 business will affect you in no negative way; indeed you will benefit from energy (battery) saving?

Yes.

2) If you order your MBP with SSD installed, Apple will permit 3.0, the consequence of which is your drive will be faster than under 1.5, but there will be a heavier drain on the battery?

This idea is completely unfounded and pure speculation at this point. IMO it is _extremely_ unlikely.

3) If you plan to install a SSD down the road, it will never respond as quickly as if factory installed by Apple because it will be limited to (crippled by) the 1.5 rate?

Possibly, if you purchase one of the few SSDs on the market that can exceed the SATA-150 specification.

 

[bcaslis]

Perhaps their SSD's are not selling as well they want them to??

Perhaps but if they want to sell them they need to tell people you only get a faster bus if you buy the SSD from them. Otherwise they are only going to sell the same amount if people don't know.

 

[Stetrain]

Not sure if the chipset their using is even capable of something like this, but is it possible that the system will only switch to using SATA 3.0 when it detects a drive that is pushing the limits of 1.5? A trick like that would let them perform well with SSDs but save battery when running a slower drive.