Nothing to be concerned about really, that still allows up to 187MBps transfer. SSDs only just manage to come close to this.
Even a 7200 rpm drive will only reach about 70MBps.
Using the abbreviation for Macbook Pro here could be confusing as it kind of looks like the title says 13 Mbps, which would be a cause for concern but it's just the 13" MBP name.
Nothing to be concerned about really, that still allows up to 187MBps transfer. SSDs only just manage to come close to this.
Even a 7200 rpm drive will only reach about 70MBps.
Using the abbreviation for Macbook Pro here could be confusing as it kind of looks like the title says 13 Mbps, which would be a cause for concern but it's just the 13" MBP name.
Ummm, from Gizmodo:
Quote:
Older 13" MBA, 13" MB, 17" MBP (and old versions of 13"/15" MBP):
Sequential READ = 225 MB/sec
Sequential WRITE = 180 MB/sec
New 13" MBP, 15" MBP
Sequential READ = 115 MB/sec
Sequential WRITE = 95 MB/sec
That doesn't seem like something that we "shouldn't be concerned with". This is a big story, and I'm just wondering why AI hasn't tackled it yet.
That doesn't seem like something that we "shouldn't be concerned with". This is a big story, and I'm just wondering why AI hasn't tackled it yet.
Those are theoretical numbers, not actual speeds. It's like saying my internet runs a 20mbs downstream. It does...but you'll never see that in the real world.
Those are theoretical numbers, not actual speeds. It's like saying my internet runs a 20mbs downstream. It does...but you'll never see that in the real world.
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
well what do you expect from AI ? Did you read their article comparing snow leopard and windows7 ?
i own 3 macs and havent bought PC in 5 years but that article made me cringe... worst case of fan boyi in love i've ever seen.
This is almost certainly a software problem, to be fixed in a future update.
Engadget says that if you buy the MBP with an SSD drive, it comes with 3Gbps but if you order it with a HDD, it comes with 1.5Gbps. That seems a bit odd to be a mistake and is clearly a firmware issue - it looks like Apple want you to be ordering their BTO SSD drives instead of installing your own for a cheaper price.
Obviously, it makes Apple's supplied drives look faster than 3rd party ones but it's not as if reviewers won't be able to check if their SATA connection was downgraded.
As I say though, the limits are still pretty high and even an X-25M doesn't get over 100MB/s sequential write. You have to pick particular SSD drives in order to see the difference. It's still not a good thing and it should be fixed and it's particularly bad if it was a deliberate move.
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
Bonkers? Yeah...kinda. I just don't think it really matters.
Quote:
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
LOL. Agreed. But we do get six page reviews on the new shuffle that read like they are written by an English professor.
Just read this on Engadget. Very interesting. My 13" MacBook (not Pro) Aluminium from "late 2008" (though I bought it refurbished a few months ago) has Sata 3.0 GBps ... w00ts *does "the dance"*... SSD come to me babyyyy.... Right now have a WD Scorpio Black 7200rpm drive in there. Nice and fast. Only issue is some distinct vibration, try other brands if you can.
I think its a firmware mistake and Apple will rectify it within the next month. Makes absolutely no sense to have intentionally crippled the Sata interface thingy.
It makes no sense for Apple to use a different controller for HDD and SSD drives - they only want to make one motherboard. I'm sure this is a firmware issue.
There's no need for 3 Gbps on 5400 rpm drives. The SATA link is far from saturated. It makes perfect sense to downgrade systems ordered with rotating drives to save power consumption (i.e. battery life). For systems ordered with solid-state drives, the power saved over rotating media most likely more than covers the increased power consumption from the upgraded SATA II (3 Gbps) link.
Has anyone tried putting an SSD into a system that was ordered with an HDD? It could be that BIOS/firmware detects an SSD and upgrades the link (or rather, sees an HDD and downgrades it...) All this moaning and groaning could be irrelevant - Apple was probably wise enough to streamline production flow AND boost battery performance with a few line of firmware.
...Has anyone tried putting an SSD into a system that was ordered with an HDD? It could be that BIOS/firmware detects an SSD and upgrades the link (or rather, sees an HDD and downgrades it...) All this moaning and groaning could be irrelevant - Apple was probably wise enough to streamline production flow AND boost battery performance with a few line of firmware.
Reports on the web seem to indicate if you put an SSD into a HDD MacBook Pro you get only Sata 1.5Gbps...
I mean, it almost sounds to me like it's not correctly recognizing the speeds supported by some (but not all) drives, and then failsafes to the slower speed which it knows will work. That's a weird bug that could either be in the EFI or the SATA driver.
Comments
I'm sure it'll be an easy fix ...10.5.8?
Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...acbook-pro.ars
MacRumors http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/14/...ata-interface/
Gizmodo http://gizmodo.com/5291042/did-apple...w-macbook-pros
SlashGear http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-pro...ta-ii-1546956/
I4U http://uk.i4u.com/article25370.html
Channel Register http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ook_sata_slow/
The Apple Blog http://theappleblog.com/2009/06/15/a...-macbook-pros/
Why hasn't AI done a story yet?
