128GB Solid State Drive Suitable for MacBook Air

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Mtron announced (http://www.mtron.net/english/PressRoom/PressRoom.asp?sid=PressRoom&xact=view&idx=171) today that they have developed a 128GB 1.8" solid state drive (SSD) with a ZIF-type interface that is due to ship in April 2008.Mtron’s new SSD with Single Level Cell (SLC) Flash memory supports PATA (ZIF-type) interface and has a maximum reading speed of 120MB/s and writing speed of 100MB/s, which is more than 6 times faster than the current 1.8 inch HDD. Therefore when it’s used in laptop PC and UMPC, it delivers much faster performance than desktop. Mtron also released 1.8 Inch SSD with Multi Level Cell (MLC) Flash memory, which provides maximum memory capacity of up to 128 GB along with a maximum reading speed of 110 MB/s and writing speed of 40MB/s.
Mtron touts the ability of the SSD drive to withstand shock, vibration and consume nearly 50% less power than a conventional hard drive.

The introduction of this 1.8" SSD drive raises the maximum capacity of the MacBook Air, which is currently limited to 80GB (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/30/maximum-macbook-air-drive-80gb-for-now/) due to physical size constraints. We presume this SSD drive is a 5mm height (required to fit in the Air), but this dimension is not specified in the press release. Pricing is also not specified and SSD drives typically carry a much higher premium than traditional hard drives.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/18/128gb-solid-state-drive-suitable-for-macbook-air/)

[IndiaPaleAle]

Works for me:)

[basesloaded190]

can we make guesses as to how much this is going to cost?

[aznkid25]

the macbook air is starting to sound like a better deal now.

[brianbobcat]

Technology keeps progressing at a rapid pace. Within the next several years, HDD in laptops at least will be a thing of the past. However, massive amounts of storage, 1TB and larger, are still required for us pros, so flash is nowhere near taking down HDDs all together.

-Brian

[iTeen]

can we make guesses as to how much this is going to cost?
i would think, around $1699 for it. I really don't think they are going to charge $2000:eek:

[W1LLk]

can we make guesses as to how much this is going to cost?

As with every new bump in HD size, capacity, and speed the cost is always exactly this:

$ridiculous.99

However, its worth the cost if it makes everything snappier...

[basesloaded190]

but is it worth to put in a hdd that cost as much or more than the computer itself?

[Flyer0815]

This is great news. The quicker these advancements come, the quicker SSD's will be practical and affordable for the general public.

[tobefirst]

i would think, around $1699 for it. I really don't think they are going to charge $2000:eek:

Don't capacity and cost have the opposite relationship when we're talking about bleeding edge things though? Double the space costing more than double the cost?

[Small White Car]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Macbook Air is going to be a seriously kick-a** computer in 2 years!

[Mac-Addict]

It also has a very cool feature, a £5000 price tag!

[dual64bit]

Interesting... I like the idea of 120Gb+ in that thin little portable!

[gkarris]

Pricing will drop quickly.

I'd say a $1499 in the late fall and $500 for the 64Gig upgrade...

Now for one of those in the iPod Touch....

[fuziwuzi]

Interesting... I like the idea of 120Gb+ in that thin little portable!
plus it's really fast :D

[MacFly123]

LOL WOW..... So you could have a cutting edge thin as air laptop for the one time low price of only $10,000.00 lol:D Call now and get a free blank CD-R!

LOL, I honestly didn't even realize this till after I posted, but there is no disk drive lol.

[nnkd]

Regardless of the ridiculous pricetag that this nice, new SSD will carry, I think it's a sign that technology manufacturers are already starting to make available hardware for the new MBA. I truly believe that hardware options for the MBA will soar in their availability, which continues to make me believe that the first revision/first upgrade of the MBA will make it a really cool, much more useful, tiny little laptop (regardless of the fact that I don't want one).

[tuneman07]

lol 128 gigs for 1700 bucks- awesome. You could almost buy 2 MB's for the price of just the HD. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more actually.

[Hansii]

I don't need more than 64GB, but 6 times as fast as the current MBA SSD sounds good

[roland.g]

Really just use back to my mac and forget about carrying that much data.

[EagerDragon]

May cost about 900, Apple always overprices things like this, so this may cost the same as the 64 Gig version.

Would be interesting on a MBP also, however I myself would prefer a real large drive over a solid state.

[Anonymous Freak]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
We presume this SSD drive is a 5mm height (required to fit in the Air), but this dimension is not specified in the press release.

So why would you assume it is the right height? There are 8mm 1.8" drives. Why couldn't this just be an 8mm drive? The press release says nothing about the height, nor does it mention the MacBook Air at all.

I'm not saying that I know it won't work, I'm just curious as to the unwarranted optimism...

[reallynotnick]

I don't need more than 64GB, but 6 times as fast as the current MBA SSD sounds good

It is 6 times faster then the HDD not SSD, if it were, that would be ridiculously fast!

It's just good to hear larger capacities are coming out, even if they are way too expensive it all drives the market forward.

[asdavis10]

128 SSD sounds great. I won't have to worry about managing my data as much as I do now. But I would be more excited if there were a SSD of that size compatible with my MBP.

[Snide]

I don't need more than 64GB, but 6 times as fast as the current MBA SSD sounds good

Nope - it's "6 times faster than the current 1.8 inch HDD"...

[iTeen]

i can't wait to see a 128GB SSD in a ipod touch...
prob won't happen till like late 2009 though...:(

[Pressure]

Who says again this is enroute to the MacBook Air?

Apple uses a Samsung Solid State Drive, not one made by Mtron.

Of course, with time the MacBook Air will see a newer, higher capacity Solid State Drive but I highly doubt Mtron is the provider.

[guzhogi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Macbook Air is going to be a seriously kick-a** computer in 2 years!

