Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Toshiba's 100GB 1.8'' Hard Drive

Peel said:
Does anyone know how many platters this (or the Toshiba 100GB) has?
Click to expand...
The Toshiba MK1011GAH will have two platters.

The 60 GB Seagate drive uses one platter, so it's pretty safe to assume that the 120GB variety, if it eventually appears, will also use two.

Is it the same form factor as the current 80GB drive?
Click to expand...
For the Toshiba, yes. Most of the specs are nearly identical to the 80GB version (newer ATA spec, though).

Toshiba 1.8" drives

The available Seagate specs are still a little sketchy, but it does appear to have different dimensions just based on appearance alone (they look so different with their skins torn off!). It may or may not be a drop-in replacement for the Toshiba ones.

Seagate ST18 series.
 
Eduardo1971 said:
I really don't care for video. I have a lot of audio files (52GB+).
Click to expand...

I too have a lot of audio on my external lacie HD - in the region of about 90GB - so thus far i've figured i can't fit ALL my music on any iPod, so always just carry a selection.

However, i've noticed on both my old 20GB 3rd gen and new 30GB 5th gen that the more I fill and approach capacity, the more sluggish they get. It's really annoying; now i usually don't break the 50-60% capacity as a result.

Would this be same if it were 100-120GB? I can't stand it when it's slow.
 
Digitaljim said:
I too have a lot of audio on my external lacie HD - in the region of about 90GB - so thus far i've figured i can't fit ALL my music on any iPod, so always just carry a selection.

However, i've noticed on both my old 20GB 3rd gen and new 30GB 5th gen that the more I fill and approach capacity, the more sluggish they get. It's really annoying; now i usually don't break the 50-60% capacity as a result.

Would this be same if it were 100-120GB? I can't stand it when it's slow.
Click to expand...

my 3rd gen 40gb has 9mb free. and it runs very very fast. :p
 
I expect Apple to release the "video iPod" in a form factor larger than the current 5.5G iPod with a touchscreen display and either 80 GB or 120 GB hard drive. It won't be cheap, though: probably US$499 for the 80 GB version and US$599 for the 120 GB version.

One unexpected surprise (in my opinion) from this new "video iPod" is the return of the IEEE-1394 (FireWire) interface, since I'm not sure if the USB 2.0 port is fast enough to handle fast copying of files from the computer that measure tens of gigabytes in size.
 
anonicon said:
Regardless of whether your prediction is right or not, I sincerely hope you're wrong. Flash memory, despite its recent size advances, still lags *far* behind regular hard drive storage at a ratio of about 47:1 (top hard drive: 750GB, top flash drive: 16GB) and in cost.

While the announced 120GB 1.8" drive is good news, it still looks like it's going to be a few years beore the iPod comes out with a 500GB hard drive - the general amount of space my no-MP3 music collection takes up. I'd love to be able to carry my entire library around instead of having to choose which parcels to load onto it each week.

Peace.
Click to expand...

Okay, so I have a question. If we were to assume that each song in your collection is in the 15-20 MB range (and for simplicity we'll just say 20 MB), that would mean that you've got about 25000 songs in your library. With the current selection of iPods, you could take about 10% of those songs with you at any one time. That's about 2500 songs, at about 4 minutes each, for a total of, about, seven days worth of listening, straight through.

Now, I'm sure that you don't listen straight through a week, 24 hours a day. And I can understand the desirability of having your entire library ("oh, I really want to listen to that song, but it isn't in the set that I've got on my iPod!"). But, in the grand scheme of things, you can carry around more than enough music to keep you listening without repeating a song for weeks at a time, right?

(Please, no offense, this is just an argument that I have with myself on a regular basis. My situation is no where near what yours is. I've got somewhere between 30 and 40 GB of music, and I only have an older 20 GB iPod. I have this argument with myself to talk myself out of spending the money on a new iPod. :) )

As you said:

Peace. ;)
 
i have yet to buy an ipod. i have wanted one since 2G. but ive been waiting for the size to be able to accomidate my music collection. this may just be the time. i hope so. video would be cool but not really what i want an ipod for. i want the storage though. time will tell.

SactoGuy18 said:
One unexpected surprise (in my opinion) from this new "video iPod" is the return of the IEEE-1394 (FireWire) interface, since I'm not sure if the USB 2.0 port is fast enough to handle fast copying of files from the computer that measure tens of gigabytes in size.
Click to expand...

i hope they do bring back firewire. that would be great.

~kyle
 
Digitaljim said:
However, i've noticed on both my old 20GB 3rd gen and new 30GB 5th gen that the more I fill and approach capacity, the more sluggish they get. It's really annoying; now i usually don't break the 50-60% capacity as a result.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but is this with uncompressed audio, or really large files? Does anyone know if the iPods use a metadata database, or if they have to read the metadata from the audio files themselves?

One possible explanation, although I doubt this would be noticeable, is that because it's faster to access data on the outside portion of a platter, than the inside portion, because the outter tracks have a greater diameter, and so more information passes under the read head, at a given rotation speed. Also, the more you fill a drive, the more the read head will have to seek around. That would depend though, do you play tracks sequentially or randomly?
 
