1: Apple would make their own version of exHFS+ naturally.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
2: With Apple putting out 1GHz iPads, it's not like it's a speed demon like a Mac Pro is. It seems Apple is more inclined now to produce ultra thin devices that have little need for elaborate cooling and have a long battery life. Shift any performance needs to the "cloud" or desktops.
As you said, SSD is what Desktop needs.
Quote:
What hobbles SSD is the price and storage size, really what's the use having a iPad or iPod Touch with only a mere 64GB? My music library alone is more than that.
The industry knows SSD's are doomed to early death, it's just a matter of time before the SDXC cranks up the production, lowers the price, increases the storage and floods the market, so they are milking their camel for all it's worth and we consumer gets stuck with flaky bulky noisy hard drives for our +64GB storage needs.
Solder that 2TB SDXC right to the logic board along with the battery, that's Apple's type thinking.
People will see, come a few years from now, why they even bothered to buy devices with pitiful 64GB storage capacities, it's a joke.
You seems to have misunderstand what SDXC, SSD and NAND is all about.
I guess that sucks for the PC makers. The price per GB for NAND is on a similar price curve as for RAM which is a more mature process. Capacities double about every 18mo and prices per GB goes down about 40% per year. The choice to include in a PC is all about cost.
The 16GB SDHC card I tend to use for cameras is still stuck at about the same price as it was 18 months ago. I bought a few at $30 in between, now it's back up to $40.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
There is nothing magical about SDXC, it uses flash chips too. SDXC is just one specification for a solid state drive, and it's a removable chip not meant for main storage. It's also limited to what can be fit into a postage stamp size, and speed is similarly constrained by the flash chip that's used in it. An SSD in a more conventional drive-shaped module can fit a lot more chips and run faster because of chip banks. It's easier to find SLC chips in more conventional drive modules too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly
Because it's even newer and more expensive and it doesn't come in sizes much lager than 32GB yet, nowhere near 2TB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
1: Apple would make their own version of exHFS+ naturally.
Apple already has HFS+. Which currently seems to be scaling pretty well beyond 2TB, it's supposed to scale to 8 Exabytes.
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
It's supposed to have up to 2TB and access speeds twice as fast as hard drives, all on a little SD card. Made for the HD video cameras to come.
It's the introduction of this type of remove able storage that prompted Apple to start putting SD ports on Mac's. (it can access the storage, but currently not the speed)
I think Apple would be jumping all over SDXC because it's such a thin and sexy storage medium.
I don't agree with your assessment that SSDs' are obsolete, furthermore if they are obsolete as you assert, then it why would SSDs be so expensive--unless it has antique value. SSD's are only going to get faster, cheaper and have more capacity as chips become thinner and more densely packed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
1. SDXC requires exFAT. Which is an Microsoft proprietary format. exFAT also lacks many features that current HFS+ has and required by Snow Leopard.
2. SDXC wont have the high I/O / Random RW performance that current SSD has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Which prove why SSD wont overtake HDD in another 5 years, even if it is cheap enough there are simply not enough Fabs capacity to do so.
Why did you respond to your own post? While SSDs may take a while to overtake HDDs, the advantages of SSDs far outweigh HDD except for HDDs storage capacity.
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
It's supposed to have up to 2TB and access speeds twice as fast as hard drives, all on a little SD card. Made for the HD video cameras to come.
It's the introduction of this type of remove able storage that prompted Apple to start putting SD ports on Mac's. (it can access the storage, but currently not the speed)
I think Apple would be jumping all over SDXC because it's such a thin and sexy storage medium.
2TB on a iPhone makes a whole lot of room for apps and anything else.
What are you talking about? You aren't making a bit of sense. SDXC is a type of SSD. SSD refers to the fact that the drive uses no moving parts, not the form factor, which is all SDXC is.
That's good news...I hope Apple updates the MBA with a one-click glass track pad and the raccoon trim around the screen. Then expands the MBA product line to include a 15" and 17" SSD versions.
I think this would accelerate the trend to get away from having the SuperDrive in every laptop.
Another feature of the SSD is the 'instant-on.'
Best
I'm glad I bought 2 SSDs when I had the chance.
I put one in my MBP and the other in my Mac mini(HTPC).
