Hacker News Reader

Comment by ttfkam | Hacker News Reader

With 8GB, you will swap to SSD more. Intelligent algorithms and fast SSDs will indeed keep things running quickly and smoothly for the most part. However, the number of write cycles on the SSD will increase substantially compared to its larger-RAM peers. Combined with the likelihood that someone buying an 8GB machine will also have a smaller SSD due to budget, there is a much higher probability of failure in the shorter term. And once only one of the two SSD chips fails, you lose all your data, the BIOS, the ability to boot, and all other utility from this disposable, non-upgradable, non-repairable hardware.

If the BIOS were on a separate chip and they used NVMe storage, this wouldn't be a big problem. But they aren't, so it is.

You care about Right to Repair or you don't.

View on HN

Is there data out there showing that Macs with 8GB are hitting swap in the manner you describe? That’s a major assumption of your comment. (Even if this is happening, it should be noted that modern SSDs can be slammed pretty hard with writes and still last a very long time)

The memory on Apple’s systems is installed physically closer to the chip than any modular PC. I assume this is also a factor?

If the memory can more quickly and efficiently get data in and out of the processor, that means it can be released faster as well.

I’m not assuming that Apple’s memory architecture is faster than a typical PC equipped with DDR5 but I would be interested to see some kind of deep dive in this area because on the surface it seems like there are major hardware differences and a more customized platform on the Apple side.

Another example where this same concept comes into play is game consoles. It’s well understood that game consoles require less total RAM for playing the same game because the hardware isn’t general purpose, it’s customized and optimized for game-specific performance with a low hardware cost and customized software.

>The memory on Apple’s systems is installed physically closer to the chip than any modular PC. I assume this is also a factor?

No it is not.

The first MacBooks with non-replaceable SSDs came out in 2016. We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures.

I have a coworker that has lost two MacBooks due to drive failure in the past two years. I would never touch one of them unless I wanted to lose my data.

I mean sure, SSDs can fail, but they were clearly very unlucky.

The unlucky should be able to swap broken components too.

Ok? But I have 4 Macs (MacBook Pro 2011,MacBook Air 2012, Mac Mini 2012 and a MacBook Pro2017), all with SSDs and heavy usage-- absolutely no failures so far. Almost all of my previous Macs with HDDs have failed.

So maybe your co-worker is unlucky or you are saying this for another reason.

On their older hardware, I replaced a HD after about 6 years (that never actually had errors) with an SSD for another ~6.. With 8GB and an integrated SSD, I would be extremely nervous after year 2 or 3.

Ok? You don't have a Mx Model that relies heavily on using the SSD, so who cares about your anecdotal experience?

Welcome to HN my friend :)

The 2018 Macbooks had already 8 or 16GB, I'd argue in 5 years the average space needed for a program has significantly risen since then, causing greater wear now then in 2016/2018. https://everymac.com/systems/by_year/macs-released-in-2018.h...

Exactly, so those old MacBooks' SSDs should be failing en masse by now, if indeed there is something to worry about. There are plenty of them still in use.

When my 2015 MacBook Pro's SSD died, I could still book off an external and replace the original.

All storage dies eventually. There's a huge difference between needing to replace a broken or obsolete part and needing to replace an entire bricked laptop.

Sure, but all laptops have loads of parts that can break and that can't easily be replaced. The question is whether SSDs have become reliable enough that the advantages of making them replaceable no longer outweigh the disadvantages.

>We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures.

We don't seem to have seen a significant problem with SSD failures for Intel Mac. But all the Apple Silicon Mac has seen significantly higher percentage of SSD failures. Louis Rossmann has ranting about this for sometime already.

>Louis Rossmann

Not exactly the most reliable source for this kind of thing. I have not seen any hard evidence of greater numbers of SSD failures. Even if it's true that MacOS swaps more aggressively with Mx chips, 8GB of RAM is going to require substantial use of swap regardless of how exactly the OS tunes things.

eh... basically all 12 inch 2016-2018 macbook airs have failed ssds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com