The conversation on this page has been archived and is no longer active.

Macbook random shutdown (RSD)

Message #1 - Posted 2006/09/23 - mdrayton

Hi

I bought a Macbook in mid-May which, aside from the AC whistle and the fixed-by-Photo-booth CPU noise was fault-free until the hard drive died about a month ago. I took it to the Apple store on Regent Street who replaced the disc (though it took them over a fornight to do so). Since then it's seemed okay (although OS X took *forever* to install) but then this morning it randomly switched itself off. It'd been on all morning but sleeping for a couple of hours; I poked a key to wake it and after 30 seconds, *poof*. Off.

I pressed the power button, the optical drive made the usual noise and then it switched off.
I pressed the power button, the optical drive made the usual noise and then it switched off.
I pressed the power button, the optical drive made the usual noise and then it switched off.

I went away for 5 minutes to avoid doing something irrational.

I pressed the power button again and it started. I logged in, 30 seconds later: *poof*. Power off.

Gnn. I called Applecare who told me "it might be a software problem" and that I'd have to do some kind of system reset to see if it'd fix it but in order for him to tell me how to do that I'd have to pay for an extended Applecare contract. Other than that, I'm out on a limb. He gave me a different number to try as I'm a university student and bought the Macbook through the HE store but that number sounds like a Dutch Applecare number and none of the menu options work anyway. Great.

Looking around on the Internet it seems that a lot of people are suffering from this problem [1], [2].

I don't live in London any more so I can't take it to Regent St to see an expert, but I do live in Southampton, where an Apple Store is (one day, god knows when) opening so it could go there. What I really want, however, is a new one. Surely a computer that breaks twice in 4 months isn't fit for the purpose intended? I'm studying; I need this thing to be reliable. I can't afford the downtime of repeatedly sending it away, reinstalling and re-copying all my stuff on to it.

I really like Apple's products but Apple seem to hate me: my previous Mac, an eMac, went in for repair about 3 times and still had problems. Sigh. They have to sort out their QA. =A3750 is a lot for an unreliable machine. Rant over.

What're my options here? Anyone?

Cheers,

Mark

[1]
http://discussions.apple.com/search.jspa?objID=3Df1169&search=3DGo&q=3Drsd [2] http://macbookrandomshutdown.com/

Message #2 - Posted 2006/09/23 - Chris Ridd

On 2006-09-23 13:51:26 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

I don't live in London any more so I can't take it to Regent St to see an expert, but I do live in Southampton, where an Apple Store is (one day, god knows when) opening so it could go there. What I really want, however, is a new one. Surely a computer that breaks twice in 4 months isn't fit for the purpose intended?

I agree. You're entitled to a machine that works, and you should not need to pay for AppleCare to get that. Zoara will be along shortly to explain Trading Standards to you, and what magic words to say to make Apple do your bidding :-)

Cheers,

Chris

Message #3 - Posted 2006/09/23 - Ian McCall

On 2006-09-23 13:51:26 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

I called Applecare who told me "it might be a software problem" and that I'd have to do some kind of system reset to see if it'd fix it but in order for him to tell me how to do that I'd have to pay for an extended Applecare contract.

Rubbish. It's a known fault, and AppleCare should have recognised this. You got an idiot on the line - it's Apple's fault here. I've had a friend send his MacBook in for work on this - I'll see if he can dig out the relevant tech article (he's in Chicago, but still).

Looking around on the Internet it seems that a lot of people are suffering from this problem [1], [2].

They are. And they're getting it repaired too.

What I really want,
however, is a new one. Surely a computer that breaks twice in 4 months isn't fit for the purpose intended? I'm studying; I need this thing to be reliable. I can't afford the downtime of repeatedly sending it away, reinstalling and re-copying all my stuff on to it.

My opinion is that you might have hassle after 'only' two, but three times is the charm. Or was for me anyway, that's when I had mine replaced.

Cheers,
Ian

Message #4 - Posted 2006/09/23 - Ian McCall

On 2006-09-23 16:00:29 +0100, Ian McCall said:

On 2006-09-23 13:51:26 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

I called Applecare who told me "it might be a software problem" and that I'd have to do some kind of system reset to see if it'd fix it but in order for him to tell me how to do that I'd have to pay for an extended Applecare contract.