Another benefit is absolute silence. No disks spinning up.
While SSDs may take a while to overtake HDDs, the advantages of SSDs far outweigh HDD except for HDDs storage capacity.
In some regard they've already overtaken HDDs. Leaving aside the better performance SSDs are already matching and beating HDDs in capacity, one of the other two important factors of beating our HDDs in the market. The other is price which is almost always the last thing.
Take the iPod Classic with a 160GB 1.8" HDD. The largest SSD in that 1.8" size is from Intel and it's 160GB, and that came out last year, before the 160GB 1.8" Toshiba HDD was even announced. Both have the same thickness.
The 2.5" HDDs are now making out at 320GB, still smaller than the 500GB you can get for the typical HDD. You can get 640GB HDDs but they have an extra platter and therefore thicker than typical notebook can accommodate. The Intel SSDs are 7mm, which seems to be the new standard for 2.5" drives. Mac notebooks use 9.5mm drives. Seagate now has a 7mm thick 2.5" HDD on the market. It loses a platter and therefore half the capacity, making it 250GB, which is less than an SSD with of the same dimensions.
Of course, the SSDs are still pricer but the price is coming down as two capacity increase methods will emerge and the inherent performance. Since SSDs are growing in capacity faster than HDDs we could see a shift from a company like Apple within a couple years. First we'll likely see it on the premium end of other vendors, but I don't think Apple will be far behind, especially if that means trimming 2.5mm off their machine thickness.
That's the thing. Sure, it's nice, but it doesn't have an easy to take price. The platter drives that I happen to get are plenty quiet enough for me, and the heat/power consumption hasn't been a problem either. A notebook platter drive consumes about 2 watts max, a standard notebook CPU consumes around 30 max.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Can we just move the whole world to SSD already. I'm getting tired of waiting for this to be standard and I bet Apple is too.
Why does it need to be standard? You can just buy it for yourself if you want it. I keep thinking my next one will be SSD, but it still hasn't happened the last two times I bought drives. I just replaced a drive that worked fine for nine years. The capacity just isn't quite there for me.
Why does it need to be standard? You can just buy it for yourself if you want it. I keep thinking my next one will be SSD, but it still hasn't happened the last two times I bought drives. The capacity just isn't quite there for me.
It's far better. When I say, "Make it standard," I mean a concerted effort to increase storage capacities while lowering prices, so it can land somewhere near a HDD.
I know its far off in reality, but it'd be nice to see 256 gb and 512 gb SSD's built into Macs at the same current prices.
It's far better. When I say, "Make it standard," I mean a concerted effort to increase storage capacities while lowering prices, so it can land somewhere near a HDD.
I know its far off in reality, but it'd be nice to see 256 gb and 512 gb SSD's built into Macs at the same current prices.
Why would you think there isn't a concerted effort to increase storage capacities?
Technology advancements can only move so fast, making it faster is a matter of spending disproportionate amount of money. That money has to have a return, the more money invested, the greater the return needs to be. These plants don't spring up by themselves in three months, the same goes with scaling up the technology required to make finer and finer pitched circuitry, and mass producing the equipment needed to make them.
It seems silly to expect these businesses to make the big investments while not being willing to pay the price of the final product.
The iPad is nearly worthless to me as it's storage capacity is pitiful.
I'm not going to store things in the cloud, dependent upon a internet connection and wait forever to download what I need.
I'm not going to involve myself in a 1 or two year iPad upgrade cycle just because they managed to increase the storage a little here and there.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
Are you being sarcastic? Doing a 2TB model this year would make it a 10lb tablet, at minimum. If you can wait 5 years, you might get it then. But I expect that your expectations would rise accordingly, and you might say you would need 16TB to carry all your files.
Of course, the SSDs are still pricer but the price is coming down as two capacity increase methods will emerge and the inherent performance. Since SSDs are growing in capacity faster than HDDs we could see a shift from a company like Apple within a couple years. First we'll likely see it on the premium end of other vendors, but I don't think Apple will be far behind, especially if that means trimming 2.5mm off their machine thickness.
