My SSD Only Supports 500MB's Read and 175 MB's Write!


Recommended Posts

kevpan815: dude, if everyone but you says that you are wrong they are usually right. Take your machine to a mac store and get them to put the new ssd in it. Stop freaking out about drive speeds and your warranty period.

Extra note:

lol this guy. I'm such a lurker but this is (almost) worth a post.

Check the original thread here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1123472-finally-placed-my-order-for-an-ssd-from-crucialcom

He can't be arsed to change the hard drive himself or take it to the mac store for fear of his warranty running out and now he is freaking out about read/write speeds claiming that the ssd is designed for external use because it came with a usb cable.

I say just leave it. There's no point asking a question if you won't accept the answer.

kevpan815: dude, if everyone but you says that you are wrong they are usually right. Take your machine to a mac store and get them to put the new ssd in it. Stop freaking out about drive speeds and your warranty period.

Extra note:

lol this guy. I'm such a lurker but this is (almost) worth a post.

Check the original thread here: http://www.neowin.ne...from-crucialcom

He can't be arsed to change the hard drive himself or take it to the mac store for fear of his warranty running out and now he is freaking out about read/write speeds claiming that the ssd is designed for external use because it came with a usb cable.

I say just leave it. There's no point asking a question if you won't accept the answer.

This and this, as others said before about USB 2.0 and the whole shenanigan about MBps and Mbps, they're correct :/

You are not getting full speed out of your SSD when it's connected via USB2. It is impossible, but since you just ignore what everyone's saying then it's pointless.

Do some benchmarks and learn the difference between a megabit and a megabyte. You'll soon see you're completely wrong if you bother to take the time to listen. People are just trying to advise you that the way you're using your newly purchased SSD is useless as USB2 is crippling it. If you don't want to take anyone's advice and learn then it's pointless even posting.

Is this the guy who paid USD 200 for a RAM upgrade?

I think he is just insane. Lock thread and ban.

Well that is pretty uncalled for. Everyone has to learn somewhere no?

Granted, from what I have seen in this thread and other threads that were linked to in this thread, the OP seems pretty adamant on not wanting to learn and insisting they are right, however if they are just able to accept the fact that most people are in fact here to help those who are looking to help themselves, well as I said, they can actually learn a whole lot if they so choose to do so.

With that said, comments like this one do not really help matters, and in fact, they probably make them worse. Just saying, it was pretty damn unnecessary to say, even if you do think it is the truth. Just proves that the old adage "if you do not have anything nice to say, do not say anything at all" also applies to the internet, even if people feel like they can say whatever they choose to another human being as they are behind the safety and anonymity of their IP address/monitor.

I am sure I just wasted my time posting this, but I felt it need to be said, and it also does apply to a few other responses in this thread. Sometimes people are just downright cruel. And as I said I do admit, it seems as though the OP does not want the help even though there are those offering it, however that is their loss, no need to fuel the flames and gang up on them.

  • Like 3

Where are you people coming up with 480 Mbps = 35 MB/s because your math is way waaaaaaaaaaay off.

Bytes = 8 bits, hence 480 Mbps aka Million bits per second divided by 8 = ~60 MBps aka Million bytes per second (that's the absolute theoretical maximum but because of overhead it's never that fast). Even though it can't push ~60MB/s perfectly that's still a very big jump from 35MB/s which you folks keep spitting out as though it were accurate to any degree.

USB 2.0 is theoretically capable of ~55-58MB/s sustained transfer speed if there are no other devices on the particular USB controller.

The OP simply made a booboo of sorts, I could tell that from reading the post he made - the rest of the posts hence have been basic garbage overall and a lot of misunderstandings and mistaken values for the potential, theoretical, and even real-world performance of USB 2.0.

Better luck next time people, and don't go so far off-track will ya?

Where are you people coming up with 480 Mbps = 35 MB/s because your math is way waaaaaaaaaaay off.

Bytes = 8 bits, hence 480 Mbps aka Million bits per second divided by 8 = ~60 MBps aka Million bytes per second (that's the absolute theoretical maximum but because of overhead it's never that fast). Even though it can't push ~60MB/s perfectly that's still a very big jump from 35MB/s which you folks keep spitting out as though it were accurate to any degree.

USB 2.0 is theoretically capable of ~55-58MB/s sustained transfer speed if there are no other devices on the particular USB controller.

The OP simply made a booboo of sorts, I could tell that from reading the post he made - the rest of the posts hence have been basic garbage overall and a lot of misunderstandings and mistaken values for the potential, theoretical, and even real-world performance of USB 2.0.

