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

[mmoran27]

It has been confirmed by several people including myself that this is by design

I have also confirmed that the hard drive that shipped with my mbp was also a SATA 1 model

hitachi does not even sell this model. It is a special model made for apple sata 1.

All other new drives are sata II. I also noticed my intel ssd running slower than it did on my umb. So if that is not real life testing than I must exist in some unreal world.

Sure a second or two here and there may seem small but if you add them all up and add them to the end of your life. I'll bet you would want that time back.

I use alot of vms and the boot and load times are noticeable between this model mbp and the old umb.

 

[fpnc]

...Also, I read a couple posts saying that maybe the new 13" MBP with SSD will have the 3.0 as opposed to the 1.5, is this true?...

See point #6, no one knows whether this is true.

 

[bcaslis]

I have also confirmed that the hard drive that shipped with my mbp was also a SATA 1 model

hitachi does not even sell this model. It is a special model made for apple sata 1.

All other new drives are sata II. I also noticed my intel ssd running slower than it did on my umb. So if that is not real life testing than I must exist in some unreal world.

Sure a second or two here and there may seem small but if you add them all up and add them to the end of your life. I'll bet you would want that time back.

I use alot of vms and the boot and load times are noticeable between this model mbp and the old umb.

No it's not. The hard drive is a SATA2 drive. This is silly, it's not the drive it's the interface.

 

[PolySciSurfer]

See point #6, no one knows whether this is true.

Does anyone know if the SSD that Apple ships with their laptops can exceed 1.5?

 

[whateverandever]

FPNC..if you only talking about boot up time and small applications running
nope sata 1.5 and sata 3 doesn't make a difference..it makes no different for me in boot up time using MB 13" or MBP 13"...load application is all the same. The only difference is really the large file transfer...

Doesn't the SuperDrive run off the same SATA bus now that the HDD/SSD does? That could be a potential drawback.

For sustained HDD reads, you're going to have to be reading faster than 187MiB/sec to hit the threshold. That's only going to be accomplished with an OCZ Vertex / Agility or Intel X25-M drive.

As for random reads, there could be some slowdown when reading from the HDD's cache.

Hopefully this is all just a driver issue. I ordered a 13" for my wife today -- she won't know the difference either way, but it's still a bummer.

 

[Shao]

In another post just above I said that same thing. But that's just my opinion and until someone actually posts some results showing this then it will continue to be debated (i.e. does it really make any difference?). Even though you say that it made no difference until we see some fairly detailed, replicated, and timed tests we probably aren't going to convince those who think it will make a difference.

One could raise another issue about what will happen in another six months to one year when there are yet faster SSDs. But I don't think we can really answer that question and in any case by that time Apple may have already resolved this problem (with a software/firmware update). Thus, we really shouldn't waste our own time on that question (or our "bandwidth").

FPNC...but what if apple don't release a firmware at all? what u expected to get and does it make a difference in real life is two different topics...the last macbook before the macbook pro has sata 3...and the new on is sata 1.5

do we need sata 3 or sata 1.5 is different topic from why did apple downgrade from sata 3 to sata 1.5 without letting us know.

U might never know..some ppl who have money to buy 256 SSD or bigger maybe do care about their large file transfering time....and i guess not right to assume that 99% of population have no use to it hence it is not a big deal.

We just want to be informed consumers. No to find out after u buying something it wasn't what u expected to be..

Let says ur new MBP have a slower DVD reading speed than the previous one....does it effect you in real life? maybe not...10 extra second in reading a full dvd proberly won't effect ur life dramsticlly. Would u be unhappy? some people will be...and was it right thing to do by apple? proberly should inform the buyers better instead of u find out ur self.

 

[fpnc]

Does anyone know if the SSD that Apple ships with their laptops can exceed 1.5?

Covered by point #6 (no one knows right now).

 

[iomatic]

Hell yeah... let's have the world revolve around your silly ass lest you have to scroll through a little repetition.

If you don't expect this (and some ranting) in a 600+ post thread then you shouldn't be here.

Just a ripe opportunity to say: ****, NEWB.




Who. The. Hell. Are. You? Anyway, way to dwell on trivia. OK, I'll stop.

Really, the question is: what info is substantive? What matters here?

 

[fpnc]

FPNC...but what if apple don't release a firmware at all? what u expected to get and does it make a difference in real life is two different topics...the last macbook before the macbook pro has sata 3...and the new on is sata 1.5

do we need sata 3 or sata 1.5 is different topic from why did apple downgrade from sata 3 to sata 1.5 without letting us know.

U might never know..some ppl who have money to buy 256 SSD or bigger maybe do care about their large file transfering time....and i guess not right to assume that 99% of population have no use to it hence it is not a big deal.

