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

[goMac]

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.




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

Um, a SATA2 chip only increases the power consumption by 0.1-0.2 W.

That's Nothing with a capital N. Don't be an apologist. The processor alone is 25-35 W to put things into perspective.

This is not a power saving measure. Most likely Apple screwed up the firmware and no one noticed.

 

[Shao]

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.

Retroneo: I would think unless the SSD that is optional to APPLE would have impact also when doing large file transfer.

Unless Apple supply SSD that max out around 110MBps.......

Lets think about the bright side...if the SSD version of Macbook pro is Sata II interface..that means the issue most likely can be fixed with firmware........

However if the SSD that comes with apple are Sata I only...then it is good time to bang head on da wall/keyboard!

So it will be more like...ANY SSD user that doing large file transfer will be effected with this issue.
(unless the SSD comes with apple is really really bad...in that case the upgrade is really a big rip off)

Well if the SSD comes with apple have sata 3g, that means high chance this can be resolved by firmware update. If not time to bang head on the keyboard.

 

[iAlex]

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.

No!

I believe you're gravely mistaken. First, the difference in CPU speed (your 2.53 vs. 2.8) is listed spec, any customer has a choice, and holds an understanding of what they are paying for. The DOWNGRADE of the SATA controller from the last rev is not an advertised spec. Second, no one has the expectation of replacing the CPU. However, being able to replace the HDD and use a current industry standard, (soon to be SSD) either by necessity or choice, is. At this time in the market, SSD is promising a 100% increase in throughput that will soon make HDDs obsolete in very near future, this is not "arbitrary." Third, specs and innovation are what drive (no pun intended) the market. Whether it's Mhz, battery life, or RAM a computer performs only as strong as its weakest link. For Apple to DOWNGRADE the SATA controller from SATA II to SATA I ( Freaking $300 netbooks do SATA II) it creates a level of built in obsolesce that is unacceptable. Finally, "a week ago" an enduser could buy a MBP that supported SATA II and thus the latest SSDs that the entire industry will be to transitioning to. Today, with Apples DOWNGRADED SATA I controller he/she can not.

 

[PolySciSurfer]

No!

I believe you're gravely mistaken. First, the difference in CPU speed (your 2.53 vs. 2.8) is listed spec, any customer has a choice, and holds an understanding of what they are paying for. The DOWNGRADE of the SATA controller from the last rev is not an advertised spec. Second, no one has the expectation of replacing the CPU. However, being able to replace the HDD and use a current industry standard, (soon to be SSD) either by necessity or choice, is. At this time in the market, SSD is promising a 100% increase in throughput that will soon make HDDs obsolete in very near future, this is not "arbitrary." Third, specs and innovation are what drive (no pun intended) the market. Whether it's Mhz, battery life, or RAM a computer performs only as strong as its weakest link. For Apple to DOWNGRADE the SATA controller from SATA II to SATA I ( Freaking $300 netbooks do SATA II) it creates a level of built in obsolesce that is unacceptable. Finally, "a week ago" an enduser could buy a MBP that supported SATA II and thus the latest SSDs that the entire industry will be to transitioning to. Today, with Apples DOWNGRADED SATA I controller he/she can not.

That's fine, but think about the actual product apple is selling. Both the 13" MBPs come with an HDD. Meaning the SATA 2 is useless. If you plan to upgrade the computer, that's on you. It's like saying, I bought a car and I'm pissed because they didn't set it up to accommodate aftermarket parts. But they sold you a product that accommodates what they sold you.

The issue is more complicated by apples very own SSD upgrade. I would not be surprised if the SSD upgraded 13" MBPs come with SATA 2.

 

[Shao]

The issue is more complicated by apples very own SSD upgrade. I would not be surprised if the SSD upgraded 13" MBPs come with SATA 2.

Well one would hope so as that means it should be able to be fixed with firmware....but if that is also the case..they can't really advertise the SSD version of macbook pro and HD macbook pro as the same....

if the SSD macbook pro can do sata 3 and hd version only sata 1.5.....

really hope apple can release some sort of news soon

Imagin you ring up apple ask for SSD upgrade, and then ask them ..is my new SSD from apple going to run at fully potential.....i wonder what the technician going to say...

 

[TEBnewyork]

That's fine, but think about the actual product apple is selling. Both the 13" MBPs come with an HDD. Meaning the SATA 2 is useless. If you plan to upgrade the computer, that's on you. It's like saying, I bought a car and I'm pissed because they didn't set it up to accommodate aftermarket parts. But they sold you a product that accommodates what they sold you.

The issue is more complicated by apples very own SSD upgrade. I would not be surprised if the SSD upgraded 13" MBPs come with SATA 2.

You are right and those of us who bought it are trying to figure out as much as we can in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not we should return it. However, given that SATA II is pretty standard, Apple offers SSDs for the MBPs, Apple doesn't advertise the spec, and indeed the higher spec was on all models until last week, it didn't even occur to me to think that there would be a problem.

 

[Unprocessed1]

That's fine, but think about the actual product apple is selling. Both the 13" MBPs come with an HDD. Meaning the SATA 2 is useless. If you plan to upgrade the computer, that's on you. It's like saying, I bought a car and I'm pissed because they didn't set it up to accommodate aftermarket parts. But they sold you a product that accommodates what they sold you.

The issue is more complicated by apples very own SSD upgrade. I would not be surprised if the SSD upgraded 13" MBPs come with SATA 2.

