*Gasp* I'm downgrading from SSD back to HDD.

[arcite]

why doesnt anyone here want their computer to be fast? i aint talking about boot, who boots anyway? but app opening, its like on the iphone, to buy a computer that costs a couple of thousands of dollars and then wait half a min for it to load photoshop, hell even iphoto and itunes, seconds arent important, user experience is what matters. how many times have you heard that android is no good cause it lags, its the same thing with computers, the goal is to make everything instant, just like iphone, wouldnt you agree?

That's a weak argument to spend hundreds of extra dollars though. Once you open up your apps on startup in OSX there is no need to ever close them. As long as you have lots of spare ram you'll never have any problems.

IMO you get a much better return on investment with maxing out ram rather than spending big on an SSD. - for now.

 

[fibrizo]

This one was funny enough I had to respond to.

So what?

How much time are you truly saving in day/week/month/year?

Let's be very conservative on this to give your argument the best chance. I own a MBA (SSD) and a MBP (HDD) and a PC desktop with SSD Comparatively in my uses, lets say I save 1 minute using the SSD, in between the boot times and program loading, each day. This is conservative mind you, as just booting the things probably makes the whole minute up, if all were HDD based. I'm also not counting the difference it takes to install and reinstall software and updates, which is significantly faster on SSD. (ie if you've ever tried to install bootcamp on an HDD vs SSD you're talking 30 mins right there)

Given that I work only 5 days a week, (granted I use my computers on other days but I don't get paid to do it) let's say 20 minutes a month (again very conservative)

Multiply that number by 12 and we get 4 hours. This is the minimum of time I would say I save.

On your job, how much do you make in one hour?

How many hours must you work in order to pay for say a 512 MB SSD? I mean even 512 is probably the smallest drive one could live with and not have to butcher up their MBP to put in a HDD in the optical bay.

On average let's just say 100$, It's harder to quantify than that, and it's going to increase, but I know they'll pay me 100$ for 45 mins of my time to fill surveys, so we'll go with that. Then x 4 = 400$. Granted it's not a 512mb SSD, but you do realize that until this last update the standard hdd in the mbp 13 was 250gb... and now it's 320gb... So apparently nobody uses the standard HDD on a macbook pro at all since 512 is the smallest drive someone could live with.

Before your SSD has saved you enough money ( remember Time=Money ) to make it economically viable there will be something new you will want to replace it with.

You're right. But I just end up buying a new macbook pro whenever it refreshes and sell my old one, basically paying 200-300$ for using it for 8-9 months, and I just move my HD/SSD to the new machine. Incremental improvements in SSD speed are not enough to tempt me.

Will I ever buy an SSD? Yeah, I could see myself buying one. When they make 1 TB SSD and get it down to a $300 price point. But they by that time a 5 TB, 10,000 RPM HDD will be selling for $50.

It's all about ROI, my computers are tools used for generating income, I don't even have a single game installed on any of them. So I look at it from a financial standpoint.

SSD's just are not worth the investment ..... at this time.

That depends on your financial situation does it not? I can see it fit in your case, but your case is not every case. (I do regret buying a 3x CD-ROM drive for 450$ though back in the day, but it was 50% faster than the 2x!)

At the end of the day, you and your SSD will have one thing I do not have, and that would be ......

Bragging Rights!

Hey, do you think they sell expensive cars on fuel efficiency?

 

[daneoni]

Snide remarks aside... you cannot deny that the number of testimonials contradicting your reasoning from your original post, leave a lot of us wondering what you are thinking. I say again, it's the money.

You don't see the value of the performance gain for the cost - that's fine, and you are in some very strong company. But, to engender other "issues" as your cause just isn't believable.

Its not a money issue

Just let the man return his SSD!! OP, are you really able to return it? I know on newegg, for instance, they have a "no return, exchange only" policy on all their newer model SSDs.

Yeah the retailer i got it from has a 15-day no questions asked policy

I have (well technically had, I gave it to my father-in-law) a 2009 MBP 13" w/ a Sandforce 1200 120GB SSD that has been going strong now for a year and a half and I have never updated the firmware and have never enabled Trim (although yes I did reinstall everything when I gave him my MBP). Frankly, the opinions that SSD's aren't reliable have been debunked so many times, it shouldn't be worth mentioning. In a portable device, that can be easily dropped/banged/etc is it really less reliable than a spinning drive?!?!

It if isn't worth it to you, it isn't worth it to you. If you are trying to justify returning the drive because you feel that the amount of money spent can be used for other things than return it. An SSD is isn't a necessity, it's a luxury item (although so is an MBP), but just about every review site (that is worth it's salt) states that an SSD is the #1 best upgrade you can do for your computer to increase it's overall speed. Heck I threw an older 128GB SSD into my wife's 2.2Ghz Dual Core "Pentium" from HP (we only paid like $400 for it a 1.5 years ago) and it is amazing how much snappier it feels today.

