The cMBP is the only way to do multiple hard drives in a Mac without needing to carry an external one. Yes, it requires a bit of modification, but it's not an especially difficult or time-consuming procedure. Then you can slap the optical drive into an external enclosure for those times you really need it.
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.
Classic Macbook Pro Lives On
- Thread starter DFZD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just keep it up to date, technologically, and this is one fine Macbook. I'll never get rid of my 2010 even though I have a retina. I had to pay 450 extra for a 1tb PCIE drive (yes I had to for work), but if they'd keep these updated, with 16gb RAM, thunderbolt 2, and 2 SSD's in raid0, this computer is very capable.
Hell, some people still want one simply because it's thicker. Either way, I don't see this model going away any time soon.
Hell, some people still want one simply because it's thicker. Either way, I don't see this model going away any time soon.
I was having some fun today burning DVDs with my iTunes purchased music videos. Since the iTunes store music videos are DRM free, they can be burned to a DVD, copied to Android phones and converted to other formats.
I made a DVD of my old purchased iTunes Frankie Goes to Hollywood music videos and Def Leppard Hysteria collection. They look pretty good on the big screen.
I never made any DVDs till today.
I made a DVD of my old purchased iTunes Frankie Goes to Hollywood music videos and Def Leppard Hysteria collection. They look pretty good on the big screen.
I never made any DVDs till today.
If you're going to carry an external enclosure around, why not...carry an external enclosure around?
That is, USB3 Hard Drive that is faster than the internal on a 2012 and upgrade the internal one to a larger capacity as needed.
Did you completely pull that out of your rear-end? The internal hard drive connection is a 6Gb SATA 3... USB 3.0 has a 5Gb max throughput, before you minus any overhead.
Versus a SATA 2 optical bay... You're not going to see any difference with a regular hard drive. Even with an SSD, actual transfer rates over an external USB 3 drive aren't all that impressive and they certainly don't come close to an SATA 3 connection.
So yes... The option of having two internal drives is still beneficial over carrying around an external USB drive.
I had a 2011 before upgrading to a retina and I had a SSD/HD dual configuration and know all the problems associated with the setup. Since you haven't tried both configurations you should refrain from insulting those of us who have.
It's senseless to use two hard drives in the laptop. Buy a larger, faster USB3 drive, put it in the laptop, and then carry the internal one around in an external enclosure for backups.
It's senseless to use two hard drives in the laptop. Buy a larger, faster USB3 drive, put it in the laptop, and then carry the internal one around in an external enclosure for backups.
TOMH addressed this point above, so I won't repeat it.
In OS X 10.10.4 and higher, there is an Apple-sanctioned Terminal command that enables TRIM support on 3rd-party SSDs. Mavericks and earlier models can use TRIM enabler to do the same thing.
Those issues were largely resolved with an EFI update, which is linked to in that very OWC blog post you quoted. My late 2011 model has worked just fine with 2 SSDs in the optical bay, though this is not a configuration I use any more.
Fixed that.
---
Put the SSD in the optical and you maintain the SMS on the platter and reduce noise.
You know, I've been sitting here for half the day using my 2012 13" MBP and enjoying the hell out of it and wondering why people are still going back and forth on this thing. Live your lives people. It's only a computer.
You are quoting the theoretical maximum of the port. I haven't seen a drive capable of achieving it. I was citing actual benchmarks, not theoretical speeds. The fastest drive, OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD, was only able to achieve 500 MB/s in the benchmark posted by ThisOldMacHead and that's a $200 dollar 256GB drive, completely wiping any cost savings between the cMBP and retina.
So were you, SATA 2 is 300 SATA 3 is 600 full stop. Most drives get ~500 and that's fine and mostly unimportant unless you're moving big data sets around. IOPS are what people "feel" and there is a point of little to no benefit. There was a recent article on Anand comparing the SM 951 to the SM 951 NVME to an 850 pro, even though the NVME drive was faster at all things in the productivity benchmarks there was no difference.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9396/samsung-sm951-nvme-256gb-pcie-ssd-review
The reality is that if you want lots of storage or an optical drive the rMBP really doesn't work and that's really OK not everything is for everybody. The cMBP is not a good deal anymore but to someone who wants OS X and an optical drive or bookoo storage it really is the only option.
**edit**
It was Toms that made the comparison
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-sm951-nvme-versus-ahci-sata,4137.html
Last edited:
Or just buy them used. These machine can be had for really good prices right now. I picked up my 2.4GHz Late '11 13" for $500 5 months ago and it runs like a champ. Bought it from the original seller who used it for college and never updated it past 10.7 with the original 320GB HD. Now it purrs along beautifully with a 250GB 840 Evo SSD and 10GB of RAM on the El Cap beta.
I think what I like most about these particular machines is the repairability factor. The 13" model is one of the easiest Mac notebooks to disassemble, if not the easiest. I have stripped three down (except removing the screen from the chassis) and I'm able to get the main board out in 30-40 mins. They are also built like tanks. I have seen these models dented to hell, and look like complete **** and they just get up and go. It's amazing. Not quite as good as the Clamshell iBooks, but the best Intel MacBook as far as durability is concerned.