Rubbish. It's a known fault, and AppleCare should have recognised this. You got an idiot on the line - it's Apple's fault here. I've had a friend send his MacBook in for work on this - I'll see if he can dig out the relevant tech article (he's in Chicago, but still).

Found it:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304308>

Cheers,
Ian

Message #5 - Posted 2006/09/23 - zoara

Chris Ridd wrote:

On 2006-09-23 13:51:26 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

I don't live in London any more so I can't take it to Regent St to see an expert, but I do live in Southampton, where an Apple Store is (one day, god knows when) opening so it could go there. What I really want, however, is a new one. Surely a computer that breaks twice in 4 months isn't fit for the purpose intended?

I agree. You're entitled to a machine that works, and you should not need to pay for AppleCare to get that. Zoara will be along shortly to explain Trading Standards to you, and what magic words to say to make Apple do your bidding :-)

I can think of a few four-letter words.

But it's still under the year's warranty - so you should be able to get it sorted without getting TS involved. Phone Apple. If they act arsey, mention TS.

Oh, uhm, they aren't legally required to give you a new machine until they've had a 'reasonable' go at fixing it. But don't tell them that, obviously. :)

-z-

THONK BOKE

Message #6 - Posted 2006/09/23 - S.Chang

mdrayton@gmail.com wrote:

Hi

I bought a Macbook in mid-May which, aside from the AC whistle and the fixed-by-Photo-booth CPU noise was fault-free until the hard drive died about a month ago. I took it to the Apple store on Regent Street who replaced the disc (though it took them over a fornight to do so).

As far as I can tell, this could be your reason for the random shut down, there is a power cable/shunt close to the HDD which is temperature sensitive, it's probably moving freely after they replaced the HDD, when it's shorted it forces your laptop to cut the power.

As Zoara says, it's under 1 yr so you can get Apple to take it back for repair.

S.Chang

Message #7 - Posted 2006/09/24 - mdrayton

zoara wrote:

Chris Ridd wrote:

On 2006-09-23 13:51:26 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

I don't live in London any more so I can't take it to Regent St to see an expert, but I do live in Southampton, where an Apple Store is (one day, god knows when) opening so it could go there. What I really want, however, is a new one. Surely a computer that breaks twice in 4 months isn't fit for the purpose intended?

I agree. You're entitled to a machine that works, and you should not need to pay for AppleCare to get that. Zoara will be along shortly to explain Trading Standards to you, and what magic words to say to make Apple do your bidding :-)

I can think of a few four-letter words.

But it's still under the year's warranty - so you should be able to get it sorted without getting TS involved. Phone Apple. If they act arsey, mention TS.

Oh, uhm, they aren't legally required to give you a new machine until they've had a 'reasonable' go at fixing it. But don't tell them that, obviously. :)

Yep, called Apple HE store and got a bit stubborn with them but they're still not going to replace it until it's come back faulty twice.

If it does come back faulty again (and there are plenty of tales of machines that have) would a replacement machine be new or refurbished? I'm not sure an early refurb model would be any better than the one I've got -- better the devil you know and that.

Has anyone else here had a Macbook with this fault? BTW, mine's a week 20 model.

Cheers,

Mark

Message #8 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Ian McCall

On 2006-09-24 15:28:42 +0100, mdrayton@gmail.com said:

If it does come back faulty again (and there are plenty of tales of machines that have) would a replacement machine be new or refurbished?

My replacement MacBook Pro was new. Whether that also applies to your circumstance I don't know of course.

I'm not sure an early refurb model would be any better than the one I've got -- better the devil you know and that.

I was actually quite reluctant to get a new one - searching back in the threads will show this. My reasoning was that a new one might well randomly have the fault also, but a repaired one is more likely to have had such a fault specifically looked for and sorted if present.

As it happened though, Apple bungled delivery of the repair box and that became the final straw for me - new machine please. Glad I did in the end, because I was upgraded from 1.83Ghz to 2Ghz - you can really tell the difference.

Has anyone else here had a Macbook with this fault? BTW, mine's a week 20 model.

We have a MacBook which might well be going back - case looks like it might be yellowing prematurely, another known fault. Not sure about the random shutdowns though - don't think we've had those yet (though I'd need to confirm with my wife who is the main user of the MacBook).

Cheers,
Ian

Message #9 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Jaimie Vandenbergh

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:34:54 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

As it happened though, Apple bungled delivery of the repair box and that became the final straw for me - new machine please. Glad I did in the end, because I was upgraded from 1.83Ghz to 2Ghz - you can really tell the difference.