Oh and again as far as reliability, Apple has included a wonderful utility called Time Machine that should be used whether you use SSD's or HD.

Despite never having had a hard drive fail on me, i backup my stuff regularly using Super Duper. Also, again, It's not a money issue.

 

[Weaselboy]

Frankly, the opinions that SSD's aren't reliable have been debunked so many times, it shouldn't be worth mentioning. In a portable device, that can be easily dropped/banged/etc is it really less reliable than a spinning drive?!?!

Reliability is not the same thing as compatibility. I agree once you get an SSD functioning properly they don't seem to die often, which makes them reliable. But every day there is a new thread here about someone that installed an SSD on their Mac and they have compatibility problems such as beachballs and lockups. At this point in SSD development it would be hard to argue they don't have compatibility issues. Whether that is Apples fault or the SSD manufacturers fault is still up for debate I suppose.

 

[dagamer34]

It's not bs. Go in an Apple store and test it out. Launch Apps like Garageband and you find the speed increase isn't that shocking. Believe it or not, the iMac won a couple of times in the Apple store.

So a 2.7Ghz Core i7 iMac beat out a MacBook Air with a 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo? Gee, you don't see any factors that might be influencing such a test?

I think it's undeniable that in the same exact system with the only difference being any HDD and any SSD, the speed increase is shockingly noticeable. The only issue is how you feel about spending $200 on a 120GB SSD.

 

[daneoni]

Reliability is not the same thing as compatibility. I agree once you get an SSD functioning properly they don't seem to die often, which makes them reliable. But every day there is a new thread here about someone that installed an SSD on their Mac and they have compatibility problems such as beachballs and lockups. At this point in SSD development it would be hard to argue they don't have compatibility issues. Whether that is Apples fault or the SSD manufacturers fault is still up for debate I suppose.

This.

 

[LunaC]

That doesn't count. Most programs are already in memory or cache, as people open just about everything, so you get about the same load time since you're waiting on the RAM, not the HDD/SSD.

But if you seldom reboot, you only incur the initial load penalty once and after that it screams. Im not saying SSD is not worth it, I consider a magnetic disk a disaster that is waiting to happen (due to mechanics). I'm just saying that the typical justification is the speed of a reboot and how quickly apps open after that reboot. For the minority that moves around a ton of large files, SSD performance (or nice RAID) is a godsend.

 

[seek3r]

It's not bs. Go in an Apple store and test it out. Launch Apps like Garageband and you find the speed increase isn't that shocking. Believe it or not, the iMac won a couple of times in the Apple store.

For sequential reads you're right, spinning disk can win there (though not against the higher end SATA3 SSDs). Start doing anything that involves lots of files (particularly lots of small files), or large files that weren't written sequentially, or lots of different apps writing to disk at the same time, or anything that pushes your machine to swap, and you'll see a *massive* boost from an SSD. If all you care about is word loading fast you may see enough difference, I can tell you though the upgrade, on my workload.... it's made my MBP usable for probably a year to year and a half longer than i was expecting, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same way.

 

[olivelawn]

FWIW - I am having ZERO problems with my new c300...

*shrug*

PackFan: What Model Macbook Pro you got?

 

[bozz2006]

Model number is irrelevant in Packfan's situation. God is a Packer fan. End of story.

 

[paulrbeers]

Despite never having had a hard drive fail on me, i backup my stuff regularly using Super Duper. Also, again, It's not a money issue.

So again, what is the issue? If money is no object, then you would want to have the best no? If you back up your stuff, what reliability issue is there? And frankly, even without TRIM, SSD’s still run faster degraded than hard drives (oh and there’s a simple trick to enable TRIM if you want to).

I pulled this from an article on AnandTech talking about the new 25nm memory:

“Let's quickly do the math again. If you have a 100GB drive and you write 7GB per day you'll program every MLC NAND cell in the drive in just over 14 days—that's one cycle out of three thousand. Outside of SandForce controllers, most SSD controllers will have a write amplification factor greater than 1 in any workload. If we assume a constant write amplification of 20x (and perfect wear leveling) we're still talking about a useful NAND lifespan of almost 6 years. In practice, write amplification for desktop workloads is significantly lower than that.

