The Dell panel lottery was easy. If your serial number ended in L, you knew it came with an IPS panel.
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.
SSD Speed Variations in 2014 MacBook Air Still Due to Drive Brand Mix, Not Broader Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Dell panel lottery was easy. If your serial number ended in L, you knew it came with an IPS panel.
I know he was. I'm saying there are people here who would consider themselves lucky because they didn't receive one with Samsung components.
Hmm, they only verify 1GB of the data written over that time? Given that and what I've seen in the field, I can't trust their life expectancy calcs.
The guy you quoted has his post voted up 24 times and like a third of posts in this thread seem to be saying the same thing...
...if you're not going to read the article title or the article, at least read the words underneath the pictures
I had a similar experience with my unibody MacBook in 2008, which I returned twice because of various hardware issues. When I received my second one, I still had my first one at home. I put them side by side to transfer my data and I immediately noticed that the display of the second one was distinctly washed out and that its superdrive made a terrible noise every time I would get it out of sleep mode. A quick Google search revealed that Apple used displays and super drives from different suppliers. The first and third MacBooks I received had simply the better parts. I may have never noticed this if I had received the second one first and kept it. Yet I would be pissed if I found out eventually.
Back then I assumed it was because the unibody MacBook was a new product and still had its supply issues. It shocks me to be honest that Apple still uses hardware with such differences in quality. Yet Macs have only gotten more expensive around here. I will be on my guard the next time I consider buying an Apple product.
Last edited:
The guy you quoted has his post voted up 24 times and like a third of posts in this thread seem to be saying the same thing...
...if you're not going to read the article title or the article, at least read the words underneath the pictures
It's better to say nothing than make incorrect assumptions. And your assumption here is wrong. I read the article. And the one it linked. It is one of the "non biased and non pure journalistic" articles MR puts up from time to time. Interesting read.
I'm not here to dis you, just if something says something really good, I'll requote it for the sake of emphasis. And if everyone else does too well that's nice I guess. The more is always merrier.
Larger SSDs outperform smaller ones. Sometimes. Inherently there should no write speed difference on small file tests IF the only hardware change is the available storage size.
How about this little compare of a same model year SSD family:
http://www.storagereview.com/corsair_force_series_gt_family_review
Watch the biggest model (480GB) tank in certain tests compared to the smaller ones.
The fact remains, that MacWorld was doing some pretty simple storage tests on Apple notebooks with SSD storage - and we're not talking dedicated HDD/SSD stress tests that look at every different read&write aspect - and got pretty alarming results.
A few percentage points speed difference or a few seconds on a test that takes a few minutes isn't going to hurt anyone, but when identical tests take 50%, 100%, 200% longer ... there's a consistency and quality problem with the end product, year over year.
Wrong. Article was read. Neither OWC nor Macworld did as I suggested. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. But to be fair, what do you think I reiterated from the article?
Why is no one asking the question about whether or not it is even legal for Apple to do this? Seems to me that if Apple is putting drives in machines in a lottery fashion that they aren't letting customers know what is in the very machine they are buying.
Even if the difference is negligible, it is consistently negligible based on manufacturer, not variations within the same brand. Ie: Sandusk drives also perform worse than samsung ones rather than samsung drives having variations amongst other samsung drives.
Unless of course, the brand variations only differ on drive size. I.e samsung drives are 128gb while Sandusk are 250gb with no cross over.
Just because Apple does it, doesn't mean they are legally allowed to.
Even if the difference is negligible, it is consistently negligible based on manufacturer, not variations within the same brand. Ie: Sandusk drives also perform worse than samsung ones rather than samsung drives having variations amongst other samsung drives.
Unless of course, the brand variations only differ on drive size. I.e samsung drives are 128gb while Sandusk are 250gb with no cross over.
Just because Apple does it, doesn't mean they are legally allowed to.
That small of a difference isn't enough to be worried about. BlackMagicDesign Speed Test isn't all that precise anyway. It's a "close enough" test since each test fluctuates even when you test one drive to itself.
This eerily reminds me of the fiasco with LG vs Samsung screens that was widespread with the MBA's.
Now there are going to be a lot of returns based on the drives and command line scripts to determine "What drive do I have?" are going to be in demand!
Look for a lot of refurbs folks!
Why does Apple not have any consistency in their components? This is bad for a company who's mantra is "It just works!" which has become "It works better or worse depending on the model of the component!"
Now there are going to be a lot of returns based on the drives and command line scripts to determine "What drive do I have?" are going to be in demand!
Look for a lot of refurbs folks!
Why does Apple not have any consistency in their components? This is bad for a company who's mantra is "It just works!" which has become "It works better or worse depending on the model of the component!"
Not really easy. You would have to find a brick and mortar store selling Dell monitors.
OWC compared 2013-SanDisk with 2014-SanDisk.
2014-Samsung (and probably 2013-Samsung) is still twice as fast (writing) as 201(3|4)-SanDisk.
----------
They aren't stating or promising any minimum read/write-speeds, are they?
The 'haha 5MBs difference isn't worth getting upset about' posts seem to be missing the point. 5MBs difference on a test like this means they've got identical performance - The sandisks are much slower than the samsung parts and neither generation of machine imposes any limit on the storage speed.
Is there going to be a part lottery or is this a permanent supplier choice? One is clearly better than the other.
lost argument? what were we arguing about? i said it's dumb to upgrade a laptop every 6 months. are you arguing against that?
and the pun was just an alternative reply as a means to avoid calling you out for being a grammar cop in a post riddled with grammar issues.. as in-- go back and read what you wrote.. then see if you find any humor in the fact that you're grammar policing others.
No, you didn't say that. You said precisely: "why would it make sense to upgrade pretty much anything from a late 2013 model to an early 2014?"
I showed it's not quite as you said, and expected a counter argument, not a pun. It's just that I prefer the logical arguments over puns. When they're possible, of course.
lol.. i'm not even arguing you about anything.
take what i say, misinterpret it or throw it out of context then argue me about it-- fine.
but don't go expecting a counter argument.
this is silly. go find someone else to nit pick with..
You open it up and take a look. Otherwise SSDs report their manufacturer via software as well. Now that is just not as much fun.