60GB and 120GB 1.8'' Drives from Seagate

[manic]

although the concept of a video ipod is really sweet, im not sure if id end up using it all that much ... except, perhaps, if it could double as a TIVO. ohh, that would be sweet.

Problem 2 is that i fell that battery life would take a knock to under 6h, even less so with bluetooth (which is already badly overdue)

 

[slu]

What's left to upgrade on the current iPod? Probably just, say, bluetooth.

That's way too much storage for most people, and though, it would be nice for some, it would probably be way out of mosts price range for an mp3 player.

I love people like you who know what everyone wants/needs.

I have 40 GB of just music. If I had an iPod with video, I'd need a huge drive if I wanted to add any video to the thing. So for people like me, who want a new iPod but won't upgrade until there is an 80 GB or greater available, this is welcome news.

Edit: Seems I was beaten to it.

 

[jettredmont]

Why have more space? Just to have more?

Well, you said:

But I guess I have the entire collection of the Office, a few full movies, and thousands of songs and don't come close to even touching the 30GB, if I did I'd need another drive in this computer. Why have a larger drive in my iPod than my laptop?

Why have a larger drive in your iPod than your laptop, indeed. But, the cure for that isn't necessarily keeping iPod drive capacities low; you can also increase your laptop drive capacity.

Having been involved in computers for the past decade and a half (and with the weight of opinions of others who've been in computers for a whole lot longer), it is a well-proven maxim that your need for space will always expand to fill all available hard drive space. When I had 40MB of hard drive space, I really really wanted just another 20MB to play with. When I had 2GB of drive space I wanted another 2GB (got greedier ). Now I have 750GB in my G5 at home, and all told several terabytes spread out across my machines. I'm content, but the free space on that month-old 500GB drive isn't stying put. I expect that next year I'll be buying a tera to sit next to it (oh, who am I fooling? I'll be putting it next to a teradrive or two in a brand new Mac Pro!)

That having been said, I'm glad you're content with your laptop space. Personally, that's the absolutely most constrained computer for me; I'm constantly running the free space down and getting "no free space on the system drive" warnings from OS X. I've got 60GB there, and will be installing a new drive there quite shortly.

You're happy with your space, so good for you. Don't project that out on the rest of the world, though. And, IMHO, if you had more space you'd find a use for it

 

[jettredmont]

but when the hell is apple going to offer the 160GB laptop hard drive as a BTO option?

hell, there are even 200 GB laptop hard drives coming in a month or so.

I agree with the sentiment, but feel obliged to point out that if you are truly space-impacted on your laptop, you could always attach an external drive to it to give it more space.

Anyone know of a good external drive, small enough to carry around with me at all times, and maybe with some other uses besides just holding the bits that spill over off my laptop drive?

Oh, yeah.

That also draws into question the whole "why have more space on my iPod than on my laptop?" question. When you consider the iPod an extension of you laptop instead of a copied subset of that laptop's data, it's just a silly question.

 

[ebuc]

Isn't it a bit strange Apple would skip out on those 80GB drives announced a little while ago?

 

[IlluminatedSage]

I agree with the sentiment, but feel obliged to point out that if you are truly space-impacted on your laptop, you could always attach an external drive to it to give it more space.

yeah, i know. but when i am on the go, i just dont want to carry an external drive. separately, i could do it, if you find a good one let me know.

but i would want that on TOP of having a 160gb or 200 gb hard drive for a laptop.

I am in music, and i also do photography, so ... need a big hd.

 

[Eduardo1971]

What's left to upgrade on the current iPod? Probably just, say, bluetooth.

That's way too much storage for most people, and though, it would be nice for some, it would probably be way out of mosts price range for an mp3 player.

Too much storage? Meh. My iTunes currently is running at 47.GB. I still haven't copied most of it onto my Macbook.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Non-scratchy enclosures would swing me

It's funny you mention this. I received as a present a couple of years ago a mirror that can fit in your wallet or pocket. It's billed as being unbreakable. It's just a piece of really shiny stainless steel. It has gotten a lot of abuse, pockets, book bags, next to keys, and it has no scratches. I believe it's called Veritas (somethign like that) and it's made in Sweden. Anyhow, after I realized how scratch resistant it is, I thought Apple should defintely use it. It also can't be dented. It's not too thick, but maybe it would add more weight or thickness than Apple wants, but I think it would be worth it for a more durable player.

 

[m-dogg]

oh for the love of god please come out with a larger capacity ipod already!!!!!

 

[sam10685]

120 gig ipod?! i'd get one in an instant. i don't listen to music a lot but i do some. i could use it as a backup hard drive, i could load it with video's, podcasts, books... lots of crap.

 

[guzhogi]

I wish they'd put a 120 GB drive in the U2 iPod. I'm kinda sad that the high end regular iPod has a 60 GB drive while the U2 only has a 30 GB one. I like the U2 iPod a lot (the look of it; I could care less about whether it was a U2 iPod or a Beatles iPod).