If I recall the price when I bought my MBP in April 2009, was that the 256 GB SSD option was $750 and the 8 GB RAM was $1300. Now the SSD option is $650 and the 8 GB RAM option is $600. Just noticed that the SSD option for the 13" MBP is $800--why?? The base price for the 17" MBP went from about $2700-2600 to $2500
If I recall the price when I bought my MBP in April 2009, was that the 256 GB SSD option was $750 and the 8 GB RAM was $1300. Now the SSD option is $650 and the 8 GB RAM option is $600. Just noticed that the SSD option for the 13" MBP is $800--why?? The base price for the 17" MBP went from about $2700-2600 to $2500
Take a look at the size of the hard drives you're upgrading from. The base model of the 17" has a larger, more expensive drive than the base model 13", 500GB and 160GB, respectively.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
SSD drives should be decreasing in price, not increasing because of more demand. That's ludicrous.
The PC world is not adopting SSD drives, leaving Apple the only one buying them.
If you need that much capacity in your iPad you are just going have to wait. Most laptop SSDs that I've seen are about 256 GB max and I don't think that they will fit in an iPad.
Overall prices on SSDs have been dropping, however newer SSDs using newer technology are higher in price.
Take a look at the size of the hard drives you're upgrading from. The base model of the 17" has a larger, more expensive drive than the base model 13", 500GB and 160GB, respectively.
Comments
1: Apple would make their own version of exHFS+ naturally.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about.
2: With Apple putting out 1GHz iPads, it's not like it's a speed demon like a Mac Pro is. It seems Apple is more inclined now to produce ultra thin devices that have little need for elaborate cooling and have a long battery life. Shift any performance needs to the "cloud" or desktops.
As you said, SSD is what Desktop needs.
What hobbles SSD is the price and storage size, really what's the use having a iPad or iPod Touch with only a mere 64GB? My music library alone is more than that.
The industry knows SSD's are doomed to early death, it's just a matter of time before the SDXC cranks up the production, lowers the price, increases the storage and floods the market, so they are milking their camel for all it's worth and we consumer gets stuck with flaky bulky noisy hard drives for our +64GB storage needs.
Solder that 2TB SDXC right to the logic board along with the battery, that's Apple's type thinking.
People will see, come a few years from now, why they even bothered to buy devices with pitiful 64GB storage capacities, it's a joke.
You seems to have misunderstand what SDXC, SSD and NAND is all about.
I guess that sucks for the PC makers. The price per GB for NAND is on a similar price curve as for RAM which is a more mature process. Capacities double about every 18mo and prices per GB goes down about 40% per year. The choice to include in a PC is all about cost.
The 16GB SDHC card I tend to use for cameras is still stuck at about the same price as it was 18 months ago. I bought a few at $30 in between, now it's back up to $40.
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
There is nothing magical about SDXC, it uses flash chips too. SDXC is just one specification for a solid state drive, and it's a removable chip not meant for main storage. It's also limited to what can be fit into a postage stamp size, and speed is similarly constrained by the flash chip that's used in it. An SSD in a more conventional drive-shaped module can fit a lot more chips and run faster because of chip banks. It's easier to find SLC chips in more conventional drive modules too.
Because it's even newer and more expensive and it doesn't come in sizes much lager than 32GB yet, nowhere near 2TB.
1: Apple would make their own version of exHFS+ naturally.
Apple already has HFS+. Which currently seems to be scaling pretty well beyond 2TB, it's supposed to scale to 8 Exabytes.
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
It's supposed to have up to 2TB and access speeds twice as fast as hard drives, all on a little SD card. Made for the HD video cameras to come.
It's the introduction of this type of remove able storage that prompted Apple to start putting SD ports on Mac's. (it can access the storage, but currently not the speed)
I think Apple would be jumping all over SDXC because it's such a thin and sexy storage medium.
I don't agree with your assessment that SSDs' are obsolete, furthermore if they are obsolete as you assert, then it why would SSDs be so expensive--unless it has antique value. SSD's are only going to get faster, cheaper and have more capacity as chips become thinner and more densely packed.
1. SDXC requires exFAT. Which is an Microsoft proprietary format. exFAT also lacks many features that current HFS+ has and required by Snow Leopard.
2. SDXC wont have the high I/O / Random RW performance that current SSD has.
Which prove why SSD wont overtake HDD in another 5 years, even if it is cheap enough there are simply not enough Fabs capacity to do so.
