The price of 256GB & 512GB solid state drives should drop significantly by now. Allowing the 1TB option as something of a high end but still affordable option. With the amount of music, movies, games that people love to store locally, a 512GB SS solution should be standard by now. And where are those 512GB & 1TB SD card that Toshiba/Panasonic is promising to deliver?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Building 2TB Solid State Drives for Next Mac Pro Release?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could be pricey.
What is amazing to me is that I used to change 500 MB 'disk platters' -- in a DEC server machine with 1 MB of system memory -- that weighed about 15 pounds.
You had to make sure that no specs of dust got into the disk drive, lest your platter become corrupted and you'd have to restore the entire system from your 25 reels of backup tape. Better job security though.
What is amazing to me is that I used to change 500 MB 'disk platters' -- in a DEC server machine with 1 MB of system memory -- that weighed about 15 pounds.
You had to make sure that no specs of dust got into the disk drive, lest your platter become corrupted and you'd have to restore the entire system from your 25 reels of backup tape. Better job security though.
1500 at the time, was not cheap by any stretch of the imagination...
Desktop sales are dropping like a rock why introduce something new in that space?
----------
We had a Bull with 10 MB disk that weighed about 15 lbs and this thing ran until 2001.... A museum in France took it away in pieces for free which was a huge cost saving for us. We still have racks of the monster tape reels that compliance won't allow to be disposed of.... there is no system capable of reading said tapes, nor a device to mount the reels on. <shrug>
First, I didn't use the term "cheap" to describe that model, I was disagreeing with someone else's statement that the cube was "cheap". But the $1500 tower was widely considered a good value - for that particular hardware configuration, it was a very good deal. And a tower at that price today would still be considered a very good value. I'd argue that a tower at "1500" was actually considered "cheap" more back then than now.
For the same reason that they still update the iMac line - even if sales are dropping (and they're dropping far less for Apple than for PC makers), people are still buying them. And because it would require relatively minimal resources to develop.
Entering a seriously declining market with a new product, seems like a good way to lose money.
Jeez. If you apply the Law of Apple pricing, then that SSD alone will probably be about $2,500 - $3,000!
My god they better get that price down. The pro is already expensive and add an ssd the thing would cost as much as a car!
Love to see some Mac news especially Mac Pro news
Yeah, a 2TB Apple Solid State Drive would be extremely expensive. Fortunately, OWC makes a 2 TB Solid State Drive for $700 http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSD7E6G02T/
Though, I think it would be more cost-effective to just get a 500 gigabyte Solid State Drive for $160 and use hard drives for everything else.
[doublepost=1453835064][/doublepost]
Or maybe even an i3. Multicore CPUs are cool, but they’re rather expensive and most apps can’t utilize more than two cores. At least for now, multicore CPUs are mainly for multitasking, video editing, and video encoding. If more apps and games utilized more than two cores, I’d be interested in a multicore CPU. For me, multicore CPUs just don’t have enough software support to make them worthwhile. Of course, there’s a big difference between a desktop i5 and a laptop i5 since a laptop i5 has two cores while a desktop has four, and than a laptop i7 has four cores while a desktop i7 has 8. You can get a 3.9 GHz i3 on Amazon for $170. When you play a game which can only use two CPU cores, you’re only using half of an i5’s processing power, while you can use all of a i3’s horsepower. So, if you were to choose between a 4 Ghz i5 and a 3.9 GHz i3, I’d go with the i3 because it would cost less and I’d get more use out of it.
[doublepost=1453835139][/doublepost]
With SATA and M.2, you can get 512 gigabytes for $160 and a terabyte for $300.
[doublepost=1453835193][/doublepost]
Exactly! The iMac is just a high-spec laptop. We want a real desktop, not this mobile stuff.
[doublepost=1453836283][/doublepost]A
That’s not the complaint I would have made about that statement. I would have said that 8 terabytes of Solid State storage would be extremely expensive and I don’t know why you would need that much. If you’re looking for data archival for video editing, you’d be better off with a few of Seagate’s 8 TB drives. It would cost you $800, but you’d have 32 terabytes of storage in your Mac Pro.Really?
So your telling us that 4 x 2 = 8 ? Wow that's just plain genius............ Thanks for clearing that up....
[doublepost=1453836407][/doublepost]
That’s hilarious!
[doublepost=1453836787][/doublepost]
In general, yes, desktop sales are dropping like a rock. But video editors and gamers all use desktops because they’re more powerful and more upgradeable. That was the beauty of the Mac Pro: Upgradeability. If only Apple made a midrange Mac desktop with i3, i5 and i7 CPU options, a few PCIe slots, a M.2 slot and at least a couple hard drive bays. At this point, those hard drive bays could be 2.5” bays to save space. You could have a 3.9 GHz i3 for folks who rarely edit or transcode video or an i5 or an i7 for folks who frequently edit or transcode video. Multicore CPUs are cool, but they’re rather expensive and most apps can’t utilize more than two cores. At least for now, multicore CPUs are mainly for multitasking, video editing, and video encoding. If more apps and games utilized more than two cores, I’d be interested in a multicore CPU. For me, multicore CPUs just don’t have enough software support to make them worthwhile.