Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Which connector is your new unibody Macbook pro

  • Sata I - 1.5Gbit

    Votes: 218 69.6%

  • Sata II - 3.0Gbit

    Votes: 95 30.4%
  • Total voters
    313
thadoggfather said:
my early 2008 mbp penryn only has 1.5gbit too. so what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

The big deal is that SATA II is the new standard, netbooks are using it, Apple had already begun using it across their entire notebook line, they've now reverted to the earlier standard on these uMBPs without addressing this fact in any published specs. Most SSDs will, over time, become fast enough to need SATA II speeds, thus making it impossible for anyone who buys one of these new uMBPs to take full advantage of a SSD upgrade in the future when the price of these faster drives comes down. Unless there's a firmware fix somewhere down the road. No way to know yet, though.
 
A) It would be awesome to switch this on and off via Energy Saver.
B) What size of large file sizes are we talking about that's affected?
 
The more and more I think about it, the more it confirms that this was a MISTAKE on Apple's part. There was no real cost-benefit or practicality in doing this. They have a 3 gig SATA II on the new whitebook for goodness sakes!

I expect a firmware update or a swap out (if it's a hardware issue).
 
Downgrading to SATA 1.5 does NOT save energy, it is slower, which means the file transfer takes longer, which uses more power.

Sata 2 controller uses like 3% of the total hard drive's power.
3%.

The processor uses like 25w, and the HDD uses what like 2w?

It's stupid to say that they did it to save power, why not artificially limit the brightness of the LCD screen instead?
 
Kingcodez said:
Downgrading to SATA 1.5 does NOT save energy, it is slower, which means the file transfer takes longer, which uses more power.

Sata 2 controller uses like 3% of the total hard drive's power.
3%.

The processor uses like 25w, and the HDD uses what like 2w?

It's stupid to say that they did it to save power, why not artificially limit the brightness of the LCD screen instead?
Click to expand...

it saves power, but i believe its required to meet a power standard included in the EPEAT 2009 standard that the unibody's are labeled with,

thats why unibody's have sata 1.5 and white book has 3.0 (not epeat 2009)

just a thought
 
Unprocessed1 said:
Yeah seriously, it's not going anywhere unless MR, AppleInsider, Engadget, etc. pick up on it...
Click to expand...

I submitted this thread twice to Engadget, once when it was at 1k views, and once when it was at 24k views. It's now a little less than two days after the thread was created and it's at 49k views. They're Apple fanboys though so it's hopeless. Maybe we can try Digg.
 
MacModMachine said:
it saves power, but i believe its required to meet a power standard included in the EPEAT 2009 standard that the unibody's are labeled with,

thats why unibody's have sata 1.5 and white book has 3.0 (not epeat 2009)

just a thought
Click to expand...

Last week's uMB 2.4 has SATA 2, as does the Air and the 17"...
It saves barely any power. I bet a little LED activity light uses more power.
 
MacModMachine said:
it saves power, but i believe its required to meet a power standard included in the EPEAT 2009 standard that the unibody's are labeled with,

thats why unibody's have sata 1.5 and white book has 3.0 (not epeat 2009)

just a thought
Click to expand...

The power usage is so extremely low as to be insignificant. I doubt it has anything to do with EPEAT 2009.

Unprocessed1 said:
Not on page 5...can you get the exact post number/link? Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7799798/

(For the record, I have a 3.06 ghz 15", and I'm enjoying it, but Apple really needs to fix this. I was planning on upgrading to an SSD later, when they'll be even faster, so to have them maxing out the SATA bus already is not cool.)
 
I wish we could get some light on this "this could be a firmware thing" -theory!
My uMBpro is scheduled to arrive Monday and wisch I could decide by then if I should really accept it...seeing the crippled controller...

greetz
 
SportyMac said:
I wish we could get some light on this "this could be a firmware thing" -theory!
My uMBpro is scheduled to arrive Monday and wisch I could decide by then if I should really accept it...seeing the crippled controller...

greetz
Click to expand...

The hardware is all the same, so it's got to be a firmware issue...
 
My experience

I just bought a 13" 2.26 Ghz MacBook Pro, and installed an 160 GB Intel X25-M in it. It has the 1.5 SATA connection. I was really, really frustrated to learn this because I'm very careful about checking everything before I buy, but never even considered this bizarre change. However, after adding the SSD, I'm not quite as concerned.

I'm not sure how fast it could be, but this computer is meltingly fast. After a full restart (20 seconds from pressing power), opening Photoshop takes about 3 seconds (compared to about 11 before), opening Illustrator takes about 8 seconds (compared to about 29 seconds before), opening Word is about 3 seconds. Starting Windows XP in VMWare (from a suspended state) takes about 3-4 seconds (compared to maybe 10 seconds). Applications like Safari don't take any time to open: they just appear as though they were already open. Folders with lots of files with icons snap into place. I'm amazed by how often I skip a beat because something happens faster than I'm used to.

Perhaps these times would be improved with the 3.0 SATA-II interface, but I just want to let everyone know that there's still a HUGE speed boost possible by adding today's fast SSD's.

As a side note, I successfully upgraded the firmware to 8820 using my 13" MBP. It was a simple and fast process and did not affect my data.
 
goMac said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7799798/

(For the record, I have a 3.06 ghz 15", and I'm enjoying it, but Apple really needs to fix this. I was planning on upgrading to an SSD later, when they'll be even faster, so to have them maxing out the SATA bus already is not cool.)
Click to expand...


This proves that it was a mistake. Why would apple cripple their own SSD's? Makes ZERO sense. I have confidence they'll fix the issue, might just take them a few weeks or months but I doubt they'll make us stuck to a SATA I drive. If they do, I'll personally refuse to buy another mac ever again.
 
Unprocessed1 said:
This proves that it was a mistake. Why would apple cripple their own SSD's? Makes ZERO sense. I have confidence they'll fix the issue, might just take them a few weeks or months but I doubt they'll make us stuck to a SATA I drive. If they do, I'll personally refuse to buy another mac ever again.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems illogical. But apple does illogical things on the hardware front. Such as notebook cases which are guranteed to crack, crappy LCD panels, insufficient ventilation.
 
dwsolberg said:
I just bought a 13" 2.26 Ghz MacBook Pro, and installed an 160 GB Intel X25-M in it. It has the 1.5 SATA connection. I was really, really frustrated to learn this because I'm very careful about checking everything before I buy, but never even considered this bizarre change. However, after adding the SSD, I'm not quite as concerned.

I'm not sure how fast it could be, but this computer is meltingly fast. After a full restart (20 seconds from pressing power), opening Photoshop takes about 3 seconds (compared to about 11 before), opening Illustrator takes about 8 seconds (compared to about 29 seconds before), opening Word is about 3 seconds. Starting Windows XP in VMWare (from a suspended state) takes about 3-4 seconds (compared to maybe 10 seconds). Applications like Safari don't take any time to open: they just appear as though they were already open. Folders with lots of files with icons snap into place. I'm amazed by how often I skip a beat because something happens faster than I'm used to.

Perhaps these times would be improved with the 3.0 SATA-II interface, but I just want to let everyone know that there's still a HUGE speed boost possible by adding today's fast SSD's.

As a side note, I successfully upgraded the firmware to 8820 using my 13" MBP. It was a simple and fast process and did not affect my data.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the most relevant info so far. I will be getting my X25-M next week; I'll need to do a firmware upgrade? I assume it's a Mac binary that you can run easily?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back