We just want to be informed consumers. No to find out after u buying something it wasn't what u expected to be..

Let says ur new MBP have a slower DVD reading speed than the previous one....does it effect you in real life? maybe not...10 extra second in reading a full dvd proberly won't effect ur life dramsticlly. Would u be unhappy? some people will be...and was it right thing to do by apple? proberly should inform the buyers better instead of u find out ur self.

Covered mostly by point #6, no one knows as yet with any certainty one way or the other. But in any case DVDs are a completely different issue.

 

[angemon89]

What a load of bullocks. I planned on getting this 13" MBP and upgrading to an SSD within the year.

 

[fpnc]

What a load of bullocks. I planned on getting this 13" MBP and upgrading to an SSD within the year.

See point #6 in: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7808311/

 

[plesset]

FPNC..if you only talking about boot up time and small applications running
nope sata 1.5 and sata 3 doesn't make a difference..it makes no different for me in boot up time using MB 13" or MBP 13"...load application is all the same. The only difference is really the large file transfer...

I am having the same experience with my setup. Boot time is the same. Apps load the same. FPNC's summation of this thread posted above are correct in my opinion. This issue is limited to the June MBP's 13 and 15 models. The Air, the Plasticbook, and 17 are not affected.

 

[Shao]

See point #6 in: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7808311/

I understand your point 6 totally. However since there is high uncertainity, and apple plus apple techi right now are not able to give us any reply. Hence people are unsure what to do.

If i didn't remember incorrectly, I remember one of the thinkpad had the same problem and they said they did it for compatiability issue hence not to do anything about it. Hence everyone who bought that one can only run Sata 1.5...

for me (only speaking for my self) I might return it as if feel this is a downgrade to the original compare to upgrade..and maybe buy it back until I can be more certain on what move apple will make here.

 

[Ruahrc]

Well considering you have 14 (?) days to return it, may as well hold on to it for as long as possible in case Apple releases a firmware or software fix very shortly.

Ruahrc

 

[Shao]

Well considering you have 14 (?) days to return it, may as well hold on to it for as long as possible in case Apple releases a firmware or software fix very shortly.

Ruahrc

Ya still got I think 10 days to go.....I will have to go and read up the terms and condition. Some countrys say there is a restocking fee some say not so i'm kind of confused..so time to read up apple.com.au terms and conditions ^_^

Thanks for the advice Ruahrc......but i thought if u want to return to apple store u have to talk to technician first right, and get a return code so u can return to store or mail back to them

 

[fpnc]

I understand your point 6 totally. However since there is high uncertainity, and apple plus apple techi right now are not able to give us any reply. Hence people are unsure what to do...

I don't think we will get any official comment from Apple in any way, shape, or form until they've released a fix for this issue that can be done in software/firmware alone. Even if they have a fix they won't comment before it ships and if it can't be fixed they won't comment either.

So, we'll know that there is a fix when it is fixed and not any sooner (IMO). Absent that (a released fix), we probably won't know whether it can NOT be fixed for several months time (a good indicator might be the release of new product that does not have this issue or the passing of a good amount of time without any change -- maybe in the time frame of Snow Leopard, late this summer).

 

[lekun]

Much Ado

These threads make me understand why Apple keeps its iPhone / iPod Touch tech specs under wraps (or at least tries to).

Any single individual spec doesn't matter. Overall, these new MBP systems are faster, as any review is and will continue to show. And these faster machines come with better screens at a better price point. Period.

Complaining that your 13 inch MBP only comes with SATA I, is the same as complaining that it only comes with a 2.53ghz processor and not a 2.8.

Would it be faster if it was 2.8? Yes. And the distinction is just as arbitrary as SATA I vs SATA II. In fact its worse because for many of Intel's chips they are the same chip, just artificially throttled at different speeds–why not be up in arms about that?

Is the old 13 uMB faster, overall, than the new 13 MBP? All the reviews I've read say no. Faster, more I/O and better screen, and better battery life at a lower price point. What's not to love?

Again, there are all sorts of ways to make a machine faster, and Apple has chosen not too. Is it for battery reasons, cost reasons, engineering reasons that the geniuses in this forum don't understand, or simply artificial marketing decisions in an effort to help sell product? Could be any, or all of the above. Apple makes decisions based on those criteria all the time. Every computer company does.

If Apple starts charging more for less of a computer, then that is something to get up in arms about. But pick a task–any computing task–whether it be surfing the web to mixing video, and it seems you can buy a computer today for less money, that will accomplish that task faster than the computer you could buy a week ago.

Thats progress.

A computer is more than any individual spec. This discussion has devolved into a common problem in digital camera reviews called pixel peeping: Where people care more about the specs of the camera than the art they can make with it.

