Home » forums » Discussion » Intel Macs

'm I missing something?

Submitted by coius on October 25, 2006 - 3:44am. Intel Macs

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...

» login or register to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
catmistake's picture

about laptop drives

Submitted by catmistake on October 25, 2006 - 8:29am.

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.

»
login or register to post comments
protocol6v's picture

The 200GB drive use the Perpe

Submitted by protocol6v on October 25, 2006 - 10:04am.

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

login or register to post comments
martakz's picture

Not necessarily. As the data

Submitted by martakz on October 25, 2006 - 10:36am.

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.

login or register to post comments
BDub's picture

Re: Not necessarily. As the data

Submitted by BDub on October 25, 2006 - 10:50am.
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. Eye-wink

Sorry, couldn't resist.

» "There is going to be a future: let's chase it until it kills us." - Spider Robinson
19 stories posted
login or register to post comments
coius's picture

Re: Not necessarily. As the data

Submitted by coius on October 25, 2006 - 7:08pm.
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.

» troubleshootnow.com. When you need to troubleshoot NOW! Forum site for macs and PCs. We are happy to help you troubleshoot. Home WebPage: coius.info <-Served off an iMac in my roo

login or register to post comments
protocol6v's picture

I was thinking that just as I

Submitted by protocol6v on October 25, 2006 - 8:07pm.

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

login or register to post comments
martakz's picture

How on earth did I make that

Submitted by martakz on October 25, 2006 - 8:42pm.

How on earth did I make that mistake. Freudian slip

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

login or register to post comments