Sure, if you compare it to those of today. But in 2 years, you'll be comparing it to all the other current computers of the time, not those of 2008. It's all relative.

[Doctor Q]

Technology keeps progressing at a rapid pace. Within the next several years, HDD in laptops at least will be a thing of the past. However, massive amounts of storage, 1TB and larger, are still required for us pros, so flash is nowhere near taking down HDDs all together.

-BrianThe "average" consumer, if there is such a thing, needs an ever-increasing amount of storage capacity as well. Today people have iPhoto and iTunes libraries with thousands or tens of thousands of items. Perhaps the average consumer will soon be keeping their entire movie library on their portable computer, and 1TB will be the starter disk in the low-end laptop model.

[a104375]

its great to see the possibility of a larger ssd drive in the mba but how much more is that going to cost???

[fuziwuzi]

Who says again this is enroute to the MacBook Air?

Apple uses a Samsung Solid State Drive, not one made by Mtron.

Of course, with time the MacBook Air will see a newer, higher capacity Solid State Drive but I highly doubt Mtron is the provider.
well the 5400rpm drives in the mbps are fujitsu, while the 7200rpm drives are hitachi or seagate. therefore apple currently uses different brands to fit different user requirements. therefore, it's not impossible for them to source a faster bigger SSD from someone other than samsung

[jayducharme]

Really just use back to my mac and forget about carrying that much data.

Isn't that where Jobs has been heading? I'm beginning to agree with him. If I lose my Touch (a rather easy thing to do), I'd rather have all the data stored on a password-protected server somewhere. Then no critical personal information has been compromised. As it is, the Touch contains my contacts and appointments (plus music, photos and videos). For me, it's no big privacy concern, but I see how it could be for some people. As long as WiFi is prevalent (still a big condition at this point), all of that could be kept off of the device and accessed wirelessly. Then, regaining all that data is as simple as buying a new iPhone or Touch (or Air if I'm feeling rich) and re-synching. Voila! I'm back in business.

[phairphan]

Please note that the super-fast speeds of 120 MB/s read and 100 MB/s write are for the SLC SSD. It doesn't say how large they will make those drives, but they'll surely be smaller than 128 GB. The 128 GB model is a slower MLC SSD with a theoretical maximum of 110 MB/s read and 40 MB/s write.

Looks like we won't be escaping the larger, but slower / faster, but smaller paradigm for notebook drives anytime soon.

[lucky3killer]

Pricing will drop quickly.

I'd say a $1499 in the late fall and $500 for the 64Gig upgrade...

Now for one of those in the iPod Touch....

LOL, You wish.

It take very while for 64 GB SSD to hit $500.

[Sandfleaz]

Pricing is not specified .... but what ever it is now. it will get cheaper $
.

[lucky3killer]

Pricing is not specified .... but what ever it is now. it will get cheaper $
.

It cost little over $3,000 on newegg for 128 GB SSD but 2.5" instead of 1.8".

SSD never got cheaper.

[chickenninja]

128! .... terrabytes here we come!!

[basicfiend]

Wow, did anyone read the actual press release? Mtron needs a proofreader.

"With moving parts, ..."

and more.

[clayj]

i can't wait to see a 128GB SSD in a ipod touch...
prob won't happen till like late 2009 though...:(That would be overkill. A device like an iPhone or an iPod Touch does not need an SSD, when standard Flash memory will do the job just fine at a fraction of the cost.

Having a 128 GB SSD on the market, whether it fits the MBA or not, will help to bring SSD prices down eventually... but this puppy ain't gonna be cheap. My guess would be over $2000, considering that it fits into almost the same form factor as the current 64 GB SSD, with double the memory density.

And to whomever said that Apple is overcharging for the current SSD ($999)... they're not. The 64 GB SSD is almost a break-even proposition for Apple.

[Cloudsurfer]

Keep those high capacity flash drives coming! Let that 256 GB MacBook air come ;)

[squeeks]

Keep those high capacity flash drives coming! Let that 256 GB MacBook air come ;)

its an SSD drive NOT a flash drive

[iigsie]

You people seem to be forgetting how much HDD's cost when they first appeared, or even Compact Flash etc. I have a $600 receipt somewhere for a 40 Mb hard disk:eek:

It is better that Apple offers cutting edge technology at a premium than not at all.

[smith76]

I love the way Apple takes initiative, or is forced to incorporate cutting edge technology in it's products.

However, the price of SSDs will not come down substantially just because a new iteration was created by another 3rd party provider not associated with Apple.

Sure it adds some competitive pressure for Samsung to churn out a compatible 128, but it doesn't guarantee price drops.

Price drops are guaranteed by adoption. If no one buys SSDs then the price will stay high, only dropping slightly when the cost of SSD memory comes down year after year. Consumers have to buy it in order for the product to truly take hold.

The only other alternative I can see is that the company takes a hit and offers SSDs at a loss. Similar to Sony and Microsoft taking losses selling PS3s and Xbox 360s. Apple will not do this though, hence why they have 19 billion dollars in profit.

By the time our economic recession rights itself in 2010, I hope. Then the MBA will be on par with a MB. Apple will continue to develop in the mean time using its store house of profit to continually best the competition, even though the majority of users will never buy in to their brand.

This is how Apple operates in my opinion. They like being kings of the niche crowd and tauting their superiority. The slow crawl to the top gives them unlimited growth for many years to come. There's no need to race. Being number 1 just means becoming too targeted, like Microsoft.

It's better for Apple to always stay in the niche and maintain their growth potential.

[currentinterest]

SSD is nice, but I will buy an Air if Apple can find a 160 GB 1.8 inch HDD that can fit. I just need more room for what I do. I am hoping for fall; by that time, the processors will probably be bumped up as well.

