Found $99 SSD for boot drive

[Giuly]

Well, you didn't specify that you wanted a 120GB Sandforce SSD for under $200 . The Western Digital uses a modified JMicron controller. Its speed and IOps/sec are lacking compared to the Sandforce crew.

SandForce, Micron/Crucial, even new Intel-Controllers. Anything that saturates the SATA-II interface in my Mini. At the moment SandForce is to prefer, as it has a faster write speed - even if you go 256GB. When the SATA-III drives hit the market, anything that "only" saturates SATA-II will be a bargain.
The RealSSD is already $30 cheaper than the SandForce-1200 drives, it's only a matter of time, until you get the same or better as the current OWC one, for under $200/120GB.

 

[dolphin842]

I just prefer when comparing especially prices than we are comparing (sounds stupid to say, but here goes) apples to apples, not apples to oranges. [...]

You know for $100 I wanted to see if I could use an SSD for boot, OSX, etc. Totally happy all fit in with 12GB to spare.

Makes sense. All I know is given my aging iMac, any current or last-gen SSD on the market would be an welcome improvement. I was planning on going the $99 boot drive route to keep it going a while longer, but now the hardware is starting to throw occasional fits (USB, graphics card, SMC rebooting....), so I'm not sure if I want to invest anything more in this old machine.

 

[mangrove]

Makes sense. All I know is given my aging iMac, any current or last-gen SSD on the market would be an welcome improvement. I was planning on going the $99 boot drive route to keep it going a while longer, but now the hardware is starting to throw occasional fits (USB, graphics card, SMC rebooting....), so I'm not sure if I want to invest anything more in this old machine.

I had an older iMac too and decided to try the Mini. It is at least easier to open the Mini versus what I see going on with opening up an iMac. If you really want fast I guess the Mac Pro is it, but who can afford that?

With a refurb'd Mini, sometimes you can afford the put faster stuff inside. That's the way I'm going for now. Also, where I'm from if a hurricane looks to hit, I can just put the Mini under my arm and get the H*** out of town!

 

[dolphin842]

I had an older iMac too and decided to try the Mini. It is at least easier to open the Mini versus what I see going on with opening up an iMac. If you really want fast I guess the Mac Pro is it, but who can afford that?

With a refurb'd Mini, sometimes you can afford the put faster stuff inside. That's the way I'm going for now. Also, where I'm from if a hurricane looks to hit, I can just put the Mini under my arm and get the H*** out of town!

If I got an SSD for the iMac, I'd just pay $50 to have my local shop install it. Dealing with the removal of the display and other delicate connections isn't something I'm willing to experiment with at the moment.

A Mini with 8GB+SSD would more than fast enough for what I do. Only thing I'd worry about is GUI responsiveness with successive OS revisions moving forward. Sinking $1100+ in a Mini that won't run Expose smoothly next year would put a damper on an otherwise-fast system. (I'm currently using an old version of Dock.app to retain the old-style Expose in Snow Leopard, runs so much nicer!)

 

[Giuly]

If I got an SSD for the iMac, I'd just pay $50 to have my local shop install it. Dealing with the removal of the display and other delicate connections isn't something I'm willing to experiment with at the moment.

A Mini with 8GB+SSD would more than fast enough for what I do. Only thing I'd worry about is GUI responsiveness with successive OS revisions moving forward. Sinking $1100+ in a Mini that won't run Expose smoothly next year would put a damper on an otherwise-fast system. (I'm currently using an old version of Dock.app to retain the old-style Expose in Snow Leopard, runs so much nicer!)

Expect mobile graphics - except on the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros - to not get superior any time soon, as we'll get Intel IGPs with SandyBridge, or two more rounds of Core 2 Duos with 2.8GHz and 3.06GHz (T9600/T9900), which were already featured on the MBPs before the transition to Core-i.
The 320m is pretty good though.

