Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ssp3]

..I'd be surprised if a 128 GB SSD drew more power than a 128 GB HDD.

Surprise, surprise 
I can post such pictures all day long.

In practice, though, I know 1 TB MLC SSDs + Marvel adapter are 100% fine on the mini

It's your Mini, do whatever you want with it. But, as they say these days - FAFO. (That's an EE in me speaking).

[aBc]

« Old Reply #17 on: February 21, 2025, 09:26:37 PM » from Jubadub

Well, do color me surprised! I will keep this in mind at least in terms of battery life for laptops, if nothing else. Thanks for sharing this info!

I'm no EE, so I cannot really comprehend what measurable implications there are for using a 0.7A drive vs. a 1.5V drive. I don't know if this is so little as to "not matter", or very little as to "hardly make an impact even on battery life", or just enough to "lower half an hour of battery life", or big enough as to lower "2 hours from a battery that otherwise lasts 6 hours", and so on.

At the very least, however, I'd assume, and it would also seem, that these peripheral slots are designed to be able to handle even higher power draws than what the drives these computers originally shipped with draw? From bigger HDDs (e.g. 512 GB), to Compact Flash, to SSDs as we know them today, and so on?

We definitely could use more commentary on all this from an EE's perspective. Anyone knows these kinds of things in a nuanced level?

Now I wonder how much the 2.5" 4 TB Samsung 860 PRO SATA III SSD draws exactly... As well as its 2 TB counterpart. Yikes. It must be massive, probably unfit for external drive storage purposes (unless if powered via its own separate cable).

[aBc]

« Old Reply #18 on: February 22, 2025, 10:25:29 AM » from ssp3

Let me give you an analogy. You have a bridge over a river that is spec'ed at up to 10 tonnes. What will happen if you try to drive across it with a truck that weights 20 tonnes? At first and only try probably nothing, because the properly engineered bridge is over specified and has some safety margins. Does it mean you have to permit 20 t traffic across it on a regular basis? If you do, small cracks and bends in its construction will develop over time until one day the disaster will strike.

It's the same with electronics. Most properly designed ones are designed for worst case scenario. Does it mean that you have to operate your device close to it?

Quote - from abc
We definitely could use more commentary on all this from an EE's perspective.

As I already said, I am tired of posting from that perspective here, because I usually get overrunned by "f** Ohms Law, we don't need no stinkin' physics" or "ignore the old grumpy man" folks. And that's the current trend everywhere in the world these days, btw.
So, no, I won't be starting a new thread.

Check my old posts, those should be enough to give you an idea.
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6804.msg52089#msg52089

[aBc]

« Old Reply #19 on: February 22, 2025, 11:00:53 AM » from Jubadub

Let me give you an analogy. You have a bridge over a river that is spec'ed at up to 10 tonnes. What will happen if you try to drive across it with a truck that weights 20 tonnes? -ssp3


Makes sense. What I don't know though is if, in this case, the bridge is spec'ed at up to 30 tonnes, but put in a city only vehicles up to 10 tonnes exist, but then years later 20~25-tonne vehicles started appearing. 25 tonnes is a lot more than 10 tonnes, but if the bridge is spec'ed for up to 30, then all is fine.

In other words, I get the drives have different power specs, but are we sure the devices these drives go into are not already built with that taken into account? SSDs or flash memory were not exactly new by the time the mini came out in 2005.

Take for example the PSVita's ARM processor: it shipped at a certain clock speed. Homebrew allows easy overclocking of it, but the thing is, it turned out Sony had severely underclocked the CPU, perhaps to prolong battery life by many more hours, leaving it running at a speed waaay below what it was spec'ed for. So when people "overclocked" it, they were actually only de-underclocking it, still keeping it underclocked in fact, but by less an amount. (Although I think you could also put the clock back on the "normal" speed it was built for, or actually overclock it.)

Anyway, not trying to justify my thinking or pre-existing views, but certainly trying to get to the bottom of this for the computers we are discussing. (mini and overall PPC laptops.)

[aBc]

Note:

The above three posts were not authored by me. However, the original authors are noted in bold RED at the top of the each one’s content. My apologies to all concerned as it represents a failing on my part to successfully split selected posts from another topic, en masse to another new topic (something I’ve had no problems with in the past). And hopefully, will not have any more problems with in the future.
So, have at it Jubadub & ssp3 (and all others wishing to contribute).

Again, my apologies for this stopgap wonky approach.