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

Why no multi-TB laptop drives?

B

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jun 19, 2010
2,563
176
Connecticut
I currently have a 160GB SSD and a 640GB hard drive in my MBP. I want to upgrade, but the upgrade to a 1TB is pretty minimal. Why has no one figured out how to stuff 2TB in a laptop drive? That would be a HUGE upgrade. I have 11TB of external storage and backup space, but I want more for photos, which I always have on the laptop.

If I have to, I'll go to a 480GB SSD and a 1TB hard drive, netting me 680GB of additional space, and move some stuff to externals.
 
Everything happens in time.

In 4-6 months I'm sure we will have 2TB 2.5" drives, and 6TB 3.5" or something crazy.

128GB micro-sd will be a thing soon if they aren't already, who woulda thunk that 3 years ago.
 
You can only squeeze a couple platers into the 2.5 inch form factor and platters don't have enough density in a consumer price yet. The 3.5 inch form factor has a ton more room for multiple platters.
 
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're expecting.

If this can help: The maximum areal density of a hard drive is defined by the size of the magnetic particles in the surface as well as the size of the head used to read and write the data. Hard drive manufacturers have to tighten the data tracks, the concentric circles on the disk’s surface that anchor the bits, without disruptions to the bits’ magnetization while keeping manufacturing costs down to meet consumer-friendly prices.
 
johnnnw said:
Everything happens in time.

In 4-6 months I'm sure we will have 2TB 2.5" drives, and 6TB 3.5" or something crazy.

128GB micro-sd will be a thing soon if they aren't already, who woulda thunk that 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

We rapidly went from 500 to 640 to 750 to 1TB, and then everything just stopped. And it's been stopped ever since. I guess it roughly parallels the same density as a 3TB desktop drive, and we only just recently got to 4TB, but you'd think we could move forward more, as the amount of data we capture ramps up significantly year after year.
 
All a matter of platter density. And currently its just not very easy to make data dense hard disks in the 2.5" segment.
 
The current technology has been running out of steam for quite some time.

There are 2 new technologies slated for introduction this and next year, so things should get much better soon.

There's even a third technology that should appear sometime, but maybe only in enterprise.

Some other stuff is for later.
 
Last edited:
BiggAW said:
We rapidly went from 500 to 640 to 750 to 1TB, and then everything just stopped. And it's been stopped ever since. I guess it roughly parallels the same density as a 3TB desktop drive, and we only just recently got to 4TB, but you'd think we could move forward more, as the amount of data we capture ramps up significantly year after year.
Click to expand...


???? Fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, it's the cost, not the ability to do so that's prohibitive.
 
Yes if companies thought customers were willing to pay 500$ for a hard drive then massive drives would exist, they simply wouldn't get a return on the cost of making them.

It's definitely possible, just doesn't make sense yet. As with anything cost goes down over time.
 
I think it's one of 3 things. One is the cost and second because a majority of people (mening a good chunk of people outside of these forums) don't need that much data. And third as others have stated it could be current technology... but since a majority of people don't need that much data (reason number 2) it could have hindered any serious R&D for them to make a push for it.
 
There's continuous long term R&D on hard drives. It just takes time.

I think the new technologies that are coming soon will be enough to reach 60TB on 3.5" eventually.

Meanwhile, flash will have to be replaced quite soon it seems.
 
cube said:
There's continuous long term R&D on hard drives. It just takes time.

I think the new technologies that are coming soon will be enough to reach 60TB on 3.5" eventually.

Meanwhile, flash will have to be replaced quite soon it seems.
Click to expand...

60TB on 3.5" would be so cool :cool: Carrying that much data on something that small
 
I had to buy a RAID 10 because 4TB is already not enough for an individual, even without pushing it. After many years, it's the first time one disk is not enough for a volume for me.

I almost ran out of space temporarily on my 1TB MBP. I have some room to last a bit, but I won't be able to do the same manipulation again, I think. I could put a 1.5TB, but I don't want to go back to 5400RPM again.

So bad is the current situation, never seen it before.
 
If you own a Macbook Pro Classic, you can fit the WD 2.5" 2TB disc into the HD compartment. You need to remove any movable part in there and it just fits, then. Rescrewing the backcover will secure it.

My system and virtual machines reside in a SSD, all the data (mostly photographs and music) is on the HD. This machine is fast and smooth.

