Unibody MacBook or Collectors Edition MacBook Hard Drive

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by OCSpersonel, Jun 18, 2009.

  1. OCSpersonel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #1
    So im concidering upgrading from the 250gb Hard drive i have(i believe) to somethin alot bigger say 500Gb to terabyte? on my 2.4 Ghz UMB. now im not quite sure, but the highest im going to be able to go right now is 500Gb right?

    i cant find a 2.5" SATA 7400rpm that is above 500Gb.

    So how long is it going to take before i can get a decent 750Gb or 1T?

    in case your wondering, im planning on devoting a 10Gb or so to a Windows portion via bootcamp, and spliting the other portion so that i can have a time machine drive on my MB
     
  2. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #2
    Putting Time Machine on the internal disk on a separate partition is not very useful. I'm not even sure if you can setup TM to work with the internal drive. It's designed to work with external drives, USB, FW and networked drives.

    If the drive fails, all the partitions are liable to be gone. With that said, later this year/early next year will probably get 750GB laptop drives.
     
  3. jackiecanev2 macrumors 65816

    jackiecanev2

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (BB 8900: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

    If you dont use your optical bay, you can drop out the drive and drop in another HD.
     
  4. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #4
    500 is the limit for now with 2.5" drives. As always, capacity will go up with time, but I can't say when.
     
  5. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #5
    so i shouldnt time machine it? hmm well theb 500 would do just fine. im not sure i can fill up 350-400 Gb of space. but OSX is like almost 50 Gb of space right?

    and whats this about a optical drive???
     
  6. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #6
    OS X takes up about 20GB with the full install. Time Machine should be done on a 2nd hard drive, physically separate from your main drive regardless of partition scheme.

    As for the optical bay, there's this: OptiBay
     
  7. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #7
    Ah ya not sure id go for a optical bay.

    but i might settle for a 500, since snow leopard is gona be like 14 Gb now.

    any reccomendations?
     
  8. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #8
    For a 500GB drive?

    Seagate Momentus or Western Digital Scorpio are two solid model lines.
     
  9. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #9
    I though SL was going to be around 6 GB.
     
  10. PhixionFilms macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    Deployed atm
    #10
    I seen this posted yesterday. I went to the apple store today and i asked the genius if he thought the macbook aluminum was going to be nicknamed the Limited Edition notebook. He said he highly doubted it lol.
     
  11. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #11
    it very well might be, i just know at he WWDC they said something about 6 GB, wether its 6 or 6 less than leopard im not sure
     
  12. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #12
    Leopard consumes ~20GB, Snow Leopard will consume ~14GB, which means Snow Leopard (OS 10.6) will be around ~6GB lighter.
     
  13. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #13
    ya thats what i thought, thats a big improvement, cant believe they did that
     
  14. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    Yeah, I think its a great improvement, so much less junk code to search for while loading the OS. Compare that to Windows 7 which actually gains a few more GBs trying to sort out the Vista problem.
     
  15. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #15
    I think Leopard might be the first version iv been able to happily use.

    XP was actually a fairly decent OS (if you knew what you were doing, didnt haveta call tach support for every problem) especially because so many games were aimed to PC and XP (thats probably what i enjoyed most)

    but i think SL is gona change that, especially with GCD giving my quad core pretty mush a 16 core.

    UMB is quad right?
     
  16. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #16
    No and No.
     
  17. Bengt77 macrumors 68000

    Bengt77

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
  18. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #18
    ? the software does make quads 16 though right? i swear thats what they said. not exactly that but the software Grand Central Dispatch makes quads preform like 16?

    and i guess i only have a dual then :( for some reason i thought i was quad.

    ya, i might wait... but with the 500 i would still be getting a 300 to 350 mac portion (after all my programs and OS is installed) and im only gona be playen games on windows anywase. how much space does XP require?
     
  19. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #19
    I was under the impression most of the trimming is due to the removal of PPC code, since the OS is Intel CPU only.
     
  20. JamesGorman macrumors 65816

    JamesGorman

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    #20
    I think that is a lot of it. After I used xslimmer I saved almost 3 gigs of space.
     
  21. JamesGorman macrumors 65816

    JamesGorman

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    #21
    Im actually going to run it right now and see how much space I can save:cool:

    EDIT: Just ran it, and I saved 788 MB. Some of the biggest culprits were iChat, Safari 4, and the iLife apps. So I assum by cutting out the PPC stuff in all the apps they can easily save 6 gigs of space.
     
  22. evilgreg macrumors regular

    evilgreg

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    #22
    Is 7400 rpm really going to make that big of a difference over a 5400 hd?

    I heard somewhere that for notebooks, it's actually smarter to go with the 5400rpm because it prolongs HD life, keeps the machine cooler, AND saves battery life. That's why I went with the slightly slower drive at least.
     
  23. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #23
    That's a marketing claim using marketing science

    Under certain specially contrived conditions for benchmarks I suppose those results might occur. Sure why not. You won't see it in day to day use (actually most people won't "need" to see it in day to day use, either)


    Disk space for XP is negligible these days, well under 5 Gb... but if you're talking about playing windows games these can install several GB of data.
     
  24. OCSpersonel thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #24
    Yah well im only gona be runnen 3 to 4 games, just the olderones and any new ones that dont support OSX, all the other ones are gona be OSX friendly


    its hard to say, you make a good point, but especially with the bigger drives i think you need the higher speed. battery doasnt matter much, the new UMB run for at least 2 hrs doing heavy processes and if my battery isnt lasting long enough, ill just get another or theres externals that you can get that make the batt last up to something like 32 hrs.
    id wait untill the SSD made their way to 500 because i hear those are the best, but i might be able to get a 500 HD and burn it out before they get here
     

Share This Page