SSD Upgrade Kits Push 2010 MacBook Air Capacity to 360 GB

[nelmat]

This is what has been putting me off SSD, I need at least 1TB of storage... That won't be a reasonable price for many, many years. At this point my storage needs will have probably grown .

Think too many people think they need access to all of their data, all of the time. A mobile device needs in it the stuff you're working on, not your entire lifes work. 250 gigs is more than adequate for this.

People have become lazy in the storage and archive Of their data and feel the need to fill massive amounts of storage with stuff they simply don't need access to. This is a mobile device, not a portable archive of everything you've ever created.

How did you people cope ten years ago with storage of thirty gigs?!

 

[ZenErik]

1TB internal storage is not necessary, but it certainly is nice to have. I can live with 20GB, but it's just nice to be able to have a reasonable sized library of lossless audio and 300GB+ of video accessible without plugging in my external drives. Speaking of which, I need a larger external drive. This 500GB G-Tech mini looks nice, but it's too small for backups now...

Anyone know what the best deal I can get on a 2TB external drive with FW800 is?

 

[WMuntean]

Our Sandforce based SSDs, unlike pretty much any non-SF based SSD, don't depend nor require OS TRIM support to operate. The Sandforce processor handles this independently.. which is why we also are able to offer models with RAID support. Even with TRIM support on Windows, that is defeated when you RAID.

This is data endurance load testing of our SSDs vs. Crucial C300 and M225:
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty.html

Since Apple OS doesn't support TRIM - any SSD that needs TRIM is ultimately going to degrade in use with the Mac or in any platform when setup for RAID. Good thing that our line doesn't depend on TRIM - and even with TRIM supporting operating systems, TRIM is far from ideal and much better off not needing at all.

With the MacBook Air and Legacy entries - we now have the full span covered with Sandforce based solutions for nearly any Mac or PC over the last 12 years:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/

As for cost - yes - the MacBook Air 2010 units are pricey, more pricey than the 2.5" and 1.8" standard profile drives even... and that's not because we're taking any kind of vantage. We're very competitive in general with our product line and always have been. It is the cost of flash that drives the cost of these products.

These SSDs are better then a processor upgrade... and proof in point is watching a 2006 MacBook Pro with 2GB start up and launch CS5 faster than a 2010 i7 MacBook Pro latest and greatest with 4GB stock memory and same OS version, etc.
http://eshop.macsales.com/owcpages/ssd-speed-test-4way.html

Put the latest Mac and our SSD together - and there's the top today. The latest Mac or not - once you get a taste, no going back. It's like being on Dial up and moving to broadband for the first time.

There ya go.

Do these units have the Sandforce hibernation issues that the Mercury Pros have? It would be particularly troublesome because the current Airs emphasize "instant wake" from sleep but if the Sandforce SSD locks up after sleep, well, you get the point...

BTW, congrats on being the first company to support SSDs for the entire Mac lineup.

 

[Eidorian]

All MacBook and MacBook Pro Unibody models are able to accept a 12.5mm SATA Hard Drive.

Prior to the 2008 and later various Unibody models -

MacBook 13", MacBook Pro 15" are 9.5mm max. MacBook Pro 17" is the only pre-unibody that can also take 12.5mm.

I would expect that the bottom panel door vs. the older slide in drive bay accounts for the extra 3 mm of room in the Unibody models.

BTW, congrats on being the first company to support SSDs for the entire Mac lineup.

I did not realize OWC offered a full IDE lineup until today. I remember reading an article on LowEndMac within the past month on the lack of 2.5" IDE/PATA drives for booting older machines. The classic Compact Flash adapter came to mind but the limited lifetime and wear leveling was always a concern, not anymore.

 

[Dr McKay]

Think too many people think they need access to all of their data, all of the time. A mobile device needs in it the stuff you're working on, not your entire lifes work. 250 gigs is more than adequate for this.