Really? You shouldn't be able to. I suspect your original lappy was running a lot slower than it should have been, then.

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Cheers - Jaimie

L33t 5p3@|< 1s f0R R3t4rds

Message #10 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Ian McCall

On 2006-09-24 16:07:36 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Or a ripping of DVDs to MP4....

Cheers,
Ian

Message #11 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Jaimie Vandenbergh

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:29:04 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

On 2006-09-24 16:07:36 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Or a ripping of DVDs to MP4....

1.83->2.00 is only about 1/16th increase, do you really notice the difference between a two-hour encode and a 1h52 one? I'm not trying to deny that you might, but I was terribly disappointed when I went from a 2.5GHz chip to 3.4GHz - could hardly tell the difference.

Cheers - Jaimie

'The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents' - H.P.Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Message #12 - Posted 2006/09/24 - D.M. Procida

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Or a ripping of DVDs to MP4....

1.83->2.00 is only about 1/16th increase, do you really notice the difference between a two-hour encode and a 1h52 one? I'm not trying to deny that you might, but I was terribly disappointed when I went from a 2.5GHz chip to 3.4GHz - could hardly tell the difference.

Indeed. I don't normally feel a need to upgrade until it looks like machines are running twice as fast as the one I'm currently using. My iMacs have run at 233MHz, 600MHz, 1GHz, 2GHz. Of course it's getting harder to compare now.

In each case though, what has been the most significant part of these upgrades has generally been the screen size and quality, not processor speed.

Daniele

Message #13 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Ian McCall

On 2006-09-24 16:54:48 +0100, D.M. Procida said:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Or a ripping of DVDs to MP4....

1.83->2.00 is only about 1/16th increase, do you really notice the difference between a two-hour encode and a 1h52 one? I'm not trying to deny that you might, but I was terribly disappointed when I went from a 2.5GHz chip to 3.4GHz - could hardly tell the difference.

Indeed. I don't normally feel a need to upgrade until it looks like machines are running twice as fast as the one I'm currently using. My iMacs have run at 233MHz, 600MHz, 1GHz, 2GHz. Of course it's getting harder to compare now.

Well, given that in another thread I'm posting about how pleased I am with a 266Mhz G3 I'd say it's horses for courses.

Yes, on my now-main workhorse box I really notice the difference. I do a lot of video transcoding, and a lot of it is queued. ~55fps rips to ~80fps rips is not a 1/16th increase either. Remember that (100 - ((1.83 / 2) * 100) is not the formula to use here, because we're dealing with dual cores. That magnifies the increase substantially providing you're dealing with capable software. On top of that, right back in the 8-bit days saying that a 1Mhz chip was twice as quick as a 1/2Mhz chip was known to be false - there's much more to it than that.

In each case though, what has been the most significant part of these upgrades has generally been the screen size and quality, not processor speed.

Well for me it's a little unusual due to circumstance. I'd never have considered selling a 1.83Ghz just to move to a 2.0Ghz of the identical model. But since that move has occurred I'm in a good position to judge the speed, and...and...

...I believe 'snappier' is the damned-near trademarked phrase to use in these circumstances.

Cheers,
Ian

Message #14 - Posted 2006/09/24 - zoara

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed). I went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

You feel like you have blazing speed, at least for a while.

-z-

THONK BOKE

Message #15 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Woody

zoara wrote:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed).

I always try for a threefold increase, apart for the case when I went from the 400 tiBook to the 800 tiBook, although that was mostly for the increased screen resolution.

went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

You feel like you have blazing speed, at least for a while.

indeed you do. Sometimes longer than others.

Woody

www.alienrat.com

Message #16 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Jon B

<mdrayton wrote:

Has anyone else here had a Macbook with this fault? BTW, mine's a week 20 model.

Yes, mine did it a few weeks ago, then twice this weekend...

I've reseated the ram just to be sure and will be keeping a close eye on it.

Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.

Message #17 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Jaimie Vandenbergh

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:08:57 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

1.83->2.00 is only about 1/16th increase, do you really notice the difference between a two-hour encode and a 1h52 one?

Yes, on my now-main workhorse box I really notice the difference. I do a lot of video transcoding, and a lot of it is queued. ~55fps rips to ~80fps rips is not a 1/16th increase either. [snip]

Well for me it's a little unusual due to circumstance. I'd never have considered selling a 1.83Ghz just to move to a 2.0Ghz of the identical model. But since that move has occurred I'm in a good position to judge the speed, and...and...

