HuntsMan75

Q: Replace Hard Drive with SSD

System Info: MacBook Pro running OS X 10.9, mid 2009, 13", PN MB991LL/A (2.53 GHz), 8GB RAM

 

I started having some problems with my system, mainly slow downs, especially when using Safari. I got a copy of Scannerz (http://scsc-online.com/Scannerz.html) and it confirmed drive platter damage. I know some of these units are supposed to have cable problems but Scannerz tested that too and found no problems with the cable, so this is a bonafide drive problem (it's 6 years old, you know).

 

I'd like to go ahead and replace it with an SSD and have some questions:

 

  1. Maybe I'm getting models mixed up but I seem to remember something about a drive thermal sensor on Apples not being compatible with generic drives. I know I read that somewhere I just don't remember where?
  2. I assume, if #1 above isn't a problem, that I can basically use any SATA SSD. Now I know I should get the fastest interface possible, but are there any caveats or incompatibilities that some brands of SSDs may present?
  3. What about stuff like trim and wear leveling. WIll this be in a driver for the SSD or does the OS take care of it automatically?
  4. Are there any brands/models to stay away from?
  5. Should I replace the cable too? I've heard they can get bad.

 

Thanks in advance.

MacBook Pro, OS X Mavericks (10.9.5)

Posted on Apr 4, 2015 12:06 PM

Close

Q: Replace Hard Drive with SSD

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 13 of 15 last Next
  • by ZV137,

    ZV137 ZV137 Jan 12, 2016 11:39 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (54 points)
    Jan 12, 2016 11:39 AM in response to Csound1

    Some if not most processes seem to use more memory. The kernel_task itself on El Capitan often pushes or exceeds 1GB of RAM, which is almost 3X (or more) on earlier OS releases. Add in compressed memory, which will almost certainly exist  on a memory limited system and that's even more RAM being used.

     

    If interested and you have access, the best way to observe would be by booting an earlier OS, like Snow Leopard, open up Activity Monitor to get a list of processes sorted by memory and then repeating the process under El Capitan and comparing the two.

     

    The El Capitan specs:

     

    OS X El Capitan - Technical Specifications

     

    state that 2GB of RAM is required, but I'd have to argue that it's more than likely 4GB as a bare minimum. I tried EC on an old 2009 MacBook w/2GB of RAM and it was not a pleasant experience. After putting in 2GB more RAM, it was acceptable..not fast, but acceptable.

     

    I'm not trying to "push" Snow Leopard, it's just that I could do the very same work I do now on a system using 2GB of RAM without taxing it. The same can't be said of El Capitan.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Jan 13, 2016 12:19 PM in response to ZV137
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Jan 13, 2016 12:19 PM in response to ZV137

    Right now I'm running El Capitan and with Activity Monitor at the top of the memory "pile" is a  web process labeled "https://discussions.apple.com" (this site) and it's using 323MB of RAM itself.

     

    ...remember the good old days, when that much memory was enough to run an entire system?

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Jan 13, 2016 12:59 PM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 9 (50,801 points)
    Desktops
    Jan 13, 2016 12:59 PM in response to R.K.Orion

    Things change, I am happy to note.

  • by ZV137,

    ZV137 ZV137 Jan 14, 2016 11:19 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 1 (54 points)
    Jan 14, 2016 11:19 AM in response to R.K.Orion

    El Capitan seems to run "leaner" than Yosemite and at times even Mavericks. I've noticed that if the memory is being monitored via Activity Monitor although Mavericks might start out showing less memory use at start up, any time it gets loaded with apps it tends to use more than El Capitan and even Yosemite at times.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Jan 25, 2016 12:22 AM in response to ZV137
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Jan 25, 2016 12:22 AM in response to ZV137

    Snow Leopard will always remain my favorite. I have an old 2006 iMac that I use for watching news videos on the web and it has a hard drive and 2GB of memory. It will boot faster than my MacBook Pro with an SSD, 8GB or RAM running El Capitan. The OSes are becoming a little to "bloatware" oriented as they get newer.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Jan 25, 2016 6:51 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 9 (50,801 points)
    Desktops
    Jan 25, 2016 6:51 AM in response to R.K.Orion

    That sounds like some very badly setup Macs you have there.

  • by ZV137,

    ZV137 ZV137 Jan 25, 2016 8:38 PM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 1 (54 points)
    Jan 25, 2016 8:38 PM in response to R.K.Orion

    If you have a backup drive connected to your system (the one with El Capitan) it's likely slowing the boot process.  If you put a backup drive on a unit, the kernel during the boot process needs to wake the drive up, parse out all the volumes, etc. etc. etc, which takes time. I have a WD backup drive and it's in a perpetual state of sleeping. Even after it powers on if it sees no activity it immediately puts itself to sleep. If I turn on the system you can watch the drive first wake up, then spin up, then the kernel gets done with it. Without a backup drive attached my boot time is decreased by nearly 30 seconds.To make matters worse mine is a "Green" drive which are not known for their performance.