People have become lazy in the storage and archive Of their data and feel the need to fill massive amounts of storage with stuff they simply don't need access to. This is a mobile device, not a portable archive of everything you've ever created.

How did you people cope ten years ago with storage of thirty gigs?!

My laptop currenty has a 500GB internal hard drive, with all my music, games and pictures on, it has 180GB free, I have an external 500GB Passport drive, with all my videos on it, this one has 130GB free.

 

[Thiol]

Our product is going to be shipping very shortly - and the intent is to include the necessary tools, which is the primary hold right now. Installation video guides are in edit now as well.

Hi Larry! I owe another OWC Sandforce SSD, so I'm excited to hear that the Aura Express is coming out. A lot of us, however, are hoping to still put our old Apple Toshiba blade SSDs to use after replacement. Do you plan on selling an external enclosure? I spoke to someone at tech support to told me that the Macbook Air SSDs will fit into all your current SATA enclosures, but I found that hard to believe and probably incorrect.

 

[AidenShaw]

Wow, an accomplished BS artist

This is data endurance load testing of our SSDs vs. Crucial C300 and M225:
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty.html

I'll pay attention if you can show a comparison of a drive running under an OS with TRIM support vs a drive on the same OS without TRIM support. Ideally, this would be done on a modern OS like Windows 7 with a drive that flashed with firmware that supports TRIM for one test and firmware that disables TRIM on the other.

Showing statistics for drives on an OS without TRIM support is pure BS IMO.

I have a very hard time believing that a drive can determine which sectors have orphaned data unless the filesystem on the OS tells the drive (via the TRIM command) that a sector is orphaned.

(In this sense, "orphaned" means that the sector contains non-zero data, but the filesystem does not have any references to the sector - it's in the "free pool".)

 

[OWC Larry]

Sandforce

Have you looked at all at how the Sandforce processor operates? It is designed to handle the management of the non-physical logical locations. Hard drives have sectors which are physical in location - flash does not.... and this is why most SSDs require TRIM. The solutions we offer, built around Sandforce technology, provide a better solution that is independent of OS side TRIM dependency - which is why they are the solution for the Mac.

As for comparing on a Windows system - that's without any relevance to the Mac OS and with the complete lack of TRIM support available under Mac OS the primary relevance here.

I'll pay attention if you can show a comparison of a drive running under an OS with TRIM support vs a drive on the same OS without TRIM support. Ideally, this would be done on a modern OS like Windows 7 with a drive that flashed with firmware that supports TRIM for one test and firmware that disables TRIM on the other.

Showing statistics for drives on an OS without TRIM support is pure BS IMO.

I have a very hard time believing that a drive can determine which sectors have orphaned data unless the filesystem on the OS tells the drive (via the TRIM command) that a sector is orphaned.

(In this sense, "orphaned" means that the sector contains non-zero data, but the filesystem does not have any references to the sector - it's in the "free pool".)

 

[AidenShaw]

Have you looked at all at how the Sandforce processor operates? It is designed to handle the management of the non-physical logical locations. Hard drives have sectors which are physical in location - flash does not.... and this is why most SSDs require TRIM.

Is this why OWC claims?

TRIM Support:
•Advanced TRIM Support in Windows 7

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce/Solid_State_Pro​

You're trying to have it both ways.

Again, the question is how can the drive managing (that is, preserving) orphaned sectors be a better solution than letting the OS tell the drive which sectors are orphaned?

Since OWC drives support TRIM, why should I not believe that TRIM is useful?

The solutions we offer, built around Sandforce technology, provide a better solution that is independent of OS side TRIM dependency - which is why they are the solution for the Mac.

As for comparing on a Windows system - that's without any relevance to the Mac OS and with the complete lack of TRIM support available under Mac OS the primary relevance here.

Agree, since Apple OSX doesn't support the TRIM feature, OWC & Sandforce might be the best Apple solution.

 

[OWC Larry]

What to do with existing MacBook Air SSD?

