Why would they need a larger capacity 2.5" HD? 3.5" HDs are cheeper and faster and would easily fit in any enclosure designed to be a set-top box.
2.5" hard drives are the future. They offer tangible benefits over 3.5" drives.
1. %70 decrease in size vs 3.5" drives.
2. %40 lower power consumption
3. Better seek/access times because the arm need not travel as far across the disc.
4. Better immunity to vibrations vs 3.5" drives.
For CE these are not trivial issues. Toss in perpendicular recording and we easily get 160GB+ 2.5" drives. The expectation is to see 2.5" drives overtake 3.5" drive within the next 5yrs.
Quote:
The biggest roadblock that I see is in the tuners, not the connections, hard drives or Quicktime.
Agreed. Tuners, especially HDTV ATSC, aren't cheap. I really don't see an inexpensive HTPC for a while. The bill of goods is just too high to make a best of class device at $500. $999 and no we're talking but that'll sell to only the hobbyists and affluent until prices come down.
Whether we like it or not eventually a HTPC user is going to want to utilize paid content and TCPA support is going to be necessary. I don't think it'll be a deal breaker as long as DVDs are still easy to rent but to future proof a device means some sort of nod in TCPAs direction IMO.
I think Apple will be there when the time comes. I still see a confluence of factors that need to happen to make things plug n play for the average family.
1. Better wireless. 802.11n and 11g with MIMO tech.
2. Bulletproof networking setup (Bonjour??)
3. Easy...easy...did I say, easy? Connections to the TV (preferrably HDMI for A/V)
4. Wordclass GUI
I don't blame Apple for not rushing into this market until the pieces are ready. We're almost there.
2.5" hard drives are the future. They offer tangible benefits over 3.5" drives.
1. %70 decrease in size vs 3.5" drives.
2. %40 lower power consumption
3. Better seek/access times because the arm need not travel as far across the disc.
4. Better immunity to vibrations vs 3.5" drives.
I note all of these benefits (except 1, of course) can be achieved by the manufacturer by making parts smaller *inside* the 3.5" drives. If smaller was really the efficient way to go, one would expect the internals of hard disks to continuously shrink inside a 3.5" frame in small steps until one day the guts could be dropped into a smaller enclosure.
However, I believe seek/access time is totally meaningless for a home theater box, while capacity matters and bigger disk will always have bigger capacity. The same geometry that suggests large disk has slower seek also suggests continous read speed can be made faster on the large disk, because the arm covers a longer distance with a single revolution.
Actually a TiVo like device would allow you to capture content. Dock it with your new iPod video and then you can take your content on the road, same as with your tunes. iTunes also lets you stream your audio and video in either direction.
Its basically a Mac mini with tuners and maybe a serial cable. Doesn't run full apps though, at least not yet. Widgets though would be a good idea. Point is its not a full Mac, its more like an appliance ala the iPod.
I note all of these benefits (except 1, of course) can be achieved by the manufacturer by making parts smaller *inside* the 3.5" drives. If smaller was really the efficient way to go, one would expect the internals of hard disks to continuously shrink inside a 3.5" frame in small steps until one day the guts could be dropped into a smaller enclosure.
However, I believe seek/access time is totally meaningless for a home theater box, while capacity matters and bigger disk will always have bigger capacity. The same geometry that suggests large disk has slower seek also suggests continous read speed can be made faster on the large disk, because the arm covers a longer distance with a single revolution.
2.5" vs 3.5" references the platter size so there's no amount of shrinkage that will make a 3.5" platter the same size or even close to a 2.5"
The big issue with CE is the power consumption. Less means smaller power supply and less cooling issues.
While seek/access times aren't as important I would hesitate to call them meaningless. Eventually HTPC will serve up just about anything you want including data files displayed on a large screen with a resolution independent OS GUI.
Bigger disks will indeed have more capacity and I doubt we'll see the total eradication of 3.5" drives but clearly there is momentum with the smaller form factors benefits. Toss in perpendicular recording for nice areal density and throughput and you have a recipe for a winner.
SAS drives running at 10k will take over server hot swap configs in 5 yrs or less. A 2U server today holds 6 HS 3.5" drives. With 2.5" SAS you can squeeze in over 10 drives which means more IOPS in the same space. This is what counters your continuous read advantage of 3.5" drives. More drives always equals more throughput.
2.5" vs 3.5" references the platter size so there's no amount of shrinkage that will make a 3.5" platter the same size or even close to a 2.5"
I didn't know that the measurement is of the platter. Nevertheless, I think my meaning was pretty clear. If smaller parts are good, then we will see them sold in larger enclosures for drop in replacement for the old physically larger drives. If we don't see this happen, then I guess further miniaturization is not that universally compelling.