 

[Anonymous Freak]

if Apple will actually start selling 120gb iPods, they need to bring back firewire support. importing 120gb on USB 2.0 will take forever. while FW800 support would be great too, there just isn't many users with FW800 so it might not be the effort and cost.

Why? The 1.8" hard drives aren't even capable of 40 MB/s, which is below USB 2.0 or FireWire 400's sustained speed capability. FireWire 800 would be overkill.

As a test a few months ago, I copied 25 GB of data to my 3rd gen 30 GB iPod over both USB 2.0 and FireWire (from my eMac.) They took within 5 seconds of each other to finish copying. USB 2.0 has a theoretically faster max speed, and a marginally slower real max speed. But in day-to-day use, the speed difference is unnoticable. Now, with a fast 3.5" desktop hard drive, I can tell the difference. But I can't even tell the difference on a fast 2.5" hard drive (Hitachi's 7200 RPM drive, currently the fastest notebook hard drive you can get.)

 

[081440]

if Apple will actually start selling 120gb iPods, they need to bring back firewire support. importing 120gb on USB 2.0 will take forever. while FW800 support would be great too, there just isn't many users with FW800 so it might not be the effort and cost.

FireWire 800 (IEE 1394b) is awesome!! And it would be great if they offered it in an iPod, but they first need to get it into at least both MacBook Pros and the iMac before they put it in the iPod! (And nobody say that it is unnessesary! Cause you can back up GBs of info soooo much faster that USB 2.0 and FW 400, plus sync the iPod faster)

They just need to get the transfer rate of the HD's up to par with the speed of FW800. OR increase the RAM in the iPod to 128mb and then at least the songs and some video would go that much faster.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Only slightly off topic. Where the heck are the 160GB 2.5" SATA drives that Seagate promised would be out "this summer" back at CES in January? My MBP is dieing for more space. I'm down to 3GB on my OS X side of things and 2GB on my windows. I really should have opted for the 120GB drive at the time. *sighs* *Pats his poor starving baby* Its alright. Here have a thumb drive. Good boy.

 

[Spectrum]

...Where the heck are the 160GB 2.5" SATA drives that Seagate promised would be out "this summer" back at CES in January? ...

here

 

[Spectrum]

Why? The 1.8" hard drives aren't even capable of 40 MB/s, which is below USB 2.0 or FireWire 400's sustained speed capability. FireWire 800 would be overkill.

Agreed. But...

As a test a few months ago, I copied 25 GB of data to my 3rd gen 30 GB iPod over both USB 2.0 and FireWire (from my eMac.) They took within 5 seconds of each other to finish copying. USB 2.0 has a theoretically faster max speed, and a marginally slower real max speed. But in day-to-day use, the speed difference is unnoticable. Now, with a fast 3.5" desktop hard drive, I can tell the difference. But I can't even tell the difference on a fast 2.5" hard drive (Hitachi's 7200 RPM drive, currently the fastest notebook hard drive you can get.)

I tried my 5400rpm 160GB 2.5" external over FW800 and USB2. FW800 was about twice as fast - clocking about 2GB per minute. Below FW800 max speeds, yes. But a much better choice when I'm backing up 60GB of data.

 

[SiliconAddict]

here

Dude I love you...in a completely hetero, manly, *punches you in the arm* sort of way.

 

[bloodycape]

The largest hd based player I have seen out is the Archos AV5100 with 100gigs. I would not be surprised if they go with the 120gig but in all honesty I think they will go with a 100gig because I don't think they would want to have their laptop have the same specs as their video player unless we see 160gig in the mbp

 

[mrkgoo]

although the concept of a video ipod is really sweet, im not sure if id end up using it all that much ... except, perhaps, if it could double as a TIVO. ohh, that would be sweet.

Problem 2 is that i fell that battery life would take a knock to under 6h, even less so with bluetooth (which is already badly overdue)

I thouht the same thing when I got my iPod, but I love toting around a collection of my fave films.

mdntcllr brings up an interesting point - seeing as iPod mimics your media collection in iTunes, you have to make sure your computer can handle your collection too. I only have a Powerbook 12" with 80G HD, so I couldn't even use a 120G iPod. Speaking of which, I have over 20G of photos on my 30G. I bought it mostly as a second storage/backup for my iPhoto library. Hope I can rip the photos back out if my comp dies...

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Agreed. But...

I tried my 5400rpm 160GB 2.5" external over FW800 and USB2. FW800 was about twice as fast - clocking about 2GB per minute. Below FW800 max speeds, yes. But a much better choice when I'm backing up 60GB of data.

Yes, I probably would be able to tell the difference between USB 2.0 and FW800. But I don't have a FW800-capable computer (curse Apple for removing it from the 15" 'professional' notebook.) And it would be stupid of them to put FW800 on an iPod. Not only would it cost a fortune to add (comparatively,) but it would only be useful to a VERY SMALL subset of iPod users.