For 2010 MBA:
We are in the process of developing an external USB solution that will accept the 'gumstick' SSD design. We also expect to announce a trade in program soon as well. it's pretty limited what we can do with those drives, but anything we can do to help - that's our goal.

For late 2008/2009 MBA:
They will work in our existing SATA enclosures... but will require a custom Apple 1.8" to SATA standard adapter. This is coming soon as well.

MacBook Air has been a major focus for many months and then the 2010 came into view... And glad to have 'phase 1' with all the actual flash drive options now rolling for these units.

Hi Larry! I owe another OWC Sandforce SSD, so I'm excited to hear that the Aura Express is coming out. A lot of us, however, are hoping to still put our old Apple Toshiba blade SSDs to use after replacement. Do you plan on selling an external enclosure? I spoke to someone at tech support to told me that the Macbook Air SSDs will fit into all your current SATA enclosures, but I found that hard to believe and probably incorrect.

 

[LbrTradr]

I found this link a few weeks ago that helped me determine to pull the trigger on my SSD. This is a very interesting read regarding OS X and TRIM.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/apple/2010/07/01/mac-ssd-performance-trim-in-osx/1

 

[OWC Larry]

Trim

Funny you should ask the why not important if we market it such feature at all. The Windows market is different as are what customers expect... and they expect TRIM support and something that we hope Sandforce takes a marketing stance on to take away the misconception that not having TRIM support is a problem. It's just not needed with these Sandforce based solutions and this is real world proven whether I convince you or not.

Our drives have a 7% over provisioning (28% for the RAID Edition versions). This OP space is used for a variety of function and purpose, not the least of which is the real time block management of the drive.

The windows side is a very different market to say the least and with expectations of its own. TRIM is supported, but that doesn't mean it's needed... regardless of Windows SSD buyers expecting it to be there, supported, needed - as is the case with pretty much EVERY other SSD on the market today with the exception of those built with Sandforce.

Is this why OWC claims?

TRIM Support:
•Advanced TRIM Support in Windows 7

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce/Solid_State_Pro​

You're trying to have it both ways.

Again, the question is how can the drive managing (that is, preserving) orphaned sectors be a better solution than letting the OS tell the drive which sectors are orphaned?

Since OWC drives support TRIM, why should I not believe that TRIM is useful?




Agree, since Apple OSX doesn't support the TRIM feature, OWC & Sandforce might be the best Apple solution.

 

[karsten]

i'm always a fan of 3rd party options. it helps strengthen the customer base in my opinion as they have more options and feel more secure making a purchase if there's a bit of customizability possible. hopefully this drive form factor takes off and other manufacturers can follow it seems very convenient.

 

[Powerbooky]

wow... look how much "intelligent" circuits are necessary to keep the data from corruption on these flash-discs. I've already had some data-loss on flash-discs before, but this shows that SSD's are clearly not reliable for heavy-duty and long-term use at this moment. Better stick to common hard-discs for at least 5 years. Also much cheaper.

 

[AidenShaw]

TRIM is supported, but that doesn't mean it's needed...

Links to data to support this claim?

I believe part of your argument, that

Sandforce > Indylinx​

However, it also seems that

Sandforce w/ TRIM > Sandforce w/o TRIM > Indylinx​

Is that wrong?

Of course Windows users expect TRIM. They have it and like it.

 

[OWC Larry]

Sleep and hibernation are two very different things. Hibernation saves the active memory space to the drive and then allows for that to be restored at a later time to resume operation. Sleep merely reduces everything into a standby mode with minimum power consumption and active memory space maintained for that instant on. Hibernation is a protective function that takes time to both save to drive and restore from drive when 'waking' from a hibernation mode event.

