300 gig MBP hardrive?

[Emrtr4]

Given that late last year Fujitsu announced a 300 gig mobile 2.5 inch hardrive (at 4200 RPM) when do you think we will see these in our macbookpros?

Also, if one was to have NAND flash with Santa Rosa would the performance between a 5400 RPM hardrive and a 4200 be about the same?

Right now I have an 80 gig 5400 RPM drive in my 03 powerbook and I am hesitant to go down on speed even if I will get a lot of storage (but storage is oh so nice, I could do 60 gigs for Windows Vista and run all my games and still have 240 GIGS left for OS....)

Btw, here is the engadget link

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/11/fujitsu-unleashes-a-300gb-2-5-inch-mobile-drive/

 

[rogersmj]

Personally, I would never tolerate a 4200rpm disk in my notebook anymore, no matter how much space it gives me. I had a laptop with one, and it was slow as molasses. It will bog down the rest of your system. Even it it's a hybrid drive, you're still going to have to read from the drive for large files and such. I'd go for the largest internal 5400rpm hard drive you can and then keep all your huge files on a server or external drive. I actually don't bother getting enormous hard drives for my laptops because I have a 1.6TB file server that I can FTP or SSH into from anywhere to access all my stuff.

 

[whateverandever]

Just like the above poster said... you don't want a 4200rpm hard drive. Period.

The hybrid caching isn't going to help much at all except for common repeatable tasks (browsing the web, checking email). If you want a windows partition for gaming you're obviously going to be doing quite a bit of disk reads. Honestly, I'd go with a 7200rpm 120GB drive if you're at all interested in gaming.

 

[livingfortoday]

Actually, a large, empty 4200rpm drive will out-perform a full 7200rpm drive - so you might want a 300GB drive:

http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

 

[Emrtr4]

I did some additional research and found that a larger, emptier hardrive will outperform a small drive.

Actually I have heard that some company, can't remember if its Toshiba, Samung, or Seagate but one of them will be releasing a 250gig 7200RPM mobile drive sometime this year.

The thing is I have external storage (learned that lesson the hard way three months in with my powerbook) but I really would love to be able to access all of my information on my laptop without having to always have my mobile external porchse hardrive. For backing up important files I just use my Idisk or the flash drive on my keychain, but if I had a 300-250 gig hardrive I could have all of my photos, videos, movies, tv shows, music, and lots of room left over for other stuff.

Right now I have an 80 gig 5400 RPM powerbook and I have 11.24 gigs free, so for all intensive purposes I have used around 68 gigs of my hardrive space. Things are not terribly slow, (a recent logic board update andd 2 gigs of RAm has kept my powerbook apt for word/ safari...ect but the lag is there with anything HD quality and even the new Itunes slows it down.) If I had ALL of my music and movies and TV shows on here from my external it would be over 120 gigs of data, which means that a 120 gig hardrive wouldnt run any faster than my current one.

It seems like there is no one who really can decide on this issue, people say small fast hardrive is the best then others just as well spoken and with just as much research say that bigger hardrive is better in the long run.

If I plan to do any gaming will the 4200RPM hardrive cripple me? On my powerbook I have wolfenstein, COD (1, i havent bought any PC/mac games cept Medieval 2 total war since I have my 360) and UT2004 and that actually is VERY playable.

 

[THX2008]

I noticed that Apple no longer offers the 100gb 7200 RPM hardrive. I was lucky, I expected my refurbished MBP to come with a 60gb 5400 RPM hardrive and instead they gave me the 100gb 7200 RPM hardrive.

 

[xparaparafreakx]

I was looking into that 300GB hd not for the MBP but for the PS3. I haven't see anything new about that hard drive and you wouldn't want a slow HD like that. I know that because my TiBook uses a 4200 RPM hd and takes forever to load iTunes.

 

[moreover]

2.5" won't cut it in an MBP

It's my understanding that the drive has to be 1.8" to fit, so if 2.5" is really the measurement (and not just a generic term for laptop drive) then that announcement won't do us any good.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

It's my understanding that the drive has to be 1.8" to fit, so if 2.5" is really the measurement (and not just a generic term for laptop drive) then that announcement won't do us any good.

No. No. No! The 1,8" drive you are talking about is the one used in the iPod and has not even reached 160 GB yet (I cannot remember the roof of those drives) so obviously your claim is wrong.

 

[e12a]

It's my understanding that the drive has to be 1.8" to fit, so if 2.5" is really the measurement (and not just a generic term for laptop drive) then that announcement won't do us any good.

uhhh its my understanding that people have been upgrading/changing their hard drive with these novel 2.5" drives in the macbook/macbook pros for months...

 

[iSee]

That 300GB Fujitsu is thicker than typical 2.5" hard drives so it probably won't fit in a MBP (it has three platters rather than the typical two). Apple likes to keep its notebooks thin, so I'm guessing they won't redesign the MBP to accommodate the extra 3mm.

 

[SkyBell]

That 300GB Fujitsu is thicker than typical 2.5" hard drives so it probably won't fit in a MBP (it has three platters rather than the typical two). Apple likes to keep its notebooks thin, so I'm guessing they won't redesign the MBP to accommodate the extra 3mm.

Uh... I'd scarifice 3 mm for more storage...

 

[e12a]

That 300GB Fujitsu is thicker than typical 2.5" hard drives so it probably won't fit in a MBP (it has three platters rather than the typical two). Apple likes to keep its notebooks thin, so I'm guessing they won't redesign the MBP to accommodate the extra 3mm.

where did you find this? i dont see it on the OP's article..

 

[WildCowboy]

where did you find this? i dont see it on the OP's article..

You can see the specs on this PDF. And iSee is correct...12.5 mm drives won't fit in MBs or MBPs.

 

[Diatribe]

Also have a look at this link for more explanations: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/256381/

but rpm is not the only important factor. Size is also one. A 4200rpm drive is not necessarily slower just because the rpm is less.

 

[jeremy.king]

A 4200rpm drive is not necessarily slower just because the rpm is less.

+1

It's a common misconception spreading like the plague on these forums....reminds me the mhz myth of the "old" days.

 

[iW00t]

A slower RPM leads to slower seek times but the higher aural density of the higher capacity drives means higher data throughput. Low seek time does not equals faster since OS X defragments on the fly anyway, but everyone loves throughput

 

[CrackedButter]

I like how people are suggesting that a high capacity 4200 rpm drive is faster than a 7200 rpm model with modest capacity, and to stay so, you have to keep the 4200 rpm drive mostly empty to match the performance of the 7200 rpm drive.

Kinda gets in the way of wanting to use all that storage space.

I've always made an issue with the topic of internal drives to get the fastest possible, not the most capacious.

So get an external drive something which is really convenient, something that won't be a hassle, like a Lacie Little Big Drive. High Capacity and high transfer speeds, all in one cable.