What's a good SSD to replace a 15" mid-2008 MBP(model A1260)'s HDD?

[Ant]

Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?

Thank you in advance. :)
--
"Ants can carry twenty times their weight, which is useful information
if you're moving out and you need help getting a potato chip across
town." --Ron Darian
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.

[David B.]

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?
Thank you in advance. :)

Hello Ant

I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

HTH

David B.

[Ant]

Post by David B.

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?
Thank you in advance. :)

Hello Ant
I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

What about its SSDs?
--
"I love ants. Do they have uncles? Ha Ha!" --Elmo from Sesame Street
(unknown episode)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.

[David B.]

Post by Ant

Post by David B.

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?
Thank you in advance. :)

Hello Ant
I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

What about its SSDs?

I don't have an SSD in _any_ of my equipment, so cannot advise.

Sorry about that!

[nospam]

Post by David B.
I don't have an SSD in _any_ of my equipment, so cannot advise.

it's time to change that. the difference versus a hard drive is
staggering.

[David B.]

Post by nospam

Post by David B.
I don't have an SSD in _any_ of my equipment, so cannot advise.

it's time to change that. the difference versus a hard drive is
staggering.

I'll bear that in mind. Thank you. :-)

Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

[nospam]

Post by David B.

Post by nospam

Post by David B.
I don't have an SSD in _any_ of my equipment, so cannot advise.

it's time to change that. the difference versus a hard drive is
staggering.

I'll bear that in mind. Thank you. :-)
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

imacs are a pain in the ass to open up.

find the one you have and decide if you want to proceed with it:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iMac>

[David B.]

Post by nospam

Post by David B.

Post by nospam

Post by David B.
I don't have an SSD in _any_ of my equipment, so cannot advise.

it's time to change that. the difference versus a hard drive is
staggering.

I'll bear that in mind. Thank you. :-)
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

imacs are a pain in the ass to open up.
<https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iMac>

What a fantastic site you directed me to - *THANK YOU*! :-)

Until I read the label underneath the computer stand, I had no idea that
my iMac had been assembled in China! (I wonder if President Trump is
aware of this! ;-) )

It looks easy when one reads here:
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+24-Inch+EMC+2134+and+2211+Diagnostic+LED%27s/7443

However, I'll take your word that it's "a pain in the ass" to do it!

[nospam]

Post by David B.
Until I read the label underneath the computer stand, I had no idea that
my iMac had been assembled in China! (I wonder if President Trump is
aware of this! ;-) )

it's not just apple products. nearly all consumer electronics today is
assembled in china and that ain't changing any time soon, if ever.

[David B.]

Post by nospam

Post by David B.
Until I read the label underneath the computer stand, I had no idea that
my iMac had been assembled in China! (I wonder if President Trump is
aware of this! ;-) )

it's not just apple products. nearly all consumer electronics today is
assembled in china and that ain't changing any time soon, if ever.

Indeed!

You may find THIS item of interest:-

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601215/china-is-building-a-robot-army-of-model-workers/

D.

[Ant]

Post by David B.

Post by nospam

Post by David B.
Until I read the label underneath the computer stand, I had no idea that
my iMac had been assembled in China! (I wonder if President Trump is
aware of this! ;-) )

it's not just apple products. nearly all consumer electronics today is
assembled in china and that ain't changing any time soon, if ever.

Indeed!
You may find THIS item of interest:-
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601215/china-is-building-a-robot-army-of-model-workers/
D.

Aka Skynet. ;P

[Neill Massello]

Post by David B.
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

Not an iMac, but a 2012 Mac mini. Replacing the internal 5400rpm HDD
with an SSD, the speed improvement was . . . staggering. This was
running 10.11, although reports are that results are similar with any OS
version from 10.9 onward.

[Ant]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

Not an iMac, but a 2012 Mac mini. Replacing the internal 5400rpm HDD
with an SSD, the speed improvement was . . . staggering. This was
running 10.11, although reports are that results are similar with any OS
version from 10.9 onward.

