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.
Goodness...
They're doing their best, and in a couple years flash will be cheaper. In the meantime, settle with what they offer, or hope that they throw in a HDD and have a bet of flash to contain the OS.
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?
Cost and reliability come to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleeinstein
What is the smallest (and thinnest) SSD that will be fast enough for a laptop?
SSDDs are already faster than HDDs. Most SSDDs shipped in laptops for the next few years will be either 2.5" or 1.8" HDD form-factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleeinstein
Does anyone know price points for an HDD like that?
There are no HDDs that can match current generation SSDDs in performance. One could be built, but it would be unreliable due to the extremely high rotational velocity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleeinstein
Would two or three HDDs be more energy efficient because only one of them would have to spin up most of the time?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishyesque
Good thing he said that he didn't care how much it'd cost.
SSDDs are already faster than HDDs. Most SSDDs shipped in laptops for the next few years will be either 2.5" or 1.8" HDD form-factor.
I meant what are the absolute thinnest HDDs that are fast enough for a laptop (since apparently SSDD is currently too pricey for Apple's SlimBook even though it's fast enough and thin enough) and would be cost-effective and not too big of a battery hog, etc.
So when Apple is thinking about slim, is it talking about something as slim as this 19.5mm, 1kg Toshiba? That Toshiba packs a 7mm optical burner and 64GB of flash memory. Granted, it falls apart easily and has a diminuitive processor, but I'm thinking in terms of Apple's overall planned form factor. Without the optical drive, Apple can easily put one or two HDDs in if they are slim enough.
I think a hybrid SSDD/traditional hard disk would be best for those of us who need a lot of disk space. 32 GB of SSDD space for our most used programs, and 64-100 GB of traditional disk space for music, video, and applications that we do not use frequently.
However, space will be a concern, and this may or may not be possible as an option.
I think a hybrid SSDD/traditional hard disk would be best for those of us who need a lot of disk space. 32 GB of SSDD space for our most used programs, and 64-100 GB of traditional disk space for music, video, and applications that we do not use frequently.
However, space will be a concern, and this may or may not be possible as an option.
Even 32GB would become unseasonably pricey. At current costs. For a dual configuration.
If Apple goes with a SSDD/HDD combo, then 16GB for the OS and basic programs would be the max.
Which begs the question - could one live on a mere 16GB of storage for OS and programs if you had 120GB of HDD storage in a slower 1.8" form factor? Speed isn't as much of an issue when one is only storing files on it, not running programs off it. I know that I could make that work beautifully ... especially if a Leopard update released special support for it so that the HDD was fully indexed and only spun up when it was needed.
Say - if they went with the 1.8"HDD/16GB combo, perhaps they could fit the whole thing in a 2.5" enclosure so that customers could sub in a fast 250GB HDD or 64GB SSDD if they wanted to upgrade! I'm sure that Apple can get a thin enough 2.5" HDD for the one option and customers could pay the premium for the SSDD if they wanted it.
Even 32GB would become unseasonably pricey. At current costs. For a dual configuration.
If Apple goes with a SSDD/HDD combo, then 16GB for the OS and basic programs would be the max.
Which begs the question - could one live on a mere 16GB of storage for OS and programs if you had 120GB of HDD storage in a slower 1.8" form factor? Speed isn't as much of an issue when one is only storing files on it, not running programs off it. I know that I could make that work beautifully ... especially if a Leopard update released special support for it so that the HDD was fully indexed and only spun up when it was needed.
Say - if they went with the 1.8"HDD/16GB combo, perhaps they could fit the whole thing in a 2.5" enclosure so that customers could sub in a fast 250GB HDD or 64GB SSDD if they wanted to upgrade! I'm sure that Apple can get a thin enough 2.5" HDD for the one option and customers could pay the premium for the SSDD if they wanted it.
The right way to do that would be to build the flash into either the HDD circuit board or as a daughter card attached to the motherboard. In either case, it would be used as cache, not as a separate drive.
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.
No, it wouldn't. 4GB of flash is cheaper than a 1.8" 40GB HDD and smaller than a 1.8" drive. A 40GB 1.8" HDD is $80. A 20GB 1.8" is $50.