Macs are for people who want to create. If you want to geek out on specs, you'll get a lot more options and satisfaction in the commodity PC market.

If you want make something, I'd suggest looking at one of the new MBPs. They are faster than before and more affordable. They seem like a really good deal.

 

[PolySciSurfer]

These threads make me understand why Apple keeps its iPhone / iPod Touch tech specs under wraps (or at least tries to).

Any single individual spec doesn't matter. Overall, these new MBP systems are faster, as any review is and will continue to show. And these faster machines come with better screens at a better price point. Period.

Complaining that your 13 inch MBP only comes with SATA I, is the same as complaining that it only comes with a 2.53ghz processor and not a 2.8.

Would it be faster if it was 2.8? Yes. And the distinction is just as arbitrary as SATA I vs SATA II. In fact its worse because for many of Intel's chips they are the same chip, just artificially throttled at different speeds–why not be up in arms about that?

Is the old 13 uMB faster, overall, than the new 13 MBP? All the reviews I've read say no. Faster, more I/O and better screen, and better battery life at a lower price point. What's not to love?

Again, there are all sorts of ways to make a machine faster, and Apple has chosen not too. Is it for battery reasons, cost reasons, engineering reasons that the geniuses in this forum don't understand, or simply artificial marketing decisions in an effort to help sell product? Could be any, or all of the above. Apple makes decisions based on those criteria all the time. Every computer company does.

If Apple starts charging more for less of a computer, then that is something to get up in arms about. But pick a task–any computing task–whether it be surfing the web to mixing video, and it seems you can buy a computer today for less money, that will accomplish that task faster than the computer you could buy a week ago.

Thats progress.

A computer is more than any individual spec. This discussion has devolved into a common problem in digital camera reviews called pixel peeping: Where people care more about the specs of the camera than the art they can make with it.

Macs are for people who want to create. If you want to geek out on specs, you'll get a lot more options and satisfaction in the commodity PC market.

If you want make something, I'd suggest looking at one of the new MBPs. They are faster than before and more affordable. They seem like a really good deal.

Well said. I know for me personally, the new 13" base model MBP is more than enough, and I'll be satisfied for quite a long time. At least the next 3 years. I couldn't be happier with the update.

 

[Shao]

Complaining that your 13 inch MBP only comes with SATA I, is the same as complaining that it only comes with a 2.53ghz processor and not a 2.8.

Lekun I understand what you mean, but I think there is slightly difference, of course if we buy 2.53..we expect to get 2.53ghz not 2.8.

But most people (including me) who is having this debate is because we felt this one is a upgrade, to previous model. Apple comes out and said...same as last model, with better price, better cpu, add firewire and SD plus big and better battery. But didn't mention a decrease SATA interface from 3 to 1.5.

Yes it is true it does not effect Normal HD users, and Even for SSD users it only effect the large file transfers. But never the less it is a decreased spec compare to the last model.

The SSD will work just as well for fast startup, opening program. The only relevent real life situtation i can think of is that example..loading map in Games like WOW or CS there could be some performance hit. But that is not to say people who bought SSD + new macbook pro are not going to be effected. There might be people who out there, their choice of buying a new macbook pro maybe effect with this news. Like people who want to spend money on the new SSD, they might hold it off for longer.

Of couse i think to people who want to debate if Sata 1.5 and 3 is require is same as saying is i7 or duocore is enough for everyday use...no one is right or wrong.....but of couse us as consumer would like to be slightly better informed ^_^~....that also why some people after hearing this might want to wait until the macbook pro have a firmware fix to this, or possiblely wait until the next revision.

Macs are for people who want to create. If you want to geek out on specs, you'll get a lot more options and satisfaction in the commodity PC market.

I guess it is not fair to say that, i'm sure there is many ppl who is royal to mac, who love their specs also do care bout this information. To us this undisclose downgrade caught many people by surprise....at end of day people do care about the specs..that why people buy the newer and better faster computer at end of day, including mac...even it may only save them 1 minute per day of their life waiting for computer to boot or to wait for the application to open right ^_^

 

[TEBnewyork]

These threads make me understand why Apple keeps its iPhone / iPod Touch tech specs under wraps (or at least tries to).

Any single individual spec doesn't matter. Overall, these new MBP systems are faster, as any review is and will continue to show. And these faster machines come with better screens at a better price point. Period.

Complaining that your 13 inch MBP only comes with SATA I, is the same as complaining that it only comes with a 2.53ghz processor and not a 2.8.

Would it be faster if it was 2.8? Yes. And the distinction is just as arbitrary as SATA I vs SATA II. In fact its worse because for many of Intel's chips they are the same chip, just artificially throttled at different speeds–why not be up in arms about that?