[riversky]

Just to point out to some people there is a difference between the FLASH drives used in say the iPhone/touch etc.... and a SSD. They are two different things.

[California]

Just to point out to some people there is a difference between the FLASH drives used in say the iPhone/touch etc.... and a SSD. They are two different things.

What is the difference?

And what does it mean it has a PATA interface? I thought all new laptops etc, had SATA interface?

[LimeyYankee]

Engadget seems to think it will cost $1699 :eek:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/18/mtron-announces-a-1-8-inch-128gb-ssd/

[jbh001]

its an SSD drive NOT a flash driveUmm... they both use flash memory (unless you were referring to SSDs using volatile DRAM), the only difference (aside from form factor) is one has a USB interface, the other a PATA or SATA interface. Difference in read/write speeds depends on the type/quality of flash memory used.

Perhaps you meant to say, "It's an SSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive) flash drive NOT a USB flash/thumb/jump drive."
But then what would be the point of saying that?

[retroneo]

To those two people above - please explain your rationale behind saying the SSD is not flash. You are quite wrong.

[fuziwuzi]

Umm... they both use flash memory (unless you were referring to SSDs using volatile DRAM), the only difference (aside from form factor) is one has a USB interface, the other a PATA or SATA interface. Difference in read/write speeds depends on the type/quality of flash memory used.

Perhaps you meant to say, "It's an SSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive) flash drive NOT a USB flash/thumb/jump drive."
But then what would be the point of saying that?

that made me laugh :p

but thanks for clarifying, i was wondering what the difference was a couple of hours ago. i just assumed it was the format that it came (and connector)

cheers

EDIT: the other thing i couldn't figure out is, with flash memory becoming so cheap (usb flash sticks) why these were so expensive. cause u can get a 32GB flash stick for much less than a comparable SSD HD

[diamond.g]

EDIT: the other thing i couldn't figure out is, with flash memory becoming so cheap (usb flash sticks) why these were so expensive. cause u can get a 32GB flash stick for much less than a comparable SSD HD

SSD has more than one NAND module (usually 4-8 modules from what I have read). It helps increase read and write speeds.

[twoodcc]

these will be super expensive, but a big step in the right direction

[xenotaku]

Why is everyone bickering about the price. Of course it is expensive, its new. Would you rather them not come out with it at all because it will be expensive at first? Some rich people will buy it at first, it will rock, and slowly, the price will come down so more people can buy it. This is the same story for all new technology. If its too expensive for you, don't buy it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head.

[shadowfax]

What is the difference?

And what does it mean it has a PATA interface? I thought all new laptops etc, had SATA interface?

The MacBook Air uses a PATA interface. Other than that, you are exactly right--pretty much all recent computers come with SATA, which is a pretty mature protocol now. I would guess that it was excluded from the MBA for the same reason 3G isn't in the iPhone--Apple couldn't get a small enough SATA controller chip. I can't imagine the size of the connector is an issue, though that's also possible. I can't remember what the SATA interface looks like.

To those two people above - please explain your rationale behind saying the SSD is not flash. You are quite wrong.


EDIT: the other thing i couldn't figure out is, with flash memory becoming so cheap (usb flash sticks) why these were so expensive. cause u can get a 32GB flash stick for much less than a comparable SSD HD

Here are a couple of links for worthwhile reading:
Disadvantages of USB Flash Drives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive#Disadvantages)
SSD Advantages/Disadvantages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Compared_with_hard_disk_drives_.28HDDs.29)
Post on write limits (http://wiki.eeeuser.com/ssd_write_limit)

I think that the main factors that you aren't considering when comparing SSDs to USB Flash drives is that USB Flash drives are not designed to support extremely high transfer rates, and are not necessarily rated to withstand the number of write cycles that a system drive with a swapfile (that is, a file that is used like RAM when RAM usage exceeds physical RAM capacity). When a swapfile is in use, the read/write profile of the location where the swapfile is contained gets pretty horrible-looking, and there is supposedly the potential for low-grade flash to get "worn out" by this.

Basically, the fundamental difference between the two types of flash is that USB thumb drives (the cheapest ones) use slow flash with a low write cycle rating. SSD has the highest quality flash that is much faster and rated for many more write cycles. That quality difference translates into dramatically more expensive components. Thus, USB flash drive prices are very poor gauges for what SSD prices should be.

Why is everyone bickering about the price. Of course it is expensive, its new. Would you rather them not come out with it at all because it will be expensive at first? Some rich people will buy it at first, it will rock, and slowly, the price will come down so more people can buy it. This is the same story for all new technology. If its too expensive for you, don't buy it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head.

I agree. I really hope this costs less than $1600. They say in their press release that this is a huge step towards making SSD more accessible to mobile users, so I have my hopes up.

But regardless, this is a big stride in making larger-capacity SSDs affordable for me in the near future. Even though I don't expect to be able to afford this drive, I know it will contribute to bigger, faster, cheaper drives sooner. And that is just plain exciting. I am very happy to see they have a device with a write speed that is almost as nice as its read speed.

[frankly]

128 SSD sounds great. I won't have to worry about managing my data as much as I do now. But I would be more excited if there were a SSD of that size compatible with my MBP.

http://store.memory4less.net/ssdr128g-sat25-2.html
http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=8000062C-1201557509
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1318870

[frankly]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of this article "128GB Solid State Drive Suitable for MacBook Air" is a little fast and loose? At the end of the article it is noted "We presume this SSD drive is a 5mm height (required to fit in the Air), but this dimension is not specified in the press release."

This is a BIG presumption. Since it is a presumption it seems to me that at the very least a ? should be added to the end of the article title. The fact is that the largest hard drive is currently limited to 80GB for the very reason that the larger capacity drives are thicker. I don't know why MacRumors "presumes" that a larger capacity SSD will not be thicker.

