Buying new MBP 17" - which drive?!

dfjkl

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 24, 2006
2
0
The only reason I have not yet pulled the trigger is the HD dillemma.

I don't know if I should get the 100GB 7200RPM or the 160GB 5200RPM.

Anyone know for sure which one is actually faster?

Anyone know what drives are actually being put in the MBP's?

Thanks for any assistance anyone can provide!!
 

reflex

macrumors 6502a
May 19, 2002
721
0
I've heard Apple uses Seagate drives for its laptops these days, but for all I know they've changed that again.
 

Shadow

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2006
1,576
0
Keele, United Kingdom
If I were given the choice, I'd go for 160GB. Its really big, more than I could ever use and its relativley fast. 200GB is too much for me-its overkill.
 

Garden Knowm

macrumors 6502
Oct 10, 2006
307
0
California
200GB is definitley not over kill if you are doing video editing and 5400 RPMs may be to slow.....

ug.. what to do???

100GB is definitley to small!!
 

Bill Gates

macrumors 68030
Jun 21, 2006
2,500
14
127.0.0.1
Garden Knowm said:
200GB is definitley not over kill if you are doing video editing and 5400 RPMs may be to slow.....

ug.. what to do???

100GB is definitley to small!!
Get the 160GB drive. It actually is not much slower, if at all slower, than the 7200RPM drive.
 

dfjkl

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 24, 2006
2
0
A wider sampling of friends and the comments here, I've been convinced. More space, almost as fast, savings on power and heat....looks like I'm getting the 160GB. Thanks!!
 

Apple2Mac

macrumors regular
Sep 3, 2006
108
0
I had the same dilemma, I ended up going with the 160 I figured and I more likely to be annoyed that it is running fast of that I ran out of HD space and now have to delete some MP3s...
 

Garden Knowm

macrumors 6502
Oct 10, 2006
307
0
California
How does the HD effect the computers performance? What specifically would a faster or slower HD DO?

Start up?
Rendering?
Real Time play back?

Motion 2?
FCP?

thanks
 

rw1979

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2006
69
0
Dublin, Ireland
I've had a 100Gb 4200rpm drive in my HP laptop for a few years and it is dire for any type of copying or moving of files.
I've ordered my new MBP with the default 160Gb drive not because I was lazy but because I'm looking for the best compromise on speed as well as battery life. From what I can see the the only performance hit it will take will be on disk access (minuscule) which means that as long as avoid fragmentation on the new drive it should behave very well on the data transfer speed stakes.
 

islandman

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2006
356
0
The 100GB is actually faster, but not by much. I would go for the 160GB, personally. Even if you're editing video, I am sure it will be plenty fast for you.
 

Garden Knowm

macrumors 6502
Oct 10, 2006
307
0
California
islandman said:
The 100GB is actually faster, but not by much. I would go for the 160GB, personally. Even if you're editing video, I am sure it will be plenty fast for you.

It is interesting that everyone (on this site) unanimously agrees that the 5400rpm is fine for video editing ... but if you ask the guys at APPLE or any Production Studios they all discourage anything below 7200...

I feel like I am just "hoping" that 5400rpms is ok because I want the extra capacity.

:rolleyes:
 

jkwuc89

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2006
74
1
Powell, OH
I went with the stock 17" configuration except for the display. This includes the 160 GB hard drive. 160 GB should be more than enough to meet my needs (my current Windows laptop with a 60 GB hard drive is only half full but I also keep a bunch of stuff on an external Maxtor 300 GB hard drive).

Hopefully, buying a stock configuration will help speed up the build and delivery time which is currently slated for November 7th/14th.
 

Similar threads

  • matmal
9
Replies
9
Views
361
  • vemac575
20
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • iRun26.2
108
Replies
108
Views
6K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.