What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?
--
"What is that?" "Some kind of insect?" "It's an ant." "Girl, you needed
an exterminator. She had ants on her face." "Well, these aren't your
garden-variety dumpster ants." "And they aren't ... to decomp." "Why are
they in her stomach?" "La hormiga culona--leaf cutter ants. It's a
Colombian dish." "Are you saying that people eat them?" "Fried." "Okay,
so we are looking for a club that serves fried ants." --CSI: Miami
(Wannabe episode; #218)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Ant

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

Not an iMac, but a 2012 Mac mini. Replacing the internal 5400rpm HDD
with an SSD, the speed improvement was . . . staggering. This was
running 10.11, although reports are that results are similar with any OS
version from 10.9 onward.

What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

SSDs work just fine in any recent version of macOS, including 10.8. The
speed increase will be substantial regardless of what version macOS is
installed.

[nospam]

Post by Ant

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

Not an iMac, but a 2012 Mac mini. Replacing the internal 5400rpm HDD
with an SSD, the speed improvement was . . . staggering. This was
running 10.11, although reports are that results are similar with any OS
version from 10.9 onward.

What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

[JF Mezei]

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

Prior to Yosemite, you coud install a hack to the kernel extension which
allow TRIM on non Apple SSDs.

At Yosemite, that extension required you turn off kernel extension
verification as part of the boot-arg in NVRAM. (forget the specific term
that had to be used).

Starting at either 10.5.2 or 10.5.3, Apple introduced a line command
that turned on TRIM on any SSD drive (irrespective of make) with no
garantees it will work. This removed the need for the kernel extension
hack and the turning off of kernel extension verification in NVRAM.

[nospam]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

JF Mezei has been told this many times but refuses to believe it despite
evidence showing it to be true.

[JF Mezei]

Post by nospam

Post by JF Mezei
There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

The statement was made that OS version did not make ANY difference with
regards to SSD support. I provided evidence that there were differences
with regards to 3rd party SSDs which is exactly what is being discussed
here.

"needed" is the keyword here. yes, an SSD will work without TRIM. But
enabling TRIM is very advantageous which is why APPLE has been enabling
it on its own drives for years, and has now made it possible to do this
for 3rd party drives.


Modern drives are no different than older drives with regards to
advantages of TRIM. (except very old SSDs didn't know about TRIM, but
that would not be the case for current SSDs you buy today).

It is you who refuses to understand how disk drives work and in
particular how SSDs work and why TRIM is beneficial because no SSD
understands the file system and whether a disk block is part of a
deleted or active file. TRIM makes explicite statement to SSD that a
disk block is free, so when all blocks part of a SSD page are markled
free, the page can be recylced and made available for new writes and
more importantly, those TRIMmed blocks inside a page are not propagated
when 1 block in that page is being updated by OS , requiring the page to
be rewritted elsewhere. (this has implication as secure erase no longer
available, so data in blocks from deleted files no longer keeps getting
copied all over the place).

[nospam]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by JF Mezei
There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

The statement was made that OS version did not make ANY difference with
regards to SSD support. I provided evidence that there were differences
with regards to 3rd party SSDs which is exactly what is being discussed
here.

you didn't provide any such thing.

Post by JF Mezei
"needed" is the keyword here. yes, an SSD will work without TRIM. But
enabling TRIM is very advantageous which is why APPLE has been enabling
it on its own drives for years, and has now made it possible to do this
for 3rd party drives.

apple tests trim with its own ssds, which have apple custom firmware so
that trim works properly.

apple does *not* test trim with third party ssds (nor should they), and
whether trim works properly or not is up to the user to determine.

there are ssds with buggy trim implementations, where problems can
occur. do you want to trust your data to a buggy ssd?

Post by JF Mezei
Modern drives are no different than older drives with regards to
advantages of TRIM. (except very old SSDs didn't know about TRIM, but
that would not be the case for current SSDs you buy today).

modern ssds are very, very different than older ssds.

Post by JF Mezei
It is you who refuses to understand how disk drives work and in
particular how SSDs work

i understand it quite well.