[fuziwuzi]

SSD has more than one NAND module (usually 4-8 modules from what I have read). It helps increase read and write speeds.
I think that the main factors that you aren't considering when comparing SSDs to USB Flash drives is that USB Flash drives are not designed to support extremely high transfer rates, and are not necessarily rated to withstand the number of write cycles that a system drive with a swapfile (that is, a file that is used like RAM when RAM usage exceeds physical RAM capacity). When a swapfile is in use, the read/write profile of the location where the swapfile is contained gets pretty horrible-looking, and there is supposedly the potential for low-grade flash to get "worn out" by this.
cheers for the info guys :D

[peestandingup]

I know most everyone wants a bigger SSD, but I was actually looking for a smaller (and cheaper) SSD that would fit the Air. I'd say 32GB would suffice.

Honestly, I already keep almost all my files on a network share running wireless N (even some apps), so I dont need much.

Anyone know??

[frankly]

I know most everyone wants a bigger SSD, but I was actually looking for a smaller (and cheaper) SSD that would fit the Air. I'd say 32GB would suffice.

Honestly, I already keep almost all my files on a network share running wireless N (even some apps), so I dont need much.

Anyone know??

Are you thinking of buying an Air and replacing the 80GB drive with a 32GB SSD and coming out a lot cheaper than the standard SSD version? I suppose that is quite possible as there are a bunch of 32GB SSDs out there.

[Scott6666]

LOL WOW..... So you could have a cutting edge thin as air laptop for the one time low price of only $10,000.00 lol:D Call now and get a free blank CD-R!

LOL, I honestly didn't even realize this till after I posted, but there is no disk drive lol.

Well, I did pay $2,500 for an original Macintosh in 1984. I had to have it (sounds like the MBA doesn't it). This must be close to $10,000 in today's dollars. And I did not even get a blank CD-R. Not even a CD-RW. Or a hard drive for that matter.

[phuong]

whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

[frankly]

whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

It will only seem 3x as fast to you if you keep repeating yourself ;)

[teddy07x]

Well, the everlasting HDD technology has been around FOREVER!
Considering the time SSD and other flash based technology has been around,
the development and progress is pure AMAZING!!!

We still don't have bigger than 200GB 7200RPM drives available and 250GB or maybe 300gb 5200RPM drives now.

And it has taken a rather short time for us to get up to 128GB for SSD drives.

Now, the flash/SSD technology did start in what, 2000-2002? but still....
It's just impressive how fast SSD has developed.

And perhaps it is because the manufacturing costs being so much lower on SSD drives compared to HDD that it's becoming highly lucrative to be in the SSD making business. :)

Well, keep em coming and keep the price coming down. :)

[Butthead]

Regardless of the ridiculous pricetag that this nice, new SSD will carry, I think it's a sign that technology manufacturers are already starting to make available hardware for the new MBA. I truly believe that hardware options for the MBA will soar in their availability, which continues to make me believe that the first revision/first upgrade of the MBA will make it a really cool, much more useful, tiny little laptop (regardless of the fact that I don't want one).

So why would you assume it is the right height? There are 8mm 1.8" drives. Why couldn't this just be an 8mm drive? The press release says nothing about the height, nor does it mention the MacBook Air at all.

I'm not saying that I know it won't work, I'm just curious as to the unwarranted optimism...

The "average" consumer, if there is such a thing, needs an ever-increasing amount of storage capacity as well. Today people have iPhoto and iTunes libraries with thousands or tens of thousands of items. Perhaps the average consumer will soon be keeping their entire movie library on their portable computer, and 1TB will be the starter disk in the low-end laptop model.

So very, very true :D

Please note that the super-fast speeds of 120 MB/s read and 100 MB/s write are for the SLC SSD. It doesn't say how large they will make those drives, but they'll surely be smaller than 128 GB. The 128 GB model is a slower MLC SSD with a theoretical maximum of 110 MB/s read and 40 MB/s write.

Looks like we won't be escaping the larger, but slower / faster, but smaller paradigm for notebook drives anytime soon.

Not true, newer designs are coming to fruition, both SLC, and MLC, both faster than previous generations.

its an SSD drive NOT a flash drive

Wrong/.

I love the way Apple takes initiative, or is forced to incorporate cutting edge technology in it's products.

However, the price of SSDs will not come down substantially just because a new iteration was created by another 3rd party provider not associated with Apple.

Sure it adds some competitive pressure for Samsung to churn out a compatible 128, but it doesn't guarantee price drops.

Price drops are guaranteed by adoption. If no one buys SSDs then the price will stay high, only dropping slightly when the cost of SSD memory comes down year after year. Consumers have to buy it in order for the product to truly take hold.

The only other alternative I can see is that the company takes a hit and offers SSDs at a loss. Similar to Sony and Microsoft taking losses selling PS3s and Xbox 360s. Apple will not do this though, hence why they have 19 billion dollars in profit.

By the time our economic recession rights itself in 2010, I hope. Then the MBA will be on par with a MB. Apple will continue to develop in the mean time using its store house of profit to continually best the competition, even though the majority of users will never buy in to their brand.

This is how Apple operates in my opinion. They like being kings of the niche crowd and tauting their superiority. The slow crawl to the top gives them unlimited growth for many years to come. There's no need to race. Being number 1 just means becoming too targeted, like Microsoft.

It's better for Apple to always stay in the niche and maintain their growth potential.
SSD are coming down in price, not because of any sales of MBA, don't fool yourself. Other uses/markets bring the prices down. No one 'forced' Apple to adopt old generation PATA SSD technology.

What is the difference?

And what does it mean it has a PATA interface? I thought all new laptops etc, had SATA interface?