Why did you respond to your own post? While SSDs may take a while to overtake HDDs, the advantages of SSDs far outweigh HDD except for HDDs storage capacity.
More on SDXC v SSD
64 GB SDXC
http://www.digitalpixels.net/2010/02...c-memory-card/
sdxc
http://www.sdcard.org/developers/tech/sdxc
OWC Mercury Extreme SSD
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other...ign=googlebase
Seems like the SSD has a slight edge over the 64 GB SDXC in read speed.
The SDXC can be used as a start up disk:
http://www.maclife.com/article/howto...c_sd_card_slot
Screw SSD, it's already obsolete that's why it's so expensive. What about SDXC?
It's supposed to have up to 2TB and access speeds twice as fast as hard drives, all on a little SD card. Made for the HD video cameras to come.
It's the introduction of this type of remove able storage that prompted Apple to start putting SD ports on Mac's. (it can access the storage, but currently not the speed)
I think Apple would be jumping all over SDXC because it's such a thin and sexy storage medium.
2TB on a iPhone makes a whole lot of room for apps and anything else.
What are you talking about? You aren't making a bit of sense. SDXC is a type of SSD. SSD refers to the fact that the drive uses no moving parts, not the form factor, which is all SDXC is.
Waaah. I heard the iPad might drive up the price of anal lube, too. What WON'T it affect?
It won't affect your chances at getting laid.
That's good news...I hope Apple updates the MBA with a one-click glass track pad and the raccoon trim around the screen. Then expands the MBA product line to include a 15" and 17" SSD versions.
I think this would accelerate the trend to get away from having the SuperDrive in every laptop.
Another feature of the SSD is the 'instant-on.'
Best
I'm glad I bought 2 SSDs when I had the chance.
I put one in my MBP and the other in my Mac mini(HTPC).
Another benefit is absolute silence. No disks spinning up.
While SSDs may take a while to overtake HDDs, the advantages of SSDs far outweigh HDD except for HDDs storage capacity.
In some regard they've already overtaken HDDs. Leaving aside the better performance SSDs are already matching and beating HDDs in capacity, one of the other two important factors of beating our HDDs in the market. The other is price which is almost always the last thing.
Take the iPod Classic with a 160GB 1.8" HDD. The largest SSD in that 1.8" size is from Intel and it's 160GB, and that came out last year, before the 160GB 1.8" Toshiba HDD was even announced. Both have the same thickness.
The 2.5" HDDs are now making out at 320GB, still smaller than the 500GB you can get for the typical HDD. You can get 640GB HDDs but they have an extra platter and therefore thicker than typical notebook can accommodate. The Intel SSDs are 7mm, which seems to be the new standard for 2.5" drives. Mac notebooks use 9.5mm drives. Seagate now has a 7mm thick 2.5" HDD on the market. It loses a platter and therefore half the capacity, making it 250GB, which is less than an SSD with of the same dimensions.
Of course, the SSDs are still pricer but the price is coming down as two capacity increase methods will emerge and the inherent performance. Since SSDs are growing in capacity faster than HDDs we could see a shift from a company like Apple within a couple years. First we'll likely see it on the premium end of other vendors, but I don't think Apple will be far behind, especially if that means trimming 2.5mm off their machine thickness.
SSDs are ALREADY way too expensive... Ouch.
That's the thing. Sure, it's nice, but it doesn't have an easy to take price. The platter drives that I happen to get are plenty quiet enough for me, and the heat/power consumption hasn't been a problem either. A notebook platter drive consumes about 2 watts max, a standard notebook CPU consumes around 30 max.
Can we just move the whole world to SSD already. I'm getting tired of waiting for this to be standard and I bet Apple is too.
Why does it need to be standard? You can just buy it for yourself if you want it. I keep thinking my next one will be SSD, but it still hasn't happened the last two times I bought drives. I just replaced a drive that worked fine for nine years. The capacity just isn't quite there for me.
Why does it need to be standard? You can just buy it for yourself if you want it. I keep thinking my next one will be SSD, but it still hasn't happened the last two times I bought drives. The capacity just isn't quite there for me.
It's far better. When I say, "Make it standard," I mean a concerted effort to increase storage capacities while lowering prices, so it can land somewhere near a HDD.