Post by JF Mezei
and why TRIM is beneficial because no SSD
understands the file system and whether a disk block is part of a
deleted or active file. TRIM makes explicite statement to SSD that a
disk block is free, so when all blocks part of a SSD page are markled
free, the page can be recylced and made available for new writes and
more importantly, those TRIMmed blocks inside a page are not propagated
when 1 block in that page is being updated by OS , requiring the page to
be rewritted elsewhere. (this has implication as secure erase no longer
available, so data in blocks from deleted files no longer keeps getting
copied all over the place).

none of that matters.

modern ssds have their own garbage collection. trim is nice but it's
not required.

[JF Mezei]

Post by nospam
you didn't provide any such thing.

I'll repeat again, since you have hard time with this.

Prior to Yosemite, you could enable TRIM with a kernel extension which
hacked the SSD disk driver.

At early Yosemite, that extension required you to disable kernel
extension verification to function. (boot would hang as it switched from
EFI disk driver to the OS-X disk driver which would fail verification).

At about 10.5.3 or .2, Apple introduced an unsupported utility that
enabled TRIM in 3rd party drives without needing that extenstion hack.

So yes, what version of OS-X you have matters with regards to 3rd party
support.

Post by nospam
apple tests trim with its own ssds, which have apple custom firmware so
that trim works properly.

Breaking news: Apple tests its hardware.

Other Breaking News: TRIM is pretty standard SATA command now so any
drive that support TRIM (they all do now) will work.

Post by nospam
there are ssds with buggy trim implementations, where problems can
occur. do you want to trust your data to a buggy ssd?

These are very old drives. TRUM has been standard for quite some time
now. And if it doesn't support TRIM then it will ignore the TRIM
commands and functions as if TRIM were not enabled.

Post by nospam
modern ssds have their own garbage collection. trim is nice but it's
not required.

All SSDs recycle a page once all the blocks inside have been
invalidated. Updating one block in a page causes the whole page to be
rewritten to another page, and the old page is invalidated, made
available for recycling.

But with TRIM, when a file is deleted, the OS sends TRIM commands to the
disk to invalidate all the blocks that had been allocated to the now
deleted file. This allows the SSD to 1- stop copying those blocks
whenever another block in same page is updated and 2 to send to
"recycling" any pages where all the blocks inside were TRIMmed.


Cosndier also this: with a page size containing 4 blocks of 512bytes.

Say you delete a file 1 that occupies blocks 1 and 2. You then rewrite
block 3 which belongs to file 2.

The SSD does not know that blocks 1 and 2 are no longer in use, so it
copied blocks 1 2 and 4 to a new page, and inserts the contents of the
updated block 3 into the new page. (then invalidates the old page).
End result: you have a new page with 4 occupied blocks. (even if 2
belong to a deleted file).

With TRIM: You delete file 1, blocks 1 and 2 are TRIMmmed.

When you update block 3, the SSD copies only block 4 to a new page,
inserts the updated contents of block 3 and leaves blocks 1 and 2
unwritten.

Therefeore, the next time the SSD needs to map a disk block, it can use
blocks 1 and 2 of that page since they are free to write to. This
reduces the need to copy the whole page to a new one, and invalidate the
old one.

[nospam]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam
you didn't provide any such thing.

I'll repeat again, since you have hard time with this.

it ain't me who is having a hard time

Post by JF Mezei
Prior to Yosemite, you could enable TRIM with a kernel extension which
hacked the SSD disk driver.

a gross and unnecessary hack.

Post by JF Mezei
At early Yosemite, that extension required you to disable kernel
extension verification to function. (boot would hang as it switched from
EFI disk driver to the OS-X disk driver which would fail verification).
At about 10.5.3 or .2, Apple introduced an unsupported utility that
enabled TRIM in 3rd party drives without needing that extenstion hack.

10.5 is leopard.

you are thinking of yosmite/10.10.4, where apple added the ability to
enable trim for third party ssds.

as you say, it's unsupported, which means use at your own risk. see
below.