Remember that the JEDEC spec states that once you've used up all of your rated program/erase cycles, the NAND has to keep your data safe for a year. So even in the unlikely event that you burn through all 3000 p/e cycles and let's assume for a moment that you have some uncharacteristically bad NAND that doesn't last for even one cycle beyond its rating, you should have a full year's worth of data retention left on the drive. By 2013 I'd conservatively estimate NAND to be priced at ~$0.92 per GB and in another three years beyond that you can expect high speed storage to be even cheaper. In short, combined with good ECC and an intelligent controller I wouldn't expect NAND longevity to be a concern at 25nm.”

 

[daneoni]

Is it really that hard to fathom.

If i'm gonna buy an SSD now it has to be a SATA3 drive, SATA2 is no longer an option. If i had to settle for one, it would be the Apple ones since they are the cheapest i can get (i'm not gonna heavily invest in a SATA2 drive when i have a SATA3 port) but since i didn't BTO an SSD from them i'm left with SATA3. The two options for my budget are the Vertex 3 and Crucial M4. Vertex 3 fails in point 1 and the M4 fails in point 2. Both points are important to me. Controllers and their FWs have a huge say on SSD performance/longevity.

I need at least one point checked. With the Vertex 3 I feel like i'm buying an iPhone 4 and setting myself up to be stuck with it's launch OS 4.0 because Apple didn't provide iTunes for Windows. Yes it works and will arguably work well without new updates...but why should i have to settle for that? Updates bring new features and fix issues, some you didn't even know you had, thus make the product even better. Bad analogy but hopefully you get the idea. With the M4, the person i consider the foremost expect on SSDs warns about speed degradation when running without TRIM something that was corroborated by another blogger who found write speed degradation of his C300 (similar controllers) approaching 0MB/s at certain periods.

Is it REALLY that strange to want to wait a bit more for improved compatibility before diving in. I only have one computer and i use it for critical stuff. Drive issues/failures and subsequent restoration procedures are not fun and waste time. I don't even want to entertain the prospect...however low the possibility. The drive may have been working fine for me but there are a significant amount of people out there having issues with it (as well as the M4) and whats to say that won't be me a few days/weeks/months later. Paranoid? arguably. I'd say i'm just being prudent.

When OS X implements universal TRIM (the hacked version conflicts with any drive with GC) i'll gladly get the M4, or, when Sandforce release OS X update support i'll get the Vertex 3 or any other Sandforce drive. My Hitachi 7200 may be a slow, a POS or whatever but it's running the latest custom FW from Apple and there aren't many (if any) threads complaining about freezes or not being able to boot on it.

I think this will be my last response to the thread. If people still don't get it then simply chalk it up to individual quirk.

 

[paulrbeers]

I think this will be my last response to the thread. If people still don't get it then simply chalk it up to individual quirk.

Individual quirk is fine, but these are forums where we try to help educate people. If your post has conceived flaws, we are going to tell you. Not only for your sake, but for those who might stumble upon a thread like this and take your complaints as fact when in truth, they really aren't.

None of your 3 points are based on current data (most are outdated opinions of SSD's from several years ago) or first hand knowledge so we want to make sure that others who are making these decisions know from those of us who have been running with SSD's in OSX have the factual information.

And as previously stated in this thread, if you are really concerned about doing firmware updates, you can use a Linux Live CD which means you wouldn't even need to have Windows installed in Boot Camp! If you choose to ignore your options, that is fine. I get it. Not everyone is happy with not having native applications (although to be honest, we should be pretty used to it being mac fans!).

Edit: I have never seen any reputable website state that without TRIM that a drive nears 0 MB's in transfer rates. Most of the time it is around 50-70% of original throughput. Bloggers can be some of the worst people to pull data from. Poor testing procedures with little understanding of the way things work and they like to make outrageous statements in order to get people to come to their site to make money off their advertising.

 

[daneoni]

-

And as previously stated in this thread, if you are really concerned about doing firmware updates, you can use a Linux Live CD which means you wouldn't even need to have Windows installed in Boot Camp! If you choose to ignore your options, that is fine. I get it. Not everyone is happy with not having native applications (although to be honest, we should be pretty used to it being mac fans!).

I have a Vertex 2 in my Mac Pro and I can update the firmware by using a Linux Live CD along with the Linux firmware updater. The procedure is really easy.

Didn't work for me...not helped by the fact that few distros (only found one) support 2011 MBP hardware.

 

[Kariya]

Read the thread and i have to say the OP has valid points. SSDs have some niggling issues which can be a huge PITA but the upside is things continue to get better. FW is important and can be the difference between a problematic drive and a smooth sailing one. Why does Sandforce have a windows and linux option but omit OS X. Their update path is huge mess and they need to sort it out ASAP.

The reputation of Crucial drives precedes them. Things were a mess when the C300 debuted and only stabilized with updates and there is degradation to be had if you're not in Windows 7. The M4 has launched to several complaints too. Frankly If i had to get a SATA 3 drive now i'd be going the Intel route but i'm sticking with SATA2 for now to see how things pan out.