That's absolute bull. The most expensive laptop line in the world should not be downgrading their tech, while the cheapest notebooks all have SATA II. Defending Apple here is fairly absurd.

There is no way this was intentional, it makes no sense. Apple needs to confess they botched it, and release a firmware update or give buyers the option to swap for another MBP.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Three gigabits here. Specs in sig.

 

[ltldrummerboy]

Three gigabits here. Specs in sig.

We know. This only applies to the SD card reader models.

 

[analog guy]

Wait...hold everything. I just reran the Disk Test after a reboot since I remembered that I did that for the 2.66Mhz test. Now instead of seeing a dramatic decrease I actually got an increase. Proof once again the xBench is hard to quantify and users make mistakes .

Still...things are cut in half.

i've been following this thread with some interest for a few reasons:
1) i am selling my late '08 15" mbp;
2) i ordered a 13" mbp (if there was a 13" mbp with FW back in nov '08, that is the machine i would have purchased; this new one seemed like my ideal, as this is not a desktop replacement for me);
3) i just installed an intel x25-m in my mac pro.

i figured i would post results of xbench for my x25-m for comparison.....again, not that this is in a mac pro.

while i am concerned about the sata I v. sata II issue, i notice that many posting "good" results from earlier uMBP's with SSDs....even those results seem to be less than what i'm getting.

in brief:
a) SSD on mac pro: 252.58
b) RAID10 on mac pro: 122.60
c) single drive on mac pro: 81.57

someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but it looks like while this latest crop of MBPs is taking a hit vs earlier MBPs.... it seems like even the earlier MBPs are not taking full advantage of this drive -- at least for whatever xbench is worth.

 

[Sehnsucht]

We know. This only applies to the SD card reader models.

Cool...now I know.

 

[Unprocessed1]

Cool...now I know.

Lol. At least you have 714 excuses of completely missing the point of the thread.

 

[heisetax]

Apple & Specs

A class action lawsuit will work fine if the specification detailing the drop from 3Gb/s to 1.5Gb/s isn't found. However, by the time Apple is beaten thru that lawsuit, it'll have been around 2-3 years and thus current models rendered obsolete.

This is one reason Apple doesn't print or they just plain make it hard to find good specs for the hardware you want to purchase. In this way they can take things out or lower the speed or what they want & have no false advertising legal problem.

 

[iAlex]

Hey Apple!

Someone should start a thread and title it: Hey Apple! Why does my $259 Netbook support SATA II but my $3,650.00 dollar 3.06Ghz 15" MBP does not?

 

[Unprocessed1]

This is one reason Apple doesn't print or they just plain make it hard to find good specs for the hardware you want to purchase. In this way they can take things out or lower the speed or what they want & have no false advertising legal problem.

Again, there was no reason for Apple to downgrade to SATA I. It apparently doesn;t save them money or have any benefit. It was probably a HUGE error. That, or the developers of the MBP lost their marbles.

 

[iAlex]

Again, there was no reason for Apple to downgrade to SATA I. It apparently doesn;t save them money or have any benefit. It was probably a HUGE error. That, or the developers of the MBP lost their marbles.

I have an idea! Let's all ASK THEM: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

--

 

[Unprocessed1]

I have an idea! Let's all ASK THEM: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

--

Just did. And it wouldn't hurt to email Steve Jobs too. sjobs@apple.com

 

[Santabean2000]

Arrandale 13" MBP, with SATA II Q4 2009? Please... Steve... have a word...

Peace.

 

[Joruus]

Arrandale 13" MBP, with SATA II Q4 2009? Please... Steve... have a word...

Peace.

Lets hope they have Sata III by then..

 

[Unprocessed1]

Arrandale 13" MBP, with SATA II Q4 2009? Please... Steve... have a word...

Peace.

No way it will be Q4... That's 5 months from now. Earliest will be late Jan/Feb

 

[tdream]

No way it will be Q4... That's 5 months from now. Earliest will be late Jan/Feb

Uhh.. when do you think the unibodys were announced, oct-nov last year. That's exactly 5 months from now a year ago. So yes they will be announced then.

 

[kinkster]

I think people are making too big a deal out of this, but seeing as that's what it takes to get the attention of Apple I'm not against it.(not that I actually expect apple to respond)


Would it be hard for someone like Netkas to do this themself? i.e. make a patch to allow 3.0gbps.


also this can't be a mistake by apple, otherwise they wouldn't turn on 3.0gbps on the ones shipped with ssds.

 

[AdamLikesMusic]

Uhh.. when do you think the unibodys were announced, oct-nov last year. That's exactly 5 months from now a year ago. So yes they will be announced then.

You seem awfully sure, for no apparent reason. It's not as if every October/November they release new laptops.

 

[Ploki]

I think people are making too big a deal out of this, but seeing as that's what it takes to get the attention of Apple I'm not against it.(not that I actually expect apple to respond)


Would it be hard for someone like Netkas to do this themself? i.e. make a patch to allow 3.0gbps.


also this can't be a mistake by apple, otherwise they wouldn't turn on 3.0gbps on the ones shipped with ssds.

it makes sense though, you dont need sata 3.0 with even a 7k2 rpm drive.
they should just make a switch (like for the graphics).
guess thats how they make such battery life..
they forgot though, that users update drives for themselves. perhaps they implemented a firmware update that automatically detects drive speed and acts accordingly. and you guys just over-estimate your drive speed.

 

[fpnc]

Okay, I'll try it again -- nobody knows nothing!

For more details: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7808311/