Post by JF Mezei
So yes, what version of OS-X you have matters with regards to 3rd party
support.

nope. absolutely none whatsofucking ever.

put a pata ssd (hard to find, but not impossible) into an old mac
running macos 8 and it'll work fine.

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam
apple tests trim with its own ssds, which have apple custom firmware so
that trim works properly.

Breaking news: Apple tests its hardware.

usually, but you're missing the point.

apple *doesn't* test third party hardware, in particular third party
ssds and trim, which is why the aforementioned tool has a clear
warning:

<Loading Image...>
This tool force-enables TRIM for all relevant attached devices, even
though such devices may not have been validated for data integrity
while using TRIM. Use of this tool to enable TRIM may result in
unintended data loss or device corruption. It should not be used in a
commercial operating environment or with important data. Before using
this tool, you should back up all of your data and regularly back up
data while TRIM is enabled.

read that carefully.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam
you didn't provide any such thing.

I'll repeat again,

Repeating yourself won't change the fact that TRIM isn't needed with modern
SSDs.

[Lewis]

In message <58afc50c$0$25533$b1db1813$***@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:

[Bunch of TRIM bullshit deleted]

Post by JF Mezei
So yes, what version of OS-X you have matters with regards to 3rd party
support.

We are not talking about your idiotic TRIM fantasy being supported. We
are talking about support for SSDs.

Modern SSDs have very efficient and fast garabage collection and though
all SSDs will degrade a bit in speed when near peak capacity, they
recover their speed through garbage collection nearly as soon as space
is freed.

I have a 1TB SSD that I filled up just to see what would happen. It
slowed dramatically when it had less than 20GB or so free. Once I gave
it back some free space though, its speeds returned to normal. (Free
space of about 50-100GB, iirc).

[JF Mezei]

Post by Lewis
Modern SSDs have very efficient and fast garabage collection

A disk drive has no means whatsoever to know that the OS has decided
some blocks on that disk have become free.

Your "garbage collection" is part of the core function of an SSD
because it is unable to update in-situ a disk block and must copy the
block and all other blcoks in that page to a new free page and then mark
the old page for "garbage collection" (recyling so it is zapped and
ready to be writted to again).

TRIM is the file system part of the OS telling the disk explicitely that
certain blocks need not be preserved and copied all over the place when
a nearby block is being updated.

If TRIM is so useless as you proclaim, why then did Apple implement is
rapidly when it started to ship machoines with built-in SSDs ?

[nospam]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Modern SSDs have very efficient and fast garabage collection

A disk drive has no means whatsoever to know that the OS has decided
some blocks on that disk have become free.

they don't need to.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Modern SSDs have very efficient and fast garabage collection

A disk drive has no means whatsoever to know that the OS has decided
some blocks on that disk have become free.

No need when the garbage collection happens *internally*. You're
spreading misinformation, as usual.

Post by JF Mezei
If TRIM is so useless as you proclaim, why then did Apple implement is
rapidly when it started to ship machoines with built-in SSDs ?

Hint: What year was that?

You're stuck in the past.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by JF Mezei
There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

[nonsensical, uninformed, willfully ignorant objections to the reality
that TRIM is not needed with today's SSDs omitted]

Nope - still wrong.

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by JF Mezei
There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

trim is not needed on modern ssds.

The statement was made that OS version did not make ANY difference with
regards to SSD support. I provided evidence that there were differences
with regards to 3rd party SSDs which is exactly what is being discussed
here.

No, that is not at all what you did. You spewed ignorant and wrong
bullshit FUD.

Post by JF Mezei
"needed" is the keyword here. yes, an SSD will work without TRIM. But
enabling TRIM is very advantageous

No it is not. Stop lying.

Post by JF Mezei
which is why APPLE has been enabling

APPLE, unlike the JF moron, know what they are doing.

Post by JF Mezei
Modern drives are no different than older drives with regards to
advantages of TRIM.

You continue to lie and ignore facts. Are you Donald Trump?

