This might be my favourite MR post of 2019.Remember what Tim stands on stage and says to the world.
Apple makes the best computers they can.
Copy speed doesn't actually matter with APFS since the data isn't moved, just pointers.Nice to see logic and brains make a comment for once.
The copy described was from another "equally fast drive". The data would have to move.Copy speed doesn't actually matter with APFS since the data isn't moved, just pointers.
Sure because nobody on MacBook Pros edits video… oh, wait…
Nah, I was looking at a MacBook Air for software development work, as it is the ONLY model without the touchbar. But the subpar cooling, cpu and now storage crushed my dream of a new laptop from Apple. Will have to go for a Mac Mini.
Completely irrelevant... the Air doesn’t have the performance to leverage the speed of the current SSD anyway.
Would be great if people here stop whining and bring a single scenario that they use on their Air in which they would notice the slower SSD. I think even archive extraction is CPU limited on the Air...
I wouldn’t generally say TLC or even QLC is bad. In fact, MLC these days lasts longer than 1st gen SLC SSDs did. And a decent TLC SSD will live longer than cheap MLC SSDs. Personally, I would prefer if the device is delivered with a 1024 GB QLC SSD, practically, that’s the same as 512GB MLC. After a while the SSD will age and have trouble operating in QLC. Then it should be possible to select MLC or even SLC Mode in the firmware, which should extend the useful life of the NAND chips well beyond the rest of the laptop at the cost of actual storage dropping to 512 or 256GB respectively. That said... you really need to be a heavy user to exhaust modern SSDs.
Fair. Do MLC SSDs even cost half as much as Apple charges for them? I was more pointing out how sad it is that people are ecstatic that Apple is finally charging 2014 prices for SSDs.
An m.2 slot would be really nice and practical, but how else would Apple make insane margins on Mac upgrades?
Just my preference, I like quality.
You can't really compare buying a SSD in a shop or from a brand like Apple, with Apple you get much more, like the OS.
I don't completely disagree with you, prices went up by 25% last couple of years, for instance, you could get a 15" MBP for $1799 (Or was it 1999), look at the prices now, blame greedy stockholders / Wallstreet for this.
You think Apple make the SSD’s. Apple make nothing. The component suppliers do all the hard work. The take the lowest bid to give them the most profit.
With todays apple, thats the sad truth. Every time they release something there’s a ‘gotcha’
I think the biggest insult is the capacity of the entry level drive, and the cost to upgrade... 128GB... $200 to upgrade to 256GB! In my eyes, this gives the base MBA a $1300 starting price.
Then you get the message that your SSD is full...That's why is drives me nuts when Apple is pushing these super fast SSD's and people that buy them are bragging about their blackmagic disk scores ... when in real world use, there's little to no benefit of a 500 GB/s SSD vs a 2000 GB/s SSD.
I've used Macs with both speeds side by side and boot times, application launch times, file copying times are all virtually indistinguishable.
I was going to say that I was surprised that 256GB SSDs were still a thing, then thought ah, this is Apple...
[doublepost=1563369167][/doublepost]
Then you get the message that your SSD is full...
I don't disagree with you that the T2 chip - in that it prevents SSD upgrades - is one of the worst things Apple has done. I've upgraded the SSD at least once on every single Mac I've ever owned. Since the introduction of T2 chip saddled macs, I have not bought one with a T2 chip. I might have to break down one day and get one with a T2 inside, but I sure as hell won't be happy about it.
Damn good question.
If I were to guess, its so they can ‘market’ it as a superior ssd and therefore charge tons extra for it.
And charging extra wont work if its user upgradable.
As you see in this thread, theres plenty of people who are under the illusion that having faster SSD read/write speeds makes an important difference.
Catalina's segregation of the OS into its own read-only volume is only further evidence of the continuum of said quest.
The reason the SSDs are no longer removable is that the T-series co-processors require it. The SSD controller is now ON the T2 chip. This is to say that the SSD modules on the iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro tower, while physically removable might as well not be removable (because it's not like you'll be able to plug those SSD modules into another Mac, let alone any other computer, and have them be readable).
You have Apple's quest to make the Mac's under-the-hood functions (from hardware, software, and firmware standpoints) more like the iPad's to thank for this. Catalina's segregation of the OS into its own read-only volume is only further evidence of the continuum of said quest.