There have been statements made in the industry that Apple won't use Intel SSDs. The reason aren't given, but There could be three.
One could be price.
Two could be technology,
and three could be politics.
Star the first two.
First, SSDs are far still too expensive to be anything but a novelty. 160GB is still $650 at newegg.
Second, seeing that SSDs are 1.8 or 2.5 inch, they'd need an adapter for the iMac (or Mac Pro).
Their day is coming, but not quite yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I would also like to see Apple make some machines they don't make. But they are focussed on something that we don't really understand, and as I read in an article the other day, this is said to be a major reason for their recent success. They have long term goals that most outsiders don't see.
The problem is that long term goals seem to be based on popularity and getting trendy users to buy their stuff without any real fall back plan. They seem to be mortgaging their relationship with their traditional professional and semi-professional base to do it. If the trendy movers decide to move on or if they make a few mistakes, they could be in a very bad position in short order.
It's still expensive, but if you drop the size to 128GB, you drop that cost by nearly two thirds to $240. 128GB looks to be the current sweet spot.
It's only a sweet spot if you really want an SSD. For a laptop the sweet spot is 250-320 GB 2.5" hard drive, and for a desktop like the iMac, it's a 1TB drive. 128GB is way too limiting to be considered a sweet spot.
First, SSDs are far still too expensive to be anything but a novelty. 160GB is still $650 at newegg.
Second, seeing that SSDs are 1.8 or 2.5 inch, they'd need an adapter for the iMac (or Mac Pro).
Their day is coming, but not quite yet.
I found out last night at Anandtech. apparently, Intel's controllers have Bromine, a halogen. That means they can't be used by Apple which allows no halogens.
But Intel's new line doesn't. So that leaves open the possibility that we might see these excellent drives (and they're much cheaper than the older models).
Sure, I'll go along with that. I was referring to the cost per GB for the given technology. It's a little cramped for my needs as well. But it sounds like the drives are blazingly fast.
Quote:
For a laptop the sweet spot is 250-320 GB 2.5" hard drive, and for a desktop like the iMac, it's a 1TB drive. 128GB is way too limiting to be considered a sweet spot.
Nah, 500GB seems to have the best cost/GB for notebook platter drives, 1.5TB for desktop drives.
Sure, I'll go along with that. I was referring to the cost per GB for the given technology. It's a little cramped for my needs as well. But it sounds like the drives are blazingly fast.
Nah, 500GB seems to have the best cost/GB for notebook platter drives, 1.5TB for desktop drives.
It's a problem in trying to decide whether I should do something about the 640 Caviar drive in my Mac Pro.
The problem is that these drives are too small, and doubling up still just gets to 320, and then it becomes too expensive. It's kind of amazing where prices have gone for HDDs. There was a time when spending several thousand for a drive was normal for me. Now, a few hundred feels too much.
Really why not? Frankly Apple should be doing this right now leaving people with the option to choose a best fit machine. It is not like every problem will leverage a quad core effectively so why not let the buyer choose.
They didn't with the early 2009 update, even though there were quad cores available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
But the total system power is less.
The rest of the system uses 10 W less then with Penryn?
It's a problem in trying to decide whether I should do something about the 640 Caviar drive in my Mac Pro.
The problem is that these drives are too small, and doubling up still just gets to 320, and then it becomes too expensive. It's kind of amazing where prices have gone for HDDs. There was a time when spending several thousand for a drive was normal for me. Now, a few hundred feels too much.
There is an elegant bracket made to fit 2.5" SATA drives in the Mac Pro by Maxupgrades. It was made for the new Raptor, but it will work SSDs too.
There is an elegant bracket made to fit 2.5" SATA drives in the Mac Pro by Maxupgrades. It was made for the new Raptor, but it will work SSDs too.
I've already made some adapters for 2.5" drives for a couple of people. It's not that difficult with some basic equipment.
It's the prices of the drives that's the problem now.
And with memory prices rising again, I'm not sure where SSD prices are going to be in the next 6 months or so. These price drops may be the last big ones for a while.
Comments
There have been statements made in the industry that Apple won't use Intel SSDs. The reason aren't given, but There could be three.
One could be price.
Two could be technology,
and three could be politics.
Star the first two.
First, SSDs are far still too expensive to be anything but a novelty. 160GB is still $650 at newegg.