[Andreas Rutishauser]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.
Prior to Yosemite, you coud install a hack to the kernel extension which
allow TRIM on non Apple SSDs.
At Yosemite, that extension required you turn off kernel extension
verification as part of the boot-arg in NVRAM. (forget the specific term
that had to be used).
Starting at either 10.5.2 or 10.5.3, Apple introduced a line command
that turned on TRIM on any SSD drive (irrespective of make) with no
garantees it will work. This removed the need for the kernel extension
hack and the turning off of kernel extension verification in NVRAM.

you have something wrong here....
Yosemite (macOS 10.10.x) came out in 2014 afair, Mac OS X 10.5.x
(Leopard) came out in 2007 (which I think is prior to Yosemite)

Cheers
Andrreas

[JF Mezei]

Post by Andreas Rutishauser
you have something wrong here....
Yosemite (macOS 10.10.x) came out in 2014 afair, Mac OS X 10.5.x
(Leopard) came out in 2007 (which I think is prior to Yosemite)

Oops, means 10.10.x I think the utility for enabling TRIM on 3rd
partioes came out with 10.10.3 or .2. (current version of Yosemite is
10.10.5)

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

the os version makes absolutely no difference. that's like asking if a
hard drive work with mountain lion. of course it would.

There is a difference and it pertains to TRIM.

You've been schooled on this many times. You refuse to learn. Stop
spreading your bullshit.

Post by JF Mezei
Prior to Yosemite, you coud install a hack to the kernel extension which
allow TRIM on non Apple SSDs.

Which was almost 100% of the time a terrible idea that destroyed SSDs. A
lot of mouth-breathers did this and lost their drives because they
insisted on remaining ignorant.

Most drives do not need TRIM. no one who doesn't ACTUALLY know what they
are doing should enable it. Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

[David B.]

Post by Lewis
Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

I expect you meant advice! ;-) (noted, btw!)

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

David
(Across the pond in England)

[Lewis]

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

I expect you meant advice! ;-) (noted, btw!)

If the spill chucker doesn't highlight it, I am unlikely to catch it.

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

Post by David B.
David
(Across the pond in England)

That's no excuse!

[Ant]

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

I finally saw it a few years ago.

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.
David
(Across the pond in England)

That's no excuse!

"Better late than never for me." :P

[David B.]

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

I expect you meant advice! ;-) (noted, btw!)

If the spill chucker doesn't highlight it, I am unlikely to catch it.

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

Ah! Like "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."

I've not seen that film. :-(

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.
David
(Across the pond in England)

That's no excuse!

You're right! ;-)

[Ant]

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

I expect you meant advice! ;-) (noted, btw!)

If the spill chucker doesn't highlight it, I am unlikely to catch it.

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

Ah! Like "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
I've not seen that film. :-(

What!! Dude, watch Airplane already. I didn't like its sequel though.

[David B.]

Post by Ant

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
Do not listen to any advise from JF, ever.

I expect you meant advice! ;-) (noted, btw!)

If the spill chucker doesn't highlight it, I am unlikely to catch it.

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

Ah! Like "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
I've not seen that film. :-(

What!! Dude, watch Airplane already. I didn't like its sequel though.

Oops! I meant I've not seen "The Breakfast Club"!

[Ant]

On 2/25/2017 12:16 PM, David B. wrote:
...

Post by David B.

Post by Ant

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis

Post by David B.

Post by Lewis
"What if your DOPE was on fire?" "Impossible, sir, it's in Johnson's
underwear."

Will you, please, explain that joke to me?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

Ah! Like "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
I've not seen that film. :-(

What!! Dude, watch Airplane already. I didn't like its sequel though.

Oops! I meant I've not seen "The Breakfast Club"!

Oh OK. :) Yeah, watch TBC. I saw that a few years ago while The Airplane
was a decade ago or more.
--
"... I'd wait for a hot Texas day, see? Tie him to a stake, get an ant
trail going. You know, Texas red ants, inch long! Just love to bite into
human flesh, catch what I'm saying here? See, they're eating him alive,
nice and slow like..." --Ross Perot in Saturday Night Live's Debate '92
skit.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Lewis
You've been schooled on this many times. You refuse to learn. Stop
spreading your bullshit.