All you folks claiming to be educating the OP are only talking AT him or worse insulting him/his intelligence. He doesn't seem like an idiot to me compared to some responses on here (some of you really have no idea what you're talking about ) but rather someone who tried the options accessible to him based on his wants, was unsatisfied/came up short and wants to try again later.

 

[PackFan]

PackFan: What Model Macbook Pro you got?

2011 15" MBPro

 

[olivelawn]

2011 15" MBPro

Thats what I have too. Interesting. Did you update any firmware before installing? Replace the SATA cable? Running the TRIM Hack? I'm definitely going to return my vertex 3 in a couple weeks and may try the C300 next.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Dont know why the your worried, TRIM isn't a problem, although ideal to have TRIM its a Sandforce drive (inbuilt rubbish collection). I believe the power Draw from the vertex 3 is still lower then a HDD and Performance? Its already light years faster.
I would never make the move but i hope you enjoy your new drive, for me SSDs just make my computing life easier.

 

[olivelawn]

Dont know why the your worried, TRIM isn't a problem, although ideal to have TRIM its a Sandforce drive (inbuilt rubbish collection). I believe the power Draw from the vertex 3 is still lower then a HDD and Performance? Its already light years faster.
I would never make the move but i hope you enjoy your new drive, for me SSDs just make my computing life easier.

You might not feel the same way if your computer froze 15-20 times a day for 15-30 seconds at a time with a vertex 3 drive.

 

[harcosparky]

Hey, do you think they sell expensive cars on fuel efficiency?

No, they sell them to people who want ......... Bragging Rights!

Just like the people who buy SSD's LOL

Like I said quoted below .............

At the end of the day, you and your SSD will have one thing I do not have, and that would be ......

Bragging Rights!

But me? I'll more storage in my notebook, and more money in my bank account.

 

[Bubba Satori]

It doesn't happen often, so enjoy the moment.

I'm at a loss for words...

 

[fibrizo]

But me? I'll more storage in my notebook, and more money in my bank account.

Like I said, everyone has their own priority for hardware depending on how they use it.

I use a HD for my macbook pro... as sadly it's mostly an itunes syncing device for my iphone/ipad etc and sits at home on my desk. But the SSD in the MBA I take to work really flies and feels faster to use for day to day tasks.

I do wish that apple would have left a msata port option so we could say put in a 40gb intel 310 and keep the large spinning disk. Or heck let us use an SSD for caching like with the x68 chipset.

 

[s.hasan546]

No, they sell them to people who want ......... Bragging Rights!

Just like the people who buy SSD's LOL

Like I said quoted below .............



But me? I'll more storage in my notebook, and more money in my bank account.

Nah ill still have more money in my bank account

 

[Ladybug]

Individual quirk is fine, but these are forums where we try to help educate people. If your post has conceived flaws, we are going to tell you. Not only for your sake, but for those who might stumble upon a thread like this and take your complaints as fact when in truth, they really aren't.

None of your 3 points are based on current data (most are outdated opinions of SSD's from several years ago) or first hand knowledge so we want to make sure that others who are making these decisions know from those of us who have been running with SSD's in OSX have the factual information.

And as previously stated in this thread, if you are really concerned about doing firmware updates, you can use a Linux Live CD which means you wouldn't even need to have Windows installed in Boot Camp! If you choose to ignore your options, that is fine. I get it. Not everyone is happy with not having native applications (although to be honest, we should be pretty used to it being mac fans!).

Edit: I have never seen any reputable website state that without TRIM that a drive nears 0 MB's in transfer rates. Most of the time it is around 50-70% of original throughput. Bloggers can be some of the worst people to pull data from. Poor testing procedures with little understanding of the way things work and they like to make outrageous statements in order to get people to come to their site to make money off their advertising.

Educating people is a fine thing, and I think you brought up some valid points. But then to really have a discussion that will help educate people we have to look at both sides, pro's and con's. While your experience might have been better than the OP, the OP made some valid points as well. For many of us the SDD is good enough or useable in its present state, but we have to also recognize that not everyone has the same experience, and depending on where they/we put our/their priorities, it might be better for some people to wait. Again, I agree with much of what you and many other have said in favor of SSD's. But to me that does not discount or negate any of the concerns the OP has. Great discussion!

 

[harcosparky]

But me? I'll more storage in my notebook, and more money in my bank account.

Nah ill still have more money in my bank account

It never fails, I bring up an unpopular point or position and someone comes along to help me prove it.

Now that I have presented my point, and Mr s.hasan has proven it for me, my work here is done.

BRAGGING RIGHTS!

Thanks for proving my point for me.