Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung Announces 120 GB 1.8'' Hard Drive

Maccus Aurelius

Maccus Aurelius

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2006
542
0
Brooklyn, NY
I can definitely fill that up. I have lots of music (50GB) and even more movies (now at 80GB), and each movie is about 1.5GB in size@720x302 resolution, so a suped up video-optimized iPod is perfect for me. I don't care that much about flash right now, despite being more durable since it's just too expensive at the moment. A video iPod with higher capacity and at *hopefully* same pricepoint as the current line would be a great piece of tech to hold us all over until flash is cheap enough to provide identical capacity for an identical price.
 
C

cwoloszynski

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2005
57
6
Future of iPods and over-the-air syncing

I am expecting that the next gen iPod will include WIFI, and could do some OTA syncing to get content and not really need to carry it all in the local HDD.

I am guessing that Apple is eyeing FLASH memory and network storage as a better answer than simply bigger HDD. That certainly would work for most of us (especially with the iPhone, which could use cellular to get content when WiFi is not available).
 
N

nagusjim

macrumors newbie
Apr 29, 2004
21
0
reubs said:
I can't imagine ever needing that much capacity...but it makes the question of having your entire collection available almost meaningless. I mean, how many folks have an iTunes library over 120 GB?
Click to expand...

Mine isn't over 120, but it no longer fits on my 60GB iPod, and is starting to approach the limits of the 80GB model, too. I'd totally buy a 120GB model. Would be nice to have all of my music with me again.
 
P

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,241
6
this would be awesome. i could start importing most of my stuff at lossless or 320kbps instead of 128 then. i have right around 50 gigs of music right now. but its ever growing too.
 
R

reubs

macrumors 68000
Jun 22, 2006
1,866
175
I'm not criticizing the idea of a 120 GB iPod, I just can't personally imagine needing 120 GB on the current form-factor of iPods. This seems like it will really only be beneficial with a full-update that includes a true video iPod (as others have said here). And will HD really be that beneficial on something as small as an iPod? Also, what size HD is in the :apple: TV? Could this be heading that way to increase storage in a set-top unit?
 
m-dogg

m-dogg

macrumors 65816
Mar 15, 2004
1,338
4
Connecticut
Mmmm, bring on the 120 GB fat boy!

There's no such thing as 'big enough.' If I can get more capacity for roughly the same price, bring it on!!!
 
A

alywa

macrumors 6502
May 6, 2004
350
7
mashinhead said:
i say this goes in the sub notebook, new, if there is any, 12 inch powerbook.
Click to expand...

That's a good thought. Who knows, a new "iPod Pro" may, in fact, be a sub-notebook / mini tablet. With Apple, you never really know until they release it.
 
Shagrat

Shagrat

macrumors 6502a
Mar 3, 2004
517
0
London
belovedmonster said:
Isn't Leopard supposed to be introducing some feature that will make it possible (easier?) to sync up your entire computer on an iPod and take your settings and documents with you.

How about that then? A new 120GB iPod that makes more of a feature of its portable storage abilities. Not only do you take your entire music collection around with you, but you also take you entire computer. All your internet bookmarks, documents, everything... Make it sync with Windows and OSX in a super simple way only Apple can do.

It would make sense that the iPod move from being a music and media storage device to just a straight ahead storage device.
Click to expand...

As I remember it, there was talk of this sometime ago (when iPods used Firewire, of course) Home on the iPod, or something like that.

However...
 
joshwest

joshwest

macrumors 65816
Apr 27, 2005
1,143
5
how long was it before apple released the 80 gig ipod from the released date of the actual 80 gig drive
 
nemaslov

nemaslov

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
753
9
San Francisco
reubs said:
I can't imagine ever needing that much capacity...but it makes the question of having your entire collection available almost meaningless. I mean, how many folks have an iTunes library over 120 GB?

What would be nice would be if it had powerful batteries and a high RPM so that the iPod itself could be used as a boot volume and we could always have our computers available.

EDIT: Looks like I should have read all of the posts...
Click to expand...

Well use your imagination. My 80GB iPod is full and I have about 110 GB of music on my Mac. It is still only the music for me. Could care less for video on an iPod. I would LOVE to have all my music with me on the road. Now I still have thousands of CDs that are not even loaded in my mac but I can't have everything.
 
nemaslov

nemaslov

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
753
9
San Francisco
bertpalmer said:
I agree there is no need for a larger capacity player for music alone, but I use my (60GB) iPod to back up all my photos (20GB).