My machine is a maxed out 2011 2Ghz Macbook Pro, with 16GB RAM, an optibay 512GB SSD and the WD 2.5 2TB HD.
 
Yes, I read about that, but I don't like very much the idea of an unscrewed drive. I also don't want less than 7200RPM.

Although I don't know how reliable Toshiba hard drives are, and it could be that the WD is faster, too. So maybe I will consider it anyway, if it comes to that.

Thanks
 
cube said:
The current technology has been running out of steam for quite some time.

There are 2 new technologies slated for introduction this and next year, so things should get much better soon.

There's even a third technology that should appear sometime, but maybe only in enterprise.

Some other stuff is for later.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so.

giffut said:
If you own a Macbook Pro Classic, you can fit the WD 2.5" 2TB disc into the HD compartment. You need to remove any movable part in there and it just fits, then. Rescrewing the backcover will secure it.

My system and virtual machines reside in a SSD, all the data (mostly photographs and music) is on the HD. This machine is fast and smooth.

My machine is a maxed out 2011 2Ghz Macbook Pro, with 16GB RAM, an optibay 512GB SSD and the WD 2.5 2TB HD.
Click to expand...

That sounds a bit shady to go above a 9.5mm drive. That is a pretty insane setup though. Once I see something bigger than 1TB at 9.5mm, I'll go for a 480GB SSD, and the largest hard drive I can get. You know there's a 980GB SSD out now that will fit in a MBP, right? :D

yusukeaoki said:
We have 1TB SSD and 2TB SSD is soon coming out.
Click to expand...

The cost per GB still has a ways to go on them. It's been progressing down fast, but for storage, it still has to get cut at least in half again, maybe more if the capacities go up.
 
BiggAW said:
I sure hope so.



That sounds a bit shady to go above a 9.5mm drive. That is a pretty insane setup though. Once I see something bigger than 1TB at 9.5mm, I'll go for a 480GB SSD, and the largest hard drive I can get. You know there's a 980GB SSD out now that will fit in a MBP, right? :D



The cost per GB still has a ways to go on them. It's been progressing down fast, but for storage, it still has to get cut at least in half again, maybe more if the capacities go up.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So by the time cost/GB go down of TB SSDs, the 2TB HDD 2.5in 9mm should be out.
 
yusukeaoki said:
We have 1TB SSD and 2TB SSD is soon coming out.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It took a very long time for the 1TB price to come down at the reasonable level of the current 960GB.

The price of the current 2TB is even more way, way up there.
 
Last edited:
Mr MM said:
my concern is regarding if the controller can handle it, and what are the developments of the SSDs towards the new sata protocols
Click to expand...

Handle the bandwidth? At that size, I think the current bandwidth is just fine. SSDs' major advantage is seek times, not the raw bandwidth, even though they are extremely impressive in both.
 
BiggAW said:
Handle the bandwidth? At that size, I think the current bandwidth is just fine. SSDs' major advantage is seek times, not the raw bandwidth, even though they are extremely impressive in both.
Click to expand...

there may not be sufficient channels for the nand to work properly and some other things. For example the OWC 1tb SSD needs to use 2 Sf2281 controllers, if Im not mistaken the OCZ 1tb one as well

but we are moving out of sata 3 soon, pretty soon actually

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6293/...end-to-proprietary-ultrabook-ssd-form-factors

new formats for SSDs in ultrathins

and these are the new satas

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6294/breaking-the-sata-barrier-sata-express-and-sff8639-connectors

and I hope they improve the speeds and consistency, its quite not right still
 
cube said:
I don't know. It took a very long time for the 1TB price to come down at the reasonable level of the current 960GB.

The price of the current 2TB is even more way, way up there.
Click to expand...

It is still expensive and will be for a while.
But if you need and have the cash, why not go for it?

I remember some people bought the 16GB DDR3 for 600$.
The price came down to under 100 in less than a year.
So we still can expect it to come down. But obviously not just in a year or two.
 
yusukeaoki said:
It is still expensive and will be for a while.
But if you need and have the cash, why not go for it?

I remember some people bought the 16GB DDR3 for 600$.
The price came down to under 100 in less than a year.
So we still can expect it to come down. But obviously not just in a year or two.
Click to expand...

actually 2x 8gb ddr3 when it launched was 1k

nand makers are starving the market again, thats the problemm they want to keep the prices in plateaus and then the fall, rinse and repeat
 
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
Back