MBA used PATA because when it was being designed and SSD were being sourced, Samsung was the only one with a cost effective solution (not saying it's a reasonable cost solution in many people's mind, but that's what you get stuck with by going with bleeding edge thin technology that changes every 6 months. The largest SATA interface at the time was 32GB, soon it will be 128GB, but not in time for the MBA production run. Same with the CPU in the MBA. I wouldn't touch a MBA now with a 10ft pole, as soon as Monteviña ships in 3-5 months, you'll all be sorry, considering the significant improvements in power saving, and performance/watt, 2nd gen more energy efficient LED bl screens, etc. Pretty much guarantee you that the MBA Monteviña version will support SATAII interface, and will likely come with a 128GB Samsung SSD option, pending price naturally.

dvnation has only one current 2.5in Memoright 128GB SSD (http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/cart.cgi?store=dvnation&product_name=Memoright+2.5+128GB+SATA+SSD&exact_match=exact) and it's priced @$3.3k :eek:, don't expect to see that price drop to 1/4th that in 6 months or even by year's end.

Here's a not so useful review of the Memoright 128GB SSD, as they don't even compare to the current speed champ, the Hitachi 7k200, let alone a 1TB desktop which are likewise 50% or faster than the Seagate 7200.2 notebook drive.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4259

Apple will probably offer two capacities, 64GB at reduced price, maybe $700-800, and the 128GB if it comes in below $1500. Rational is that with dvnation pricing the Samsung used in the MBA @50% higher than what Apple is charging, you'd expect a $3.3k drive on dvnation, to be priced somewhere around $2k by Apple, being optimistic, a next gen 1.8in of 5mm thickness Samsung 128GB SSD might be around $1500 from Apple give or take a few hundred, but surely nothing less than at least $1k. Ever notice Samsung has a habit of changing the specs on their SSD info pages, for the same product over time?

Flash NAND memory is used in all portable SSD's that I know of. DRAM based SSD's are used in high-end server applications, and those cost tens of thousands.

Am I the only one that thinks the title of this article "128GB Solid State Drive Suitable for MacBook Air" is a little fast and loose? At the end of the article it is noted "We presume this SSD drive is a 5mm height (required to fit in the Air), but this dimension is not specified in the press release."

This is a BIG presumption. Since it is a presumption it seems to me that at the very least a ? should be added to the end of the article title. The fact is that the largest hard drive is currently limited to 80GB for the very reason that the larger capacity drives are thicker. I don't know why MacRumors "presumes" that a larger capacity SSD will not be thicker.

Yes you are correct, as well as ehurtley...but then disagreeing with MR principals/top brass gets you in trouble fast.

The reason Mtron's are not suitable for a MBA, where we already have MR front page stories about MBA's limited battery life with either HD or SSD's is precisely (can't get MR team to read my links unfortunately and educate and inform themselves) in those current gen. SSD's that are super fast from Mtron, use much more power than the Samsung SSD in the MBA. See this link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/mtron_ssd_32_gb/page8.html
The power consumption results aren't impressive. In fact, the Mtron Flash SSD requires at least twice the power than the Samsung or SanDisk drives. Be prepared for a marginal reduction in battery runtime if you install the Mtron drive into your notebook. For high-performance desktops and servers, however, this power requirement is still amazingly low. Compared to the 15-20 W of a 3.5" SAS hard drive at 15,000 RPM; the little drives by Mtron deliver much more I/O performance per Watt.

Marginal reduction in battery runtime if you have a larger capacity battery in a MBP, not a MBA.

But, just like MR ignored my rumor submission about the digitimes article long ago about all the new Monteviña chipset details ( smaller 22mm dies of slightly less TDP as the current MBA, the quad Penryn mobile CPU that has a TDP of 45w) MR ignores the stories they themselves didn't read first about, ...must be an ego thing?

See these links below, not reported on MR articles (what is most annoying about most of these stories is you can't figure out which gen or process size is being used in each of these announcements, to cross reference which 'sampling and should be in mass production by' SSD is being talked about).

But of greatest significance potential disappointment that MR has not written into any of their rumors stories, is the fact that even with Monteviña, there may still be a bottleneck, as Capella (next gen chipset from Intel for the Nehalem processors) is the one touted as fully supporting SSD's. Monteviña is going to use a mobile version ICH9 chipset, ICH9M, which on the desktop side is already known to be a bottleneck to performance if you have a fast enough SSD like one of these Mtron's mentioned thread title article...not so with other MB's like AMD's solutions:

Read about it on anadtech and this discussion on toms hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/mtron_ssd_32_gb/page9.html

But there are downsides: We reproduced performance bottlenecks with the latest Intel chipset Southbridges (ICH8 and ICH9), which were already reported by other publications. Expect performance limitations of roughly 15%



Samsung SATA II SSD hits factories, due soon
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/15/samsung.fast.ssd.enroute/

Serial ATA II interface as well as much faster actual speed than its SATA I predecessor: at 100MB per second in reading data and 80MB per second for writes,

Samsung reveals 128GB SSD, 500GB notebook HD
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/07/samsung.128gb.ssd.and.more/

The 1st noted <50nm process flash memory I've seen yet for slower SSD, Samsung and others don't seem to disclose which process for what SSD they announce (almost like they want to confuse you)

SanDisk unveils 3-bit-per-cell, 43nm flash
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/06/sandisk.x3.and.43nm.flash/

SSD news/info site:

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd.html



whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

whatever its price is, I want it in my next MBP. 6x the speed of the current drives. that's the kind of swap memory i'd like to get.

Hmm, me thinks this is the same person who bought that UAE license plate for $14.3 million :p (j/k).

[jbh001]

To those two people above - please explain your rationale behind saying the SSD is not flash. You are quite wrong.If you had followed the SSD link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_state_drive) you would have eventually (hopefully) found the following: An SSD is commonly composed of either NAND flash non-volatile memory or DRAM volatile memory.