Is the old 13 uMB faster, overall, than the new 13 MBP? All the reviews I've read say no. Faster, more I/O and better screen, and better battery life at a lower price point. What's not to love?

Again, there are all sorts of ways to make a machine faster, and Apple has chosen not too. Is it for battery reasons, cost reasons, engineering reasons that the geniuses in this forum don't understand, or simply artificial marketing decisions in an effort to help sell product? Could be any, or all of the above. Apple makes decisions based on those criteria all the time. Every computer company does.

If Apple starts charging more for less of a computer, then that is something to get up in arms about. But pick a task–any computing task–whether it be surfing the web to mixing video, and it seems you can buy a computer today for less money, that will accomplish that task faster than the computer you could buy a week ago.

Thats progress.

A computer is more than any individual spec. This discussion has devolved into a common problem in digital camera reviews called pixel peeping: Where people care more about the specs of the camera than the art they can make with it.

Macs are for people who want to create. If you want to geek out on specs, you'll get a lot more options and satisfaction in the commodity PC market.

If you want make something, I'd suggest looking at one of the new MBPs. They are faster than before and more affordable. They seem like a really good deal.

I think you have completely missed the point. Nobody is saying that the machine isn't faster. Nobody is saying that the machines aren't cheaper. However, when you go out and spend an additional $600 plus on an SSD drive and then find that has actually moved in a backwards direction while claiming the machine is going up in specs is something to get annoyed about. Your comment about the processor is completely irrelevant as that is a spec that you make a conscious decision about and decide if this is where you want to spend your money or not. Nothing to complain about there it is your choice. However when I spoke with earlier today their comment was that SATA I or SATA II is not something that they publish in their specs and obviously there is no choice. Who would have thought that the lower models that are being phased out would have the more current standard. Had I known what I know now, perhaps I wouldn't have gotten that particular configuration, perhaps I would not have gotten the fastest of the new generations of SSDs. So, until the situation impacts you it is easy to write your comments.

 

[1984]

These threads make me understand why Apple keeps its iPhone / iPod Touch tech specs under wraps (or at least tries to).

Any single individual spec doesn't matter. Overall, these new MBP systems are faster, as any review is and will continue to show. And these faster machines come with better screens at a better price point. Period.

Complaining that your 13 inch MBP only comes with SATA I, is the same as complaining that it only comes with a 2.53ghz processor and not a 2.8.

So if Apple introduces new MacBooks next year with USB3 but caps the speeds to around USB2 levels you would be perfectly fine with that then, right? Because that's what you are saying. Sure, let Apple get away with this and they'll simply try to get away with more and more each and every time. There is a big difference between being a fan and being a fanboy.

 

[Shao]

So if Apple introduces new MacBooks next year with USB3 but caps the speeds to around USB2 levels you would be perfectly fine with that then, right? Because that's what you are saying. Sure, let Apple get away with this and they'll simply try to get away with more and more each and every time. There is a big difference between being a fan and being a fanboy.

I mean he is not a fanboy but that is a good one 1984...imagine apples comes out and said..well, 99% of our customer don't use USB3 device anyway..hence makes no difference...

Or they support USB3, but then on the next upgrade model...still support usb3..but cap down the speed....without informing the consumers also...

But I guess apple isn't alway transparent on all their products like what specs they are..i mean for iphone i guess it is fair enough. BUT for something that you able to upgrade....like hard disk and memory....if they don't info you those informations then that is not fair right..

I know OCZ also makes MAC version of vertex 120g hard drive..so it have MAC sticker on it...
since you are able to upgrade....u should have the right to know those information. I mean if apple says none of their hard ware is upgradeable, or only through apple products and everything voids their warranty, than obviously we have no say in anything at all

 

[Unprocessed1]

Everyone that is complaining about the SATA drive downgrade would do good by emailing steve jobs, complaining to apple, or posting on apple's official message boards to vent.

 

[Richard1028]

Just a ripe opportunity to say: ****, NEWB.

"Opportunity" ain't the only thing ripe here. And that's MR. NEWB to you ice-o-matic (or whatever two-bit appliance it is you represent).

Really, the question is: what info is substantive? What matters here?

Even better question... what the hell am I doing here, arsehole deep in a 700 post thread reading each one of them? Nobody's learned anything new since #21.

 

[retroneo]

This doesn't affect hard drive users at all and will barely have an impact on the SSDs that Apple includes as an option. However all users will benefit from improved battery life.

It only affects users who upgrade to non-Apple SSD drives while doing large file transfers.

Thus, a faster interface (SATA II) will hardly provide real performance gain to your data storage system so far, but it will contribute to its heating (by 0.1-0.2 W).

- http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/storage/hddpower.html