Would happily give up a level of security (and even some performance) for the ability to swap out storage...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M1 Mac Users Report Excessive SSD Wear
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Isn't the simple way to fix this to simply disable the SMART interface to non-Apple signed tools?
AFAIK, Apple does not manufacture their own SSD, so their specs are the same than others using the same chips.
Or they can de-bloat OSX. Just saying. We don't need every option under the sun running at the same time. Just because we have surplus processing power doesn't mean you gotta make full use of it all the time.
Do another Leopard -> Snow Leopard upgrade where there are zero new features but an increase in performance.
Well, when you look at the fact that Apple sells roughly 20 million Macs in a given year, 4% of that is still 800,000. So, small percentage doesn’t mean small number of people
Some folks just want to be justified in whatever their decisions are, including decisions to not buy a thing.
The OP was pointing out that many of the largest influencers were literally saying you could get 8GB ram and there would be no difference. They would typically show benchmarks on performance to make that point. Many also said the RAM on M1 "worked different" and "wasn't the same" as it was on the Intel chips. Those in the know of course know this is BS, data is data and space is space, but a lot of people believe RAM on an M1 is magically different and even if they are a heavy user they can get 8GB and see no difference. Of course, there were some, I linked em, that pointed out the swap issue. IMO, even if this issue turns out to be something different, the magic RAM line has to stop. Nothing has changed about RAM other than maybe tiny latency gains. Sharing with graphics isn't even new that's old tech. Can someone get away with 8 GB? Sure lots of people, for now, with a big asterisk.
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if the m1 manages swap memory differently than even intel macs. For example, in my use cases, my 16gb m1 will start swapping much sooner than my 16gb 2012 mac mini. People are just too hyped up. 8gb ram is 8 and 16gb ram is 16. It's just that it's so fast and the swap is what makes it better.
You heard it hear first: RamGate. This is the end of Apple as we know it.
MacOS is quite bloated and has a lot of subscription adware. Clean install of Big Sur uses ~4GB+ booting to desktop vs ~2GB for Windows 10 and ~1GB for Linux.
I don’t see any apple product that is designed to not be disposable.
This "could" actually be a Good Thing.
It "could" force Apple to provide a FREE viable & credible NAND Flash Storage monitoring tool !
It "could" force Apple to provide a FREE viable & credible NAND Flash Storage monitoring tool !
...yes but I don't think anybody said that who wasn't talking out of their hat - let alone Apple.
There was never a viable reason why the M1 would use substantially less RAM than Intel - "Unified Memory" might be faster because it avoids copying data to/from VRAM but it doesn't stop you needing that RAM (esp. c.f. an Intel chip with an iGPU). I think the main reason why the M1 *appeared* more RAM efficient was simply that the fast SSD (and maybe other aspects of the M1) just meant you didn't notice so much when it ran out of RAM and started swapping.
That said - figures like 150TB in 2 months sound huge, and my first thought would be that the reading was wrong - possibly an incompatibility in smartmontools. On the other hand - 150TB is, what, a few hundred hours of raw 4K video? Maybe you could actually hit that if you've spent the last few months running FCPx benchmarks...?
My 3.5 year old iMac is on about 24 TB! OTOH, it has more RAM than I need and rarely touches the swap.
So, could it be that this is just what comes of the M1's ability to superficially cope with high-end tasks that, previously, nobody would have thought to try on a low-end MacBook with only 16GB of RAM...?
Still, this is why SSDs should never, ever be soldered in to any remotely "pro" machine - although its pretty standard practice with the sort of ultra-portable laptops that are the real alternatives to the Air and low-end MBP.
So I am curious ... why would anyone buy a machine with 16GB when it does not meet their requirements?
If you buy a machine that is much lower spec than what your workload demands ... that's just a bad decision on the buyers part.
This right here. A item like memory that wears should be replaceable and you don't trade off cost up front for disposability later. Non-removable SSD means the machine moves into the disposable category where having it replaceable makes it not a disposable machine.
It's not rocket science.
Assuming a linear trend (1% every 1.5 months), wouldn't this mean you safely get over 12 years of use out of it?
"The OP was pointing out that many of the largest influencers were literally saying you could get 8GB ram and there would be no difference"
And it will be true for most users , recommending 8GB for most of the users is of course a good advice if the performance is sufficient (and it is) ..... or do you think the reason to get a larger memory is the SSD wear ? future proofing is nice and all , but it depends on your cadence of swapping machines , a lot of the time its a bad decision.
M1 memory BW has a higher max peak per core (1 Pcore can utilize it all) , and has an overall higher BW vs the machines it competes with (not capacity).
I think they hype was around how fast a 8GB machine works , which you will be hard pressed (impossible) to find in intel land ,was mostly due to the fact that low end machines with low amount of RAM have the slower CPU`s.