SSDs based on volatile memory such as DRAM are characterized by fast data access, less than 0.01 milliseconds (over 250 times faster than the fastest hard drives in 2004) and are used primarily to accelerate applications that would otherwise be held back by the latency of disk drives. DRAM-based SSDs typically incorporate internal battery and backup disk systems to ensure data persistence. If power is lost for whatever reason, the battery would keep the unit powered long enough to copy all data from random access memory (RAM) to the backup disk. Upon the restoration of power, data is copied back from backup disk to RAM and the SSD resumes normal operation.

However, most SSD manufacturers use nonvolatile flash memory to create more rugged and compact alternatives for the consumer market. These flash memory-based SSDs, also known as flash drives, do not require batteries, allowing makers to. . . .We just usually conceptualize a DRAM-based SSD as a RAM disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_disk).

[Analog Kid]

Please note that the super-fast speeds of 120 MB/s read and 100 MB/s write are for the SLC SSD. It doesn't say how large they will make those drives, but they'll surely be smaller than 128 GB. The 128 GB model is a slower MLC SSD with a theoretical maximum of 110 MB/s read and 40 MB/s write.

Looks like we won't be escaping the larger, but slower / faster, but smaller paradigm for notebook drives anytime soon.
Nobody else seems to be seeing this... Granted the press release seems to have been translated into English so it's hard to know exactly what the details are, but it sure looks like they tried to create enough ambiguity in the press release to get just this kind of hype.

The fast drives will almost certainly be less than 128GB, and the 128GB drive doesn't write any faster than the Samsung drive. It reads about twice as fast but that's simply improving on the strong points of SSDs. There's also no real indication that the 128GB drive is PATA.

I've looked at the product section of their website with no additional information.
Well, the everlasting HDD technology has been around FOREVER!
Considering the time SSD and other flash based technology has been around,
the development and progress is pure AMAZING!!!

We still don't have bigger than 200GB 7200RPM drives available and 250GB or maybe 300gb 5200RPM drives now.

And it has taken a rather short time for us to get up to 128GB for SSD drives.

Now, the flash/SSD technology did start in what, 2000-2002? but still....
It's just impressive how fast SSD has developed.

And perhaps it is because the manufacturing costs being so much lower on SSD drives compared to HDD that it's becoming highly lucrative to be in the SSD making business. :)

Well, keep em coming and keep the price coming down. :)
Flash based SSDs have been around at least 15-20 years. Throughout that time, they have always held exactly the same place in the market they do now, relative to spinning disks. Slightly faster read, slightly slower write, more rugged, smaller capacity, lower power and more expensive. What is interesting about that is that they have enough advantages that there are always niche markets where they are worth putting up with their disadvantages.

They are also much more expensive to manufacture than spinning disks-- which is why they sell for a higher price. There is certainly enough competition in the market, both from other SSD makers and HDD makers, to drive the margins down if that was possible.

Other things are changing in the market though-- for one, Flash memory for cameras, phones and media players has seen a huge surge in demand. That will bring profits into Flash companies that can be used to research better production-- but it will also encourage most companies to focus on where the money is which is cameras, phones and media players...

Another change is that storage capacities are outstripping need for many applications. I need ever increasing storage because my personal media is going digital and I need to store it. If I chose to not carry pictures, music and video with me everywhere I went though, my storage requirements would grow at a much slower rate. Documents are slowly getting more media rich, but the average memo isn't much bigger than it ever was. HDDs don't scale *down* well, so a user needing 60GB of storage may find themselves choosing between a 64GB flash drive and a 500GB spinning disk. Since they are both equally useful to the user, the user will choose based on total cost rather than cost per GB.

The third change is the ever increasing speed of processors. The storage bottleneck is painfully slow, and that is increasing pressure on manufacturers to get past it. SSDs are one route to easing this. Personally I think the answer will be in better use of the massive amounts or RAM we can address now...

[Abstract]

So why would you assume it is the right height? There are 8mm 1.8" drives. Why couldn't this just be an 8mm drive? The press release says nothing about the height, nor does it mention the MacBook Air at all.

I'm not saying that I know it won't work, I'm just curious as to the unwarranted optimism...

Because it's SLC, and these can made into 5 mm drives (and don't need to be made into 8 mm drives), and so they can fit into the MBA.

[peestandingup]

Are you thinking of buying an Air and replacing the 80GB drive with a 32GB SSD and coming out a lot cheaper than the standard SSD version? I suppose that is quite possible as there are a bunch of 32GB SSDs out there.
Bingo! :D

I've seen some 32GB SSDs on Newegg for like $200-$400, but Im not sure they would fit. I really wish Apple would have at least given people like me the option of a 32GB SSD for cheaper. A cheaper price tag would push these into the mainstream more. They pretty much only offer the top of the line, so if you wannna go SSD, you gotta fork over major dough.

I know its small, but a lot of people dont need that much internal space. Plus, the Air is based around wireless anyway, so it seems like it would have made sense to offer lower capacity SSD drives for cheaper.

[teddy07x]

Nobody else seems to be seeing this... Granted the press release seems to have been translated into English so it's hard to know exactly what the details are, but it sure looks like they tried to create enough ambiguity in the press release to get just this kind of hype.

The fast drives will almost certainly be less than 128GB, and the 128GB drive doesn't write any faster than the Samsung drive. It reads about twice as fast but that's simply improving on the strong points of SSDs. There's also no real indication that the 128GB drive is PATA.

I've looked at the product section of their website with no additional information.

Flash based SSDs have been around at least 15-20 years. Throughout that time, they have always held exactly the same place in the market they do now, relative to spinning disks. Slightly faster read, slightly slower write, more rugged, smaller capacity, lower power and more expensive. What is interesting about that is that they have enough advantages that there are always niche markets where they are worth putting up with their disadvantages.

