There are no issues cloning a newer machine to an older one. And when the next .x.x release comes out (10.5.8) there will be no issues cloning in either direction.
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
There are no issues cloning a newer machine to an older one. And when the next .x.x release comes out (10.5.8) there will be no issues cloning in either direction.
As promised I returned my mid 2009 13" MBP today. I had everything lined out with Apple customer support beforehand so the service rep at the Apple Store took it back and waved the restocking fee. The retail rep was actually empathetic and didn't like that Apple had downgraded the device. He did contradict what Chris from Apple Customer Care said about it being a manufacturer defect and said instead this is just how Apple speced this version.
I'm glad they took it back. I'll consider buying the next release or this model once this issue is resolved.
I am now rocking a 3G S 32GB though, and am quite pleased.
I'm glad they took it back. I'll consider buying the next release or this model once this issue is resolved.
I am now rocking a 3G S 32GB though, and am quite pleased.
How do you know your unit doesn't have a problem with VERY fast SATA transfers? Do you have one of the Intel X25-E or newest Vertex SSDs and have you done extensive testing by transferring large amounts of data while simultaneously reading/writing to a DVD/CD? It could be that this problem only appears under rare conditions and Apple is just "playing the odds" that existing users will not experience a great number of failures. Besides, it would be hard for them to issue a firmware "fix" for the previous generation products that reduced the SATA speed from 3.0Gb to 1.5Gb (i.e. how would they explain that?).
I'm not trying to argue that there IS a problem with the 3.0Gb SATA in all of the 9400M-based products, just that if we're going to continue to SPECULATE then we should consider all options. The speculations that this was the result of cost cutting or had something to do with battery life just don't hold water (IMO). It has to be something else. I think the most probably explanations are:
1.) Apple had some issues in the latest firmware and didn't have time to qualify the 3.0Gb SATA in their latest motherboard redesign. Likely outcome, Apple issues a firmware update and we're back running at 3.0Gb.
2.) It was a simple oversight (error) and will be fixed in a firmware update.
3.) There is a hardware problem in the SATA interface and it's going to have to be left at 1.5Gb (i.e. no firmware fix).
My extrapolation on #3 would be that this COULD be an old problem that exists on all of the recent generation MacBooks (let's say everything that is using the 9400M).
The interesting question (which I've stated before) is why didn't they "downgrade" the SATA speed in the newly configured 17" MacBook Pro. That's why I asked if someone could check to see if the NEW (June 2009) 17" MacBook Pros are shipping with a SuperDrive that has a NATIVE SATA interface. One way to possibly check this is with Apple's Disk Utility, since that utility indicates that the 13" unibody MacBook has a PATA interface (from available evidence it seems like the MacBook SuperDrives are using SATA-to-PATA bridge chips to allow PATA drives to be used with the 9400M's SATA interface).
I did a search and still couldn't find a specific answer. So if this has already been answered blame MRGOOGLE. 
I wanted to connect a seagate external HDD to my 13" MBP via firewire 800. But since they have 1.5 SATA, does this mean that firewire 800 is useless? Will I still see benefits in speed using firewire 800 vs. USB 2.0?
I wanted to connect a seagate external HDD to my 13" MBP via firewire 800. But since they have 1.5 SATA, does this mean that firewire 800 is useless? Will I still see benefits in speed using firewire 800 vs. USB 2.0?
There is no problem with using Firewire 800, it has nothing to do with the 1.5Gb SATA issue. Assuming that your drive is fast enough, Firewire 800 should offer at least twice the RAW i/o performance as does USB 2.0.I did a search and still couldn't find a specific answer. So if this has already been answered blame MRGOOGLE.
I wanted to connect a seagate external HDD to my 13" MBP via firewire 800. But since they have 1.5 SATA, does this mean that firewire 800 is useless? Will I still see benefits in speed using firewire 800 vs. USB 2.0?
My god I cannot believe this thread is still going on.
So, what happened ? Did apple say anything ? Any new discoveries.
So, what happened ? Did apple say anything ? Any new discoveries.
For those who are more technically minded, I just found this review on SSD performance:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=318&Itemid=60
It has one interesting note about measuring SSD performance (quote):
To the best of my knowledge we have still not seen any "real-world" user results that show a significant impact from the lowering of the SATA interface from 3.0Gb to 1.5Gb. It seems reasonable that there will be some measurable impact on tasks like file duplication, but on overall user experience we can't really know without carefully controlled tests to verify same.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=318&Itemid=60
It has one interesting note about measuring SSD performance (quote):
To the best of my knowledge we have still not seen any "real-world" user results that show a significant impact from the lowering of the SATA interface from 3.0Gb to 1.5Gb. It seems reasonable that there will be some measurable impact on tasks like file duplication, but on overall user experience we can't really know without carefully controlled tests to verify same.
Not always true. For example, you can't clone from a Macbook to a MBP. I may be wrong about going from 13" to 15". That may be safe. But don't forget that the 17" used to have its own install install disk. That suggests you can't clone from that to other MBPs.