And, as was already mentioned, the difference between FW400 and USB 2.0 is so negligible as to be pointless to include FW400 any more. (Yes, I would like to see it back, as that's one of the reasons I haven't upgraded my 30 GB 3G iPod yet, since I use it as a backup boot drive for my PPC Macs. I just know it won't happen, because it's not cost effective.)

 

[Spectrum]

Yes, I probably would be able to tell the difference between USB 2.0 and FW800...

I guess my point was that I can tell the difference between the same drive on USB2 and FW800 even when the drive is not pushing anywhere near the bandwidth of FW800.

2GB/minute is only about 300Mbit/sec, so below FW400 speeds.

Now, if I had a FW800-400 cable I'd test my hypothesis that there will be little to no difference with my 5400rpm drive when using FW800 versus FW400. And thus, I believe USB2 will be slower than either FW technology with such a drive.

However, in terms of the iPods and their 1.8" drives, I doubt they would REALLY benefit using FW400 over USB2. And if that is the case, FW800 is pointless.

It's like the newSandisk CF FW800 reader. Barefeats tested it and showed that it performs the same with either a FW800-800 or a FW800-400 cable. This is because the speed of the CF card is the limiting factor.

 

[RedTomato]

1.8'' 120GB drive would be lovely in a mini laptop...

Apple, where's my sub-notebook with 120GB, 1.8''drive, OSX, highspeed wifi / built in GPRS / GPS, no optical drive, 10 inch high resolution screen, superb keyboard, 1GB ram in one slot?

I'd be all over that.

 

[SiliconAddict]

1.8'' 120GB drive would be lovely in a mini laptop...

Apple, where's my sub-notebook with 120GB, 1.8''drive, OSX, highspeed wifi / built in GPRS / GPS, no optical drive, 10 inch high resolution screen, superb keyboard, 1GB ram in one slot?

I'd be all over that.

You any only a small portion of users. The sweet spot for laptops seems to be around the 14-15" range. To put it another way we just upgraded about 170 users in the office I support to new systems. Users had the choice of either a standard 14.5" laptop or a 12"-13" (I'm not sure the screen size.) ultra portable. Out of 170+ users about 6 went with the ultra portable. Jobs has been down this road before. That is why he axed the bagillion models that Apple was selling when he came back. I doubt he is going to go down that road again. If they do its going to be something in a class of its own like a tablet or something.

 

[Spectrum]

You any only a small portion of users. The sweet spot for laptops seems to be around the 14-15" range. To put it another way we just upgraded about 170 users in the office I support to new systems. Users had the choice of either a standard 14.5" laptop or a 12"-13" (I'm not sure the screen size.) ultra portable. Out of 170+ users about 6 went with the ultra portable. Jobs has been down this road before. That is why he axed the bagillion models that Apple was selling when he came back. I doubt he is going to go down that road again. If they do its going to be something in a class of its own like a tablet or something.

Well, that's a shame because a light Apple laptop would be ideal for MANY people on the move. I am a very light power user, and have found the 1.67 G4 to be more than up to the job of what I need for photo editing and general lab write-ups, surfing, light Photoshop, Powerpoint and Excel.

Now with the move to Intel, I don't all of a sudden NEED any more power, and thus the dual core Intels are overkill. If Apple deployed the Ultra-low power Intel chips, I'm sure they would more than match this G4, yet be lighter due to A/ less cooling, and B/ needing a smaller battery. They should keep the top end outputs - DVI and FW800 and sell it at a serious premium for those that want a portable laptop that can dock to a Cinema display and HD array when you're in the office/lab/etc.

People may counter that a MacBook would do this job. I would say: It's more than a pound too heavy. Bring back the PB12, and make it lighter and thinner.

 

[RedTomato]

You any only a small portion of users. The sweet spot for laptops seems to be around the 14-15" range. To put it another way we just upgraded about 170 users in the office I support to new systems. Users had the choice of either a standard 14.5" laptop or a 12"-13" (I'm not sure the screen size.) ultra portable. Out of 170+ users about 6 went with the ultra portable. Jobs has been down this road before. That is why he axed the bagillion models that Apple was selling when he came back. I doubt he is going to go down that road again. If they do its going to be something in a class of its own like a tablet or something.

I don't know your office environment, so I'm just guessing.

To explain a bit further, I currently have a 15'' Powerbook which I use in the office, and I agree with you and your users, it's a lovely machine, and I wouldn't want a smaller machine for office work.

However I borrowed a 12'' iBook for a while, and it was a lovely machine for use on the move. I could pull it out on the tube, in cafes and in places where I wouldn't want to get my bigger powerbook out. I was more happy about carrying it on the offchance that I might find some time / a place to work.

I was very tempted to buy a second-hand 12'' powerbook to use as a mobile machine in addition to my 15'' which tends to stay on my desk most of the time. (it would also come in handy if my main machine broke down.)

A 10'' mini laptop would be perfect for stashing in my bag for mobile work. I do agree that it would be too small as a main laptop, which I think is why your users went for a 15'' laptop.

I earn all my money with my laptop, so it becomes important to have a second laptop as a backup in case of theft / malfunction.