Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter MacModMachine
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Aleksandra,
I'll conceded that they were unaware of the 17" MBP and MacBook white SATA status in the article, but I don't think that having that information impacts the argument either way. There could be something specific to the 13" and 15" MPB that we haven't pinned down yet. After all, it is the first 13" to get the PRO moniker.
It seems unfathomable to me that Apple Engineers would have intentionally downgraded the SATA to the previous standard to squeeze out a theoretical (and unlikely) battery and temperature savings. My view is that for them to step backward, there had to be a compelling reason.
I'm not arguing that higher data error rates IS the answer, I'm just saying that it's as plausible as anything else right now.
I'll conceded that they were unaware of the 17" MBP and MacBook white SATA status in the article, but I don't think that having that information impacts the argument either way. There could be something specific to the 13" and 15" MPB that we haven't pinned down yet. After all, it is the first 13" to get the PRO moniker.
It seems unfathomable to me that Apple Engineers would have intentionally downgraded the SATA to the previous standard to squeeze out a theoretical (and unlikely) battery and temperature savings. My view is that for them to step backward, there had to be a compelling reason.
I'm not arguing that higher data error rates IS the answer, I'm just saying that it's as plausible as anything else right now.
7200rpm drives have been the standard for 3.5" HDDs for years. In fact before it became environmentally fashionable to sell 5400rpm drives again you probably couldn't buy them at all. Even now there are only a handful of drives on newegg available as 5400rpm in desktop format.
Ruahrc
Ruahrc
I've got a pair of 5400 RPM ATA/100 drives (40GB Maxtor and 120GB Seagate) I just pulled out of an old Sony Desktop if anyone is interested in some collectible antiques!
Yep yep... this is why Lenovo downgraded to 1.5 Gbps on their T61. It, too, has a 3 Gbit controller capped to 1.5.ComputerWorld said:
Which begs the question... did Apple change to a different optical drive in the 13" and 15" models? (Further speculation: Maybe that optical drive is one of the things that allowed them to maximize battery life).
Anuba,
Interesting hypothesis. The question then is are the optical drives the same across the 13/15/ and 17" models? Apple clearly had to make some adjustments to improve battery life so dramatically. The battery design has clearly changed from round to flat lithium cells, but they likely tweaked every hardware and software parameter that they could on top of that.
Case in point: The MBP's have a different version of Mac OS 10.5.7 then other macbook (or even desktop) users.
Anyone know of any reports comparing the 13/15/17 optical drives?
Interesting hypothesis. The question then is are the optical drives the same across the 13/15/ and 17" models? Apple clearly had to make some adjustments to improve battery life so dramatically. The battery design has clearly changed from round to flat lithium cells, but they likely tweaked every hardware and software parameter that they could on top of that.
Case in point: The MBP's have a different version of Mac OS 10.5.7 then other macbook (or even desktop) users.
Anyone know of any reports comparing the 13/15/17 optical drives?
I've argued against longer battery life theory earlier and I still think it isn't plausible. What I meant was exactly that there must be something special about these two models. I think it's actually important in the sense that it couldn't have been anything that would have affected other notebooks as well. I don't think it's the optical drive, although it certainly is a possibility. Apparently you can fit higher drive in 17", which would suggest it may possibly use a different one, but there's still MacBook White.
I agree it seems to be a technical issue, but it doesn't mean it was a conscious decision. I realize Apple must test their hardware thoroughly, but I refuse to blindly believe they don't ever make mistakes. They might have had a reason for it or not. Until we hear from Apple I'm not sticking to either theory.
well the last and first desktop i got was i think in 99' so...
10 bucks says these other two drives (now external) are 5400 or less if thats possible.
Well, apparently Apple still won't concede to ComputerWorlds' claims. i just vented nicely to Phill Schiller and got the same canned response. I have hope.
I think "stay tuned" is a secret message saying the are tuning the firmware.
I think "stay tuned" is a secret message saying the are tuning the firmware.
I am just guessing here, but if the 1.5 Gbps cap was done on purpose by the Apple engineers for whatever reason (battery life, compatibility, etc...); wouldn't they post some official reason/response???
Like I said, it is just a wild guess at this point; unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time they don't acknowledge a problem (MBA Rev. A hinge problems, iPhone 3G yellow screens, uMB 13" poor quality screen, etc.) and just try to sweep it under the rug; and I do talk from personal experience...
Like I wrote previously, I love my new MBP 13" with the Corsair P256 SSD, but I would love even more to be able to squeeze out the maximum potential out of it...
So hopefully Apple will give us a surprise soon, in the form of firmware...
Like I said, it is just a wild guess at this point; unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time they don't acknowledge a problem (MBA Rev. A hinge problems, iPhone 3G yellow screens, uMB 13" poor quality screen, etc.) and just try to sweep it under the rug; and I do talk from personal experience...
Like I wrote previously, I love my new MBP 13" with the Corsair P256 SSD, but I would love even more to be able to squeeze out the maximum potential out of it...
So hopefully Apple will give us a surprise soon, in the form of firmware...
If the optical drive is the reason for slowing down the SATA bus, can we upgrade to a better optical drive and resolve the issue? I would eventually like to install a Blu-ray drive anyway.
This firmware that everyone keeps talking about -- is this on the MacBook motherboard (analogous to a PC's BIOS)?
I agree with most of what you are saying. I am also willing to believe that mistakes can be made - but in this case Apple would have had to go out of their way to limit the I/O to 1.5 Gb/s as the chipset will support 3.0 and there has even been talk that it might even support speeds of 6.0 Gb/s. Their previous generation machines all supported 3.0 on SATA II and their 17" line clearly does as well. There is no intuitive, or logical reason to intentionally revert to an older standard unless that standard provides some measurable benefit - at least in my mind.
