So I am purchasing the new MacBook Pro 13" in a few weeks and I am just reviewing the hardware options that come with the MacBook Pro line...

 

The configuration I have in mind, regarding HDD/SSD is as follows... Spend €100 more on an 128GB SSD and buy a 700GB+ external HDD. Or just stick with the base line 750GB HDD?

Are SSD's worth the extra bit of cash or not?

 

I will be using the MacBook mainly for Software Development. Also a small bit of gaming ^_^

It all depends on you. Noone can tell you if it's worth for you. There are virtually hundreds of discussions on this subject + description in my guide. If after reading you still can't decide, well... then noone is gonna be able to help you

Having the operating system on an SSD is a HUGE improvement and I can't imagine not having that now. Start up and shut down happens in seconds and the SSD runs much cooler than any conventional hard drive I've ever had. Well worth it I would say.

Really depends how much local storage you want. If you are creating lots of files then a portable HDD would probably be fine because those files dont need to be used by the system all the time, but if you have big programs then you may need the HDD.

I bought a 13" MBP for Christmas and opted for the 124GB SSD. I'm happier to have a less shock-damage prone storage device, plus boot time seems great, though I can't compare to a HDD since I've never had a MBP before. I plan on SSD's x2 for my next FSX build, which I think will be after Haswell is released.

Having the operating system on an SSD is a HUGE improvement and I can't imagine not having that now.

Same here.

 

I was having some computer problems a few days ago so I reinstalled W7 on my VelociRaptor to rule things out. Everything was so slow (relative to my M4) that I ended up checking to make sure I had W7 on my VR and not an old 5400rpm drive. Even if I was doing absolutely nothing but surfing the internet, listening to music, watching videos, and using OpenOffice, I'd still want my OS on an SSD.

Sure, I had my OS testwise on the M4. It was fast. But once the system is properly loaded, it's not worth it. All applications start fast, even Photoshop is marginally slower on the WD. Outlook first boot is somewhat slower, after that, no difference, Firefox ditto... many other small programs have such a small footprint that it's just not noticable. SSD is good for those times when you are tweaking and need to reboot your system 10 times in an hour. Otherwise it makes no sense.

I ordered an M4 for 175€, installed it - then my bike broke - and my decision was that those 175€ would be much better invested in a better bike, better brakes. Waiting is not going to kill me, but if I can't brake efficiently on a bike, it will. In other words - maybe some day, but not for the reasons of "I need it because WD is slow", but rather something like "I want it because it's fancy".

Sure, I had my OS testwise on the M4. It was fast. But once the system is properly loaded, it's not worth it. All applications start fast, even Photoshop is marginally slower on the WD. Outlook first boot is somewhat slower, after that, no difference, Firefox ditto... many other small programs have such a small footprint that it's just not noticable. SSD is good for those times when you are tweaking and need to reboot your system 10 times in an hour. Otherwise it makes no sense.

I ordered an M4 for 175€, installed it - then my bike broke - and my decision was that those 175€ would be much better invested in a better bike, better brakes. Waiting is not going to kill me, but if I can't brake efficiently on a bike, it will. In other words - maybe some day, but not for the reasons of "I need it because WD is slow", but rather something like "I want it because it's fancy".

 

I agree, if you can't afford it - don't buy it. Otherwise I don't understand your logic. It's smaller, faster, more efficient, runs cooler and has no moving parts so is less likely to break - how does it not make sense?

I really don't know how old you are, but I learned in my life that not all bells and whistles are important. WD keeps going, I have a backup, and it brings me from A to B. Smaller? Do I care? Faster? Explained. More efficient? What, power? Not really by so much that it would matter. Cooler? Not really... all my HDDs are watercooled. Less likely to break? Surely not... how many SSD errors I have been reading about, then working hours, then that you turn off trim, don't defrag etc. Not that it didn't happen in HDD area, just I never had a broken one. SSD will break as easily as a HDD, if not easier from what I have been reading. Put that all against the price per GB, and you get my point hopefully.

But once the system is properly loaded, it's not worth it. All applications start fast, even Photoshop is marginally slower on the WD. Outlook first boot is somewhat slower, after that, no difference, Firefox ditto... many other small programs have such a small footprint that it's just not noticable to me.

Sounds like we've had different expeiences. For me, even once things are "proper loaded" as you put it, there's a noticeable difference between the two. Maybe my VR is old and slow, I don't know, all I know is that when I was running windows on it the other day, I kept getting impatient because of how slow things were loading. To each their own I suppose.

To each their own I suppose.

 

Mike, you are right. SSD has some clear advantages, and each should use whatever they see fit.

I really don't know how old you are, but I learned in my life that not all bells and whistles are important. WD keeps going, I have a backup, and it brings me from A to B. Smaller? Do I care? Faster? Explained. More efficient? What, power? Not really by so much that it would matter. Cooler? Not really... all my HDDs are watercooled. Less likely to break? Surely not... how many SSD errors I have been reading about, then working hours, then that you turn off trim, don't defrag etc. Not that it didn't happen in HDD area, just I never had a broken one. SSD will break as easily as a HDD, if not easier from what I have been reading. Put that all against the price per GB, and you get my point hopefully.

 

I'll try again. No I still don't get your point, or rather, I still disagree with you on the relative merits of the SSD but it is true that each should use whatever they see fit as with every other component of course. I like to have a fast and efficient system, others prefer the slower tried and trusted method. When PCIe SSD's become cheaper they will make SSD's as redundant as HDD's anyway. If they can make them bootable that is.

I can agree to that, SSDs are definitely the future. But IMO, they are not the present, in all their glory. As I said above, they still have one big disadvantage (€/GB). I didn't keep my M4 because my personal feeling didn't cross my line of price/feature ratio (other reasons were just catalysts, but I also got an Intel X25 SSD a year ago, for test, and also returned it). As I said couple of threads before, everyone must decide for themselves, all we can do is give our own opinions.

My plan is to go ahead with Apple's stock SSD 128GB and use an external HDD aswell... Then later on, Maybe 3-4 months later buy a 500GB SSD and install it myself into the MBP.

 

Thanks for the replys guys!

I still have a lot of free space on my Kingston 120GB SSD (86GB free in fact) as it just contains Win7 Pro and Photoshop and no other program files but I kind of wish I had bought a bigger one now as everything else is on the WD HDD. Having said that it would be so easy to add another one but I am very curious about PCIe SSD's and will wait to see if any other manufacturers choose to go down that road instead. I don't think you'll be disappointed though Ciarán - in fact I think you'll be amazed!