Since the act of writing to an SSD is an act of wear that will eventually lead to a broken storage device, using an SSD for swap is a uniquely bad idea, right? Are Macs still designed so that you can’t replace your own hardware easily? I’ve never owned one, but I was asked to service one many years ago and it was a real pain.
Those SSD are both hardware and software locked to the mother board. Once the SSD goes, the whole machine goes.
The same can be said about RAM…once that goes, the mother board does too.
Perhaps the goal is to use the SSD as a sacrifice in order to extend the life of the obviously more important RAM.
Since the act of writing to an SSD is an act of wear that will eventually lead to a broken storage device, using an SSD for swap is a uniquely bad idea, right? Are Macs still designed so that you can’t replace your own hardware easily? I’ve never owned one, but I was asked to service one many years ago and it was a real pain.
Those SSD are both hardware and software locked to the mother board. Once the SSD goes, the whole machine goes. The same can be said about RAM…once that goes, the mother board does too.
Perhaps the goal is to use the SSD as a sacrifice in order to extend the life of the obviously more important RAM.
Although RAM is vastly more durable than the flash chips of an SSD, so that wouldn’t make sense.
It might make more sense from a cost viewpoint, since flash is typically cheaper than RAM.
I know. I wrote it as a crap excuse. The SSD that stores user data is infinitly more important than RAM.
deleted by creator