11'' MBA
Apple.com said:
13'' MBA
Apple.com said:
They're close, and while the height is the same, height isn't the only thing that matters in something this thin.
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.
Toshiba Introduces MacBook Air 'Blade-Type' SSDs to Mass Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
11'' MBA
13'' MBA
They're close, and while the height is the same, height isn't the only thing that matters in something this thin.
Don't split hairs. FaceTime is an Apple standard, and so is iChat, so what's the difference?
Its obvious this is the way that virtually all netbooks/laptops will go in time, with these adopting the faster SATA3 standard.
5-10 years ago, Processors were where it was all at, we have hit a bit of a plato there and now its disks that will develop at a very fast rate for the next few years.
5-10 years ago, Processors were where it was all at, we have hit a bit of a plato there and now its disks that will develop at a very fast rate for the next few years.
His point is these are just Apples implementation of a technology. They were not the first implementation of the technology nor were/are they the mass adopted technology
SATA Revision 3.0 (SATA 6 Gbit/s)
LightPeak is faster. If LightPeak takes off, then I wouldn't be too shocked if apple uses it to replace SATA.
Eh, true, but you also have to point to the "FaceTime Camera" simply being an iSight Camera. They rebrand things every now and then. Makes for good marketing. Oh yah, and Webkit = KHTML. There's something he didn't mention. It has come a long way since the days it was pure KHTML, but its roots are still there.
Last edited:
I would. Pcie is faster than Lightpeak and such hard drives exist already. Lightpeak makes sense for external peripherals; less so for internal components.
SSDs have always had a performance advantage over HDDs, but manufacturers seem to have been coy about implementing them because the average consumer cares not that they get superior read/write speeds, or extra battery life, if it's going to cost them twice as much. But now SSDs can provide a significant advantage in physical size, and can be produced in capacities comparable to many HDDs that ship in notebooks, they might be more willing to take the price hike for the more physically tangible benefits.
Well RAID 0 (AKA mirroring) isn't RAID in the true sense, as there is no Redundancy. RAID 0 is all about speed, at substantially greater risk of data loss over even a single non-raided drive. True RAID (1 and up) is all about "data protection and reliability".
I wouldn't mind these coming even to desktop machine, as long as they get a discrete data channel.
64GB SSD would be great in the minis as a boot/cache drive, while maintaining the common hard drive(s) for mass storage.
The same goes for the iMac. User serviceable SSD sticks in the memory bay while keeping a mass storage hard drive inside would give them a quick boost (although user serviceable hard drive in the iMac would be great too).
Even the Mac Pro could use these for boot/cache drive leaving the four drive bays free for customers to use in RAID 5 with the RAID card, right now it is a shame that Apple options for SSD on these machine take out the RAID option.
64GB SSD would be great in the minis as a boot/cache drive, while maintaining the common hard drive(s) for mass storage.
The same goes for the iMac. User serviceable SSD sticks in the memory bay while keeping a mass storage hard drive inside would give them a quick boost (although user serviceable hard drive in the iMac would be great too).
Even the Mac Pro could use these for boot/cache drive leaving the four drive bays free for customers to use in RAID 5 with the RAID card, right now it is a shame that Apple options for SSD on these machine take out the RAID option.
Have you googled Asus Eee as I suggested?
I'm not referring at this exact Blade style SSD but compact SSD cards were adopt in Asus netbooks before the iPad came out.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I know the difference between RAID 0 and the others. I was saying that the OWC drive doesn't have the speed boosting RAID 0.
And I have to correct myself for the second time, hahaha. When I read RAISE I assumed it was another name for RAID used to hype the controller up. But it's not RAID at all, it's only RAID-like. http://www.myce.com/review/ocz-vertex-2-100gb-ssd-review-30021/SandForce-SF1200-SSD-controller-2/
I would not mind these going in the next MacBook Pro's as long as they replace the missing space with more batteries
Next Macbook Pro = current Macbook Pro + deleted optical drive + blade-type SSD + much more battery in the extra space + USB 3.0 and Light Peak = me gusta
I would not mind these going in the next MacBook Pro's as long as they replace the missing space with more batteries
Apple will probably use the missing space to add more thinness.