Are you denying that handling of TRIM has changed through different OS-X
versions ? Are you denying Apple introduced kernel extension checks with
Yosemite (which disabled popular TRIM enabler) and that Apple then
introduced a TRIM enable utility for 3rd party SSDs in one of the
Yosemite sub versions ?

Post by Lewis
Which was almost 100% of the time a terrible idea that destroyed SSDs.

Look who is spreading FUD. SSDs have long ago started to support TRIM.
If you bought a modern SSD you wouldn't have problems.

Post by Lewis
lot of mouth-breathers did this and lost their drives because they
insisted on remaining ignorant.

FUD again. If you enabled TRIM on a drive that didn't support it, you
woudln't lose your data, worse case, you would need to reboot after
doing a delete that would send TRIM commands the drive didn't know how
to process. Normally, those drives should have ignored the TRIM commands
or you shouldn't have enabled it if you had old SSDs.

Post by Lewis
Most drives do not need TRIM

And most iPhones don't need a protective covers, yet it is the
recommended practice to protect the iPhone. Same with SSDs. They may
function without TRIM enabled, but it is recommended to enable it.

[nospam]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Most drives do not need TRIM

And most iPhones don't need a protective covers, yet it is the
recommended practice to protect the iPhone.

bad analogy.

Post by JF Mezei
Same with SSDs. They may
function without TRIM enabled, but it is recommended to enable it.

not anymore it isn't.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei
Same with SSDs. They may
function without TRIM enabled, but it is recommended to enable it.

Bullshit lies from an ignorant FUDster. Keep clinging to your TRIM if
you're too scared to do without; just don't expect the rest of us to
share your delusion.

[Alan Baker]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
You've been schooled on this many times. You refuse to learn. Stop
spreading your bullshit.

Are you denying that handling of TRIM has changed through different OS-X
versions ? Are you denying Apple introduced kernel extension checks with
Yosemite (which disabled popular TRIM enabler) and that Apple then
introduced a TRIM enable utility for 3rd party SSDs in one of the
Yosemite sub versions ?

He's denying that TRIM is necessary.

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Which was almost 100% of the time a terrible idea that destroyed SSDs.

Look who is spreading FUD. SSDs have long ago started to support TRIM.
If you bought a modern SSD you wouldn't have problems.

Post by Lewis
lot of mouth-breathers did this and lost their drives because they
insisted on remaining ignorant.

FUD again. If you enabled TRIM on a drive that didn't support it, you
woudln't lose your data, worse case, you would need to reboot after
doing a delete that would send TRIM commands the drive didn't know how
to process. Normally, those drives should have ignored the TRIM commands
or you shouldn't have enabled it if you had old SSDs.

Post by Lewis
Most drives do not need TRIM

And most iPhones don't need a protective covers, yet it is the
recommended practice to protect the iPhone. Same with SSDs. They may
function without TRIM enabled, but it is recommended to enable it.

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
You've been schooled on this many times. You refuse to learn. Stop
spreading your bullshit.

Are you denying that handling of TRIM

Every time some one talks about an SSD you pop up like the world's most
annoying prairie dog and start in on your song and dance about TRIM.

TRIM is not the topic under discussion. At All.

Your idiotic parroting of 'facts' you have been shown over an over to be
false is tiresome.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Lewis

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
You've been schooled on this many times. You refuse to learn. Stop
spreading your bullshit.

Are you denying that handling of TRIM

Every time some one talks about an SSD you pop up like the world's most
annoying prairie dog and start in on your song and dance about TRIM.
TRIM is not the topic under discussion. At All.
Your idiotic parroting of 'facts' you have been shown over an over to be
false is tiresome.

It's really silly - not to mention counterproductive- that we have to have
this tired, old discussion every time he sees the word SSD mentioned in a
thread.

[Neill Massello]

Post by Ant
What about v10.8.5/Mountain Lion?

I can't offer a lot in the way of personal experience for HDD versus SSD
with 10.8, as I switched to an SSD for the startup and applications
drive in the 10.5 era and didn't run subsequent versions on an HDD
until my Pro died in May 2016. An SSD provides a significant speed boost
for any OS version; but with recent versions, it means the difference
between performance that's quite snappy and performance that's
borderline excruciating.