There's a reason the Classmate, OLPC, and Eee all have SSD vs HDDs.
SSD's are smaller than a 2.5" drive by a good deal when cubic volume is considered. But, they aren't much smaller than a 1.8, esp if you are talking about a 64GB SSD.
This will change, of course, as they get bigger in capacity, but they are sold in these configurations. The 2,5 will end up in desktop models, and the 1.8 will remain in portables.
The other thing to consider is that Apple could just solder the "DRIVE" into the mother board with flash. That is very doable and frankly makes a lot of sense for Apple volumes. It would be much different than what we are seeing on the Touch.
This would do a number of good things. One it would reduce the area required for a system "drive". It would be more reliable. Finally if they can conserve space well enough they would still have room for a user bay, likely a 2.5" SATA bay. It would also reduce costs a bit. This is very sensible as the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
Apple could also take an all solid state approach and make the expansion bays flash also. They could provide for a number of Compact Flash or SDHC slots for example.
I see this as a good opportunity for Apple to break away from the system architecture of the past. It isn't a question of embracing solid state drives but looking at the need for a drive at all. Frankly there is very little that one could call value added in the so called SSD that we see on the market right now. Rotating media drives have value added in a way that putting components in an enclosure and calling it a SSD don't. The reality is that those components can simply be soldered in place on the mother board, avoiding the middle man and the extra connections.
... the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
I don't think Apple will offer a laptop with only 32GB of storage and no realistic prospects of upgrading that as higher capacities become available and drop in price. I see 64GB as the minimum for most users. Next year, 64GB will be an affordable options for many users.
I agree. In 2008, prices would too expensive to go all the way to a SSDD directly implemented on the motherboard. It has to have a HDD form-factor. That means that there will be HDD options (probably standard due to price) and a 64GB SSDD might be a BTO option. I'm hoping that Apple have chosen 1.8" rather than 2.5" for this new MacBook Nano (I'll call it that until Apple release a name). That would help keep down power consumption. Anyone needing more than 160GB can buy a MacBook Pro.
I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. First; the price of SSD drives are the result of their newness to the market place. Second; soldered in secondary storage offers both the user and Apple some pretty significant benefits.
Now I will agree that the provision for user expanded secondary store is needed. The thing here is that there are options for Apple here also. Sure a HD bay could be provided but so too could flash storage bays be provided. An HD bay is a safe move for Apple, flash bays more leading edge. In any event the ASUS Eee PC is already showing the way here. The biggest problem with the Eee PC is that ASUS simply doesn't have enough primary flash storage, 4 or 8 GB just doesn't cut it even if user data is on another device.
If Apple where to solder about 32GB of flash to the motherboard and give me at least 2 compact flash slots I'd be very happy.
I don't think Apple will offer a laptop with only 32GB of storage and no realistic prospects of upgrading that as higher capacities become available and drop in price. I see 64GB as the minimum for most users. Next year, 64GB will be an affordable options for many users.
For an ultra portable this is exactly what they need to do. As to the capacity increases and the drops in price that is a real life thing. It will happen and as we are speaking Samsung is expecting to ramp new technology flash for the new year. The point is that 32 GB should be dirt simple for Apple to do in an ultra portable and 64 GB in January of 2009. If approached correctly the motherboard rev's would be extremely minor over two years.
As to expansion there is no denying that people will want to do that. The big thing here is that Apple has a lot of options to offer up to the masses. We are talking SDHC, Compact Flash, SATA "drives', daughter cards, ATA "drives" and a host of others. For an ultra portable the right answers are the ones that are primarily flash. Like it or not this is not a full scale laptop, rotating media and the power it requires is simply out of place here.
Dumb question. What cpu is Apple going to use on this machine? I didn't think the mobile Penryns would be available till later next year. Will it get a low voltage core 2 chip?
It all depends on what Intel and Apple have been up to. There has been more than a little talk about Intel building SOC possibly for Apple. This potentially could have the vast majority of the logic board on one IC. This would be ideal for a ultra portable if done on Intels 45nm process.
