5 ms·
1.3 GB/s vs 2 GB/s read. I think it's perfectly reasonable given most users aren't going to be doing high I/O, and if they did, they'd just get a MBP.
by who_what_why 7y ago
1.3 GB/s vs 2 GB/s read. I think it's perfectly reasonable given most users aren't going to be doing high I/O, and if they did, they'd just get a MBP.
- uwuhn 7y agoI think the most common pain point with this is going to be an initial iCloud sync if your drive is full of stuff.
- grecy 7y agoAre you suggesting your SSD read speed will be a bottleneck when uploading huge amounts of data to the cloud? What kind of Internet connection do you have?
- ricardobeat 7y agoThats gigabytes per second. You’d need a 10Gbps+ internet connection to even start getting close to saturation.
- ken 7y agoThe MBA has Thunderbolt 3 ports good for "up to 40 Gb/s", so all you need is an external box to convert that to 10gig ethernet. Sonnet sells one: it weighs 3 lbs, has a 60W power adapter, and costs $500. It's the perfect accessory for your 2.75lb, 30W, $999 laptop!
- Marsymars 7y agoThose have been slowly coming down in price. You can get a bus-powered TB3 10G Ethernet adapter for $150 now.
- rsynnott 7y agoA 1.3GB drive would still saturate a 10Gbit link. Fortunately, there’s this: https://store.atto.com/order?ipa=211 https://store.atto.com/order?ipa=211 at a mere 2000$
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kilo_bravo_3 7y agoNot many people have a WAN link that will notice the difference.
- penagwin 7y agoUnless you have a datalink over 1Gbps (and iCloud can actually saturate that link) the SSD isn't going to bottleneck it either way.
- belltaco 7y agoOnly if you're an iCloud network administrator that plugged a 10gbps network cable at the data center.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mkagenius 7y agoAt least next time Jony Ive will not say "fastest disk read ever"
- dickeytk 7y agoIve never talked about specs
- leetbulb 7y agoI just upgraded my workstation from a SATA SSD (~500MB/s) to an M.2 NVMe (~3GB/s). For standard usage, there's really no noticeable difference. The extra IO and lower latency is amazing though for heavy tasks.
- obliviousonions 7y agoNot even heavy tasks. Even just installing packages and launching applications is just so much quicker after I upgraded my thinkpad to an NVME drive.
- Marsymars 7y agoI don't think that's a fair characterization - I won't be getting a MBP regardless of the amount of I/O I do, because I very much dislike the Touch Bar.
- skyyler 7y agoWhat do you dislike about it? I haven't really noticed mine.
- Marsymars 7y agoI just like the functionality and feel of actual buttons. It's like the difference between using the iPad software keyboard vs. an actual hardware keyboard to type on. The Touch Bar makes a row of my keyboard worse.
- Tempest1981 7y agoIn VSCode, while debugging, I rest my fingers on F10/F11, for Step, Step Into, Step Out, Continue. Does that work with a Touch Bar mac?
- ruffrey 7y agoI use the function keys and escape key - a lot. The lack of even haptic feedback on the touchbar makes it a big downgrade. Having a touchbar just isn't an option.
- mosselman 7y agoI use vim and my work-macbook has a touch bar. I haven't really noticed a difference in user experience between the touch-bar version and the physical esc-key on my personal macbook pro without a touch bar. Before I actually used the touch bar version I also thought that it wouldn't be easy to use, but as I said, I haven't noticed a difference.
- Fnoord 7y ago
- pier25 7y ago1.3GBps is still super fast. It wasn't that long ago that we were using 7200rpm HDs which capped at around 110MB/s for large files.
- xenospn 7y ago110MB/s was the super-best-case-scenario if you're doing sequential writes with exactly 1MB blocks, which almost never happened anyway.
- paulcarroty 7y ago> and if they did, they'd just get a MBP. Or better Dell/HP/System76 with upgradable 32GB RAM. Hardware of latest MBP aren't super reliable anymore, so I don't see any reason to pay premium price.
- endorphone 7y agoIt's perfectly reasonable and wouldn't be noticed by the overwhelming majority of users. There is a point of diminishing returns for most uses, and this is far beyond it. Further this sort of single-sample analysis of a vendor like Apple's products is always folly. Apply doesn't advertise specific SSD units, speeds, etc, and we know that they often vary them within a product, sometimes with multiple variants on the market at the same time with slightly varying performance.
- mkagenius 7y ago> It's perfectly reasonable and wouldn't be noticed by the overwhelming majority of users. Apple used to launch new phones/macs with these kinds of changes, and people used to buy them for these kinds of changes -- just a little bit thinner, just a little bit more battery. And suddenly people won't notice this. I am sure if it were the other way around, Apple would have claimed to have invented a new device and would have sold them as something new. And people would have gathered in queue to buy them. And when you do the reverse, suddenly its okay.
- endorphone 7y agoThere are certain things that Apple holds dear in many products, but there are many that are great and are just transparent. The iphone has virtually always had flash that is much faster than competing phones, for instance, but nary a word is mentioned about it. In this case, the internal store went from "extremely fast -- far above most competitors" to, at least in this sample, "slightly less extremely fast -- still far above most competitors". It's a giant nothingburger topped with a clickbait condiment.