On why I went with Apple's 128GB SSD...

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by shaner2000, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. shaner2000 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #1
    Option 1 (aftermarket SSD):

    15" i7 - 2199
    500GB 7200 rpm (for me, 5400rpm is not an option): +$50
    (All other options equal)
    Aftermarket Intel X25-M SSD 80GB: +$215 at newegg.com

    Total: 2464

    Option 2 (Apple SSD)(? Toshiba):

    15" i7 - 2199
    128GB SSD: +200
    (All other options equal)
    Aftermarket Hitachi 500GB 7200 rpm internal HD: +90

    Total: 2489

    ==

    Perhaps faulty logic, but, for only $25 more, I get 48GB more storage with Apple's SSD, which, while not top of the line, looks to be decent if the Toshiba brand is correct...

    ==

    Purchased, but still yet to be made, so, will let you know if I'm disappointed once it arrives...
     
  2. UKBeast macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Location:
    Turkey
    #2
    With buying your ssd from apple, you will also be having apple warranty. If any problem happens in the future, they will fix it or replace it for and you do not have to deal with risk of 3rd party suppliers.
     
  3. infernohellion macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    København
    #3
    Absolutely not a bad move. And yes, it is a perfect future proofing of the SSD support from Apple. Both warranty and future TRIM function support. I highly doubt that Apple will ever support out-of-house SSDs like mine.
     
  4. RqThrottle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    You forgot to factor in the following:

    With option 1:

    1. You will have an extra HD to store stuff externally.

    2. The X-25 performs far better than Apple's SSD (not measurable in $), and has a 3 year warranty by Intel.

    3. SSD technology changes so rapidly you will want to upgrade your SSD anyway in the next year or two - hence negating any advantage of option 2.

    I went with option 1. Option 2 is absolutely not worth the $25 *to me*. But to each its own...

    (EDIT: I see you have factored the HD price in some odd way...)
     
  5. Dwalls90 macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #5
    It seems like a good idea on paper, but the warranty on your Mac SSD is 1 year ... versus the 3+ year warranty on one from Newegg. Furthermore, I guarantee the performance of OCZ or Intel would bash that of the brand Apple uses. It's nice to see that Apple's SSD offerings are becoming somewhat more competitive though?
     
  6. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Not to mention if there is something wrong with your Apple SSD you have to send the entire computer back, not just the drive. Weak.
     
  7. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #7
    Exactly this.
     
  8. shaner2000 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #8

    Having to send in the mac for repairs to the SSD aside, doesn't applecare give you a 3+ yr warranty of parts & labor?

    this is certainly making me consider calling to modify my order....i just hope it doesn't put a dent in my "days until shipping..."

    ...although there's still the issue of much less storage with a comparably priced Intel...I need to be able to install Windows, and 80GB just won't cut it....
     
  9. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #9
    Yes, if you purchase AppleCare for your computer they will cover problems with the SSD. However, you'll have to send your entire MacBook Pro back for repair -- you can't just send them the SSD like you would if you had to send your Intel SSD back to Intel for repair/replacement.

    If 80 GB is not enough space, and the 160GB intel drive is too expensive, then that's that. You will still see a tremendous performance improvement with the SSDs that Apple uses.
     
  10. Mark Booth macrumors 65816

    Mark Booth

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #10
    I'd choose Apple's SSD over having no SSD at all, any day of the week!

    And, FWIW, the OCZ Vertex I put in my Core i7 is also 128GB (about 120 after formatting). I've got a full-size system install on it, all of the iApps (including iWork), Photoshop and Aperture 3, about 10GB worth of music and movies, and I still have about 70GB free.

    256GB would be nice but the reality is, I can get along just fine with 128!

    Mark
     
  11. JimAtLaw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #11
    This is a large part of why I bought the Apple SSD - I want support for it, including both the warranty and TRIM when they add it to the OS. There are faster, cheaper choices out there, but the same could be said of buying a PC versus getting a Mac in the first place.
     
  12. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    What does TRIM have to do with it? Once Apple implements it in the OS (if ever) it's not like 3rd party SSDs that are TRIM-ready won't benefit from it.
     
  13. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #13
    Sounds like you're just trying to justify it to yourself, do you really think other SSDs wouldn't support TRIM when Apple adds it to the OS? Also, if support is what you want you should gone with an OCZ brand SSD. OCZ has the best SSD support bar none; awesome support forum staffed by knowledgeable Employee's and members, very frequent firmware updates and the best SSD warranty/RMA program in the business. Doubt Apple will come anywhere near to matching OCZ when it comes to SSD support.
     
  14. PaulDCarlucci macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #14
    There's custom firmware lurking on the Tosh drives. Who knows what it does or why Apple did it, but you know they did it for a darned good reason.
     
