13" MBP SATA interface downgraded to 1.5 Gigabit

CTB wrote:
Read what I wrote and don't start flaming. I have no problems with people who want to do their own installations, but they are saving quite a bit of money and have all the options to do and get what they want with a perfectly new machine of 3 months ago. Why should anyone care about their grumblings of buying a VERY new machine which has a downgraded SATA interface when they can get the same machine with SATA II. They save $200 total now because of price cuts? Yes, they get a SD card reader and the new battery....anyway - go post a thread somewhere else if you want to grumble about Apple taxes and what not. Trying to find a new machine, 15" with a 1.5 interface with a pre-installed SSD. If you can't answer the question or help, think twice.

Are you serious? I installed my own SSD to get a faster drive than Apple ships, not to save money. There are conclusive posts on the MacRumors thread the 13" MBP Apple SSD configurations do in fact only have SATA 1.5Gb buses. Nobody has posted a 15" yet one way or another to judge. But all other 13" and 15" configurations clearly have 1.5Gb buses.

The problem is that this is a downgrade from the previous unibody MBP and not something anyone expected. I just can't believe the people who feel someone who purchased this machine and then discovered the bus downgrade doesn't have a right to be upset.

Brian,

My new 15" has an SSD installed an only reports 1.5 as well. I installed the Samsung SSD myself and it was 3.0 on the previous (October 2008) model.

Like others, I purchased the Samsung myself because it had much better performance than what Apple was selling at the time (and because Apple's prices were exorbitant for the option).

From earlier in this thread.

I've read most of the threads on the different sites on this topic. There was only one real BTO with SSD confirmed and it was at running at 1.5

I have a "mid 2008" mbp too, and it reports 1.5. Maybe this change was made LOOONG ago, and people are just now catching it.

It came with the unibody mac book pros in 2008. I have a mid 2008 15" running at 1.5 as well. So, in reality it made a short appearance.

This is a concern to me, not because I ordered an SSD, but because I was planning to buy a new MacBook and I would like to have the option to add an SSD some time in the next couple years. My laptop is an investment and I like to future-proof it as much as possible. I'll definitely want to take advantage of the speed of SSDs in the future when prices come down, and I'm hesitant to buy a laptop that won't allow me to.

As with the firewire issue, the most frustrating part of this is Apple's unrelenting code of silence. If they would just acknowledge that there is an issue, tell us if they are working on a fix or not, or even just say "we designed it that way - tough", we could all stop speculating and get on with our purchasing plans. I'll never understand why this company feels like it has to act like some super-secretive autocratic regime.

Apple needs to communicate with its customers. And even though the bulk of their customers these days aren't the geeky types that crack open their machines and upgrade hardware, we're an important part of their base too. The geeks are the ones that the lay people turn to for buying advice, and for the last couple years I have been really hesitant to recommend a Mac.

Of course the biggest kicker here is that Apple's cheapest notebook... the white MacBook... is still running in 3Gb mode.

And the MBAir too is also 3.0 Gb. Almost a bigger kick in the pants because you can't even find a fast enough SSD that will will fit in it's hard drive port.

I can't say enough how those last two facts about both the MB and Air having 3.0 bother me greatly.

Here is one theory that makes some sense:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaBigD View Post
I came across this article posted by ComptuerWorld today and it doesn't look like good news. Industry experts are speculating Apple may have been seeing data error problems at higher I/O rates with the 3Gbit/sec SATA interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerWorld
The only reason why I could think they would do it is there was some serious technical glitch -- maybe the [processing] chip, maybe the optical drive," said Tom Coughlin, founder of data storage consultancy Coughlin Associates Inc.
Yep yep... this is why Lenovo downgraded to 1.5 Gbps on their T61. It, too, has a 3 Gbit controller capped to 1.5.

Which begs the question... did Apple change to a different optical drive in the 13" and 15" models? (Further speculation: Maybe that optical drive is one of the things that allowed them to maximize battery life).

Given these are NVidia chips that we are talking about - I would be indeed very surprised if that was NOT the case. (Try searching google for "nvidia sata corruption")

It frustrates me to no end Apple decided to use Nvidia junk in the otherwise beautiful laptops.

That's not too fair... You can google "any vendor name" + "sata corruption" and always get something... unless you can find specific issues with this specific nvidia chipset, it's all just worthless speculation...

Given these are NVidia chips that we are talking about - I would be indeed very surprised if that was NOT the case. (Try searching google for "nvidia sata corruption")

Hi,
I just tested the mid 2009 MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz 17" and it displays a 3.0 Gigabit Serial-ATA interface in Apple System Profiler. My guess is there was a design change in the mother board style of the 15" MacBook Pro to accommodate the larger battery. This must have been when the 1.5 gigabit Serial-ATA design limitation snuck in.

If this was on purpose why would the new mid 2009 17" MacBook Pro still have a 3.0 Gigabit Serial-ATA interface?

Very strange 🙂

I have one question.
Why worry about this cause even the world's fastest hard drive can't even use half of the bandwidth you have on your machine.?

shhhhh...it's okay....just watch and read more posts.

The issue is with SSD's...not with HD's.

Any SSD will have a bottleneck if limited to SATA at 1.5 and not using SATA II at 3.0