Why make flash standard??

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mohsy90, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    Still pondering why Apple didn't just integrate the basic 2.5 HDD. They have a height of .95cm and the new MBP retina height is 1.8 cm. They could have made it fit.

    Then just give options to upgrade to SSD. This would have drastically reduced the price.


    Should have been a new line up of 13", 15" and 17" retina MBP's. And scratch the old. Same prices!!!
     
  2. No-Me macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    #2
    Have you seen the pictures? Looks like a stuffed turkey.

    a HDD is so much bigger than the SSD's, and SSD is the future, simply because of the speed. I've been using SSD's in my MBP and had it in my first gen 11" MBA, I never want a computer without a SSD anymore, they're just not as snappy as with an SSD.
     
  3. Xiroteus macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    #3
    I want to move to SSD when I can afford to, I have seen how small the chips are, faster, mo moving parts, I would prefer it.
     
  4. mohsy90 thread starter macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    Well. yeah from the picture it looks like it won't fit. SSD come in the same size as HDD. Flash storage is the same as SSD but they are organized in sticks that almost look like ram sticks. If they stuck with the basic SSD enclosed in a 2.5" then they could outsource that product and attain it from hitachi, intel or Samsung. Instead they went with he proprietary flash storage which they are charging insane prices for. I'm just saying, if they wanted, they could have fit it .

    Obviously they want to move toward flash storage which is likely the future and is locked and not upgradeable

    ----------

    They're fairly cheap now. You can get a 160gb ssd for less than $100 on ebay.
     
  5. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #5
    The biggest benefit of SSDs is that they don't need to come in the 2.5", 9.5mm size. Hard drives are bound by the laws of physics from the get-go. SSDs won't be for a few more years at least.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. vladzaharia macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    #6
    ... Because a basic SSD is enclosed in a 2.5" shell to make it compatible with hard drives. They barely have enough space in the case to fit the sticks they currently use; there's no way they'd be able to fit that SSD in there, even if it's half the width of the macbook. They'd need to have room for the keyboard + all the components under it for that, and the screen size needs to be included in that calculation.
     
  7. mohsy90 thread starter macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    You wanna give me the GB sizes of the pictures you listed. Btw, HDD come in 2.5" sizes just like the SSD pictured. It's just an enclose with the chips stacked on top of each other. Apple has just decided to take them out and make strips out of them. I'm just saying, I think it's a little early to move towards flash. Clearly Apple wants to make their own proprietary flash storage so no one can upgrade.

    ----------

    I have a 2.5" 256gb SDD. Measures at .98cm. Like the current MBP, they could have pushed it to a corner with nothing but the SSD and sata cable.
     
  8. vladzaharia macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    #8
    I've already commented on that. The 2.5" HD barely fits in the current iteration in a corner. It requires more than just the drive itself. Now they've made it 25% thinner. How the hell do you expect them to fit the same size drive in a case that's 25% thinner... when it barely fits in the current case?
     
  9. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #9
    The issue with hard drives is that their performance is partially affected by physics. Smaller (physical) HDDs have less room for everything, including the platters that actually hold the data. As a result, performance will suffer the smaller you go.

    I used to have a 1" IBM 1GB MicroDrive in a CompactFlash Type II form factor. They were not fast, but they were faster than regular-label SanDisk CF cards at the time, however the biggest appeal about the MicroDrives back then was the price-per-MB ratio. High-speed 1GB CF cards used to cost well over $1000, whereas MDs cost around $600 for 1GB. I don't remember the exact price I paid for mine.

    As the NAND-based CF cards got higher capacities, faster speeds and lower prices, the appeal of the MicroDrives disappeared.

    SSDs don't have this restriction yet. It's already possible to have a SSD about the size of a pack of gum perform very close to that of a full-size 2.5" model with exactly the same specs of everything.
     

Share This Page