Was thrilled to see the much larger hard drive sizes on the new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duos, *until* I saw that the speeds are only 4200 or 5400rpm. What is up with that? I bought a new MacBook Pro in May and upgrading to the 7200rpm drive was a must-have for me. Why would Apple put such slow drives in these so-called "pro" machines? Is anyone else at a loss to explain this?
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.
New MacBook Pros - Bigger (but Slower) Hard drives?
- Thread starter RedMacMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
RedMacMan said:
Good question, but at least the MacBook Pros don't come stock with a 4,200 rpm HDD.
according to a few posts which i am too lazy to find right now, the 5400 160GB is just about as fast as a 7200 drive.
shecky said:
Interesting, I know that the difference between a 5,400 rpm HDD and a 7,200 rpm HDD is minimal unless you use them for heavy file transfers.
Why? Because Apple always plays these psychological ploys and marketing stunts in their "crippled updates" to fool us all with a "ooo" first impression factor.
Look at their ipod revolution ... sure, cheaper, sleeker, all that, but they also took away a host of accessories to "balance" out the price. They give and taketh away. The leader's got a god-complex after one too many hallucinations from his dances around the campfires in India.
Look at their ipod revolution ... sure, cheaper, sleeker, all that, but they also took away a host of accessories to "balance" out the price. They give and taketh away. The leader's got a god-complex after one too many hallucinations from his dances around the campfires in India.
Good point. From now on, I won't buy anything from those greedy bastards and will instead buy only from non-capitalist non-profit computer manufacturers.djkny said:
Know of any?
djkny said:
Apple are offering the best hard drives on the market in terms of speed and size. And they make it quite clear the biggest hard drive is technically slower than the smaller ones.
Still, we wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good ol' petty rant.
JAT said:
The new 160GB 5.4k perpendicular recording drives are the fastest 5.4k drives yet (slightly faster than the longitudinal drives they are replacing, i.e. the previous largest drives available for MBP's being the 120GB 5.4k), and Seagate, AFIK, is the only laptop drive manufacturer that has announced plans (last June I believe) to ship a 7.2k 160GB perpendicular recording laptop drive 1st Q07. Whether or not they actually ship by then, is anyone's guess. The bump to higher density platters gets you higher STR's and some speed up in application usage over longitudinal recording.
So yes, the 160GB 5.4k is the fastest 5.4k drive on the market (well Hitachi drives are usually a smidgen faster than Seagate on most test suites, not that you'd ever notice the difference in reality), but no, it's still not quite as fast as a 7.2k 100GB drive (longitudinal recording). I've seen claims that there is little noticeable difference btw the fastest 5.4k drives and 7.2k, and then I've seen comments where people 'think' they definitely see a significant difference...YMMV. Hitachi should follow on the heels of Seagate and announce a 160GB 7.2k sometime in 2007. Of course what will speed things up even more is if they make these drives hybrid drives and incorporate up to 4GB of NAND flash memory. Santa Rosa platform supports Intel's Robson tech, which uses the hybrid drives. Apple has not officially said if they will adopt this, but it's a pretty sure bet...just when, early 2007 on the Santa Rosa platform MBPs, or later in 2007?
See this test on barefeats.com
http://www.barefeats.com/hard80.html
jsw said:
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
probably cooler, less likely for discoloration, no whine, and better connectivity!
I elected for a faster [7200 rpm] 100GB HD in my MBP, when I could have gotten the slower [5200 rpm] but larger 120GB HD.
But regardless, I'd really think that for any application, pro or otherwise, [I'm using my MBP for video] the 4500 would just be silly. Get an external with FW800 or USB.
I'm fond of the upgrades here for the C2D machine, but I certainly wouldn't take that HD upgrade.
But regardless, I'd really think that for any application, pro or otherwise, [I'm using my MBP for video] the 4500 would just be silly. Get an external with FW800 or USB.
I'm fond of the upgrades here for the C2D machine, but I certainly wouldn't take that HD upgrade.
The Fujitsu 160GB drive??
So there's a Fujitsu 120GB MHV2120BH in the new stock MBP 15". Probably a Fujitsu 160GB MHV2160BH if you upgrade, or get the 17"? Well, the older Fujitsu 160GB MHV2160BT (ends with T, not H) didn't fare well in tests. Presumably the perpendicular recording version will do better -- and it has to be the new one to fit inside a MBP (9.5mm). Right?
Many comparisons at http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/storage/charts25.html, just beware of picking the wrong models. The Fujitsu 160GB BH drive is too new to find many reviews online. Someone else also said it was much harder to find, potentially delaying orders while waiting for the drive. Confirmation, anyone?
I'm happy to pay for a bit of extra space, but I'd be much happier if it's also slightly faster. First one to find out the HD model actually used for the 160GB upgrade wins a gold star.
So there's a Fujitsu 120GB MHV2120BH in the new stock MBP 15". Probably a Fujitsu 160GB MHV2160BH if you upgrade, or get the 17"? Well, the older Fujitsu 160GB MHV2160BT (ends with T, not H) didn't fare well in tests. Presumably the perpendicular recording version will do better -- and it has to be the new one to fit inside a MBP (9.5mm). Right?
Many comparisons at http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/storage/charts25.html, just beware of picking the wrong models. The Fujitsu 160GB BH drive is too new to find many reviews online. Someone else also said it was much harder to find, potentially delaying orders while waiting for the drive. Confirmation, anyone?
I'm happy to pay for a bit of extra space, but I'd be much happier if it's also slightly faster. First one to find out the HD model actually used for the 160GB upgrade wins a gold star.