[David B.]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Have you any personal experience of replacing a hard drive in an iMac
with an SSD?

Not an iMac, but a 2012 Mac mini. Replacing the internal 5400rpm HDD
with an SSD, the speed improvement was . . . staggering. This was
running 10.11, although reports are that results are similar with any OS
version from 10.9 onward.

Thanks for the info, Neill.

When I replace this aging iMac, I'll make sure I get one with an SSD!

[Neill Massello]

Post by David B.
I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

I've had Crucial DIMMs go bad on me twice.

[David B.]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

I've had Crucial DIMMs go bad on me twice.

Oh dear. :-(

Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

[Neill Massello]

Post by David B.
Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

Yes. But in one case, they required that the entire retail set (three
sticks) be returned as a unit for replacement, even though only one of
the DIMMs was bad. OWC has a somewhat friendlier cross-ship policy.

[David B.]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

Yes. But in one case, they required that the entire retail set (three
sticks) be returned as a unit for replacement, even though only one of
the DIMMs was bad. OWC has a somewhat friendlier cross-ship policy.

OK. Thanks Neill. :-)

Btw, WHICH Apple products take THREE sticks of RAM?

[Jolly Roger]

Post by David B.

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

Yes. But in one case, they required that the entire retail set (three
sticks) be returned as a unit for replacement, even though only one of
the DIMMs was bad. OWC has a somewhat friendlier cross-ship policy.

OK. Thanks Neill. :-)
Btw, WHICH Apple products take THREE sticks of RAM?

Go to http://everymac.com and find out.

[David B.]

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by David B.

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

Yes. But in one case, they required that the entire retail set (three
sticks) be returned as a unit for replacement, even though only one of
the DIMMs was bad. OWC has a somewhat friendlier cross-ship policy.

OK. Thanks Neill. :-)
Btw, WHICH Apple products take THREE sticks of RAM?

Go to http://everymac.com and find out.

Thank you for pointing me in that direction, Roger! :-)

I've read here:-
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/faq/powermac-g5-memory-type-supported-number-of-ram-slots.html

[Jolly Roger]

Post by David B.

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by David B.

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
Did Crucial replace them quickly and without charge?

Yes. But in one case, they required that the entire retail set (three
sticks) be returned as a unit for replacement, even though only one of
the DIMMs was bad. OWC has a somewhat friendlier cross-ship policy.

OK. Thanks Neill. :-)
Btw, WHICH Apple products take THREE sticks of RAM?

Go to http://everymac.com and find out.

Thank you for pointing me in that direction, Roger! :-)
I've read here:-
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/faq/powermac-g5-memory-type-supported-number-of-ram-slots.html

That's only the G5s, but yeah.

[Neill Massello]

Post by David B.
Btw, WHICH Apple products take THREE sticks of RAM?

The old (cheese grater) Pro towers came with four or eight slots, but
their memory managers provided optimal speed with three or six of the
slots filled.

[nospam]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by David B.
I've used Crucial for RAM for many years. I've never had a problem with
the product nor the company.

I've had Crucial DIMMs go bad on me twice.

so what? they'll replace it without issue.

nothing is perfect.

[Davoud]

Post by Neill Massello
I've had Crucial DIMMs go bad on me twice.

Oops! Sorry!

I don't know that I have bought Crucial RAM, but I installed Crucial
1TB SSDs in two precious 17" MB Pros more than a year ago and they're
both going strong.

[David Empson]

(As I noticed this time: invalid groups comp.sys.mac.portable and
comp.sys.mac.hardware removed, followups set to the ONE most appropriate
group, which is how you should have done the original post.)

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260

I've installed a Crucial SSD in a few 2007-2012 Mac models and they have
been working fine for more than a year in all cases. The Crucial SSD
models I've used include the BX100 (predecessor of the BX200) and MX200.
The latter has been superseded by the MX300 which I haven't tried yet.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?
Thank you in advance. :)

I've been using Crucial- and OWC-branded SSDs for years with good
results. Here's a link to OWC's offerings:

<https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ssd/owc>

[nospam]

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

Or OWC...