 

[mangrove]

If I got an SSD for the iMac, I'd just pay $50 to have my local shop install it. Dealing with the removal of the display and other delicate connections isn't something I'm willing to experiment with at the moment.

A Mini with 8GB+SSD would more than fast enough for what I do. Only thing I'd worry about is GUI responsiveness with successive OS revisions moving forward. Sinking $1100+ in a Mini that won't run Expose smoothly next year would put a damper on an otherwise-fast system. (I'm currently using an old version of Dock.app to retain the old-style Expose in Snow Leopard, runs so much nicer!)

You know I used to use expose all the time, but ever since I got the newer wireless key board, I open up 6-8 windows/Applications and then use the F3 key to expose all of them and then pick the one I want to fill the screen. It's seamless for me.

 

[dolphin842]

Expect mobile graphics - except on the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros - to not get superior any time soon, as we'll get Intel IGPs with SandyBridge, or two more rounds of Core 2 Duos with 2.8GHz and 3.06GHz (T9600/T9900), which were already featured on the MBPs before the transition to Core-i.
The 320m is pretty good though.

Sigh, you're probably right in regards to mobile graphics, but would it kill Apple to put something discrete in the Mini again? The 320m should be quite a bit better than my aging X1600, but it gives me pause that the Minis in the Apple Store still can't run the new 10.6 Expose smoothly with more than a few windows open, and that's even when driving just one display. At least my X1600 can run the old Expose smoothly on one display...

You know I used to use expose all the time, but ever since I got the newer wireless key board, I open up 6-8 windows/Applications and then use the F3 key to expose all of them and then pick the one I want to fill the screen. It's seamless for me.

But the F3 key is using Expose ... it's just the same as using F9 on an older keyboard (or Fn+F9 on the new ones) .

 

[Giuly]

but it gives me pause that the Minis in the Apple Store still can't run the new 10.6 Expose smoothly with more than a few windows open

Next time you play with a Mini in the App Store, hit the "About this Mac" and look up the CPU and RAM inside. I don't have any problem with Exposé with 2.66GHz and 8GB RAM - not that I want to glorify the 320m. I don't game and I was fine with my GeForce 2 MX on GNU/Linux, even with a desktop resolution of 1920x1200, until they came up with 1080p, I only replaced it with a 7600GS for that purpose. The 320m is even faster than the 7600GS, I guess. With all the hardware acceleration, the Mini is a pretty fine machine.

 

[dolphin842]

Next time you play with a Mini in the App Store, hit the "About this Mac" and look up the CPU and RAM inside. I don't have any problem with Exposé with 2.66GHz and 8GB RAM - not that I want to glorify the 320m. I don't game and I was fine with my GeForce 2 MX on GNU/Linux, even with a desktop resolution of 1920x1200, until they came up with 1080p, I only replaced it with a 7600GS for that purpose. The 320m is even faster than the 7600GS, I guess. With all the hardware acceleration, the Mini is a pretty fine machine.

The Mini at the store was a 2.66GHz server version (probably stock 4GB though). I mean, Expose runs well enough on it, but I'm a stickler for wanting the GUI to run at the full 60fps . Any current Mac with a discrete GPU can do it, so it's probably just an annoyance in realizing that in 2010 Apple still sells Macs that can't run the OS X interface at full speed.

 

[mangrove]

But the F3 key is using Expose ... it's just the same as using F9 on an older keyboard (or Fn+F9 on the new ones) .

Yes, of course-I was thinking spaces, not expose. I still don't understand your concerns, though.

 

[dolphin842]

Yeah, it's not the biggest concern in the world... if Expose runs a little rough it doesn't impact productivity. Certainly I've been using it for years on this old iMac even though it can slow down quite a bit when running dual displays. For me it's just a nice little creature comfort if it runs smoothly... just makes me enjoy using the computer that much more .