They are also much more expensive to manufacture than spinning disks-- which is why they sell for a higher price. There is certainly enough competition in the market, both from other SSD makers and HDD makers, to drive the margins down if that was possible.

Other things are changing in the market though-- for one, Flash memory for cameras, phones and media players has seen a huge surge in demand. That will bring profits into Flash companies that can be used to research better production-- but it will also encourage most companies to focus on where the money is which is cameras, phones and media players...

Another change is that storage capacities are outstripping need for many applications. I need ever increasing storage because my personal media is going digital and I need to store it. If I chose to not carry pictures, music and video with me everywhere I went though, my storage requirements would grow at a much slower rate. Documents are slowly getting more media rich, but the average memo isn't much bigger than it ever was. HDDs don't scale *down* well, so a user needing 60GB of storage may find themselves choosing between a 64GB flash drive and a 500GB spinning disk. Since they are both equally useful to the user, the user will choose based on total cost rather than cost per GB.

The third change is the ever increasing speed of processors. The storage bottleneck is painfully slow, and that is increasing pressure on manufacturers to get past it. SSDs are one route to easing this. Personally I think the answer will be in better use of the massive amounts or RAM we can address now...

Well there is always some hinder to clear. I remember back in the overclocking days when the AGP became too slow. You could theoretically have the fastest CPU and GPU, but the AGP would slow you down. Lack of bandwith.

Been seeing the same thing with drives now. Todays drives, SSD or HDD could both get faster. But the bottleneck would be the hard-drive controller.

And even with increasing speeds on both the new FW800, E-Sata, USB3, Bluetooth 2 and what not. It still wouldn't cope with the drive controller.

Now, realtime performance on SATA II alone as a standard is too slow to even cope with a SSD drive that can read and write anything more than 100/100mbs

The spinning drives will NEVER get faster than SSD. that's a physical and mathmatical fact. sure the SSD today isn't ALL that, and yeah SSD has been around a good while.

You mention phones and cameras driving the technology. I would say, maybe at best. High-End cameras need FASTER flash memory. An ipod or a phone doesn't. Nor does the average user with an average camera.

Sure size would matter. as in GB. But size alone won't drive the companies into finding a new profitable source.
As long as the HDDs are profitable they'll keep making em.
If you demonstrate a HUGE performance difference from HDD to SSD, consumers and prosumers WILL adapt to the new standard quickly.

the higher profit margin will also justify the increased cost in both R&D, marketing and production cost.

Any new product being pushed as a higher margin on release than before the end of the cycle. Normally putting the margins at is highest when people are 1. Aware of the product. 2. Feel the need to adapt to the product. 3. Product has been manufactured in MASSES.

Currently I see a vague attempt from Apple to push out SSD. Which I think they do solely based on their need of Flash memory for their iPods and iPhones.

Like you pointed out earlier, they are more rugged. Indeed they are.

I'm not nessissiarily disagreeing with you. But I just think it's a shorter step to SSD than you might think.

Right now I the manufacturing as being a problem cleared. Flash is widely populated in like you say, phones, cameras etc.

The problem is PERFORMANCE, and that needs R&D. R&D thrives off of sales with huge margins. And you won't get huge margins without a marketing push. Not TV commercials. But people are very easy to persuade with slogans such as; "Intel inside". Why shouldn't the big companies be persuasive about marketing SSD to the masses?

It would move the margins on disk drives back up. And as far as cost.
the HDD manufacturing is NOT cheap either.
the drive plates inside the drive are fairly expensive. And 2.5 and 1.8" drives are considerably slower compared to their 3.5" bigger brother.
2.5" ad 1.8" SSD drives don't face the same problems. Maybe with size.
but NOT speed as it has no spinning plates.

Also, desktop sales are also A LOT slower today than they were 10 years ago. Which is by FAR apple's most lucrative marked.

[Anderson3133]

Nobody is putting a gun to your head.

Yet...;)

[winterspan]

And it has taken a rather short time for us to get up to 128GB for SSD drives.


You are kidding right? They already have terabyte sized drives..

[Analog Kid]

EDIT: the other thing i couldn't figure out is, with flash memory becoming so cheap (usb flash sticks) why these were so expensive. cause u can get a 32GB flash stick for much less than a comparable SSD HD
SSD has more than one NAND module (usually 4-8 modules from what I have read). It helps increase read and write speeds.
The Samsung drive in the MBA uses 64 chips, 1GB each. There are two factors that set the price-- the amount of silicon used and the yield, or success rate in fabrication.

There are a couple differences in the types of Flash used-- SSDs use "single level cell" Flash devices, which is the older technology type. USB sticks and camera cards use "multi-level cell" Flash which is higher density.

MLC devices store more than one bit per transistor, so they use less silicon to store the same amount of data. They are also screened less severely because bit errors in pictures aren't as catastrophic as bit errors in your tax return, so they have higher yield. It takes longer to read and write to MLC devices because the voltages have to be applied more carefully and measured more carefully than they would in SLC devices.

SLC is faster and less prone to error, but the cost per bit is much higher.