Quote:
The big issue with CE is the power consumption. Less means smaller power supply and less cooling issues.
It's important, certainly. What is it that makes the smaller drives have so much better power consumption? I would think in sequential access like playing video, the consumed power would be quite similar because the head is not moving a lot. And if fine-grained enough control of the disk was possible from upper software layers, the bigger disk could use its geometry advantage to spin slower, further diminishing the difference.
Quote:
While seek/access times aren't as important I would hesitate to call them meaningless. Eventually HTPC will serve up just about anything you want including data files displayed on a large screen with a resolution independent OS GUI.
I think it's fair to say as long as the computer is in "theater" mode, the seek time really is meaningless. With "computer" tasks, as long as you keep it light enough to stay in memory and not to dip deeply into the disk, again no difference.
Improvements in OS X - better priorization, prediction - have potential to significantly reduce the impact of disk seek speed from what it's now. There just isn't any good reason - for example - for the UI to be more or less responsive depending on whether you have a 1GHz or 2GHz processor, slower or faster seek times. If they organized things so the UI must always be responsive, the only thing that would differ between an iBook and Powermac is how long it took them to accomplish the actual task set to the computer.
(Interestingly, as Apple's Mac business depends on hardware sales, it might actually negatively impact their bottom line to have OS X as responsive as it can be, because it would be one less difference for the high and low cost computer lines.)
Quote:
Bigger disks will indeed have more capacity and I doubt we'll see the total eradication of 3.5" drives but clearly there is momentum with the smaller form factors benefits. Toss in perpendicular recording for nice areal density and throughput and you have a recipe for a winner.
Is perpendicular recording unique to the smaller platters, or more effective on them for some reason?
Quote:
SAS drives running at 10k will take over server hot swap configs in 5 yrs or less. A 2U server today holds 6 HS 3.5" drives. With 2.5" SAS you can squeeze in over 10 drives which means more IOPS in the same space. This is what counters your continuous read advantage of 3.5" drives. More drives always equals more throughput.
Funny watching these threads spiral out of control!
Anyway I started it so I'll finish with this. I was ALMOST on the mark with what was released, a box that can operate as a place for video, music, etc. The iMac with Frontrow, iSight? now that's almost a home media centre.
All Apple needs to do now is remove the screen, bugger built in iSight (just stick the camera into your USB port), and stick a tuner in it...ooh look...it's that media box thing that always keeps coming up.
Comments
Why would they need a larger capacity 2.5" HD? 3.5" HDs are cheeper and faster and would easily fit in any enclosure designed to be a set-top box.
2.5" hard drives are the future. They offer tangible benefits over 3.5" drives.
1. %70 decrease in size vs 3.5" drives.
2. %40 lower power consumption
3. Better seek/access times because the arm need not travel as far across the disc.
4. Better immunity to vibrations vs 3.5" drives.
For CE these are not trivial issues. Toss in perpendicular recording and we easily get 160GB+ 2.5" drives. The expectation is to see 2.5" drives overtake 3.5" drive within the next 5yrs.
The biggest roadblock that I see is in the tuners, not the connections, hard drives or Quicktime.
Agreed. Tuners, especially HDTV ATSC, aren't cheap. I really don't see an inexpensive HTPC for a while. The bill of goods is just too high to make a best of class device at $500. $999 and no we're talking but that'll sell to only the hobbyists and affluent until prices come down.
Whether we like it or not eventually a HTPC user is going to want to utilize paid content and TCPA support is going to be necessary. I don't think it'll be a deal breaker as long as DVDs are still easy to rent but to future proof a device means some sort of nod in TCPAs direction IMO.
I think Apple will be there when the time comes. I still see a confluence of factors that need to happen to make things plug n play for the average family.
1. Better wireless. 802.11n and 11g with MIMO tech.
2. Bulletproof networking setup (Bonjour??)
3. Easy...easy...did I say, easy? Connections to the TV (preferrably HDMI for A/V)
4. Wordclass GUI
I don't blame Apple for not rushing into this market until the pieces are ready. We're almost there.
Originally posted by hmurchison
2.5" hard drives are the future. They offer tangible benefits over 3.5" drives.
1. %70 decrease in size vs 3.5" drives.
2. %40 lower power consumption
3. Better seek/access times because the arm need not travel as far across the disc.
4. Better immunity to vibrations vs 3.5" drives.
I note all of these benefits (except 1, of course) can be achieved by the manufacturer by making parts smaller *inside* the 3.5" drives. If smaller was really the efficient way to go, one would expect the internals of hard disks to continuously shrink inside a 3.5" frame in small steps until one day the guts could be dropped into a smaller enclosure.
However, I believe seek/access time is totally meaningless for a home theater box, while capacity matters and bigger disk will always have bigger capacity. The same geometry that suggests large disk has slower seek also suggests continous read speed can be made faster on the large disk, because the arm covers a longer distance with a single revolution.
