rMBP: What's your SSD's actual capacity?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jzj687, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. jzj687 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #1
    I ordered the 512 and it says the total capacity of 500.28 and the Macintosh HD capacity is 499.42
     
  2. eeclipse16 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #2
    I don't know the exact numbers but my 256GB only showed around 222GB before I installed anything. I wonder where that 30+ gigs is at? I read a thread about a week ago where someone was able to delete other languages and some random stuff that was not system related and got back 16 GB. I wish I could find that thread again.
     
  3. frozi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #3
    def find out how to clear up more space please!!

    I am debating between the 512 or 750. I figure I will have an external for lal my video, so the 512 will be fine. But if you knwo a way to get rid of stupid stuff. I am def interested

    GOOD WORK
     
  4. Jeff3f macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    #4
    is there a hidden restore partition (OSX Lion feature)??
     
  5. blow45 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    #5
    that could be it. :) If only there was a way to get rid of this... 220gbs on pro mac, it sounds ludicrously restricted... and that's what I am getting btw, cause that's what I can afford right now. Thank god for sdxc though. :D
     
  6. \-V-/ Suspended

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #6
    I don't know why you'd want to get rid of it, but you can. Clone your OS partition to an external drive with Carbon Copy Cloner, using the complete clone option as to make the clone bootable. Then, boot into the cloned external drive, format the internal drive with Disk Utility, then clone the single partition to the internal drive then boot from your internal again. No more recovery partition.
     
  7. blow45 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    #7
    just for more space that's all. I am aware of the cc or superduper thing but I have two concerns:

    a. the block copy thing which is the most reliable way, won't that introduce the hidden partition anyway? I wouldn't want to do it in a non block copy way, who knows if this will introduce problems.

    b. If lion misbehaves unless it knows there's a hidden partition there.
     
  8. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #8
    It appears that Apple is using more space for over-provisioning than the standard 7% that comes for Gibibyte to Gigabyte translation. I have Snow Leopard on my 2010 Air and it shows 121GB (it's a 128GB drive).
     
  9. blow45 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    #9
    could it be some overprovisioning for flash errors too, extending the product's lifecycle with custom apple garbage collection (aka close to worst in class to what others such as intel are doing) might not be enough and they leave quite a lot of unused ssd space for future usage?

    I am sure it's also the lion backup partition, but it could well be that too. I don't think it's only the gibi to giga conversion .
     
  10. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #10
    Samsung's (and Toshiba's) garbage collection is fairly good but the more space you dedicate for it, the better.

    128GB SSD actually has 128GiB (~137GB) of NAND on board. That's why a 128GB has 7% for OP. It looks like Apple is using a bit more than that because their 128GB SSD does not have 128GB of usable space. I would not call this a negative thing, though.
     
  11. doh123 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #11
    my 512gb in my rMBP...

    model number is SM512E, but its "total capacity" in disk utility is 500.28 GB.

    usable on the partition is less because there is a 200mb EFI partition and a 650mb Lion recovery partition. Something smells fishy... why not just sell them as 500GB flash drives?
     
  12. \-V-/ Suspended

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #12
    You don't select the option to copy the recovery partition. There's a separate option to perform a block level copy for the recovery partition, but I wasn't suggesting that. Do a simple bootable clone of the main partition and you're all set. Lion is fine without the recovery partition. It doesn't misbehave. Just make sure you have a bootable thumb drive or something at the very least so that you can access various tools at startup such as Disk Utility.
     
  13. swordfish5736 macrumors 68000

    swordfish5736

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Cesspool
    #13
    So can someone check to see if the new rMBP has trim enabled? I'm curious since they are using a sand force controller and OWC claim the sand force controller doesn't require trim due to built in garbage collection.
     
  14. Pikkuroope macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #14
    SandForce? Samsung 830 is not SandForce, is it?
     
  15. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #15
    No, Toshiba uses SandForce.

    Yes, TRIM is enabled on the Apple SSDs.

    [​IMG]

    And to reply to OP's question, my (advertised) 512GB is showing as 500GB in About This Mac, 500.28GB in System Information, with an actual 499.42GB available to OS X.

    This is of course reporting in the base-10 method that Apple adopted starting with Snow Leopard. Windows and the iOS devices still use the 'traditional' binary method, so this number is a bit larger than what you'd get if it was being read in Windows.

    [​IMG]

    :)
     
  16. swordfish5736 macrumors 68000

    swordfish5736

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Cesspool
    #16
    The teardowns say it's toshiba based flash with a custom sand force controller....weird the ifixit article says it is a newer revision of the Samsung 830 but arstechnica states the toshiba and sand force stuff
     
  17. jzj687 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #17
    Do you think this is anything worth complaining about to Apple?

    Should I make a stink or just let it go...
     
  18. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #18
    To be honest, I would normally say that they've covered their asses with the whole 'actual formatted capacity less' clause, but this is confusing. On my 128GB Air, I had 128GB total available with around ~100GB free after OS, which was normal (accounting for different ways of reporting total capacity etc).

    But here it's just missing 12GB, even accounting for the formatting stuff. Shouldn't it say 512GB Flash rather than 500GB?

    I wouldn't call in and complain, but I might call in and ask. It's going to be difficult getting the rep to understand that I know the whole 'formatted capacity less' thing though since they probably deal with this kind of question daily, but this really has me confused.
     
  19. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    512GB is new and different and implies 'digital' to the consumer without getting into details.

    500GB doesn't differentiate the new drive enough from an old mechanical one as easily.

    It's all marketing.
     
  20. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #20
    That makes no sense- to the average consumer, ordering a 512GB drive is no fancier than ordering a 500GB drive. But they'll certainly be confused when it arrives with just 500GB available.

    Besides, I'd say 'flash storage' differentiates it from 'hard disk drive' enough, no need to add 12GB to the actual capacity to make it look 'digital'.
     
  21. doh123 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #21
  22. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #22
    No it isn't. They sell the drives that way because it makes sense to sell storage at multiples of 'billions of bytes'. Windows makes no distinction between GB (10 ^ 9) and GiB (1024 ^ 3), that is where much of the confusion comes from.

    It has nothing to do with marketing.
     
  23. blow45 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    #23
    I agree, it's clearly just marketing, the poster os right, it's clearly a way to imply it's not a hd normal increment to the clueless user, it's not a 500gb MacBook it's a 512gb one, because it's "digital", you guys might not get this and look for technical explanations but the marketing dept gets how to talk to the clueless.
     
  24. corvus32, Jun 28, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2012

    corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    If Apple listed the $1199 cMBP and the $2799 rMBP as both having a 500GB drive, that would be confusing.
     
  25. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #25
    That makes more sense, but it still doesn't explain why Apple puts 500GB Flash Storage in About This Mac while claiming it is a 512GB drive when they sell it to you- does anyone know what Apple puts under About This Mac when you have a factory 500GB HDD installed?

    Like I said, that doesn't make any sense, because an average consumer does not know the significance of a 512GB drive over a 500GB drive. And that still doesn't explain why Apple puts 500GB Flash in About This Mac- that would just confuse the average consumer.

    To the average consumer it's just an additional 12GB- the 'flash drive' vs 'hard disk drive' is the differentiator, and Apple does detail why a 'flash drive' is better.
     

Share This Page