[winterspan]

checking sources again...
update: the article i was referencing was wrong. It's still ambiguous as to the size of the SLC drive.
Mods - you can delete this post

[Cheffy Dave]

Isn't that where Jobs has been heading? I'm beginning to agree with him. If I lose my Touch (a rather easy thing to do), I'd rather have all the data stored on a password-protected server somewhere. Then no critical personal information has been compromised. As it is, the Touch contains my contacts and appointments (plus music, photos and videos). For me, it's no big privacy concern, but I see how it could be for some people. As long as WiFi is prevalent (still a big condition at this point), all of that could be kept off of the device and accessed wirelessly. Then, regaining all that data is as simple as buying a new iPhone or Touch (or Air if I'm feeling rich) and re-synching. Voila! I'm back in business.

absolutely, I balked at first, but have all but my most sensitive data off site, through Google documents

[Tosser]

Isn't that where Jobs has been heading? I'm beginning to agree with him. If I lose my Touch (a rather easy thing to do), I'd rather have all the data stored on a password-protected server somewhere. Then no critical personal information has been compromised. As it is, the Touch contains my contacts and appointments (plus music, photos and videos). For me, it's no big privacy concern, but I see how it could be for some people. As long as WiFi is prevalent (still a big condition at this point), all of that could be kept off of the device and accessed wirelessly. Then, regaining all that data is as simple as buying a new iPhone or Touch (or Air if I'm feeling rich) and re-synching. Voila! I'm back in business.

Hmm, seems like it would be much easier to encrypt and psw protect your documents instead.

That way you wouldn't have your sensitive documents on someone elses server, not to mention not being able to do anything, if the net goes down, or you are not able to connect for any other reason.

I don't know of any company that would use the sorts of google docs for sensitive documents.

But then again, I don't know of anyone that would let you gain access to sensitive documents without logging in via proper security.

To me, your idea seems only fit for non-sensitive information, non-key documents and so forth. Just like web apps.

[Counter]

Solid state drives are the way forward, but this thing is gonna cost more than your life when it first comes out.

[Tosser]

Speaking of SSD – has anyone found a reasonably fast, reasonably priced Expresscard32?

I'm thinking of getting me either a 16 or a 32GB to plug into my MBP, install the apps, and what have you on it, and merely use the internal HDD for files (writing/reading huge audio files to that).

Edit: I ought to start a new thread instead, but the "posting rules" at the bottom says "You may not post new threads" …

[legacyb4]

128GB... almost getting to a size that I'd consider swapping out my Macbook drive for. Of course, the price of the drive would probably be close the current cost of the Macbook itself!

[niemo810]

This really belongs on Page 2 with no sizes or pricing listed...

YAAAAY for third party hardware manufacturers getting attention for something that might not even fit into the MacBook Air!

[Fukui]

Great, now all they have to do is make one with 4GB of ram, and I'm there. Gimme gimme!!

[Anonymous Freak]

Speaking of SSD – has anyone found a reasonably fast, reasonably priced Expresscard32?

I'm thinking of getting me either a 16 or a 32GB to plug into my MBP, install the apps, and what have you on it, and merely use the internal HDD for files (writing/reading huge audio files to that).

Edit: I ought to start a new thread instead, but the "posting rules" at the bottom says "You may not post new threads" …

You may not post new threads in the "News and Article Discussion" section, because the only threads here are for official MacRumors-created stories. You would have to create it in the appropriate sub-forum.

The big problem with ExpressCard SSDs is that all of the 'reasonably priced' ones use the USB interface, and really aren't much faster than standard USB flash drives. The reasonably fast ones are *not* reasonably priced by comparison.

(The ExpressCard physical interface has both a PCI Express x1 connection as well as a USB 2.0 connection; the card may use either one. For example, I have a FireWire 800 ExpressCard that uses the PCI Express connection, and a 12-in-1 flash memory card reader that uses the USB 2.0 connection.)

[Tosser]

You may not post new threads in the "News and Article Discussion" section, because the only threads here are for official MacRumors-created stories. You would have to create it in the appropriate sub-forum.

Oh! Haha! Splendid. Thanks for the heads up! :o


The big problem with ExpressCard SSDs is that all of the 'reasonably priced' ones use the USB interface, and really aren't much faster than standard USB flash drives. The reasonably fast ones are *not* reasonably priced by comparison.

True, i guess it depends on what one figures is "reasonable". I am thinking faster than the MBA's SSD, albeit smaller –*say 32 or even only 16GB (16GB for this sort of use is perfect for me – anything above is bonus), not over 600US$, as that is where I have decided the


(The ExpressCard physical interface has both a PCI Express x1 connection as well as a USB 2.0 connection; the card may use either one. For example, I have a FireWire 800 ExpressCard that uses the PCI Express connection, and a 12-in-1 flash memory card reader that uses the USB 2.0 connection.)

Bummer. I assume there is an easy way to tell if it's one or the other it makes use of, right?

[jayducharme]

Hmm, seems like it would be much easier to encrypt and psw protect your documents instead.

Possibly. But if I lost the Touch/iPhone I would then have to re-load all the documents. Actually, it's a moot point right now with the Touch, since except for Jailbreaking there's no way to load anything onto it.

It's a toss-up right now IMO whether online or on-device storage can be more secure. Many people now trust their money with online banking. It's only a matter of time before most people are comfortable trusting "information banks."

[!¡ V ¡!]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Macbook Air is going to be a seriously kick-a** computer in 2 years!

Now if TimeCapsule only had a built-in SuperDrive, one would not require some third-party Optical Drive solution at all. :)

MacBook Air is the right step forward, and time will only improve on its abilities.

[kaiwai]

IIRC there is a new flash technology under development which should increase the chip density and thus making the technology alot cheaper. With the SSD's today they rely on a large number of chips all hooked up together - once you start seeing 16GB on a single chip, the cost of say a 128GB drive should come down, along with the reliability going up.

[triune]

Are you thinking of buying an Air and replacing the 80GB drive with a 32GB SSD and coming out a lot cheaper than the standard SSD version? I suppose that is quite possible as there are a bunch of 32GB SSDs out there.

Has anyone done this yet? I'm just wondering if this is technically possible or not. If so, I think I might take the approach of buying an 80g HDD version now, and putting in a SSD when the prices fall down a bit in a year or two...