I'd love to put another 250GB-class SSD in the optical bay (since mine has SATA III in both bays) and put both SSDs in RAID0 for maximum speed. I rarely use CDs/DVDs anymore for archive purposes because what's the point? I can either burn 650MB to this CD once and that's it, or buy a 16GB thumb drive and be able to wipe it like crazy. What I'd LOVE to get is a 2012 13" logic board. It's a direct swap into mine but gives me USB 3.0. The 2012s had the perfect mix of ports: USB 3.0 for universal speed, Thunderbolt for that once-in-a-lifetime chance you buy a Thunderbolt drive, and FireWire 800 for backwards compatibility. Ethernet it nice too for diagnosing network problems, something I would have needed a $40 adapter for on my rMBP.
In my opinion, the price discount is not significant enough to make this 4-year old computer attractive to bargain hunters. Apparently I'm wrong since people still buy it, but I think that for $300 more (a 25% premium) the base rMBP makes much more sense.
I think you need to re-read that toms review.
You wrote that IOPS are what people "feel"
Here's what the article states regarding IOPS
"The real performance increase comes from reading random data. The SM951 (AHCI) spec sheet claims up to 90,000 random read IOPS. That's less than the 850 Pro, which tops out at up to 100,000 IOPS. Although we managed to pull more random read IOPS from the AHCI drive, it couldn't come close to the SM951-NVMe's claimed 300,000 random read IOPS."
You also wrote that regardless of benchmark results, there "was no difference" between the drives.
Here's what the article states regarding usable difference
"This is why we rarely mix SATA-attached drives into our PCIe-based comparisons. The performance gap is very wide, like comparing hard drives to SSDs. When solid-state storage first emerged, readers wanted to see us compare the technology to the fastest mechanical disks. We are still in a place where enthusiasts need to see the difference with SSDs, even though the gap is massive. Next-generation isn't just a marketing term for the companies manufacturing these parts.
Comparing the SM951-NVMe to the 850 Pro, we see the equivalent of a two-generation increase at low queue depths. Most users spend 80% of their time reading data and around 20% writing it. Those requests are typically random in nature. Given both stipulations, you're looking at a very large performance boost over the 850 Pro."
Given these quotes, it's difficult to read them and conclude they support your point that there is no, or even a marginal, difference in performance between SATA and NVMe; rather the differences are described as analogous to the difference between rotational drives and SSDs.
Buying one for half price on the used market as iamMacPerson points out, however, does net a sizable enough discount to make a compelling argument for the viability of an older clamshell MacBook Pro.
I said little to no difference past a certain point didn't I?
Second if you go to page 13 of the review in the "PCMark 8 Real-World Software" you will see virtually no difference between the three. The NVME is faster period it smokes everything in just about every benchmark but the simple fact is most people on any laptop particularly small are not doing anything that a stupid fast drive would help on beyond a certain point.
Bingo!! That's EXACTLY why I chose a refurb mid 2012 15" cMBP over a retina version. I Dropped in my 500GB Crucial SSD and zoom!, I'm off. Couldn't be happier. (Plus, it was only $1100, and I already had the SSD).
also... external drive? no thanks. i constantly need *lots* of storage (virtual machines), external drives are a no-no for this.
cMBP with internal hdd+ssd all the way. if apple updates the 13" cMBP with a higher res screen and maybe a processor upgrade i'd probably buy another
cMBP with internal hdd+ssd all the way. if apple updates the 13" cMBP with a higher res screen and maybe a processor upgrade i'd probably buy another
None of that has anything to do with your original, false assertion. An external USB 3 drive is not going to give any performance benefit over the internal SATA, period. Quite the opposite...
On the contrary, that portion of the review claims the NVMe drive completes the tasks a full "10 seconds faster than the other drives" and concludes,
"Over that span of time, we see a large divide between the three products in question. The results above are presented in MB/s rather than time to complete, if only to show that those small time differences really do equate to a big impact on user experience."
@bofh666,
Why are external storage drives a "no-no" for "*lots* of storage?"
They're a perfect candidate for lots of storage in my experience. My 15" retina with external drive takes less room in the same bag I used to use for my clamshell pro *and* I access my data faster both internally and externally.
1. Its not a 4 year old computer 2. People aren't just buying it for the up front cost. I put 8GB of ram and a 1 TB SSD in mine for about $450. Purchase price of $1500 (In Australia) + $450 = $1950. Retina Pro with 1 TB SSD = $3199 and then add another $280 for the 16 GB of ram (I plan on putting in my Macbook) that makes it nearly $3500 and the classic pro will end up being just a bit over $2100. Big Big difference.
The classic Pro makes sense to people in a lot of other ways than just price. Some people want ports, some people want the optical drive.
The same really goes for the Retina Macbook.. Its got the power of the 2011 Macbook Air, but people are still buying that for a premium. Why? Because it is very thin. In the same way that people are willing to compromise for the retina pro, people are willing to compromise for the classic pro.
That being said, I really hope they introduce another one. Otherwise this will be my last Macbook.
I agree, this may be my last MBP. I don't need retina, but love the option of upgrading during the life of the computer.
I agre.. I don't need Retina but I do need the ability to upgrade plus ports and the optical drive.
if apple updates the 13" cMBP with a higher res screen and maybe a processor upgrade i'd probably buy another
They did that in 2012 - it's called the 13" rMBP