I definitely reckon the initial machine had more problems than you were aware of - that's an improvement quite literally out of proportion to the change. You done well, innit!

Cheers - Jaimie

Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere

Message #18 - Posted 2006/09/24 - Jaimie Vandenbergh

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:48:45 +0100, zoara wrote:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed). I went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

My Athlon 2500+ -> dual Xeon 3400 was kind of accidental, in that I got a pair of Xeons free. Otherwise I'd only be vaguely considering upgrading the peecee to next year's quad-core.

As it is, I probably just won't. No point.

Cheers - Jaimie

"I'll never forget my first wife - drove me to drink. I'm eternally grateful." - W. C. Fields

Message #19 - Posted 2006/09/25 - Chris Ridd

On 2006-09-24 20:48:45 +0100, zoara said:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed). I went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

You feel like you have blazing speed, at least for a while.

And then you just feel like you've got blazing disks?

Cheers,

Chris

Message #20 - Posted 2006/09/25 - Chris Ridd

On 2006-09-25 00:16:31 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:48:45 +0100, zoara wrote:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed). I went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

My Athlon 2500+ -> dual Xeon 3400 was kind of accidental, in that I got a pair of Xeons free. Otherwise I'd only be vaguely considering upgrading the peecee to next year's quad-core.

As it is, I probably just won't. No point.

Anandtech successfully put 2 Clovertowns into a Mac Pro.

<http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6>

The only thing that didn't seem to work was the processor name in "About This Mac" :-)

Cheers,

Chris

Message #21 - Posted 2006/09/29 - Jon B

Jon B wrote:

<mdrayton wrote:

Has anyone else here had a Macbook with this fault? BTW, mine's a week 20 model.

Yes, mine did it a few weeks ago, then twice this weekend...

I've reseated the ram just to be sure and will be keeping a close eye on it.

Well it behaved impeccably until tonight, and it has just RSD'd twice in about 5 mins, and the first time took about 5 attempts to get it to turn on. Time to back up on Monday and call Apple...

[few minutes later] Grrr bloody things done it again.

Rather more annoying due to the fact I'm sitting on an open network I've been signing into the office VPN, which then thinks I'm still there so can't reconnect. Doubly annoying I can't switch to the desktop. --
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.

Message #22 - Posted 2006/09/30 - Roger Merriman

Woody wrote:

zoara wrote:

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

It takes most of a doubling of computer speed for humans to really notice, without using benchmarks.

Which is why, when upgrading to the next model, you should wait until you can get a threefold increase in speed (fudge-factors allowed).

I always try for a threefold increase, apart for the case when I went from the 400 tiBook to the 800 tiBook, although that was mostly for the increased screen resolution.

went from a 300Mhz G3 to an 800Mhz G3 for example, then that 800Mhz G3 to a 1.3Ghz G4 (I would have held off longer but that was kind of free).

You feel like you have blazing speed, at least for a while.

indeed you do. Sometimes longer than others.

yeah my power book felt a lot faster than my imac and attaully has regained its snappyness with the upgrade to 1152MB from 640MB as i use some memory hungry applications consetivly such as omniweb, iweb and iphoto which can chew up a heck of a lot of ram.

but yes seems to be a 3 to 4 year spane normally. though the wee powerbook should hopefully remain as my main mac for some time. i have a older quicksiler which though slightly less in clock speed makes up by faster I/O and so feels a lot beefyer.

roger

Message #23 - Posted 2006/09/30 - Woody

Roger Merriman wrote:

but yes seems to be a 3 to 4 year spane normally. though the wee powerbook should hopefully remain as my main mac for some time.

Better do now you have a house to do up!

Woody

www.alienrat.com

Message #24 - Posted 2006/10/10 - Roger Merriman

Woody wrote:

Roger Merriman wrote:

but yes seems to be a 3 to 4 year spane normally. though the wee powerbook should hopefully remain as my main mac for some time.

Better do now you have a house to do up!

heh true true. though it is slowly becoming a house rather than just a shell.

all good fun any way.

roger

Need Help? Have a Question?

Looking for more help, comments, and answers?

Ask your questions on Ask Different. Ask Different is a community of Apple users ready to help.