 

[mangrove]

OK so I 've got the SSD in my 2.53 Mini 3,1 now with 8GB RAM and doing some real time checks before installing 2nd drive in SD slot.

Boot up-turn on hear startup chime, screen comes up with apple logo in 2 seconds, look for spinning wheel-none, in 2 maybe 3 seconds get blue screen with dock coming in after 1 more second. That's it-- I'm booted.

So apple logo to dock=perhaps 5 seconds. Wow, so that's fast to me.

Let's see about opening Mail-screen opens before bounce hits bottom.
--Safari-screen same speed as mail except for my dsl which takes 2 seconds more to bring up this page. I have the slowest DSL available fro AT&T here.
--pages-half bounce and the new untitled page is there
--numbers-a bit longer 1 full bounce and untitled shows up

Can't do iTunes or iPhoto right now since all data is on 2nd drive

 

[dolphin842]

So apple logo to dock=perhaps 5 seconds. Wow, so that's fast to me.

That's far and away the fastest boot time I've heard of! Darn, and I was ready to get just a 8GB upgrade and hold out with the stock drive for the time being...

Can't do iTunes or iPhoto right now since all data is on 2nd drive

No worries... it'll be interesting to see how performance differs when there are libraries/data on a normal drive.

 

[mangrove]

That's far and away the fastest boot time I've heard of! Darn, and I was ready to get just a 8GB upgrade and hold out with the stock drive for the time being...


No worries... it'll be interesting to see how performance differs when there are libraries/data on a normal drive.

By normal drive do you mean drive #2? I ask because drive #1 (40GB SSD) has all applications and home on it-just not the data as you seem to know. I am debating (again) on this mini whether as drive #2, to put in a 240 SSD with data or a Momentus XT 500GB with data.

Either way I might get about the same speed since the Momentus XT has that SSD like 4GB cache area. Heck, so far my entire photo library is like 5.5 GB and I assume when you look at iPhoto it's only the thumbnails that show up, so when accessing a specific photo, even if RAW, the size is way less than the 4GB.

I trust someone will correct me if those assumptions are wrong.

Regarding the 8GB RAM--I decided to do it since I just wanted to do it once and I had 4GB anyway in that 2009. With a 2010, it would be easier to go say from 2 to 4GB since accessibility is so simple compared to the 2009.

 

[dolphin842]

By normal drive do you mean drive #2? I ask because drive #1 (40GB SSD) has all applications and home on it-just not the data as you seem to know. I am debating (again) on this mini whether as drive #2, to put in a 240 SSD with data or a Momentus XT 500GB with data.

Yeah, I was just curious if there was a performance hit when loading apps that relied on data from a mechanical drive. My guess would be that the Momentus XT would be fine since, without the need for it to keep system files in its cache, it could hold a good bit of actual data. Then again, I have no idea what the performance difference is between the two anyway, so it's idle speculation on my part.

 

[THENIZZZEIL]

anyone try the Corsair f40 in their MacMini's?

I was about to jump on the X25-V, but read some reviews on the Corsair...I might have to cancel my trip to MC and order this badboy online.

 

[mangrove]

anyone try the Corsair f40 in their MacMini's?

I was about to jump on the X25-V, but read some reviews on the Corsair...I might have to cancel my trip to MC and order this badboy online.

Before you make a move, make sure you take a look at the OWC SSD's. They are really fast and holdup.

Check out the OWC site-Tech Support/bench tests/minis. Good stuff to study. Also a good analysis on different RAM and various CPU's.

 

[THENIZZZEIL]

Before you make a move, make sure you take a look at the OWC SSD's. They are really fast and holdup.

Check out the OWC site-Tech Support/bench tests/minis. Good stuff to study. Also a good analysis on different RAM and various CPU's.

Thanks, I made the jump on the F40 last night because I was eager...thank god for their return policy. I'll take a look. I love OWC, I have a few of their products and have nothing bad to say about them. Thanks for the input!

