Laptop disks

[Rich Jordan]

A friend is looking at a new non-retina 15" Macbook Pro. He's asking (and since nearly all my experience is server/workstation based, I can't readily answer so I'm asking here), about the relative benefits vs costs of the disk upgrades offered. The reason for not getting the Retina box is the lack of optical drive (which he needs and would rather not have separate) and he's not happy with the all-locked-down design of that box. The Airs just don't have the screen size/resolution needed.

Apple, of course, charges a premium for the various upgrades. He wants a Mac to complement his home system, so although its pricey, pointing out all the cheaper wintel/linux options won't really be helpful...

f.ex is a 7200RPM disk measurably beneficial compared to a 5400RPM disk on a laptop (presumably there's a small tradeoff in power usage/battery life to balance against whatever performance gain is made).

A flash drive has obvious performance (and power?) benefits (at the cost of capacity/price). Personally I still trust spinning rust more but again that's the server/workstation person talking who has multiple 15-20 year old drives still running error free, 24x7 (yeah, crossing fingers now that I said it

Any of the magnetic disks are fine for capacity. He says the 256GB SSD is marginally acceptable; he'd really rather have more but not at the price given.

Thanks

Options:

750GB 5400RPM (default)
750GB 7200RPM (add $45)
1TB 5400RPM (add $90)
128GB SSD (Add $90)
256GB SSD (add $360)
512GB SSD (add $810)

[308Mike]

I'm not Mac savvy, so I don't know how their laptop BIOS is set up. On most Wintel machines, you can go into the BIOS and change the performance settings for the HDD, especially useful if you need to change the settings to save battery life. If you're always near a plug, I usually set the drive to "performance" (and turn on SMART), but they usually also have default settings along with "quiet" and a couple other settings.

*IF* Macs also have the same kind of settings, he can get the 7200 RPM drive and turn the performance down if he finds he needs more battery life, but since laptops aren't usually built for performance, they usually take a big hit in that area due to weight and heat issues. A HDD running at 7200 RPMS WILL generate more heat than a 5400 RPM drive, and will drain the battery that much quicker (although once up to speed, I don't know how much different the draw will be until the drive starts being taxed - you'd have to look at the specific drive specs).

Can anyone answer the hardware question if Macs are also setup like Wintel machines in the BIOS?

[mekender]

Were I planning on getting a MacBook, I would get the SSD and for large storage just use an external drive.

I have been running a SSD as my primary OS drive for a while now and I love it.

[Rich Jordan]

My systems tend to run 10KRPM and 15KRPM disks (U320 SCSI); in the SCSI world 7200 has been the slow and pokey for many many years (5400RPM was consumer drek); obviously laptops have different priorities. I was really mostly wondering about the relative performance gains.

From what I've heard the SSD offers the potential for a large performance gain (I've been nudging my friend towards teh TWIT.TV site which has a regular Mac show and lots of info and that seems to be their concensus); its just the price. Going with the 512GB SSD raises the system price by more than 1/3rd.

I believe the BIOS functionality is some kind of Intel standard (variant of EFI that the Itanic server at work uses). But I'll see what I can find out specific about control of disk performance and the like in the Macbook implementation.

He says that as long as the laptop can run for 4-5 hours of moderate use on battery (~3 hours running heavy stuff like photoshop) that is adequate; he'll have line power nearly all the time.

Mekender, did you upgrade a machine from rust to SSD or get a new machine with SSD? If the former then can you estimate the performance gains?

Thanks for the info

[Greg]

Go to ars technica and read the forums. They have one long-running SSD thread that you probably need to read. (Warning, don't take at face value any content on the site said in an editorial voice as the site is a Conde Nast property with all the associations that brings. But the forums are good.)

[Rich Jordan]

Thanks. Ars Technica used to be a useful daily read years ago; I'll take a look.

It may also be worth finding out if the non-Retina pros can still take 'normal' SSD drives; I know the retina one takes a proprietary card for that function.

[mekender]

My systems tend to run 10KRPM and 15KRPM disks (U320 SCSI); in the SCSI world 7200 has been the slow and pokey for many many years (5400RPM was consumer drek); obviously laptops have different priorities. I was really mostly wondering about the relative performance gains.

From what I've heard the SSD offers the potential for a large performance gain (I've been nudging my friend towards teh TWIT.TV site which has a regular Mac show and lots of info and that seems to be their concensus); its just the price. Going with the 512GB SSD raises the system price by more than 1/3rd.

I believe the BIOS functionality is some kind of Intel standard (variant of EFI that the Itanic server at work uses). But I'll see what I can find out specific about control of disk performance and the like in the Macbook implementation.

He says that as long as the laptop can run for 4-5 hours of moderate use on battery (~3 hours running heavy stuff like photoshop) that is adequate; he'll have line power nearly all the time.

Mekender, did you upgrade a machine from rust to SSD or get a new machine with SSD? If the former then can you estimate the performance gains?

Thanks for the info

I upgraded from a Raptor 300gb to a 256gb SSD, I dont really performance test but I can say that it does boot and install things faster.