The question would be what core and what GPU. X3100 for the GPU core would be my guess, but the CPU is much harder to pin down. They will need maximum power savings so this points to a newer core. Then you have the issue of how many cores, frankly I suspect one.
If the SOC is no go, then the only options are what Intel has with respect to its ULV lines. Which is another way to say slow clocked current tech.
The way out there possibility would be an ARM SOC. This for excellent battery performance. I don't think this will happen as Apple needs the object code compatibility on any thing perceived to be a laptop. If the new device is a tablet they may be more inclined to go the ARM route.
In any event it comes down to what does Apple want to accomplish. If Passive cooling is a design requirement it will be very interesting indeed to see what goes into the box.
I have been waiting for a Mac Ultralight notebook for the last 18 months since I came back to Mac (after my Dell died & I have since bought 4 Macs).
The last reminder I have of my Windows experience is my excellent Fujitsu Lifebook P5010 10.4" screen which has served me very well indeed. If Apple do not bring out a suitable replacement, I will have to keep it in operation or worse look to a Windows Machine for my business requirements
When out of town on business I am a standalone operation - I need an optical drive to receive data and or to provide data. Many systems (inc Dept of Defence) do not allow USB thumb drives.
I opted for an all in one machine - without the mess of having separate external components (eg external drives, optical drive etc). External components are a complete false economy.
I hope Apple provides an option for an integrated optical drive - like the Toshiba r500. If Toshiba can do it, surely the true masters of design at Apple can as well.
The other thing to consider is that Apple could just solder the "DRIVE" into the mother board with flash. That is very doable and frankly makes a lot of sense for Apple volumes. It would be much different than what we are seeing on the Touch.
This would do a number of good things. One it would reduce the area required for a system "drive". It would be more reliable. Finally if they can conserve space well enough they would still have room for a user bay, likely a 2.5" SATA bay. It would also reduce costs a bit. This is very sensible as the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
Apple could also take an all solid state approach and make the expansion bays flash also. They could provide for a number of Compact Flash or SDHC slots for example.
I see this as a good opportunity for Apple to break away from the system architecture of the past. It isn't a question of embracing solid state drives but looking at the need for a drive at all. Frankly there is very little that one could call value added in the so called SSD that we see on the market right now. Rotating media drives have value added in a way that putting components in an enclosure and calling it a SSD don't. The reality is that those components can simply be soldered in place on the mother board, avoiding the middle man and the extra connections.
dave
Finally !
As long as you just use a standard form faktor SSD instead of an ordinary HD it doesn't really make any sense because you don't get the main advantage of smaller size (ie thickness) and, this is the essential point, design freedom. As many people have pointed out here and elsewhere, there's not much energy to save over 1.8" HDs and not even a lot of performance to gain in average read-write scenarios.
Therefore, cooling is an issue (or, from the opposite point of view, CPU speed)
With SSD soldered directly onto the board, Apple would have almost total freedom with the design while at the same time keeping the laptop very slim.
Now that with the MacBook thin there wouldn't be a choice between HD and SSD, the actual price compared to HD is less of an issue. Only the price for the whole package matters. Apple has shown that the price of the total doesn't always equal the price of the sum of the parts but is also driven by marketing considerations. Of course they can't neglect the component costs of the SSD entirely, but with a custom design etc they might come down a bit more compared to standard-HD-enclosure drives.
Therefore, I believe we'll the a 64 GB SSD MacBook thin in Q1/2008 (with no choice to upgrade to 128 GB or use a standard HD because both would defeat the custom design). The 64 GB would eventually be upgraded in a Thin Mark II in late 2008. Price would probably just below $2k, depending on the CPU and RAM configuration (although I doubt there will be much to choose from). And it would definitely have to be considered a Pro series model, price- and design-wise. It might even start a new Pro series design more resembling the iPhone / iPod touch black and shiny design.
I have been waiting for a Mac Ultralight notebook for the last 18 months since I came back to Mac (after my Dell died & I have since bought 4 Macs).
The last reminder I have of my Windows experience is my excellent Fujitsu Lifebook P5010 10.4" screen which has served me very well indeed. If Apple do not bring out a suitable replacement, I will have to keep it in operation or worse look to a Windows Machine for my business requirements
When out of town on business I am a standalone operation - I need an optical drive to receive data and or to provide data. Many systems (inc Dept of Defence) do not allow USB thumb drives.