     

    I'd agree the OSes are becoming bloated, but the difference you're seeing is probably from a connected backup drive. I'm guessing, of course.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Jan 26, 2016 10:55 AM in response to ZV137
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Jan 26, 2016 10:55 AM in response to ZV137

    Gentlemen (Csound1 and ZV137):

     

    You are correct. It was the backup drive. I've just come to take the thing for granted that I didn't even think about it booting. The old iMac doesn't have a backup drive because it's ancient and this is a way to put it into use. One day I'm sure it will drop dead, but  that event doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight - it just keeps running. FYI it's a 2006 Core 2 Duo iMac. I also have a PowerBook g4 1.33GHz running Leopard that will not stop.

  • by CaptH,

    CaptH CaptH Jan 27, 2016 11:23 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 1 (59 points)
    Jan 27, 2016 11:23 AM in response to R.K.Orion

    It also depends on how you measure boot up time. If you boot to a login screen on each platform the results are probably accurate, but if you boot so your account skips logging in an opens the desktop, it will depend on whether or not you have any applications loading by default. For example, if my accounts are all set up to automatically log me in, a Snow Leopard system will not pre-launch anything that's not configured via System Preferences as a login item. On newer systems if the system isn't told to re-open apps that were open when shut down, it will also start re-opening them, which also takes time. Some people think the boot up of the newer systems are abysmally slow when in fact they're having a lot more work thrown at them when other apps open. By default on my system, both Mail and Safari are almost always open when I first login, and yes, it slows the startup time down.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Feb 6, 2016 12:05 PM in response to CaptH
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Feb 6, 2016 12:05 PM in response to CaptH

    I measure boot up time to be the time I hit the power button to turn the unit on until the point the login screen appears. I do not have the system set up to automatically log in as a specific user. As stated previously this was definitely tied to an external backup drive that I guess needed to wake up an be analyzed by the system. It seems to add just about 20 seconds to the boot process each time.

  • by ZV137,

    ZV137 ZV137 Apr 8, 2016 11:26 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 1 (54 points)
    Apr 8, 2016 11:26 AM in response to R.K.Orion

    Another thing that can cause slow boots is add-on apps. My sister had an 2009 MacBook Pro running Lion, and it was taking almost 2-3 minutes to boot. I opened up Activity Monitor and noticed some old, unheard of process was eating up about 90% of the CPU. I did a web search on the process name and it was a specialized VPN connection to her employers local network. I did this at her house, which is nowhere near her local net. The process was continually trying to make a connection to a network it couldn't reach. To make matters worse, it was configured to launch as a launchd process that started during boot. I stopped it from auto launching and told her how to start normally. Now it boots fast again.

     

    I thought for sure it was going to be the drive or the SATA cable, but this time I guess we lucked out.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion May 26, 2016 11:15 AM in response to ZV137
    Level 1 (14 points)
    May 26, 2016 11:15 AM in response to ZV137

    Sometimes, especially during boot, you need to look at the log files. I had a driver that became outdated when I went from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion some time ago, and an outdated driver had compatibility issues with the system. It acted just like a hard drive was failing.

  • by ThomasB2010,

    ThomasB2010 ThomasB2010 Jun 7, 2016 11:47 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 1 (13 points)
    Jun 7, 2016 11:47 AM in response to R.K.Orion

    Regardless, Snow Leopard will be faster than El Capitan booting because it's only doing a fraction of the things El Capitan is. Other problems can occur if you have the option to automatically check for updates active. One of the processes associated with that is a total memory hog, sometimes running up to 500MB+ memory and it may cause problems on memory constrained systems.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Jun 7, 2016 11:52 AM in response to ThomasB2010
    Level 9 (50,801 points)
    Desktops
    Jun 7, 2016 11:52 AM in response to ThomasB2010

    DOS is faster, why don't you recommend that.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Jun 9, 2016 11:23 AM in response to ThomasB2010
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Jun 9, 2016 11:23 AM in response to ThomasB2010

    ThomasB2010 wrote:

     

    Regardless, Snow Leopard will be faster than El Capitan booting because it's only doing a fraction of the things El Capitan is. Other problems can occur if you have the option to automatically check for updates active. One of the processes associated with that is a total memory hog, sometimes running up to 500MB+ memory and it may cause problems on memory constrained systems.

    I checked that and you're right about the software updater using  too much memory. Thanks.

first Previous Page 13 of 15 last Next