'm I missing something?

7 replies [Last post]
coius's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 25 2004
Posts: 1975

since when were there 200GB Laptop drives? I saw this while looking at the new MacBook Pro's I was never aware that any were released lately? Then again, I also haven't followed up /. recently, so that might be one problem...

__________________

See my PB540c 33Mhz serve a website! http://yui-ikari.coius.info/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
about laptop drives

Companies like Apple get their pick of the latest and greatest drive technology about 6 months to a year before any individual consumer could get their hands on them. Its supply and demand... they place these giguntus orders for many thousands of drives, and there's just not enough left over for the public until manufacturing meets demand, thus the delay. That being said... I was unaware that 200gb 2.5" drives existed yet either... last I heard they had 160gb 2.5" drives, which isn't too shabby.

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2006
Posts: 339
The 200GB drive use the Perpe

The 200GB drive use the Perpendicular technology. The 200gb drives are only 4200rpm though, so theyre literally useless.

__________________

MacBook Pro, 2.2GHz SR Core 2 Duo, 120GB HD, 2GB RAM,
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz, 3GB RAM, 1x 250GB HD, 4x 500GB HDs(Sonnet Tempo X4P), ATI Radeon 9650 256MB

martakz's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 634
Not necessarily. As the data

Not necessarily. As the data density goes up, more sectors will pass under the head for a given rpm - still 4200 is rather slow, but I would not call me useless.

__________________

Now using x86 machines. Bye bye iMac266 (Strawberry), G3 1400 and the G3 IIsi.

BDub's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 706
Re: Not necessarily. As the data

martakz wrote:

still 4200 is rather slow, but I would not call me useless.

Neither would I, but we're discussing a hard drive, not you. Wink

Sorry, couldn't resist.

__________________

"There is going to be a future: let's chase it until it kills us." - Spider Robinson

coius's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 25 2004
Posts: 1975
Re: Not necessarily. As the data

martakz wrote:

Not necessarily. As the data density goes up, more sectors will pass under the head for a given rpm - still 4200 is rather slow, but I would not call it useless.

I agree. A drive that I have that is 30GB at 7200RPM (desktop) is slower for me than a 60GB at 5400RPM (Desktop). So the amount of data crammed into the area DOES make it faster. I just wish they would have Upped the speed. but then again, it may be due to power constraints. Remember, faster speeds pull more current. It might be that apple opped to use the slower speeds to keep the battery life up, instead of getting a faster drive and losing power.

__________________

See my PB540c 33Mhz serve a website! http://yui-ikari.coius.info/

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2006
Posts: 339
I was thinking that just as I

I was thinking that just as I posted last night. Also, power is probably one of Apples concernes.

__________________

MacBook Pro, 2.2GHz SR Core 2 Duo, 120GB HD, 2GB RAM,
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz, 3GB RAM, 1x 250GB HD, 4x 500GB HDs(Sonnet Tempo X4P), ATI Radeon 9650 256MB

martakz's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 634
How on earth did I make that

How on earth did I make that mistake. Freudian slip

__________________

Now using x86 machines. Bye bye iMac266 (Strawberry), G3 1400 and the G3 IIsi.