I opted for an all in one machine - without the mess of having separate external components (eg external drives, optical drive etc). External components are a complete false economy.
I hope Apple provides an option for an integrated optical drive - like the Toshiba r500. If Toshiba can do it, surely the true masters of design at Apple can as well.
I would buy that, but I don't think enough other people would. In 2008, many consumers will want the option of a HDD.
I'd buy it too, but i also think many others would also. There are a few issues working to move the market in this direction. In any event we must remember that the item in question here is an ultra portable which provides for many design constraints not present in other form factors. Here we go:
1.
Harddrives suck in portables. I know the Wind blows machines at work go through a lot of drives and people aren't happy about it. So reliability is a concern.
2.
The speed of the SSD drives is somewhat better. I say somewhat because I don't think it would be a big issue on an ultra portable. One the other hand on an ultra portable the speed difference could be significant due to the limitations of the battery and thus the drive it could power. Not to mention no spin down.
3.
Flash simply offers form factors not possible with other drive technologies.
4.
As long as Apple provides for the ability to add supplemental storage via Compact Flash or SDHC people will have options to expand storage. It is a key concern of many people, maybe justifiably so. It won't be Hard Drive based expansion but I don't think may will care. Especially if the form factor is as slim as it could be. Apple could potentially get the thickness of this portable under 12 mm.
5.
If Apple designs and markets this device as a highly connected machine the need for storage is minimalized.
Comments
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.
Goodness...
They're doing their best, and in a couple years flash will be cheaper. In the meantime, settle with what they offer, or hope that they throw in a HDD and have a bet of flash to contain the OS.
64GB is a capacity most people can live with. You can't. That's ok. 128GB SSDDs will ship in H2 2008.
Good thing he said that he didn't care how much it'd cost.
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?
Cost and reliability come to mind.
What is the smallest (and thinnest) SSD that will be fast enough for a laptop?
SSDDs are already faster than HDDs. Most SSDDs shipped in laptops for the next few years will be either 2.5" or 1.8" HDD form-factor.
Does anyone know price points for an HDD like that?
There are no HDDs that can match current generation SSDDs in performance. One could be built, but it would be unreliable due to the extremely high rotational velocity.
Would two or three HDDs be more energy efficient because only one of them would have to spin up most of the time?
No.
Good thing he said that he didn't care how much it'd cost.
$500 to $1000.
SSDDs are already faster than HDDs. Most SSDDs shipped in laptops for the next few years will be either 2.5" or 1.8" HDD form-factor.
I meant what are the absolute thinnest HDDs that are fast enough for a laptop (since apparently SSDD is currently too pricey for Apple's SlimBook even though it's fast enough and thin enough) and would be cost-effective and not too big of a battery hog, etc.
So when Apple is thinking about slim, is it talking about something as slim as this 19.5mm, 1kg Toshiba? That Toshiba packs a 7mm optical burner and 64GB of flash memory. Granted, it falls apart easily and has a diminuitive processor, but I'm thinking in terms of Apple's overall planned form factor. Without the optical drive, Apple can easily put one or two HDDs in if they are slim enough.
However, space will be a concern, and this may or may not be possible as an option.
I think a hybrid SSDD/traditional hard disk would be best for those of us who need a lot of disk space. 32 GB of SSDD space for our most used programs, and 64-100 GB of traditional disk space for music, video, and applications that we do not use frequently.
However, space will be a concern, and this may or may not be possible as an option.
Even 32GB would become unseasonably pricey. At current costs. For a dual configuration.
If Apple goes with a SSDD/HDD combo, then 16GB for the OS and basic programs would be the max.
Which begs the question - could one live on a mere 16GB of storage for OS and programs if you had 120GB of HDD storage in a slower 1.8" form factor? Speed isn't as much of an issue when one is only storing files on it, not running programs off it. I know that I could make that work beautifully ... especially if a Leopard update released special support for it so that the HDD was fully indexed and only spun up when it was needed.
Say - if they went with the 1.8"HDD/16GB combo, perhaps they could fit the whole thing in a 2.5" enclosure so that customers could sub in a fast 250GB HDD or 64GB SSDD if they wanted to upgrade! I'm sure that Apple can get a thin enough 2.5" HDD for the one option and customers could pay the premium for the SSDD if they wanted it.
Even 32GB would become unseasonably pricey. At current costs. For a dual configuration.
If Apple goes with a SSDD/HDD combo, then 16GB for the OS and basic programs would be the max.
Which begs the question - could one live on a mere 16GB of storage for OS and programs if you had 120GB of HDD storage in a slower 1.8" form factor? Speed isn't as much of an issue when one is only storing files on it, not running programs off it. I know that I could make that work beautifully ... especially if a Leopard update released special support for it so that the HDD was fully indexed and only spun up when it was needed.
Say - if they went with the 1.8"HDD/16GB combo, perhaps they could fit the whole thing in a 2.5" enclosure so that customers could sub in a fast 250GB HDD or 64GB SSDD if they wanted to upgrade! I'm sure that Apple can get a thin enough 2.5" HDD for the one option and customers could pay the premium for the SSDD if they wanted it.
The right way to do that would be to build the flash into either the HDD circuit board or as a daughter card attached to the motherboard. In either case, it would be used as cache, not as a separate drive.
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.
No, it wouldn't. 4GB of flash is cheaper than a 1.8" 40GB HDD and smaller than a 1.8" drive. A 40GB 1.8" HDD is $80. A 20GB 1.8" is $50.
There's a reason the Classmate, OLPC, and Eee all have SSD vs 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.
4.1mm for the 32GB Samsungs with the casing removed. Even less if you go the "stick it on the motherboard" route.
http://www.dvnation.com/18ssds.html
SSD's are smaller than a 2.5" drive by a good deal when cubic volume is considered. But, they aren't much smaller than a 1.8, esp if you are talking about a 64GB SSD.
This will change, of course, as they get bigger in capacity, but they are sold in these configurations. The 2,5 will end up in desktop models, and the 1.8 will remain in portables.
The other thing to consider is that Apple could just solder the "DRIVE" into the mother board with flash. That is very doable and frankly makes a lot of sense for Apple volumes. It would be much different than what we are seeing on the Touch.
This would do a number of good things. One it would reduce the area required for a system "drive". It would be more reliable. Finally if they can conserve space well enough they would still have room for a user bay, likely a 2.5" SATA bay. It would also reduce costs a bit. This is very sensible as the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
Apple could also take an all solid state approach and make the expansion bays flash also. They could provide for a number of Compact Flash or SDHC slots for example.
I see this as a good opportunity for Apple to break away from the system architecture of the past. It isn't a question of embracing solid state drives but looking at the need for a drive at all. Frankly there is very little that one could call value added in the so called SSD that we see on the market right now. Rotating media drives have value added in a way that putting components in an enclosure and calling it a SSD don't. The reality is that those components can simply be soldered in place on the mother board, avoiding the middle man and the extra connections.
dave
... the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
I don't think Apple will offer a laptop with only 32GB of storage and no realistic prospects of upgrading that as higher capacities become available and drop in price. I see 64GB as the minimum for most users. Next year, 64GB will be an affordable options for many users.
I agree. In 2008, prices would too expensive to go all the way to a SSDD directly implemented on the motherboard. It has to have a HDD form-factor. That means that there will be HDD options (probably standard due to price) and a 64GB SSDD might be a BTO option. I'm hoping that Apple have chosen 1.8" rather than 2.5" for this new MacBook Nano (I'll call it that until Apple release a name). That would help keep down power consumption. Anyone needing more than 160GB can buy a MacBook Pro.
I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. First; the price of SSD drives are the result of their newness to the market place. Second; soldered in secondary storage offers both the user and Apple some pretty significant benefits.
Now I will agree that the provision for user expanded secondary store is needed. The thing here is that there are options for Apple here also. Sure a HD bay could be provided but so too could flash storage bays be provided. An HD bay is a safe move for Apple, flash bays more leading edge. In any event the ASUS Eee PC is already showing the way here. The biggest problem with the Eee PC is that ASUS simply doesn't have enough primary flash storage, 4 or 8 GB just doesn't cut it even if user data is on another device.
If Apple where to solder about 32GB of flash to the motherboard and give me at least 2 compact flash slots I'd be very happy.
Dave
I don't think Apple will offer a laptop with only 32GB of storage and no realistic prospects of upgrading that as higher capacities become available and drop in price. I see 64GB as the minimum for most users. Next year, 64GB will be an affordable options for many users.
For an ultra portable this is exactly what they need to do. As to the capacity increases and the drops in price that is a real life thing. It will happen and as we are speaking Samsung is expecting to ramp new technology flash for the new year. The point is that 32 GB should be dirt simple for Apple to do in an ultra portable and 64 GB in January of 2009. If approached correctly the motherboard rev's would be extremely minor over two years.
As to expansion there is no denying that people will want to do that. The big thing here is that Apple has a lot of options to offer up to the masses. We are talking SDHC, Compact Flash, SATA "drives', daughter cards, ATA "drives" and a host of others. For an ultra portable the right answers are the ones that are primarily flash. Like it or not this is not a full scale laptop, rotating media and the power it requires is simply out of place here.
Dave
Dumb question. What cpu is Apple going to use on this machine? I didn't think the mobile Penryns would be available till later next year. Will it get a low voltage core 2 chip?
It all depends on what Intel and Apple have been up to. There has been more than a little talk about Intel building SOC possibly for Apple. This potentially could have the vast majority of the logic board on one IC. This would be ideal for a ultra portable if done on Intels 45nm process.
The question would be what core and what GPU. X3100 for the GPU core would be my guess, but the CPU is much harder to pin down. They will need maximum power savings so this points to a newer core. Then you have the issue of how many cores, frankly I suspect one.
If the SOC is no go, then the only options are what Intel has with respect to its ULV lines. Which is another way to say slow clocked current tech.
The way out there possibility would be an ARM SOC. This for excellent battery performance. I don't think this will happen as Apple needs the object code compatibility on any thing perceived to be a laptop. If the new device is a tablet they may be more inclined to go the ARM route.
In any event it comes down to what does Apple want to accomplish. If Passive cooling is a design requirement it will be very interesting indeed to see what goes into the box.
Dave
The last reminder I have of my Windows experience is my excellent Fujitsu Lifebook P5010 10.4" screen which has served me very well indeed. If Apple do not bring out a suitable replacement, I will have to keep it in operation or worse look to a Windows Machine for my business requirements
When out of town on business I am a standalone operation - I need an optical drive to receive data and or to provide data. Many systems (inc Dept of Defence) do not allow USB thumb drives.
I opted for an all in one machine - without the mess of having separate external components (eg external drives, optical drive etc). External components are a complete false economy.
I hope Apple provides an option for an integrated optical drive - like the Toshiba r500. If Toshiba can do it, surely the true masters of design at Apple can as well.
The other thing to consider is that Apple could just solder the "DRIVE" into the mother board with flash. That is very doable and frankly makes a lot of sense for Apple volumes. It would be much different than what we are seeing on the Touch.
This would do a number of good things. One it would reduce the area required for a system "drive". It would be more reliable. Finally if they can conserve space well enough they would still have room for a user bay, likely a 2.5" SATA bay. It would also reduce costs a bit. This is very sensible as the machine could be very usable with 32GB of flash.
Apple could also take an all solid state approach and make the expansion bays flash also. They could provide for a number of Compact Flash or SDHC slots for example.
I see this as a good opportunity for Apple to break away from the system architecture of the past. It isn't a question of embracing solid state drives but looking at the need for a drive at all. Frankly there is very little that one could call value added in the so called SSD that we see on the market right now. Rotating media drives have value added in a way that putting components in an enclosure and calling it a SSD don't. The reality is that those components can simply be soldered in place on the mother board, avoiding the middle man and the extra connections.
dave
Finally
As long as you just use a standard form faktor SSD instead of an ordinary HD it doesn't really make any sense because you don't get the main advantage of smaller size (ie thickness) and, this is the essential point, design freedom. As many people have pointed out here and elsewhere, there's not much energy to save over 1.8" HDs and not even a lot of performance to gain in average read-write scenarios.
Take a look at the old Sony VAIO X505 http://www.trustedreviews.com/showImage.aspx?id=1490 and http://www.trustedreviews.com/showImage.aspx?id=1491. I don't think a lot thinner than this, but also note the design constraints in the X505:
- keyboard is in the "wrong" place
- it can't have a touchpad
- there is very little space for the actual mainboard and CPU (see http://www.vaio.sony.co.jp/Products/...5CP/feat2.html
- Therefore, cooling is an issue (or, from the opposite point of view, CPU speed)
With SSD soldered directly onto the board, Apple would have almost total freedom with the design while at the same time keeping the laptop very slim.Now that with the MacBook thin there wouldn't be a choice between HD and SSD, the actual price compared to HD is less of an issue. Only the price for the whole package matters. Apple has shown that the price of the total doesn't always equal the price of the sum of the parts but is also driven by marketing considerations. Of course they can't neglect the component costs of the SSD entirely, but with a custom design etc they might come down a bit more compared to standard-HD-enclosure drives.
Therefore, I believe we'll the a 64 GB SSD MacBook thin in Q1/2008 (with no choice to upgrade to 128 GB or use a standard HD because both would defeat the custom design). The 64 GB would eventually be upgraded in a Thin Mark II in late 2008. Price would probably just below $2k, depending on the CPU and RAM configuration (although I doubt there will be much to choose from). And it would definitely have to be considered a Pro series model, price- and design-wise. It might even start a new Pro series design more resembling the iPhone / iPod touch black and shiny design.
If Apple where to solder about 32GB of flash to the motherboard and give me at least 2 compact flash slots I'd be very happy.
I would buy that, but I don't think enough other people would. In 2008, many consumers will want the option of a HDD.
No, it wouldn't. 4GB of flash is cheaper than a 1.8" 40GB HDD and smaller than a 1.8" drive. A 40GB 1.8" HDD is $80. A 20GB 1.8" is $50.
There's a reason the Classmate, OLPC, and Eee all have SSD vs HDDs.
What part of "comparable" do you find difficult to understand? Since when is 4GB comparable to 40GB?
I have been waiting for a Mac Ultralight notebook for the last 18 months since I came back to Mac (after my Dell died & I have since bought 4 Macs).
The last reminder I have of my Windows experience is my excellent Fujitsu Lifebook P5010 10.4" screen which has served me very well indeed. If Apple do not bring out a suitable replacement, I will have to keep it in operation or worse look to a Windows Machine for my business requirements
When out of town on business I am a standalone operation - I need an optical drive to receive data and or to provide data. Many systems (inc Dept of Defence) do not allow USB thumb drives.
I opted for an all in one machine - without the mess of having separate external components (eg external drives, optical drive etc). External components are a complete false economy.
I hope Apple provides an option for an integrated optical drive - like the Toshiba r500. If Toshiba can do it, surely the true masters of design at Apple can as well.
Hey I'm backtomac!
I would buy that, but I don't think enough other people would. In 2008, many consumers will want the option of a HDD.
I'd buy it too, but i also think many others would also. There are a few issues working to move the market in this direction. In any event we must remember that the item in question here is an ultra portable which provides for many design constraints not present in other form factors. Here we go:
1.
Harddrives suck in portables. I know the Wind blows machines at work go through a lot of drives and people aren't happy about it. So reliability is a concern.
2.
The speed of the SSD drives is somewhat better. I say somewhat because I don't think it would be a big issue on an ultra portable. One the other hand on an ultra portable the speed difference could be significant due to the limitations of the battery and thus the drive it could power. Not to mention no spin down.
3.
Flash simply offers form factors not possible with other drive technologies.
4.
As long as Apple provides for the ability to add supplemental storage via Compact Flash or SDHC people will have options to expand storage. It is a key concern of many people, maybe justifiably so. It won't be Hard Drive based expansion but I don't think may will care. Especially if the form factor is as slim as it could be. Apple could potentially get the thickness of this portable under 12 mm.
5.
If Apple designs and markets this device as a highly connected machine the need for storage is minimalized.
Dave