4) Apple is getting ready to release a new line of machines (maybe tablet types) with built in SSDs and needs 3.0 SATA to differentiate from MBPs.
The reason we didn't see "Real-World" compare result is because we can't compare unless apple release the fix.
I can see that it will be twice faster when resume xp from vm fusion because it's a 1G seq file.
I don't agree. The reason why apple release the new uMBP line with several upgrades and lower price clearly say they want more market share from PCs before win7 release.
This is just a small mistake while design. If this flaw blocking more people to buy uMBP and such affect apple's strategy. They will fix it as quickly as possible.
Unlikely, because (A) the white plasticbook would then also be capped at 1.5Gb, which it is not, and (B) because the uMB is also still left at 3.0Gb, and obviously had no SATA issues.
Okay dude, you're totally contradicting yourself. You say you want to KNOW what you are spending your money on right?
Okay here are your very words:
On the tech spec pages of the 13 and 15 MBPs it states that they each have Two USB 2.0 ports. Why is there a need to identify the ports as 2.0? When was the last time USB 1.1 was sold in desktops/laptops? If Apples page just said Two USB ports, would you even consider that they wouldnt be USB 2.0;
So which one is it? You want Apple to be thorough on what USB is so you'll KNOW what you're spending your money on OR do you want Apple to assume most people know that USB is 2.0? You're contradicting your own argument.
You're being a "geek" like many of us here because you expect the rest of the world which are average computer users to understand computer jargon rather than Apple fully explaining what version of USB is in their product. Yes, we at MR know that it's 2.0 but most people don't. Also for the record you're already branded a geek when you post on computer forums.
You misread my post. My point is they are not being consistent on their specs pages. Does that clear it up for you?
You don't need to check. It's 1.5.
Just send a email to Jobs and ask when they going to release the fix.
Saying otherwise you will return it.
You don't need to check. It's 1.5.
Just send a email to Jobs and ask when they going to release the fix.
Saying otherwise you will return it.
Oh ok, but im just curious on how to check it anyways... can you show me?
Mac Icon->About this Mac->More Info->Serial-ATA->SpeedOh ok, but im just curious on how to check it anyways... can you show me?
You see 1.5Gigabit
But both of those products shipped BEFORE the June 2009 MacBook Pros. Therefore, Apple would have to do a firmware revision to downgrade to 1.5gb on those already shipping products which would be something that would require time and money AND require Apple to explain why the change was made (i.e. it could turn into an even bigger "flame" than the spec change in the June 2009 machines).
Also, as for the white MacBooks how many are going to spend $300 to $800 USD to upgrade the hard disk to a state-of-the-art (and expensive) SSD in a computer that is the cheapest notebook that Apple makes? As I said in one of my previous posts Apple may just be "playing the odds" with the previous generation MacBooks considering that VERY few customers will likely see any problem even if there was an issue with them running 3.0Gb SATA. Let's face it, even if there was a problem the machines aren't going to explode if they run at 3.0Gb and in fact it could be a very rare condition under which they could fail.
I think the only strong argument against my admitted SPECULATION is the fact that the newly configured 17" MacBook Pros are still using 3.0Gb SATA. Sure, they are most likely still running the same firmware as the previous generation but you'd think that if Apple knew there was a problem then they would have taken this most recent opportunity to "fix" the 17" model too.
Thus, I repeat my call for someone with one of the new (June 2009) 17" MacBook Pros to check and see if the SuperDrive is running with a PATA interface (check with Apple's Disk Utility, not with the system profiler).
Not true, it wouldn't be that difficult to swap SSD drives between a similarly configured, previous generation MacBook and run the same set of application benchmarks on both systems. That's what a few people have already done using RAW i/o benchmarking tools. Thus, why hasn't anyone (or any of the review sites) done a similar test comparing the same FAST SSD drive in systems that run at 1.5Gb and 3.0Gb?
You could test boot times (or as you suggest "resume xp from vm fusion"); application launch times (would have to be a large, complex application); Photoshop cache, history states, and undo; large file saves and duplications; folder/directory duplications; etc.
Of course, you'd have to use one of the latest and greatest and fastest SSDs to do these tests (either an Intel X25-E or the OCZ Vertex).
Now, I'm not saying that in another year when even faster SSDs appear that it couldn't be a problem, but it would be nice to know what the real-world effects are today.
Haha, that's cool man. The more that just write random stuff about it, the more it gets out there.
Up to 26 followers. Hopefully it keeps going up faster and faster. Has anyone passed http://twitter.com/applefixsatambp onto other forums and sites? I have submitted links to the forum post and the applefixsatambp twitter account to both Macrumors and Engadget as recommended stories. Like any good self-organizing team, we need marketing to get the point across.
TUAW, AppleInsider, Hardmac, Computerworld, Gizmodo are just a few of many others if people want to jump in and help the cause. I'm sure repeat submissions will also encourage the sites to publish the updated information in this story.
The old unibody Macbook Pros used the exact same chipset and the exact same optical drive, and there have been no reports of any problems.
You're suggesting Apple replaced a problem that no one has ever noticed with a problem that everyone is noticing? Doesn't sound logical to me.