So a 120GB model would be useful to backup your whole Mac hardrive.

Ditto - wish the iPhone had more than the measly 8GB.
Click to expand...

As I replied to someone else. Yes there is a need but not for you. I have 110 GB on my mac of only music and I could load twice that amount. It's only music for me and I would love to take the entire collection with me. 120 or200...bringit on!!
 
koobcamuk

koobcamuk

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2006
3,195
9
belovedmonster said:
Isn't Leopard supposed to be introducing some feature that will make it possible (easier?) to sync up your entire computer on an iPod and take your settings and documents with you.

How about that then? A new 120GB iPod that makes more of a feature of its portable storage abilities. Not only do you take your entire music collection around with you, but you also take you entire computer. All your internet bookmarks, documents, everything... Make it sync with Windows and OSX in a super simple way only Apple can do.

It would make sense that the iPod move from being a music and media storage device to just a straight ahead storage device.
Click to expand...

You could even boot from it via firewire.... oh... not anymore. I did that with my old iPod and had my entire iBook on there. Those were the days... :rolleyes:
 
M

Marx55

macrumors 68000
Jan 1, 2005
1,914
753
Anyone knows the hard disk form factor vs capacity? Any Internet link out there to support it? I guess it goes something like this:

50 TB 3-5-inch =(÷4.17)=> 12 TB 2.5-inch =(÷12)=> 1 TB 1-inch drive.

What about 1'8-inch and 0.85-inch?

If that is so, the 120 GB 1.8-inch drive means that such technology (perpendicular recording) could be applied to produce a whopping 3TB 3.5-inch drive RIGHT NOW!!! Yet, current 3.5-inch drives are 1TB by Toshiba (now) and Seagate (next week).

Or am I missing something? Thanks.
 
D

daschor

macrumors newbie
Nov 5, 2006
29
0
Why I won't buy a full size iPod

I have to say, this is good news in terms of future product development, but I refuse to buy another full-size iPod until Apple gets a clue and makes them bootable again. An iPod without Firewire is inferior to any iPod with it. My 2g 40GB iPod may be nearing capacity, but I am too disappointd with USB to consider a newer model.

What do I want? An iPod of 80GB or larger capacity with native Firewire. So I can carry my mac with me everywhere. Bring back firewire! Especially for larger drives, it is silly to be USB only.
 
A

alec

macrumors regular
Oct 19, 2005
233
0
Washington DC
1 ounce 120 GB true video ipod please! With wireless! And FM radio! Oh and for less than 200 dollars! And even then I'll still complain!
 
jholzner

jholzner

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,385
21
Champaign, IL
daschor said:
I have to say, this is good news in terms of future product development, but I refuse to buy another full-size iPod until Apple gets a clue and makes them bootable again. An iPod without Firewire is inferior to any iPod with it. My 2g 40GB iPod may be nearing capacity, but I am too disappointd with USB to consider a newer model.

What do I want? An iPod of 80GB or larger capacity with native Firewire. So I can carry my mac with me everywhere. Bring back firewire! Especially for larger drives, it is silly to be USB only.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say, looks like you will never own a new iPod.
 
Clive At Five

Clive At Five

macrumors 65816
May 26, 2004
1,438
0
St. Paul, MN
Marx55 said:
Anyone knows the hard disk form factor vs capacity? Any Internet link out there to support it? I guess it goes something like this:

50 TB 3-5-inch =(÷4.17)=> 12 TB 2.5-inch =(÷12)=> 1 TB 1-inch drive.

What about 1'8-inch and 0.85-inch?

If that is so, the 120 GB 1.8-inch drive means that such technology (perpendicular recording) could be applied to produce a wooping 3TB 3.5-inch drive RIGHT NOW!!! Yet, current 3.5-inch drives are 1TB by Toshiba (now) and Seagate (next week).

Or am I missing something? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Er.... I'm getting different results...

d = diameter
A = Area
C = capacity

|- d (in.) -|- A (sq. in.) -|- C (GB) -|- C/A (GB/sq. in.) -|
|- 1.8 ----|- 2.545 -----|- 120 ----|- 47.157 ----------|
|- 3.5 ----|- 9.621 -----|- x ------|- 47.157 ----------|

Solving for x, I'm only getting 453.704 GB.

The main difference is in the number of plates. The 1.8" has two while 3.5" HDs will have 4 or 5, resulting in 907 GB to 1,134 GB.

So as you can see, 3.5" technology and 1.8" technology are on par with each other.

Hope this clarifies things for ya.

-Clive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom