Okay...not quite sure which part of what I said you disagree with.
I can go find the pictures of iPod Nanos and Samsung SSDs that show the internal chips with the same part numbers so I don't think you're disputing that. If you are, then I can go find them if you like.
As far as the new flash being faster and cheaper than the older flash...I think that sentence supports that...the Samsung 64GB SATA is faster and the Super Talent 32GB SATA is more expensive in terms of $/GB. The Samsung is only $1080 (retail from Dell - $1080 + $70 for a 120GB 5400 2.5" HDD from PriceGrabber) for double the storage.
I read that a few times so I'm 99% certain that agrees with my statement...the new flash is both cheaper and faster.
One thing is for sure...that Super Talent drive is not really indiciative of current pricing at $900...wide temp or not. The older Samsung 1.8" 32GB (PATA) are only $599 and the SandDisk 1.8" SSD (UATA) is only $599.
Even in comparison to the previous generation Samsung at $600 the new 64GB Samsung is cheaper.
I guess the point is that even with Vista and Leopard a 64GB SSD is good enough for use as the primary drive. If you're willing to live with iTunes quality a 2hr movie averages only 1.5GB. You can take a few movies with you on you flight and still have plenty of room for the usual array of powerpoint files and email...
Large local storage is nice to have but becoming somewhat less important IF you assume that in addition to SSDs getting larger that WiFi is also more accessible. If I can stash my files on Amazon S3, .mac or my office servers I have as much storage as I want if I have a functioning network connection.
Rental model for iTunes video would also be helpful in this regard. If I could have access to the entire iTunes video library for a $1.99 a viewing I don't need to buy any of it.
For those that need more local storage I find that while annoying on a plane, my tiny LaCie HDD is fine once I get to the hotel. You can have an additional HDD in a form factor not much larger than a bare drive.
I can also use a bunch of ExpressCard SSDs to hold various things like they were 16GB floppies (that cost $190 but I digress). These typically don't stick as much outside the laptop as a USB drive does. USB drives do the same thing although I find them somewhat more annoying because they stick out of the laptop.
I'm certainly not stating that the Talent is "new" generation Flash. It's known to be of the previous generation.
With people not happy about even the 160 Gb iPod, I wonder...
Some won't mind storing online, but I'm still wary of that. Too many incidents for my liking.
But with HDD's going down so far in price, it's still the best storage for volume, and speed.
Well that's easy...the Asus Eee PC at $399 for 4GB flash + a SD slot.
It would be perfect if it only had an expresscard slot vs the SD slot.
I'm waiting to see how much the 8GB model costs and decide if I want one of those vs the 4GB. For $499 it'll be worth it and 4GB flash + 512MB ram isn't an upgrade worth much more than $100.
Oh, come on. That's not quite the same thing.
Pick a "real" computer, with a reasonable amount of memory, say, at least, 16GB.
[iPod vs MacBook is] not even close to a comparable market.
All of the reasons (lower weight, smaller size, lower power consumption, and better reliability) why someone would choose flash over HDD for an iPod despite the higher price per GB apply to laptops as well. However, there is an additional reason for consumers to choose flash over HDD for a laptop despite the price per GB: speed. Consumers are willing to pay more to get higher speed and flash offers a big speed improvement over HDDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Nano's (sic) are much smaller as well.
The reason why iPod Nanos are smaller is that they use flash. Notebooks using flash rather than HDDs can be smaller (thinner) too and consumers will pay more for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As for reasonable sized SSD's (sic), such as the new 64 GB Samsung, much too expensive no matter how you look at it.
64GB SSDDs are still too expensive for most consumers. We're just now at the beginning of their adoption in notebooks. They are now shipping in fewer than 1% of new notebooks. It'll be two more years and two generations of flash chips before that reaches about 50% of the notebook market -- sooner in Japan.
If the guy reports wifi working, I'm in, especially as the 4G model is running at about £200 here in the UK. It's exactly the size I want. 1024px wide screen would be nice but not so important. I've ran OSX 10.4 on an 800x600 screen and it was passable. He describes Leopard as 'pokey' on the Eee but I've been running 10.4 on a G3 500 iBook for years as I'm too cheap to buy laptop I don't mind beating up, and that's always been fine for me so a 900Mhz Celeron should be ok.
Storage - The EeePC has an SD card slot for storage as well as the built in 2-4GB SSD. SDHC cards are up at 32GB now. There's an 8GB SSD model due with 1GB of RAM too. Internally it has an empty miniPCI-E slot which people have speculated may be usable as additional SSD space.
You're moving further and further away from Mel's original question. He never asked whether the Asus was any good or not. He asked for an SSD machine that was cheaper than a comparable HD machine. I think it's a fair bet that an HD-based machine, if one existed, would be cheaper than the Asus. By the time you add in all the extra cards and whatnot, the Asus would be one expensive little toy, certainly more expensive than a cheap laptop with only 40GB of HD space.
You're moving further and further away from Mel's original question. He never asked whether the Asus was any good or not. He asked for an SSD machine that was cheaper than a comparable HD machine.
It was not a useful question. It was like asking for Ferrari performance at a price lower than a pickup truck. To sell masses of Ferraris, they don't need be cheaper than pickup trucks, they only need to be cheaper than Porsches. If someone wants the capacity of a pickup truck or a HDD they will buy a pickup truck or a HDD not because they are cheaper but because they need the capacity. People who want performance will buy the Ferrari or Porsche or SSDD if they can afford to -- regardless of the price of pickup trucks or HDDs. If pickup trucks were free, people would still be buying Ferraris and Porsches in about the same numbers as today. Trying to claim that people will buy HDDs over SSDDs because they are cheaper is absurd. If cheaper were a major factor, people would buy a pencil and paper rather than electronic computers. People want performance and HDDs don't offer it. As soon as SSDDs of useful capacity (e.g. 64GB) are affordable, people wanting performance will buy them rather than HDDs.
[QUOTE=mcarling;1173451]All of the reasons (lower weight, smaller size, lower power consumption, and better reliability) why someone would choose flash over HDD for an iPod despite the higher price per GB apply to laptops as well. However, there is an additional reason for consumers to choose flash over HDD for a laptop despite the price per GB: speed. Consumers are willing to pay more to get higher speed and flash offers a big speed improvement over HDDs.[quote]
If you look at the reviews of these SSD's, yu will notice thay while they are faster, that's not always true.
Besides, we just have your word for it that consumers care that much about a bit more of speed rather than a lot more storage, and a much lower price. Right now, there is no evidence for that, except for a very few.
Consumers are willing to pay a bit more for something that is cheap to begin with. But when the item is expensive, and large, the equation is different.
So, yes, people will pay a bit more for a small amount of Flash for an iPod, but that doesn't carry over the computer drives. You'll have to show that your claim is true.
Quote:
The reason why iPod Nanos are smaller is that they use flash. Notebooks using flash rather than HDDs can be smaller (thinner) too and consumers will pay more for that.
Not in the slightest. The reason why Nano's are smaller, is because the intent was to make them smaller, by using a much smaller screen, for one. Flash fits within that form factor, but it isn't the reason for the form factor, it's only one of several enabling reasons for it.
Quote:
64GB SSDDs are still too expensive for most consumers. We're just now at the beginning of their adoption in notebooks. They are now shipping in fewer than 1% of new notebooks.
That's what I've been saying, though now you seem to finally agree.
Quote:
It'll be two more years and two generations of flash chips before that reaches about 50% of the notebook market -- sooner in Japan.
This one you're wrong about. It will take at least twice as long for that to happen. Maybe longer.
If the guy reports wifi working, I'm in, especially as the 4G model is running at about £200 here in the UK. It's exactly the size I want. 1024px wide screen would be nice but not so important. I've ran OSX 10.4 on an 800x600 screen and it was passable. He describes Leopard as 'pokey' on the Eee but I've been running 10.4 on a G3 500 iBook for years as I'm too cheap to buy laptop I don't mind beating up, and that's always been fine for me so a 900Mhz Celeron should be ok.
Storage - The EeePC has an SD card slot for storage as well as the built in 2-4GB SSD. SDHC cards are up at 32GB now. There's an 8GB SSD model due with 1GB of RAM too. Internally it has an empty miniPCI-E slot which people have speculated may be usable as additional SSD space.
I've looked at this machine as well. I'm totally unimpressed. Sure, for something really cheap, it does work. But, I'll tell you this, even with OS X sort of working, it will be a terrible experience. And by the time you add one of those 32 GB memory "drives" the price will be too high for what it is worth as a machine.
Now, if Apple came out with something that size that actually was worth it, it would be different.
we just have your word for it that consumers care that much about a bit more of speed rather than a lot more storage, and a much lower price. Right now, there is no evidence for that, except for a very few.
Many MacBook and MacBook Pro buyers pay hundreds of dollars more for processors that are 10% faster. They pay hundreds of dollars more for extra RAM to reduce swapping. It is unreasonable to expect that they would not pay a similar premium for storage that is about twice as fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Consumers are willing to pay a bit more for something that is cheap to begin with. But when the item is expensive, and large, the equation is different.
Evidence? Facts? Logic? Anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
So, yes, people will pay a bit more for a small amount of Flash for an iPod, but that doesn't carry over the computer drives. You'll have to show that your claim is true.
Dell would not be offering SSDD options for $1000 more if no one were buying. When SSDDs with useful capacity for a laptop (e.g. 64GB) cost under $500 in 2008, it will become a popular option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The reason why Nano's are smaller, is because the intent was to make them smaller, by using a much smaller screen, for one. Flash fits within that form factor, but it isn't the reason for the form factor, it's only one of several enabling reasons for it.
No, the reason first generation iPods were as large as they were was the size of available disk drives with sufficient capacity, not screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That's what I've been saying, though now you seem to finally agree.
No, current market allocation between HDDs and SSDDs in notebooks has not been a point of contention. We've been disagreeing about the future of the market, not the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
This one you're wrong about. It will take at least twice as long for that to happen. Maybe longer.
I stand by my prediction that flash will be shipping in 50% of notebooks by the end of 2009.
Obviously a flash-only SlimBook/TouchBook is going to be pretty expensive if there is a decent amount of storage. It might not be $1K for 64GB, but it will still be pricey. What is the thinnest HDD that could conceivably be put into a ThinBook and still be price and storage efficient?
Obviously a flash-only SlimBook/TouchBook is going to be pretty expensive if there is a decent amount of storage. It might not be $1K for 64GB, but it will still be pricey. What is the thinnest HDD that could conceivably be put into a ThinBook and still be price and storage efficient?
My expectation is that Apple have probably designed the MacBook Nano to accept 1.8" form-factor drives and that it will initially ship with only HDD options, but that a BTO option for a 64GB SSDD will appear within about six months.
Many MacBook and MacBook Pro buyers pay hundreds of dollars more for processors that are 10% faster. They pay hundreds of dollars more for extra RAM to reduce swapping. It is unreasonable to expect that they would not pay a similar premium for storage that is about twice as fast.
They can pay a couple of hundred for a faster cpu in an iMac, or about the same for one in a portable. RAM is sometimes requires.
But these drives are far smaller, which is a big problem for most people?they want bigger drives, not smaller ones.
And, the prices is anywhere from 40% to 1,000% more. not reasonable for most people.
Quote:
Evidence? Facts? Logic? Anything?
I'm waiting for you to produce some. When you are making the assertive statements, you are the one required to produce it.
Quote:
Dell would not be offering SSDD options for $1000 more if no one were buying. When SSDDs with useful capacity for a laptop (e.g. 64GB) cost under $500 in 2008, it will become a popular option.
I didn't say NO one was buying them. I said that the military, and industrial users were, for the most part, and that there would be small sales other than that.
Quote:
No, the reason first generation iPods were as large as they were was the size of available disk drives with sufficient capacity, not screen size.
We aren't talking about the first generation. We are talking current designs. Do you want to discuss the first HDD's, or the first Flash as well? It isn't relevant.
Quote:
No, current market allocation between HDDs and SSDDs in notebooks has not been a point of contention. We've been disagreeing about the future of the market, not the present.
I stand by my prediction that flash will be shipping in 50% of notebooks by the end of 2009.
I travel alot and work on flash animation, web design and email.
I'm hoping a flash laptop would be able to handle this, because the thinner lighter size would be much welcomed by me.
At first I debated the lack of a optical drive. I sometimes like to watch DVDs, or a music CD or other disc that someone gives to me. Then I thought that I can just download movies now thru Apple or Netflix...so that solves that. Unfortunately if someone gives me a CD or data disc...I won't be able to check it. But maybe I can live with that.
No...what really is giving me pause is the storage space of the flash drive. How big would it be? I know the largest for the ipod touch is 16gigs. That is NOT going to cut it for a laptop.
Even the suggested 64gig HD is too small for my needs.
I need at least 100 gigs of storage space to consider buying this ultra portable...no matter how cool it is or how much I want it. Because if I have to start carrying around ALL these peripherals like external HDs with me...it kinda defeats the purpose.
Personally if I was going to buy a macbook right now, I'd go with the largest 250gig HD option. I don't expect an "ultra portable" to match that...but 64gigs would be a joke. Seriously. Ultra portable or not.
Thats like if the ipod touch didn't have wifi or a touch screen. It was just thinner and did everything an old ipod did...YET with only 8 or 16gigs of flash storage.
I know an ultra portable's selling point is its "portability" and that certain "sacrifices" are to be expected i.e an optical hard drive smaller storage space due to flash drive limitations...but if you limit the storage space TOO much...whats the point? Too low, and it doesn't make sense.
it does not matter, it is very slow, 1.8" HDDs not viable for computer, good for MP3 players though,
i guess 4200RPM or less?
Exactly, sluggishly slow.
There is not a single 2.5in drive that could beat a 7200rpm 3.5in drive, even if the 2.5in drive is 7200rpm's. I hate the little drives, cuz there too slow.
what really is giving me pause is the storage space of the flash drive. How big would it be? I know the largest for the ipod touch is 16gigs. That is NOT going to cut it for a laptop.
Even the suggested 64gig HD is too small for my needs.
I need at least 100 gigs of storage space to consider buying this ultra portable...no matter how cool it is or how much I want it. Because if I have to start carrying around ALL these peripherals like external HDs with me...it kinda defeats the purpose.
Personally if I was going to buy a macbook right now, I'd go with the largest 250gig HD option. I don't expect an "ultra portable" to match that...but 64gigs would be a joke.
64GB is a capacity most people can live with. You can't. That's ok. 128GB SSDDs will ship in H2 2008.
Because of the added real estate w/o an optical drive, what's to prevent Apple from putting two 5mm HDDs side-by-side, thus enabling a real <1" thick ultraportable? What is the smallest (and thinnest) SSD that will be fast enough for a laptop? Does anyone know price points for an HDD like that?
Would two or three HDDs be more energy efficient because only one of them would have to spin up most of the time?
They will have to do something innovative to make this truly "strikingly slim".
Comments
Okay...not quite sure which part of what I said you disagree with.
I can go find the pictures of iPod Nanos and Samsung SSDs that show the internal chips with the same part numbers so I don't think you're disputing that. If you are, then I can go find them if you like.
As far as the new flash being faster and cheaper than the older flash...I think that sentence supports that...the Samsung 64GB SATA is faster and the Super Talent 32GB SATA is more expensive in terms of $/GB. The Samsung is only $1080 (retail from Dell - $1080 + $70 for a 120GB 5400 2.5" HDD from PriceGrabber) for double the storage.
I read that a few times so I'm 99% certain that agrees with my statement...the new flash is both cheaper and faster.
One thing is for sure...that Super Talent drive is not really indiciative of current pricing at $900...wide temp or not. The older Samsung 1.8" 32GB (PATA) are only $599 and the SandDisk 1.8" SSD (UATA) is only $599.
Even in comparison to the previous generation Samsung at $600 the new 64GB Samsung is cheaper.
I guess the point is that even with Vista and Leopard a 64GB SSD is good enough for use as the primary drive. If you're willing to live with iTunes quality a 2hr movie averages only 1.5GB. You can take a few movies with you on you flight and still have plenty of room for the usual array of powerpoint files and email...
Large local storage is nice to have but becoming somewhat less important IF you assume that in addition to SSDs getting larger that WiFi is also more accessible. If I can stash my files on Amazon S3, .mac or my office servers I have as much storage as I want if I have a functioning network connection.
Rental model for iTunes video would also be helpful in this regard. If I could have access to the entire iTunes video library for a $1.99 a viewing I don't need to buy any of it.
For those that need more local storage I find that while annoying on a plane, my tiny LaCie HDD is fine once I get to the hotel. You can have an additional HDD in a form factor not much larger than a bare drive.
I can also use a bunch of ExpressCard SSDs to hold various things like they were 16GB floppies (that cost $190 but I digress). These typically don't stick as much outside the laptop as a USB drive does. USB drives do the same thing although I find them somewhat more annoying because they stick out of the laptop.
I'm certainly not stating that the Talent is "new" generation Flash. It's known to be of the previous generation.
With people not happy about even the 160 Gb iPod, I wonder...
Some won't mind storing online, but I'm still wary of that. Too many incidents for my liking.
But with HDD's going down so far in price, it's still the best storage for volume, and speed.
Well that's easy...the Asus Eee PC at $399 for 4GB flash + a SD slot.
It would be perfect if it only had an expresscard slot vs the SD slot.
I'm waiting to see how much the 8GB model costs and decide if I want one of those vs the 4GB. For $499 it'll be worth it and 4GB flash + 512MB ram isn't an upgrade worth much more than $100.
Oh, come on. That's not quite the same thing.
Pick a "real" computer, with a reasonable amount of memory, say, at least, 16GB.
[iPod vs MacBook is] not even close to a comparable market.
All of the reasons (lower weight, smaller size, lower power consumption, and better reliability) why someone would choose flash over HDD for an iPod despite the higher price per GB apply to laptops as well. However, there is an additional reason for consumers to choose flash over HDD for a laptop despite the price per GB: speed. Consumers are willing to pay more to get higher speed and flash offers a big speed improvement over HDDs.
Nano's (sic) are much smaller as well.
The reason why iPod Nanos are smaller is that they use flash. Notebooks using flash rather than HDDs can be smaller (thinner) too and consumers will pay more for that.
As for reasonable sized SSD's (sic), such as the new 64 GB Samsung, much too expensive no matter how you look at it.
64GB SSDDs are still too expensive for most consumers. We're just now at the beginning of their adoption in notebooks. They are now shipping in fewer than 1% of new notebooks. It'll be two more years and two generations of flash chips before that reaches about 50% of the notebook market -- sooner in Japan.
Oh, come on. That's not quite the same thing.
Pick a "real" computer, with a reasonable amount of memory, say, at least, 16GB.
I wouldn't knock the the EeePC quite so much - It is running OSX now too...
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/11/12654/
If the guy reports wifi working, I'm in, especially as the 4G model is running at about £200 here in the UK. It's exactly the size I want. 1024px wide screen would be nice but not so important. I've ran OSX 10.4 on an 800x600 screen and it was passable. He describes Leopard as 'pokey' on the Eee but I've been running 10.4 on a G3 500 iBook for years as I'm too cheap to buy laptop I don't mind beating up, and that's always been fine for me so a 900Mhz Celeron should be ok.
Storage - The EeePC has an SD card slot for storage as well as the built in 2-4GB SSD. SDHC cards are up at 32GB now. There's an 8GB SSD model due with 1GB of RAM too. Internally it has an empty miniPCI-E slot which people have speculated may be usable as additional SSD space.
You're moving further and further away from Mel's original question. He never asked whether the Asus was any good or not. He asked for an SSD machine that was cheaper than a comparable HD machine.
It was not a useful question. It was like asking for Ferrari performance at a price lower than a pickup truck. To sell masses of Ferraris, they don't need be cheaper than pickup trucks, they only need to be cheaper than Porsches. If someone wants the capacity of a pickup truck or a HDD they will buy a pickup truck or a HDD not because they are cheaper but because they need the capacity. People who want performance will buy the Ferrari or Porsche or SSDD if they can afford to -- regardless of the price of pickup trucks or HDDs. If pickup trucks were free, people would still be buying Ferraris and Porsches in about the same numbers as today. Trying to claim that people will buy HDDs over SSDDs because they are cheaper is absurd. If cheaper were a major factor, people would buy a pencil and paper rather than electronic computers. People want performance and HDDs don't offer it. As soon as SSDDs of useful capacity (e.g. 64GB) are affordable, people wanting performance will buy them rather than HDDs.
If you look at the reviews of these SSD's, yu will notice thay while they are faster, that's not always true.
Besides, we just have your word for it that consumers care that much about a bit more of speed rather than a lot more storage, and a much lower price. Right now, there is no evidence for that, except for a very few.
Consumers are willing to pay a bit more for something that is cheap to begin with. But when the item is expensive, and large, the equation is different.
So, yes, people will pay a bit more for a small amount of Flash for an iPod, but that doesn't carry over the computer drives. You'll have to show that your claim is true.
The reason why iPod Nanos are smaller is that they use flash. Notebooks using flash rather than HDDs can be smaller (thinner) too and consumers will pay more for that.
Not in the slightest. The reason why Nano's are smaller, is because the intent was to make them smaller, by using a much smaller screen, for one. Flash fits within that form factor, but it isn't the reason for the form factor, it's only one of several enabling reasons for it.
64GB SSDDs are still too expensive for most consumers. We're just now at the beginning of their adoption in notebooks. They are now shipping in fewer than 1% of new notebooks.
That's what I've been saying, though now you seem to finally agree.
It'll be two more years and two generations of flash chips before that reaches about 50% of the notebook market -- sooner in Japan.
This one you're wrong about. It will take at least twice as long for that to happen. Maybe longer.
I wouldn't knock the the EeePC quite so much - It is running OSX now too...
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/11/12654/
If the guy reports wifi working, I'm in, especially as the 4G model is running at about £200 here in the UK. It's exactly the size I want. 1024px wide screen would be nice but not so important. I've ran OSX 10.4 on an 800x600 screen and it was passable. He describes Leopard as 'pokey' on the Eee but I've been running 10.4 on a G3 500 iBook for years as I'm too cheap to buy laptop I don't mind beating up, and that's always been fine for me so a 900Mhz Celeron should be ok.
Storage - The EeePC has an SD card slot for storage as well as the built in 2-4GB SSD. SDHC cards are up at 32GB now. There's an 8GB SSD model due with 1GB of RAM too. Internally it has an empty miniPCI-E slot which people have speculated may be usable as additional SSD space.
I've looked at this machine as well. I'm totally unimpressed. Sure, for something really cheap, it does work. But, I'll tell you this, even with OS X sort of working, it will be a terrible experience. And by the time you add one of those 32 GB memory "drives" the price will be too high for what it is worth as a machine.
Now, if Apple came out with something that size that actually was worth it, it would be different.
we just have your word for it that consumers care that much about a bit more of speed rather than a lot more storage, and a much lower price. Right now, there is no evidence for that, except for a very few.
Many MacBook and MacBook Pro buyers pay hundreds of dollars more for processors that are 10% faster. They pay hundreds of dollars more for extra RAM to reduce swapping. It is unreasonable to expect that they would not pay a similar premium for storage that is about twice as fast.
Consumers are willing to pay a bit more for something that is cheap to begin with. But when the item is expensive, and large, the equation is different.
Evidence? Facts? Logic? Anything?
So, yes, people will pay a bit more for a small amount of Flash for an iPod, but that doesn't carry over the computer drives. You'll have to show that your claim is true.
Dell would not be offering SSDD options for $1000 more if no one were buying. When SSDDs with useful capacity for a laptop (e.g. 64GB) cost under $500 in 2008, it will become a popular option.
The reason why Nano's are smaller, is because the intent was to make them smaller, by using a much smaller screen, for one. Flash fits within that form factor, but it isn't the reason for the form factor, it's only one of several enabling reasons for it.
No, the reason first generation iPods were as large as they were was the size of available disk drives with sufficient capacity, not screen size.
That's what I've been saying, though now you seem to finally agree.
No, current market allocation between HDDs and SSDDs in notebooks has not been a point of contention. We've been disagreeing about the future of the market, not the present.
This one you're wrong about. It will take at least twice as long for that to happen. Maybe longer.
I stand by my prediction that flash will be shipping in 50% of notebooks by the end of 2009.
Obviously a flash-only SlimBook/TouchBook is going to be pretty expensive if there is a decent amount of storage. It might not be $1K for 64GB, but it will still be pricey. What is the thinnest HDD that could conceivably be put into a ThinBook and still be price and storage efficient?
My expectation is that Apple have probably designed the MacBook Nano to accept 1.8" form-factor drives and that it will initially ship with only HDD options, but that a BTO option for a 64GB SSDD will appear within about six months.
Many MacBook and MacBook Pro buyers pay hundreds of dollars more for processors that are 10% faster. They pay hundreds of dollars more for extra RAM to reduce swapping. It is unreasonable to expect that they would not pay a similar premium for storage that is about twice as fast.
