They didn't pull any stunts; they switched from 34nm chips to 25nm like any respectable technology company would do (increase capacity and lower costs). The problem is 25nm chips are less durable and somewhat slower, but it's not a stunt they pulled. If it's worth anything Intel released their 310 series SSDs which is nothing more than just a change from 34nm chips to 25nm and it's now a new line.
I respectfully disagree. You can call it what you want, but to switch to a lower quality and poorer performing NAND and keep the exact same model numbers is not an honest way to operate. It is the fact they kept the same model number that bothers me and many others.
You are correct that Intel, for example, has moved some of their SSD to 25nm NAND. However, unlike OCZ and OWC for that matter, Intel completely changed the model name. They went from 34nm NAND in the X25-M to 25nm NAND in the new Intel 320. If you want the "premium" 34nm NAND you can move to the new Intel 510. The specs for for both the Intel 510 and Intel 320 are available on the Intel web site showing what type of NAND they use.
If you want a fun little exercise, go to the OWC site and try to find the specs for their SSD and see if you find the specs for the NAND. You won't find it (at least I could not). They also just went from 34nm to 25nm NAND while keeping the exact same "Mercury Extreme Pro" product name and they do not disclose the change on their web page. So OCZ is not alone in this behavior.
Is there any good documentation of the implications of the move from 34 nm to 25 nm? I don't get the problem. I'm looking at getting the OWC SSD and they're drives us 25 nm chips.
Here is a good article. Short version is 34nm NAND has 5,000 write cycles per cell and 25nm NAND has only 3,000. In normal usage you will likely never hit either of these limits. To offset the problem of fewer write cycles vendors allow more unused space for wear leveling, thus reducing space available to the user. For example, OWC recently swapped to 25nm (with same product name and not mentioning it on their site either I might add), and their 120GB drive became a 115GB drive.
Oh, ok. So am I safe with the 25nm OWC drive? Or should I go with Crucial instead? Maybe they're crap too? Oh boy. TOO MUCH TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND!
OWC and others using the Sandforce chipset have had problems getting a firmware out that does not cause problems in OS X (sleep and hibernation bugs). They have recently released a new firmware they say fixes everything after many months and many firmware versions.
There is an entire thread about it
here with varying reports on the new firmware. Give it a read before you jump on a OWC drive.
The big problem I have with OWC is they tout themselves as a Mac specialist supplier, yet they have provided no way to upgrade SSD firmware without installing Windows under Bootcamp. For months now they have been saying an OS X firmware updater is coming. Still nothing.
I shouldn't say OWC has provided no way to upgrade firmware outside Windows. You can mail in your SSD and they will upgrade it for you, but do you really want to mess around with that?
