- Last Active
- member, editor
welshdog said:73º?That is shockingly low. Do you always wear long pants and shirts? Our central air system is set between 79º-81º depending on humidity and we are always comfortable. I have checked room temps against the thermostat setting and they match up. I see people posting low thermostat numbers like this all the time I can only assume they are inaccurate.
I'm lucky enough to have an aircon unit in the UK, a country where they are often used in places of business, but not that much at home.
Our recent heatwave pushed temperatures above 30C, and while the aircon could go down to 16C, it struggled to go below 24C, and that was unbearable.
At least where I live, 73F isn't considered shockingly low. Not by a long stretch.
DangDave said:We should be asking Malcolm Owen to think before he creates misleading headlines for his articles, of course unless his intent was to stir up AppleInsider readers and posters for the fun of it?
AppleInsider staff –
Can we please NOT show that video keyframe image
JustSomeGuy1 said:Mostly decent article but some of your important numbers are WAY off. You wrote:The cells in an SSD are durable for at least 5,000 read and write cycles in the cheapest Triple Level Cell-based flash memory chips, though more typically around 10,000 cycles for mid-range Multi Level Cell-based chips. Even at the low end of the scale, that still equates to over a decade of usage based on the one complete drive-write per day rating.TLC can be 3000 cycles at the high end, less at the lower end, with 1000 cycles typical today. MLC is irrelevant, as there are no MLC consumer drives, nor have there been for quite a while. (Maybe Samsung still sells one? They're going to rare and costly, if they exist at all.
Typical warrantied DWPD on consumer TLC drives is 0.3. Some go lower. 1DWPD is firmly within the domain of Data Center SSDs, and not even all of those (though some will go to 3DWPD or more).All your math after that is wrong because the base number are wrong.I've got one of these Macs and I have zero worries about this. Apple uses more flash than anyone else in the world and they're not going to screw this up. They couldn't, really - that much bad flash isn't available. I mean, if they wanted to cheap out they could have gone to QLC, and they didn't.OTOH, it's possible that the 8GB machines are so fast even when paging that users don't realize that they're thrashing their disk. That's unlikely to be a real problem for most people, but I guess time will tell. If you are a heavy-duty user and you buy an 8GB machine... you were just asking for trouble. But I still doubt you'll find it.
The article has been updated to be based on a 3000 usage figure, though the point of the matter still stands as we are still working from generalizations. Instead of 13 years under the original calculation based on 1 DWPD, it's just over 8 years, which is still a mighty long time for that level of usage.
As much as it may be valid to discuss down to 0.3 DWPD, that's pretty much in the realm of the average user, who isn't likely to encounter this sort of problem. That, and I'd rather think Apple would err towards more premium-grade components for something as important as storage...
No-one really knows what Apple's storage is capable of, except for Apple itself. Hopefully it's a question that Apple will be able to answer for us.
melgross said:Something/s not right. They were talking about software running up to 3.8 times faster, so how could performance be equal to a two core Air chip. I just watched it, and I didn’t get that it was equivalent. We’re all missing something.
it just occurred to me what they said. I also said this on Arstechnica. It’s the four efficiency cores that are equal to the MacBook Air x86 chip, not the entire M1