 

[mangrove]

Thanks, I made the jump on the F40 last night because I was eager...thank god for their return policy. I'll take a look. I love OWC, I have a few of their products and have nothing bad to say about them. Thanks for the input!

You know I noticed that Lloyd Chambers on his Mac Performance Guide compares different SSD-like OWC, Crucial and Intel. I think OWC/Tech Support/Bench Tests/Mini also does comparisons. I haven't been back to that site for a long though.

 

[dolphin842]

You know I noticed that Lloyd Chambers on his Mac Performance Guide compares different SSD-like OWC, Crucial and Intel. I think OWC/Tech Support/Bench Tests/Mini also does comparisons. I haven't been back to that site for a long though.

Yeah that 'real world' comparison was very informative... basically boils down to 'sandforce or nothing' for mac users. Incidentally, I e-mailed Lloyd the other day about other sandforce drives, and he said they should pretty much be all alike. The OWC benches have a lot of data but, frankly, not for workflows that interest me. At this point though, it's kind of moot: sandforce SSDs make a Mini go fast, not much else to say

Hey, so at long last, I actually got a Mini today. Currently stock at the moment, with 8GB of ram on the way (OWC just had another price drop: $180 shipped). I'll see how it performs at first without an SSD, then budget for one in the future if I want.

 

[mangrove]

Hey congrats on the mini. 8GB does not often get used , but just today my Time Capsule decided to do a full backup, so I thought I'd let it continue even though it was 152GB since I had made many changes lately.

Well it started at 830am and finished not long ago around 7pm. We had many on the in-house network today, but at one point I looked at activity monitor and it was using just over 4GB of RAM. Never have seen it so high and I had closed out everything else to help that backup. OK that's unusual, but glad I had 8GB.

Even a small main SSD can sure help in the long run. everything loads up fast. I use pages and numbers all day long and even with 3-4 windows open on Safari plus mail, the numbers sheets open up real fast, even my large ones.

Wait til the 60GB prices come down and then go for it.

 

[dolphin842]

Hey congrats on the mini. 8GB does not often get used [...]

True, but I have tons of stuff open all the time... I have a feeling I'll be swapping even with 8GB.

Wait til the 60GB prices come down and then go for it.

That's the plan... OCZs are currently $138 after rebate, not bad. The 240GB Agility 2's are on super sale for $450 after rebate at newegg. Tempting as always...

 

[THENIZZZEIL]

After doing a little more research and speaking with Jessica from OWC back and forth through email. They were very honest about the their SSD's. It seems the Sandforce is really the cream of the conversation and that any SSD with it, should be fine.

Since i purchased the Corsair F40, and running test/benchmarks I am VERY SATISFIED WITH IT. However, after calling Fry's about their F60 (the 60 gig version) it was listed at 169 + Tax..Since it was unavailable, I went ahead and purchased the OWC 60gig SSD for more room and of course their customer service and reliability. The final price was around $175, about $10 less than what the F60 would have cost.

As far as which one is better, i dont think that either would be better by much, but the customer service and the quality control that OWC has had in the past makes this purchase a more comfortable one. Had Fry's had the F60, I probably would have just purchased it and been okay with it...but Now that I got the OWC 60 arriving Monday, I am equally satisfied.

I will post my benchmark results with the OWC 60 on my Late 2009 2.53 macmini on Tuesday or so.

If anyone is deciding on the F40, for the price (89.99) after rebate, its a rather good deal..In my applicatoin siutation I feel more comfortable with a 60 gig. Performance wise...its fast...oh so fast!

Thanks everyone for their opinion!

 

[mangrove]

Good move. Just for your further info I posted xbench results 2 times, I think on this thread, but maybe others on SSD performance.

bottom line- from start of wheel gear until the docks open up for me is 5 seconds. everything else is super fast too, often less than one bounce to one bounce to open any dock item. OWC over-provisioning from all tests I've read is makes them superior.