They can pay a couple of hundred for a faster cpu in an iMac, or about the same for one in a portable. RAM is sometimes requires.
But these drives are far smaller, which is a big problem for most people?they want bigger drives, not smaller ones.
And, the prices is anywhere from 40% to 1,000% more. not reasonable for most people.
Evidence? Facts? Logic? Anything?
I'm waiting for you to produce some. When you are making the assertive statements, you are the one required to produce it.
Dell would not be offering SSDD options for $1000 more if no one were buying. When SSDDs with useful capacity for a laptop (e.g. 64GB) cost under $500 in 2008, it will become a popular option.
I didn't say NO one was buying them. I said that the military, and industrial users were, for the most part, and that there would be small sales other than that.
No, the reason first generation iPods were as large as they were was the size of available disk drives with sufficient capacity, not screen size.
We aren't talking about the first generation. We are talking current designs. Do you want to discuss the first HDD's, or the first Flash as well? It isn't relevant.
No, current market allocation between HDDs and SSDDs in notebooks has not been a point of contention. We've been disagreeing about the future of the market, not the present.
I stand by my prediction that flash will be shipping in 50% of notebooks by the end of 2009.
Fine, but I disagree with your conclusion.
I'm hoping a flash laptop would be able to handle this, because the thinner lighter size would be much welcomed by me.
At first I debated the lack of a optical drive. I sometimes like to watch DVDs, or a music CD or other disc that someone gives to me. Then I thought that I can just download movies now thru Apple or Netflix...so that solves that. Unfortunately if someone gives me a CD or data disc...I won't be able to check it. But maybe I can live with that.
No...what really is giving me pause is the storage space of the flash drive. How big would it be? I know the largest for the ipod touch is 16gigs. That is NOT going to cut it for a laptop.
Even the suggested 64gig HD is too small for my needs.
I need at least 100 gigs of storage space to consider buying this ultra portable...no matter how cool it is or how much I want it. Because if I have to start carrying around ALL these peripherals like external HDs with me...it kinda defeats the purpose.
Personally if I was going to buy a macbook right now, I'd go with the largest 250gig HD option. I don't expect an "ultra portable" to match that...but 64gigs would be a joke. Seriously. Ultra portable or not.
Thats like if the ipod touch didn't have wifi or a touch screen. It was just thinner and did everything an old ipod did...YET with only 8 or 16gigs of flash storage.
I know an ultra portable's selling point is its "portability" and that certain "sacrifices" are to be expected i.e an optical hard drive smaller storage space due to flash drive limitations...but if you limit the storage space TOO much...whats the point? Too low, and it doesn't make sense.
How thick are the thinnest 1.8" form factor HDDs?
it does not matter, it is very slow, 1.8" HDDs not viable for computer, good for MP3 players though,
i guess 4200RPM or less?
it does not matter, it is very slow, 1.8" HDDs not viable for computer, good for MP3 players though,
i guess 4200RPM or less?
Exactly, sluggishly slow.
There is not a single 2.5in drive that could beat a 7200rpm 3.5in drive, even if the 2.5in drive is 7200rpm's. I hate the little drives, cuz there too slow.
How thick are the thinnest 1.8" form factor HDDs?
Most 1.8" HDDs have two disks and are 8mm thick. Some have one disk and are 5mm thick. Obviously, those with two disks tend to be more capacious.
what really is giving me pause is the storage space of the flash drive. How big would it be? I know the largest for the ipod touch is 16gigs. That is NOT going to cut it for a laptop.
Even the suggested 64gig HD is too small for my needs.
I need at least 100 gigs of storage space to consider buying this ultra portable...no matter how cool it is or how much I want it. Because if I have to start carrying around ALL these peripherals like external HDs with me...it kinda defeats the purpose.
Personally if I was going to buy a macbook right now, I'd go with the largest 250gig HD option. I don't expect an "ultra portable" to match that...but 64gigs would be a joke.
64GB is a capacity most people can live with. You can't. That's ok. 128GB SSDDs will ship in H2 2008.
Would two or three HDDs be more energy efficient because only one of them would have to spin up most of the time?
They will have to do something innovative to make this truly "strikingly slim".