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/15/n...ps-sata-chips/
Even a 7200 rpm drive will only reach about 70MBps.
Using the abbreviation for Macbook Pro here could be confusing as it kind of looks like the title says 13 Mbps, which would be a cause for concern but it's just the 13" MBP name.
Nothing to be concerned about really, that still allows up to 187MBps transfer. SSDs only just manage to come close to this.
Even a 7200 rpm drive will only reach about 70MBps.
Using the abbreviation for Macbook Pro here could be confusing as it kind of looks like the title says 13 Mbps, which would be a cause for concern but it's just the 13" MBP name.
Ummm, from Gizmodo:
Older 13" MBA, 13" MB, 17" MBP (and old versions of 13"/15" MBP):
Sequential READ = 225 MB/sec
Sequential WRITE = 180 MB/sec
New 13" MBP, 15" MBP
Sequential READ = 115 MB/sec
Sequential WRITE = 95 MB/sec
That doesn't seem like something that we "shouldn't be concerned with". This is a big story, and I'm just wondering why AI hasn't tackled it yet.
Ummm, from Gizmodo:
That doesn't seem like something that we "shouldn't be concerned with". This is a big story, and I'm just wondering why AI hasn't tackled it yet.
Those are theoretical numbers, not actual speeds. It's like saying my internet runs a 20mbs downstream. It does...but you'll never see that in the real world.
Those are theoretical numbers, not actual speeds. It's like saying my internet runs a 20mbs downstream. It does...but you'll never see that in the real world.
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
well what do you expect from AI ? Did you read their article comparing snow leopard and windows7 ?
i own 3 macs and havent bought PC in 5 years but that article made me cringe... worst case of fan boyi in love i've ever seen.
Bill Gates
2009
This is almost certainly a software problem, to be fixed in a future update.
Engadget says that if you buy the MBP with an SSD drive, it comes with 3Gbps but if you order it with a HDD, it comes with 1.5Gbps. That seems a bit odd to be a mistake and is clearly a firmware issue - it looks like Apple want you to be ordering their BTO SSD drives instead of installing your own for a cheaper price.
Obviously, it makes Apple's supplied drives look faster than 3rd party ones but it's not as if reviewers won't be able to check if their SATA connection was downgraded.
As I say though, the limits are still pretty high and even an X-25M doesn't get over 100MB/s sequential write. You have to pick particular SSD drives in order to see the difference. It's still not a good thing and it should be fixed and it's particularly bad if it was a deliberate move.
Regardless of whether it's theoretical or not, Apple downgrading hardware specs from SATA 3.0 to SATA 1.5 and not reporting on it seems to be a bit bonkers, don't you think? You'd think that AI would at least try to contact Apple to get their side of the story.
Bonkers? Yeah...kinda. I just don't think it really matters.
This has blown up into a big issue with multiple 30+ page threads on Mac Rumors, large discussions on Apple Discussion forums, coverage over many of the large news sites and AI acts like the issue doesn't even exist.
I mean, not reporting on this issue, but reporting on Steve Jobs' abandoned mansion? I mean, come on
LOL. Agreed. But we do get six page reviews on the new shuffle that read like they are written by an English professor.
I think its a firmware mistake and Apple will rectify it within the next month. Makes absolutely no sense to have intentionally crippled the Sata interface thingy.
We need more informations from the Internets!
There's no need for 3 Gbps on 5400 rpm drives. The SATA link is far from saturated. It makes perfect sense to downgrade systems ordered with rotating drives to save power consumption (i.e. battery life). For systems ordered with solid-state drives, the power saved over rotating media most likely more than covers the increased power consumption from the upgraded SATA II (3 Gbps) link.
Has anyone tried putting an SSD into a system that was ordered with an HDD? It could be that BIOS/firmware detects an SSD and upgrades the link (or rather, sees an HDD and downgrades it...) All this moaning and groaning could be irrelevant - Apple was probably wise enough to streamline production flow AND boost battery performance with a few line of firmware.
...Has anyone tried putting an SSD into a system that was ordered with an HDD? It could be that BIOS/firmware detects an SSD and upgrades the link (or rather, sees an HDD and downgrades it...) All this moaning and groaning could be irrelevant - Apple was probably wise enough to streamline production flow AND boost battery performance with a few line of firmware.
Reports on the web seem to indicate if you put an SSD into a HDD MacBook Pro you get only Sata 1.5Gbps...
Reports on the web seem to indicate if you put an SSD into a HDD MacBook Pro you get only Sata 1.5Gbps...
I was in the Barton Creek store last week and I checked a 13" MBP. System profiler showed 1.5Gbps. This was without any SSD in the slot.
This article says Apple has a problem with their drivers:
Macsimum News
I was in the Barton Creek store last week and I checked a 13" MBP. System profiler showed 1.5Gbps. This was without any SSD in the slot.
This article says Apple has a problem with their drivers:
Macsimum News
But is this problem still happening with Apple-shipped SSD MacBook Pros? Those show SATA 3.0Gbps ... Has their IO speeds been tested?