Better luck next time people, and don't go so far off-track will ya?

because USB isn't a 1:1 translation in speed

quote from wikipedia since I don't feel like writing a full description myself right now

USB 2.0: Released in April 2000. Added higher maximum signaling rate of 480 Mbit/s (effective throughput up to 35 MB/s or 280 MBit/s) (now called "Hi-Speed"). Further modifications to the USB specification have been done via Engineering Change Notices (ECN). The most important of these ECNs are included into the USB 2.0 specification package available from USB.org:[13]

and from tech republic

4: Actual data throughput

Actual data throughput is usually much less than the maximum advertised USB specification and is a function of many variables, including overhead. Actual throughput in practice is typically up to 35 - 40MB/sec for USB 2.0 and may exceed 400MB/sec for USB 3.0. NEC recently demonstrated its new USB 3.0 controller transferring 500MB in 4.4 seconds or ?only? 113.6MB/sec. Symwave and MCCI claim to have demonstrated over 270MB/sec data throughput at the Intel Developer Forum in September 2009.

sorry, but the rest of the posts aren't "garbage" but a bunch of people that realize there is more to the USB spec then what you are told you get...

so, the OP pm'd me and said he fried his system and it's somehow our fault

all i have to say is he obviously didn't follow the links with step by step directions we gave him very well

Can anyone forward me the PM from him....I'd love to read them. I have loved reading this thread....it's been a treat.

here's the two PMs i got from him

all the first pm said was "I now have a dead system and it's your guys fault"

second one said

The Drive does NOT even fit in my system, Just FYI! Now I have to save up $599.99 + Tax just so I can replace the system itself, and that does NOT include the fact that at some later point in time I will have to pay $149 for Apple Care, and $69.99 for an External Super Drive! Thanks a lot!

edit: and i just got a reply after asking why he doesn't take it to an apple store

No, that will NOT work, I used Pliers to undo all those Non Removable Bolts in the System, I just plain am going to have to save up $599 U.S.A. Dollars from my January Public Aid Paycheck (Social Security Disability) and buy a Late 2012 Mac Mini which will have USB 3.0 Ports on it. There are scratches on the system from where I was using the Pliers and that will most definitely Void my Warrenty. I also damaged the Heat Sync while trying to get the HDD out of the system. I am just plain going to have to buy a new system after the Holiday's!

he tried to use pliers to remove the bolts around the hard drive and ruined the heat sync. he brought it upon himself for not using the correct tools

here's the two PMs i got from him

all the first pm said was "I now have a dead system and it's your guys fault"

second one said

edit: and i just got a reply after asking why he doesn't take it to an apple store

he tried to use pliers to remove the bolts around the hard drive and ruined the heat sync. he brought it upon himself for not using the correct tools

That is sweet.

he tried to use pliers to remove the bolts around the hard drive and ruined the heat sync. he brought it upon himself for not using the correct tools

This thread. :|

All those years that I did tech support and fixed computers...had no idea what was really out there.

just a reminder of the link we gave him with instructions on replacing the hard drive http://www.ifixit.co...lacement/3113/1

he probably completely ignored the link back when it was posted and never even clicked on it

here's the two PMs i got from him

all the first pm said was "I now have a dead system and it's your guys fault"

second one said

edit: and i just got a reply after asking why he doesn't take it to an apple store

he tried to use pliers to remove the bolts around the hard drive and ruined the heat sync. he brought it upon himself for not using the correct tools

Dear god :s , OP is probably PMing people because of all the bad comments. If someone can get through OP's head then that'll be great; other than that, this thread is just giving everyone lols :/

Look, the OP came here to gloat, not looking for advice. He seems happy with his setup in his own roundabout way and he probably wouldn't be able to tell the different between running off an SSD and running off a FDD.

The truth is that he doesn't need the power because his computational needs are basic (not running any intensive apps), and he just likes to play around with Operating Systems and keeping his prized Apple hardware intact, as this is all just his hobby.

I have seen from previous threads that he has a mental illness. So guys cut him some slack, it's not easy living with a mental illness. He is quite happy with this setup and he is getting satisfactory performance to him.

If he feels the need in the future to go even faster, he can make the decision for himself to do the upgrade when his Mac Mini is out of warranty and then he will have nothing to lose .

(personally I would just do the upgrade now and keep the original drive spare for warranty purposes, and switch it back if I needed to send it in, as the Mac Minis are dead simple to work on unlike all other Apple hardware and it is the one thing you can easily take apart without breaking anything).

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

Well done sir, youve invented a new performance bandwidth for USB 2, your confusing Megabits with Megabytes, even a SATAIII SSD struggles to hit 480Mb (megaBYTES)/sec Read/writes on SATAIII/USB 3.0

you should come up with an aftermarket solution, you could make millions selling it to users with usb 2 but want usb3 speeds.

Edited by Intrinsica
Removed offensive word.

This thread ought to be locked and the OP's posts largely ignored, just like those of a certain banned member with the initials A.B.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!