Second, seeing that SSDs are 1.8 or 2.5 inch, they'd need an adapter for the iMac (or Mac Pro).
Their day is coming, but not quite yet.
I would also like to see Apple make some machines they don't make. But they are focussed on something that we don't really understand, and as I read in an article the other day, this is said to be a major reason for their recent success. They have long term goals that most outsiders don't see.
The problem is that long term goals seem to be based on popularity and getting trendy users to buy their stuff without any real fall back plan. They seem to be mortgaging their relationship with their traditional professional and semi-professional base to do it. If the trendy movers decide to move on or if they make a few mistakes, they could be in a very bad position in short order.
Star the first two.
First, SSDs are far still too expensive to be anything but a novelty. 160GB is still $650 at newegg.
Second, seeing that SSDs are 1.8 or 2.5 inch, they'd need an adapter for the iMac (or Mac Pro).
Their day is coming, but not quite yet.
It's still expensive, but if you drop the size to 128GB, you drop that cost by nearly two thirds to $240. 128GB looks to be the current sweet spot.
It's still expensive, but if you drop the size to 128GB, you drop that cost by nearly two thirds to $240. 128GB looks to be the current sweet spot.
It's only a sweet spot if you really want an SSD. For a laptop the sweet spot is 250-320 GB 2.5" hard drive, and for a desktop like the iMac, it's a 1TB drive. 128GB is way too limiting to be considered a sweet spot.
Star the first two.
First, SSDs are far still too expensive to be anything but a novelty. 160GB is still $650 at newegg.
Second, seeing that SSDs are 1.8 or 2.5 inch, they'd need an adapter for the iMac (or Mac Pro).
Their day is coming, but not quite yet.
I found out last night at Anandtech. apparently, Intel's controllers have Bromine, a halogen. That means they can't be used by Apple which allows no halogens.
But Intel's new line doesn't. So that leaves open the possibility that we might see these excellent drives (and they're much cheaper than the older models).
So it was both technology and politics.
It's only a sweet spot if you really want an SSD.
Sure, I'll go along with that. I was referring to the cost per GB for the given technology. It's a little cramped for my needs as well. But it sounds like the drives are blazingly fast.
For a laptop the sweet spot is 250-320 GB 2.5" hard drive, and for a desktop like the iMac, it's a 1TB drive. 128GB is way too limiting to be considered a sweet spot.
Nah, 500GB seems to have the best cost/GB for notebook platter drives, 1.5TB for desktop drives.
Sure, I'll go along with that. I was referring to the cost per GB for the given technology. It's a little cramped for my needs as well. But it sounds like the drives are blazingly fast.
Nah, 500GB seems to have the best cost/GB for notebook platter drives, 1.5TB for desktop drives.
It's a problem in trying to decide whether I should do something about the 640 Caviar drive in my Mac Pro.
The problem is that these drives are too small, and doubling up still just gets to 320, and then it becomes too expensive. It's kind of amazing where prices have gone for HDDs. There was a time when spending several thousand for a drive was normal for me. Now, a few hundred feels too much.
Really why not? Frankly Apple should be doing this right now leaving people with the option to choose a best fit machine. It is not like every problem will leverage a quad core effectively so why not let the buyer choose.
They didn't with the early 2009 update, even though there were quad cores available.
But the total system power is less.
The rest of the system uses 10 W less then with Penryn?
It's a problem in trying to decide whether I should do something about the 640 Caviar drive in my Mac Pro.
The problem is that these drives are too small, and doubling up still just gets to 320, and then it becomes too expensive. It's kind of amazing where prices have gone for HDDs. There was a time when spending several thousand for a drive was normal for me. Now, a few hundred feels too much.
There is an elegant bracket made to fit 2.5" SATA drives in the Mac Pro by Maxupgrades. It was made for the new Raptor, but it will work SSDs too.
There is an elegant bracket made to fit 2.5" SATA drives in the Mac Pro by Maxupgrades. It was made for the new Raptor, but it will work SSDs too.
I've already made some adapters for 2.5" drives for a couple of people. It's not that difficult with some basic equipment.
It's the prices of the drives that's the problem now.
And with memory prices rising again, I'm not sure where SSD prices are going to be in the next 6 months or so. These price drops may be the last big ones for a while.