The current 2.5" SATA drives we do have a Hibernation advisory on. Sleep and all other operation is fine, but the current SF firmware isn't hibernation friendly which - from those customers we have regular contact with on this issue, is primarily an issue for those that like to force hibernation. Short of forcing hibernation. On MacBook and MacBook Pro models, hibernation only occurs (short of forcing it manually) when the battery is about to become fully drained and no longer with the reserve to maintain any level of operation. That said - this will be resolved, Hibernation was not an issue with an earlier firmware version, and will not be once a future Release Candidate becomes a production release. Sleep function is not an issue, sleep being very different than Hibernation.

For the MacBook Air Models - Hibernation is fully supported under the current release firmware and there is ZERO issue with it. We're all good there on Hibernation as well as sleep.

Do these units have the Sandforce hibernation issues that the Mercury Pros have? It would be particularly troublesome because the current Airs emphasize "instant wake" from sleep but if the Sandforce SSD locks up after sleep, well, you get the point...

BTW, congrats on being the first company to support SSDs for the entire Mac lineup.

Links to data to support this claim?

I believe part of your argument, that

Sandforce > Indylinx​

However, it also seems that

Sandforce w/ TRIM > Sandforce w/o TRIM > Indylinx​

Is that wrong?

Of course Windows users expect TRIM. They have it and like it.

In testing and in general, my understanding is that TRIM is not offering a benefit for the SF based solutions even on the Windows platform where TRIM support is available. Sites like SSDReview.com I believe have directly discussed and demonstrated this - but to be honest - I have to say our focus has been on the Mac platform aspects. We fully support it for the PC and this drive has received numerous accolades and even round-up best ofs vs. other SSDs (including Sandforce based) by PC review sites in addition to Mac reviews. There is no evidence that a PC with TRIM has a benefit with our drive vs. the Mac without. And there is every bit of evidence to support me saying these are the best SSDs you can put in your Mac and the results with them are impossible to believe till you experience for yourself.

An SSD is pointless if it's just going to lose write performance or worse over time... which is what happens to varying extremes with typical non-Sandforce based solutions when used with Mac OS. We jumped on the Sandforce bandwagon in late 2009 after learning the hard way (in development time/experience) how poor all the other solutions out there were and how this was THE solution that was fit to the Mac platform needs... and great for PC too.

 

[scottsjack]

It's nice to see OWC responding as it's a great company. Because Apple hard drives and memory so are ridiculously and immorally overpriced I wouldn't have the equipment I have today without the ability to bring them up to specs with products purchased from OWC.

 

[OWC Larry]

We really appreciate it and it keeps our team excited and focused on the next we can do for that very purpose. One thing I and all here that be here do not forget... we are here for you and because of you and that goes hand in hand. Thanks for the support!

It's nice to see OWC responding as it's a great company. Because Apple hard drives and memory so are ridiculously and immorally overpriced I wouldn't have the equipment I have today without the ability to bring them up to specs with products purchased from OWC.

 

[AidenShaw]

In testing and in general, my understanding is that TRIM is not offering a benefit for the SF based solutions even on the Windows platform where TRIM support is available.

I'm sorry, but without links to specific, controlled tests of this theorem I have to decline to believe you.

In particular, as an engineer I would tend to believe that the Sandforce controller would not implement the TRIM command if it had no benefit. I also tend to believe that in spite of any controller algorithms and under-committment of space on a drive, the controller can do a better job if the OS informs the controller about which sectors are orphaned.

And there is every bit of evidence to support me saying these are the best SSDs you can put in your Mac...

But no links to that evidence?

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

This is fantastic!!! No way I can afford this, but it's great to see drives of this size. Maybe in a year, I could afford a 1/2 GB drive in SSD. SSDs are getting much closer to mainstream!!! So long, spinning platter

Though I have an SSD in my MBPro, you have to realize that SSD or any NAND Flash drive has a limited amount of write cycles. Best to have it as a boot drive.