[nospam]

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A12
60
?

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice and also less expensive.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A12
60
?

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice

Why?

[nospam]

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too
if possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice

Why?

owc is a house brand with an unknown controller.

crucial is an established name brand who makes their own memory and
whose ssd controllers are known to not have firmware issues with the
ata chips in some older macs (and pcs for that matter which use the
same chipset).

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too
if possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260

for that mac, you want crucial due to firmware issues with the ata
controller.

Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice

Why?

owc is a house brand with an unknown controller.

So what? How does this make it worse choice exactly? My OWC SSDs have
run just fine for years with different model Macs.

Post by nospam
crucial is an established name brand who makes their own memory and
whose ssd controllers are known to not have firmware issues with the
ata chips in some older macs (and pcs for that matter which use the
same chipset).

Have OWC SSDs had firmware issues? Citation please.

[nospam]

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger
Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice

Why?

owc is a house brand with an unknown controller.

So what? How does this make it worse choice exactly? My OWC SSDs have
run just fine for years with different model Macs.

Post by nospam
crucial is an established name brand who makes their own memory and
whose ssd controllers are known to not have firmware issues with the
ata chips in some older macs (and pcs for that matter which use the
same chipset).

Have OWC SSDs had firmware issues? Citation please.

the issue is that certain ssd controllers and nvidia sata chipsets will
not negotiate the maximum link speed. it will still work, but not at
optimal speeds.

crucial uses their own controller and is known to not have problems, at
least with the mx series of ssds. i'm not sure about bx, but the price
difference isn't cheap enough to bother with bx, even if it does work.

owc does not disclose which controller they use (that i can find), but
it's likely sandforce, which is commonly used many ssds. unfortunately
sandforce *does* have issues with nvidia sata chipsets.

later macs (and pcs) don't have this issue, in which case, samsung is
also a good choice.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger

Post by nospam

Post by nospam

Post by Jolly Roger
Or OWC...

crucial is a much better choice

Why?

owc is a house brand with an unknown controller.

So what? How does this make it worse choice exactly? My OWC SSDs have
run just fine for years with different model Macs.

Post by nospam
crucial is an established name brand who makes their own memory and
whose ssd controllers are known to not have firmware issues with the
ata chips in some older macs (and pcs for that matter which use the
same chipset).

Have OWC SSDs had firmware issues? Citation please.

the issue is that certain ssd controllers and nvidia sata chipsets will
not negotiate the maximum link speed. it will still work, but not at
optimal speeds.
crucial uses their own controller and is known to not have problems, at
least with the mx series of ssds. i'm not sure about bx, but the price
difference isn't cheap enough to bother with bx, even if it does work.
owc does not disclose which controller they use (that i can find), but
it's likely sandforce, which is commonly used many ssds. unfortunately
sandforce *does* have issues with nvidia sata chipsets.

Pretty sure OWC does use SandForce controllers.

Post by nospam
later macs (and pcs) don't have this issue, in which case, samsung is
also a good choice.

I guess that explains why I haven't seen any performance issues with my
OWC SSDs.

[Wade Garrett]

Post by Ant
Since its HDD is dying, it will need a new drive. 512 GB should be a
good enough size. I'd like to reuse this drive for other computers
(Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc. on desktops and (laptop/notebook)s) too if
possible if MBP dies later on. Is Crucial brand good as shown in
http://guides.crucial.com/c/MacBook_Pro_15"_Core_2_Duo_Models_A1226_and_A1260
?
Thank you in advance. :)

Actually you'd be fine with most any name brand product...they're all
quite good and are pretty much commodities these days.

Your inquiry reminds me, though, of one I saw recently about which of
the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders was the best looking and sexiest;-)

[nospam]

Post by Wade Garrett
Your inquiry reminds me, though, of one I saw recently about which of
the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders was the best looking and sexiest;-)

debbie, obviously.