Its basically a Mac mini with tuners and maybe a serial cable. Doesn't run full apps though, at least not yet. Widgets though would be a good idea. Point is its not a full Mac, its more like an appliance ala the iPod.
Originally posted by Gon
I note all of these benefits (except 1, of course) can be achieved by the manufacturer by making parts smaller *inside* the 3.5" drives. If smaller was really the efficient way to go, one would expect the internals of hard disks to continuously shrink inside a 3.5" frame in small steps until one day the guts could be dropped into a smaller enclosure.
However, I believe seek/access time is totally meaningless for a home theater box, while capacity matters and bigger disk will always have bigger capacity. The same geometry that suggests large disk has slower seek also suggests continous read speed can be made faster on the large disk, because the arm covers a longer distance with a single revolution.
2.5" vs 3.5" references the platter size so there's no amount of shrinkage that will make a 3.5" platter the same size or even close to a 2.5"
The big issue with CE is the power consumption. Less means smaller power supply and less cooling issues.
While seek/access times aren't as important I would hesitate to call them meaningless. Eventually HTPC will serve up just about anything you want including data files displayed on a large screen with a resolution independent OS GUI.
Bigger disks will indeed have more capacity and I doubt we'll see the total eradication of 3.5" drives but clearly there is momentum with the smaller form factors benefits. Toss in perpendicular recording for nice areal density and throughput and you have a recipe for a winner.
SAS drives running at 10k will take over server hot swap configs in 5 yrs or less. A 2U server today holds 6 HS 3.5" drives. With 2.5" SAS you can squeeze in over 10 drives which means more IOPS in the same space. This is what counters your continuous read advantage of 3.5" drives. More drives always equals more throughput.
Originally posted by hmurchison
2.5" vs 3.5" references the platter size so there's no amount of shrinkage that will make a 3.5" platter the same size or even close to a 2.5"
I didn't know that the measurement is of the platter. Nevertheless, I think my meaning was pretty clear. If smaller parts are good, then we will see them sold in larger enclosures for drop in replacement for the old physically larger drives. If we don't see this happen, then I guess further miniaturization is not that universally compelling.
The big issue with CE is the power consumption. Less means smaller power supply and less cooling issues.
It's important, certainly. What is it that makes the smaller drives have so much better power consumption? I would think in sequential access like playing video, the consumed power would be quite similar because the head is not moving a lot. And if fine-grained enough control of the disk was possible from upper software layers, the bigger disk could use its geometry advantage to spin slower, further diminishing the difference.
While seek/access times aren't as important I would hesitate to call them meaningless. Eventually HTPC will serve up just about anything you want including data files displayed on a large screen with a resolution independent OS GUI.
I think it's fair to say as long as the computer is in "theater" mode, the seek time really is meaningless. With "computer" tasks, as long as you keep it light enough to stay in memory and not to dip deeply into the disk, again no difference.
Improvements in OS X - better priorization, prediction - have potential to significantly reduce the impact of disk seek speed from what it's now. There just isn't any good reason - for example - for the UI to be more or less responsive depending on whether you have a 1GHz or 2GHz processor, slower or faster seek times. If they organized things so the UI must always be responsive, the only thing that would differ between an iBook and Powermac is how long it took them to accomplish the actual task set to the computer.
(Interestingly, as Apple's Mac business depends on hardware sales, it might actually negatively impact their bottom line to have OS X as responsive as it can be, because it would be one less difference for the high and low cost computer lines.)
Bigger disks will indeed have more capacity and I doubt we'll see the total eradication of 3.5" drives but clearly there is momentum with the smaller form factors benefits. Toss in perpendicular recording for nice areal density and throughput and you have a recipe for a winner.
Is perpendicular recording unique to the smaller platters, or more effective on them for some reason?
SAS drives running at 10k will take over server hot swap configs in 5 yrs or less. A 2U server today holds 6 HS 3.5" drives. With 2.5" SAS you can squeeze in over 10 drives which means more IOPS in the same space. This is what counters your continuous read advantage of 3.5" drives. More drives always equals more throughput.
And now I think we're pretty far from HTPC's.
Originally posted by vinney57
Dual dual G5's would be anything but a yawn.
But will Apple do a "bake off" of a dual core G5 against a Intel based machine?
Somehow I think not.
Anyway I started it so I'll finish with this. I was ALMOST on the mark with what was released, a box that can operate as a place for video, music, etc. The iMac with Frontrow, iSight? now that's almost a home media centre.
All Apple needs to do now is remove the screen, bugger built in iSight (just stick the camera into your USB port), and stick a tuner in it...ooh look...it's that media box thing that always keeps coming up.
The End...until January.