I waiting for the day that flash drives can reach that capacity or they come up with something more stable than the current 1.8" hard drives in ipods. I have two ipods with bad hard drives. I haven't been rough on them, but now they have that dreaded clicking noise. I've tried the "slap" fix and it works every once in a while on the one. On the other, I ended up selling the ipod for parts. I'm anxious for the ipod phone to come out and hopefully it has a flash drive, which is what everyone expects. Flash drives are sturdier, they just don't have the capacity just yet. I hate 1.8" hard drives. They're too delicate.
 
Snowy_River said:
Okay, so I have a question. If we were to assume that each song in your collection is in the 15-20 MB range (and for simplicity we'll just say 20 MB), that would mean that you've got about 25000 songs in your library. With the current selection of iPods, you could take about 10% of those songs with you at any one time. That's about 2500 songs, at about 4 minutes each, for a total of, about, seven days worth of listening, straight through.

Now, I'm sure that you don't listen straight through a week, 24 hours a day. And I can understand the desirability of having your entire library ("oh, I really want to listen to that song, but it isn't in the set that I've got on my iPod!"). But, in the grand scheme of things, you can carry around more than enough music to keep you listening without repeating a song for weeks at a time, right?

(Please, no offense, this is just an argument that I have with myself on a regular basis. My situation is no where near what yours is. I've got somewhere between 30 and 40 GB of music, and I only have an older 20 GB iPod. I have this argument with myself to talk myself out of spending the money on a new iPod. :) )

As you said:

Peace. ;)
Click to expand...

No offense taken. My point was coming from the perspective of not using MP3s or AACs, but CD-Audio WAV instead, where a 5 minute song isn't 5-10mb, but 50-60mb.

I've got all my music on a 750GB hard drive on my computer, with about 280GB of free space left (I've got about 9,000 songs). I *can* convert it all to MP3 and be just fine with an 80GB iPod, but for simplicity's sake, and because I'm lazy, I just load 70GB of my WAVs into my 80GB iPod at a time.

It'd be nice to not to have to choose which songs I have to listen to when I'm loading them to the iPod, and instead have iPod access to any song that my whim points to.
 
anonicon said:
No offense taken. My point was coming from the perspective of not using MP3s or AACs, but CD-Audio WAV instead, where a 5 minute song isn't 5-10mb, but 50-60mb.

I've got all my music on a 750GB hard drive on my computer, with about 280GB of free space left (I've got about 9,000 songs). I *can* convert it all to MP3 and be just fine with an 80GB iPod, but for simplicity's sake, and because I'm lazy, I just load 70GB of my WAVs into my 80GB iPod at a time.

It'd be nice to not to have to choose which songs I have to listen to when I'm loading them to the iPod, and instead have iPod access to any song that my whim points to.
Click to expand...

I have a 80GB ipod that I had my collection of 6000+ songs (apple default AAC) but have been thinking about ripping using the highest bitrate on to an external HD. Is WAV the best to use when ripping CDs?
 
anonicon said:
No offense taken. My point was coming from the perspective of not using MP3s or AACs, but CD-Audio WAV instead, where a 5 minute song isn't 5-10mb, but 50-60mb.

I've got all my music on a 750GB hard drive on my computer, with about 280GB of free space left (I've got about 9,000 songs). I *can* convert it all to MP3 and be just fine with an 80GB iPod, but for simplicity's sake, and because I'm lazy, I just load 70GB of my WAVs into my 80GB iPod at a time.

It'd be nice to not to have to choose which songs I have to listen to when I'm loading them to the iPod, and instead have iPod access to any song that my whim points to.
Click to expand...

Why WAV over APL?
 
~Shard~ said:
Toshiba can continue making larger capacity drives like this but eventually all iPods will move to flash-based storage. It still might be a couple years away, but it will happen at some point - just as I'm sure we'll see a MacBook with flash-based storage as well in the future.
Click to expand...

Larger solid state storage can't come soon enough. Down with mechanical parts. :p
 
With 1.8" drives this big and dense, when are we going to see some cheap and big 2.5" external drives? A 2.5" drive has about 1.9x the surface area, so we should be seeing 200+ GB maxed out, and 120 should be real cheap. I'm not seeing that yet.
 
Interesting but I'll pass. While I'm close to needing more space if I'm going to buy a new PMP at this point I want more space and a new design. )Read: Where's my Video iPod Apple?)
 
kddpop said:
i agree but it needs to be a good bit larger. 80 gigs isnt even quite enough for my needs.

~kyle
Click to expand...

Good enough for the OS and most apps though. Think 2 drives in one system. 40-80GB drive for OS and Apple. 100+ drive for media. If course then you have the problem of Jobs and his insanity of requiring it to be 1" thick. :rolleyes:
 
bigwig said:
With 1.8" drives this big and dense, when are we going to see some cheap and big 2.5" external drives? A 2.5" drive has about 1.9x the surface area, so we should be seeing 200+ GB maxed out, and 120 should be real cheap. I'm not seeing that yet.
Click to expand...

200 GB is here already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back