  15. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #15
    It sounded like you were implying that once apple implements TRIM it'd be good to have an "Apple" SSD because only they will work with TRIM, which is not the case at all.
     
  16. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #16
    They definitely do NOT have the best RMA/return support in the business. Last year I had a 256 GB Vertex die on me after 5 months. Sent it back, it was determined to be a hardware failure, and they lead me to believe they were sending me a replacement. After a few weeks of them promising they'd send it "tomorrow" they admitted they had none to send me. I asked for my money back and finally got it a month later.

    Also, they aren't really that receptive to Mac specific issues. People with MacBook Pro 3,1 are STILL having problems with boot camp and sleep. Over a year later!
     
  17. drew0020 macrumors 68000

    drew0020

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #17
    from a performance standpoint it's a terrible move. Personally I don't think it's a good move from a service standpoint either. I'd rather have the faster SSD and also have a hard drive in the even the SSD ever needs service.

    In my opinion you need a G2 intel. Great performance and reliability.
     
  18. shaner2000 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #18

    I'm actually getting a hard-drive, too, in the cost-analysis.

    And, we'll see on the performance issue....as in, we'll see if it's a significant day-to-day, "real-life" issue...

    I think in the end it's like the anti-glare vs glossy issue...to each his own. I do appreciate the feedback/opinions, though. Hence the post.
     
  19. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #19
    Yeah, don't sweat it. The newer SSDs Apple is using are much better than their old ones. You will see a huge jump in performance and will go on to become an SSD snob. It's inevitable :p
     
  20. drew0020 macrumors 68000

    drew0020

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #20
    I can't understand why you would spend almost $2,500 on the best MacBook Pro i7 (when the i5 is similar around 10% less performance) and then cheap out when it comes to the SSD? What is your rationale for this? To me for a SSD there is 1 choice with Intel. If you need more space get the 160GB Intel.

    Are you saying you think there is more real world i5 vs i7 performance than a toshiba vs intel SSD? in my opinion the Intel SSD would probably give more performance gains than the processor.

    I don't want to come across as rude but for the money you're spending you used 1 set of rationale on the processor and then a good enough rationale mindset
    on the SSD :(
     
  21. JimAtLaw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #21
    I don't know why you're so sure - one could easily foresee Apple's TRIM implementation only activating for certain known & tested drive types that support this. Why is it automatically true that they must support drives they've never shipped?
     
  22. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #22
    Don't let the people here convince you otherwise, if you want a hassle free computer you made the right decision.

    Having to open up the MBP to remove the drive and send it in, installing a new drive yourself to reinstall OS X on, then doing another swap once your broken SSD is shipped back to you is not something many people want to do. You made the right decision.

    I opt to not go SSD yet and instead have a stack of $400 cash sitting next to my computer that I smile at every time I think about the suckers who paid $400+ for a SSD to get faster launch times. I am impatient, but not $400 impatient.
     
  23. dcurtis macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    #23
    I also bought the Apple upgrade. I didn't want to mess with swapping out the drives (this is my first mac) and I didn't want to mess with a third party for support. Sure, I've not got the fastest SSD in the world, but I know that 80GB on the 200 Intel x25 is too small for me and I didn't want to spend 400+ to get the 160GB. 128 is kinda small for me but I've lived with that size drive for the last 5 years, it's not a step down from space like the 80GB would be. Also all the hassle of buying an external enclosure for the 500GB drive and all that, I'd rather just go out and buy a 1.5 TB FW800/USB2 external drive for 150 and be done with it.

    Plus, as someone pointed out, in a couple years I'll probably want to upgrade anyways and so I will. And I don't think I'm personally going to know that the Apple SSD is slower than the Intel because I've been running a 7200rpm 120GB drive in my desktop thats running over EIDE. I don't even have SATA in my old machine!

    My argument about noticing speed fails (and might seem hypocritical) because I bought the i7 machine. But my reasoning was that I'll be keeping this machine for at least 3 years and it's easier to upgrade the memory and HDD than the video card and i7.

    Oh, and if it helps, I bought the Glossy Hi-Res. I have used Matte all my life and looking at my friend's Mid-2009 MBP w/ glossy I can't help but think how amazing it looks.
     
  24. PaulDCarlucci macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #24
    The Apple firmware SSD runs about 10% slower than a straight up Kingston SSD Now V+. Someone insinuated that this was due to some issue with write reliability with OS X.
     
  25. drew0020 macrumors 68000

    drew0020

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #25
    You make some fair points but here is mine. For someone opting for the i7 which is very high end I can't imagine opening up the bottom of the computer and loading OS X onto the SSD as being an issue.

    Space could be an issue. Personally I'd choose the i5 with the intel vs the i7 and the other SSD's though
     

Share This Page