I know its far off in reality, but it'd be nice to see 256 gb and 512 gb SSD's built into Macs at the same current prices.
It's far better. When I say, "Make it standard," I mean a concerted effort to increase storage capacities while lowering prices, so it can land somewhere near a HDD.
I know its far off in reality, but it'd be nice to see 256 gb and 512 gb SSD's built into Macs at the same current prices.
Why would you think there isn't a concerted effort to increase storage capacities?
Technology advancements can only move so fast, making it faster is a matter of spending disproportionate amount of money. That money has to have a return, the more money invested, the greater the return needs to be. These plants don't spring up by themselves in three months, the same goes with scaling up the technology required to make finer and finer pitched circuitry, and mass producing the equipment needed to make them.
It seems silly to expect these businesses to make the big investments while not being willing to pay the price of the final product.
I'm not going to store things in the cloud, dependent upon a internet connection and wait forever to download what I need.
I'm not going to involve myself in a 1 or two year iPad upgrade cycle just because they managed to increase the storage a little here and there.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
SSD drives should be decreasing in price, not increasing because of more demand. That's ludicrous.
The PC world is not adopting SSD drives, leaving Apple the only one buying them.
The iPad is nearly worthless to me as it's storage capacity is pitiful.
I'm not going to store things in the cloud, dependent upon a internet connection and wait forever to download what I need.
I'm not going to involve myself in a 1 or two year iPad upgrade cycle just because they managed to increase the storage a little here and there.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
Are you being sarcastic? Doing a 2TB model this year would make it a 10lb tablet, at minimum. If you can wait 5 years, you might get it then. But I expect that your expectations would rise accordingly, and you might say you would need 16TB to carry all your files.
The iPad is nearly worthless to me as it's storage capacity is pitiful.
I'm not going to store things in the cloud, dependent upon a internet connection and wait forever to download what I need.
I'm not going to involve myself in a 1 or two year iPad upgrade cycle just because they managed to increase the storage a little here and there.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
SSD drives should be decreasing in price, not increasing because of more demand. That's ludicrous.
The PC world is not adopting SSD drives, leaving Apple the only one buying them.
::sigh:: Is this poster actually suggesting that a 2TB drive could feasibly have been in a tablet?
Of course, the SSDs are still pricer but the price is coming down as two capacity increase methods will emerge and the inherent performance. Since SSDs are growing in capacity faster than HDDs we could see a shift from a company like Apple within a couple years. First we'll likely see it on the premium end of other vendors, but I don't think Apple will be far behind, especially if that means trimming 2.5mm off their machine thickness.
If I recall the price when I bought my MBP in April 2009, was that the 256 GB SSD option was $750 and the 8 GB RAM was $1300. Now the SSD option is $650 and the 8 GB RAM option is $600. Just noticed that the SSD option for the 13" MBP is $800--why?? The base price for the 17" MBP went from about $2700-2600 to $2500
If I recall the price when I bought my MBP in April 2009, was that the 256 GB SSD option was $750 and the 8 GB RAM was $1300. Now the SSD option is $650 and the 8 GB RAM option is $600. Just noticed that the SSD option for the 13" MBP is $800--why?? The base price for the 17" MBP went from about $2700-2600 to $2500
Take a look at the size of the hard drives you're upgrading from. The base model of the 17" has a larger, more expensive drive than the base model 13", 500GB and 160GB, respectively.
I need a iPad with 320GB or better, 500GB or better preferred, 2TB would be awesome!
I don't see that happening with SSD drives Apple is using, they need to move in another direction.
SSD drives should be decreasing in price, not increasing because of more demand. That's ludicrous.
The PC world is not adopting SSD drives, leaving Apple the only one buying them.
If you need that much capacity in your iPad you are just going have to wait. Most laptop SSDs that I've seen are about 256 GB max and I don't think that they will fit in an iPad.
Overall prices on SSDs have been dropping, however newer SSDs using newer technology are higher in price.
Still waiting for a 2 TB SDXC?
http://en.akihabaranews.com/28155/pe...-is-my-2tb-one
Take a look at the size of the hard drives you're upgrading from. The base model of the 17" has a larger, more expensive drive than the base model 13", 500GB and 160GB, respectively.
Makes sense, thanks.