This is rather draconian, but one distinct possibility is that sales of the 13" and 15" far outnumber the 17" and if Apple wanted to corner the SSD market by forcing people to buy their SSD upgraded units (as opposed to upgrading after market with competing products) I could see the case being made for them to limit the SATA to a speed that their hardware/software configurations won't be affected by (but aftermarket drives would).
In the end, everything that has been said on the forum is pure speculation, but until (and if) Apple makes an announcement, those of us who are on the cusp of making a purchasing decision need something to fill the vacuum with.
This is rather draconian, but one distinct possibility is that sales of the 13" and 15" far outnumber the 17" and if Apple wanted to corner the SSD market by forcing people to buy their SSD upgraded units (as opposed to upgrading after market with competing products) I could see the case being made for them to limit the SATA to a speed that their hardware/software configurations won't be affected by (but aftermarket drives would).
In the end, everything that has been said on the forum is pure speculation, but until (and if) Apple makes an announcement, those of us who are on the cusp of making a purchasing decision need something to fill the vacuum with.
I wouldn't worry too much about this article, the author thinks that lots of USB devices would slow the SATA interface.....
I wouldn't worry too much about this article, the author thinks that lots of USB devices would slow the SATA interface.....
Well consider for a second......how does data transfer from a usb drive to the internal hard drive (if your answer is over the sata interface, you are correct)
Right, but a USB hub is never going to put through more than 480 Mbps for all devices total, which still isn't enough to saturate the SATA bus, which still means the author is a moron.
Benchmarks for an Intel X-25M 80GB
Well, I installed my Intel X-25M 80GB drive today after cloning it off the stock 160GB and I ran some benchmarks using Xbench. I'm posting my results in a screen capture below with the relevant disk stats highlighted.
As you can see, I am getting *pathetic* write speeds and my read speeds are about half what I was expecting (upwards of 230 Mb/s). The drive seems fast in terms of my perception for opening programs, but I can tell it's slower to write large blocks of data.
In a previous generation MBP - I was getting start-up times of less then 25 seconds. I clocked the 13" MBP at a full 45 seconds to start-up from a complete shut down with the SSD installed.
I really hope Apple sorts this out as I am getting close to my 14 day window and need to decide if I am going to return it.
![]()
Well, I installed my Intel X-25M 80GB drive today after cloning it off the stock 160GB and I ran some benchmarks using Xbench. I'm posting my results in a screen capture below with the relevant disk stats highlighted.
As you can see, I am getting *pathetic* write speeds and my read speeds are about half what I was expecting (upwards of 230 Mb/s). The drive seems fast in terms of my perception for opening programs, but I can tell it's slower to write large blocks of data.
In a previous generation MBP - I was getting start-up times of less then 25 seconds. I clocked the 13" MBP at a full 45 seconds to start-up from a complete shut down with the SSD installed.
I really hope Apple sorts this out as I am getting close to my 14 day window and need to decide if I am going to return it.
Well, I installed my Intel X-25M 80GB drive today after cloning it off the stock 160GB and I ran some benchmarks using Xbench. I'm posting my results in a screen capture below with the relevant disk stats highlighted.
As you can see, I am getting *pathetic* write speeds and my read speeds are about half what I was expecting (upwards of 230 Mb/s). The drive seems fast in terms of my perception for opening programs, but I can tell it's slower to write large blocks of data.
In a previous generation MBP - I was getting start-up times of less then 25 seconds. I clocked the 13" MBP at a full 45 seconds to start-up from a complete shut down with the SSD installed.
I really hope Apple sorts this out as I am getting close to my 14 day window and need to decide if I am going to return it.
![]()
That's messed up
+1
They should know better by now. Way too many gadget geeks out there these days and with the internet just a click away news spreads very quickly.
My 2.0GHz, 1st generation, Aluminum MacBook can COLD boot in 45 seconds to the Finder desktop so your results seem somewhat odd (and that's on a relatively slow 5400RPM drive). In fact, my Mac Pro with its single 1TB Western Digital Black drive can boot in just over 26 seconds. Do you have any startup apps when you log in? Also, did you test the boot times more than once? I know that boot times can vary from trial to trial and every once in a while you'll get a much longer boot time (even when considering that the first reboot after an install will usually be very slow).
Same. I have the same config and the thing just runs so blazingly fast (yes I make a living off this)... but yet, people here report me (or it's a mod) for trolling? OK. Thanks; I'll remember not to report back anymore.
Yeah, thanks.
What is the make and specific model of your 128gb ssd?
How quickly can you boot up? (Do you have any other benchmarks?).
Thanks,
I clocked start-up (cold from a complete shut down) five separate times and here are the results:
1.) 48.6s
2.) 52.5s
3.) 51.3s
4.) 54.8s
5.) 51.3s
I'm going to assume some amount of error as my hand on the power button and the stop watch wasn't always completely synchronized, but it was definitely less then a 1 second off. Even taking that into account, these boot-up times are atrocious. I did not clock it before the SSD install (although I should have and gotten some benchmarks as well for comparison).
Can anyone tell me what the bootup time is on their HDD 13" MBP?
1.) 48.6s
2.) 52.5s
3.) 51.3s
4.) 54.8s
5.) 51.3s
I'm going to assume some amount of error as my hand on the power button and the stop watch wasn't always completely synchronized, but it was definitely less then a 1 second off. Even taking that into account, these boot-up times are atrocious. I did not clock it before the SSD install (although I should have and gotten some benchmarks as well for comparison).
Can anyone tell me what the bootup time is on their HDD 13" MBP?