That's interesting. I'd assumed that SSD lifetime had been fixed for all practical purposes by writing algorithms. ~20% dedicated to failover seems pretty high to me, especially considering the high cost per GB.
hmmm... do you think that next version of iMac will include slots for these? would be nice to have let's say 2-4 slots so you could run them in RAID.
maybe nonsense, just thinking - i like this idea more than current ssd drives, in the end this is what SSD really is, few flash chips on a board.
maybe nonsense, just thinking - i like this idea more than current ssd drives, in the end this is what SSD really is, few flash chips on a board.
I'd really love for Apple to scrap the HDD and ODD from the MBP, and use it to put in 2, or even 4 blade SSD slots (so we can choose if we want to RAID 0 or not, which I would), as well as a better GPU and quad core i7 CPU (TLA Overload!). Plus extra battery and Light Peak, what the hell.
What I really want is someone <Points at OCZ> to release some faster ones, with 512GB capacity. That I'd buy .
.Give it 6 to 9 months...
... and you'll probably see a 512gb flash in the size of the 256gb package.
By then, the 256gb flash will probably be in the 128gb-sized package... or possibly in the same size package.
There's one thing you can be assured of: flash density will continue to increase, and the package size will continue to decrease.
... and you'll probably see a 512gb flash in the size of the 256gb package.
By then, the 256gb flash will probably be in the 128gb-sized package... or possibly in the same size package.
There's one thing you can be assured of: flash density will continue to increase, and the package size will continue to decrease.
I welcome the future of laptops! Can't wait until this comes to future MBPs and saves space and gives huge speed boosts.
I'd love to see the 2.5" HD die soon too but seems like it might be awhile before SSD is the default storage medium for MBPs -- not just an option.
The MBA is meant as a companion/2nd computer, so it can get away w/ smallish storage. Most buy a MBP as a primary computer, or at least a primary laptop. I have a 13" MBP w/ SSD that IS a 2nd computer. I love it to death, and will never travel w/ my 15" ever again, but w/ only 120GB of internal storage I can't use the 13" as my primary.
I imagine at some point in the next 5 years "the cloud", wireless connectivity, and remote login will have matured (in affordability, reliability, security, and ease of use) to the level where internal storage will be almost irrelevant. At that point the 2.5" HDs will become a Smithsonian exhibit and 256GB SSDs more than sufficient internal storage.
Very cool
For a laptop 512gb would suit my needs greatly.
Now I would like to see these in an iMac. 64gb to 128gb for the OS and applications, so they are instantly on and quick loading. Then a traditional HDD for mass storage (and keep the optical drive, I burn many CD's and DVD's for permanent backups and create DVD's for people's weddings, etc).
I think also using these in a laptop would also reduce the heat issue. My 2008 macbook gets warm/hot in the location where the HDD is.
What would be cool with using these in a laptop - removal of the HDD would allow for more battery, dual CPU's (think what I could do with 8 cores in a laptop), more ram, better graphics, or whatever.
We seemed to have plateaued in technology and options until now. Now, I think we will be improving even more.
For a laptop 512gb would suit my needs greatly.
Now I would like to see these in an iMac. 64gb to 128gb for the OS and applications, so they are instantly on and quick loading. Then a traditional HDD for mass storage (and keep the optical drive, I burn many CD's and DVD's for permanent backups and create DVD's for people's weddings, etc).
I think also using these in a laptop would also reduce the heat issue. My 2008 macbook gets warm/hot in the location where the HDD is.
What would be cool with using these in a laptop - removal of the HDD would allow for more battery, dual CPU's (think what I could do with 8 cores in a laptop), more ram, better graphics, or whatever.
We seemed to have plateaued in technology and options until now. Now, I think we will be improving even more.
Production cost is the same as an SSD drive of the same size, minus maybe $5 for the huge case needed to make SSD drives look like 2.5" hard drives.
What is more interesting, since SSD drives _are_ still very expensive: How much would it cost Apple to put an empty connector for these drives into the next generations of MacBook, MBP, and iMac? It should be much easier now to find a bit of extra space for these, since they are so much smaller than a hard drive, so that an end user can upgrade their machines any time they want.
And all of that sells for how much? I can upgrade my 13" MBP to a 1 TB hard drive for £79. (On second reading, I hope your post was sarcastic).