 

[OWC Larry]

Our drives are designed, very conservatively, for a 5yr minimum life cycle. The over provisioning is used for real time, raid like redundancy that allows for data to be re-written if a problem area is encountered.. and further allows for such to be mapped out without any problem experienced. The DuraWrite wear-leveling technology, over simplified is like doing good tire rotation for your car - it prevents wear spots, etc and keeps the flash level in it's cycle use. This is all done transparently and automatically while you enjoy the full, long term reliability and performance benefit of these drives.

These are generations ahead of that which was available in 2009 - both in terms of the controller that drives and the NAND as well. The top tier NAND we utilize for these drives is well beyond the kind of limited write cycle capability duration of lower end product as well as product in general from 2 years/longer ago.

You can enjoy the full benefits of our SSDs with the reliability of or better than the best drives today... much better too in terms of power use and physical reliability/dropping/etc... never had a head crash on an SSD, well darn - there are no heads to crash.

Though I have an SSD in my MBPro, you have to realize that SSD or any NAND Flash drive has a limited amount of write cycles. Best to have it as a boot drive.

 

[OWC Larry]

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce
scroll down - quotes with links to the reviews from, etc.

just because you can do something doesn't mean there is a benefit for doing. I'm not going to debate TRIM further on this... but will add that plenty of things are done because market demands it or the simple we can and why not.

We're the only company in this space building our product in the USA and with an eye hard on the Macs at that. Comes together nicely.

I'm sorry, but without links to specific, controlled tests of this theorem I have to decline to believe you.

In particular, as an engineer I would tend to believe that the Sandforce controller would not implement the TRIM command if it had no benefit. I also tend to believe that in spite of any controller algorithms and under-committment of space on a drive, the controller can do a better job if the OS informs the controller about which sectors are orphaned.




But no links to that evidence?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Other World Computing (OWC) last week announced the debut of its new Mercury Aura Pro Express solid state drives for Apple's latest 11-inch and 13-inch MacBook Air models. The new drives, which offer greater speed and capacity than Apple's factory options, are available in 180 GB, 240 GB, and 360 GB capacities. Based on a SandForce controller, the drives also feature a number of other technologies to enhance speed, performance, and data integrity.Prices begin at $499.99 for the 180 GB drive and move up to $579.9 for the 240 GB model and $1,179.99 for the 360 GB model. Shipping estimates are currently listed at 19 days for the 180 GB version, 2 days for the 240 GB version, and "pending" for the 360 GB version.

All three drives are compatible with both the 11.6-inch and 13.3-inch MacBook Air models introduced in October 2010. Apple's own drive options begin at 64 GB for the 11.6-inch model and top out at 128 GB, while the 13.3-inch model comes with 128 GB and 256 GB options.

Taiwanese firm PhotoFast had previously announced similar SandForce-based SSDs ranging up to 256 GB that would be compatible with the 11-inch MacBook Air, but Apple quickly moved to halt sales of the drives. It is unclear if Apple is objecting to the new offerings from OWC and/or applying pressure to have them removed from sale.

Article Link: SSD Upgrade Kits Push 2010 MacBook Air Capacity to 360 GB

That's really cool, though it'd be nice if I didn't need a proprietary Apple five-star screw-driver to get the damn thing open to install it. I'm really hoping they don't use those screws on future MacBook Pro and MacBook models too.

Wow, the price jump from 180 to 240 makes the 240 look real good. But the 360 looks ridiculous. 120 extra GB isn't worth more than double the price.

If you do this, does OWC buy back your factory original SSD? I seem to remember they did this for RAM and/or Hard drives.

There's gotta be something like that in place, otherwise it just doesn't seem sensible.

Wow, those prices gave me a good laugh! To me the MBA isn't about storage, I don't think it's meant to be your one and only computer, so it doesn't need a ton of storage. I think Apple's offerings are enough.

I'm going to pick up a 64gig 11.6 inch in a couple of days and I'm not concerned about running out of storage. I probably won't even use half of it

I don't really understand people who use a MacBook Air as their only computer. Though I also don't understand those who can live within 64GB and really do anything with their computer. When I had a MacBook with a 60GB hard drive, I couldn't really do much other than use stock OS apps. Granted, for an 11" machine, that's probably fine. I guess I haven't really had the experience of using an 11" computer with Mac OS X.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple will oppose it. They always do.

I think the only opposition they'll offer is the notion that you'll void your warranty if you do this yourself.

I've been eagerly awaiting this; I ordered my 11" MBA last year with just 64Gb storage specifically because I planned to upgrade it to 256Gb. Then Apple squashed Photofast and I got stuck with 64Gb...until now. It would REALLY SUCK if Apple manged to kill these too.

Yes, the 360Gb drive cost is nuts; it's more than my entire Air cost. But the 240Gb (nee 256Gb with allowance for bad sectors), while also pricey, is just what the doctor ordered.

One caveat on these is they do not come with the "Pentalobe" driver needed to open the Air up. So I ordered one of those from iFixit.com.

There is no OS X support for TRIM, therefore, using an SSD is pointless since it will degrade and slow down over time.

+1

I'm not going to give serious consideration toward an SSD-powered Mac as my main Mac until that issue is rectfied. If the next 15" MacBook Pros have them alongside a traditional drive, I'll just be sparing with how I use the SSD for that reason. Though with more of their machines incorporating some kind of SSD, I'd be shocked if something comparable to TRIM (or something that serves the same purpose) isn't built right into Lion.

They are coming down:

Source:
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2010/20101214_SSDPrices--ssd.html

Shweet!

Think too many people think they need access to all of their data, all of the time. A mobile device needs in it the stuff you're working on, not your entire lifes work. 250 gigs is more than adequate for this.

People have become lazy in the storage and archive Of their data and feel the need to fill massive amounts of storage with stuff they simply don't need access to. This is a mobile device, not a portable archive of everything you've ever created.

How did you people cope ten years ago with storage of thirty gigs?!

It's called convenience. My Early 2006 iMac has a 500GB hard drive in it and that has all of my things. But I travel and I don't want to have to have everything centralized on a computer that I'm not always with. A MacBook Pro which now has the room to store all of my things AND travel with me, would be perfect for that reason. Sure, I'll get more storage from a desktop, and sure that'll be where most of the things I don't need ALL the time go, but if I want a vast majority of things to go with me, that's why I have a laptop. That said, the MacBook Air for this sort of thing is overkill.

Though I have an SSD in my MBPro, you have to realize that SSD or any NAND Flash drive has a limited amount of write cycles. Best to have it as a boot drive.

At least, until Apple implements something that does what TRIM does with Windows into Mac OS X.

 

[shartypants]

That's awesome. I hope the SSDs are up to at least 500GB when the next MBP comes out

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

At least, until Apple implements something that does what TRIM does with Windows into Mac OS X.

These SSD have provisioning on it that allows allocation for Garbage Collection and native hardware TRIM support. My drive is an OCZ Vertex II, SATA II, with a SF driver. Its Actual hardware memory is 128GB however it allocates 8GB for TRIM and Garbage Collection, that is why the usable space is only 120GB. I could have purchased a 500GB SSD if wanted, however I chose a 120GB for the reason being that it is incorporated into my system as a boot drive.

Please do not get confused between TRIM, Garbage Collection and write cycles. You can only flash an SLC or MLC cell so many times before its is rendered useless to write to anymore. Only benefit is that even if the max cycles have been obtained, you can still read data off it. An SSD crash on the other hand is something no one wants to experience and almost impossible to get the data off for the average consumer unlike Magnetic HDD.

I still trust SSD over Magnetic HHD any day. Writing too many 4k files to an SSD will eat through its max write cycles in no time.

Due to cost effective measures, majority of the SSD on the market are MLC not SLC. I wager that this OWC drive is MLC similar to most SSD on the market.

I will consider the OWC members posts that it is possible to reach its 5 year mark for write cycles given that its in a MBAir and not in a server.