No...the 1.8" SSDs are drop in replacements for 1.8" HDDs. Same for 2.5" SSD vs 2.5" HDDs.
Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...
No...the 1.8" SSDs are drop in replacements for 1.8" HDDs. Same for 2.5" SSD vs 2.5" HDDs.
It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.
Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...
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.
It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.
Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.
Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.
$1000 is the current (or recent) price to OEM in sample volumes, not production volumes. Prices will drop fast as volumes ramp up.
I will never understand this "either/or" mentality. Sure, put some flash RAM on the motherboard to speed up boot time and increase battery life. But go ahead and put a 1.8" HD in there, too. They're used in iPod Classics and how thick are those? With capacity up to 160GB right now, that'd be enough for me and a darn sight better than an anemic 64GB. I'm sure Toshiba would be willing to give them good pricing since AI has already predicted that iPods will soon drop the HDs, so they need a new market for the devices.
I will never understand this "either/or" mentality. Sure, put some flash RAM on the motherboard to speed up boot time and increase battery life. But go ahead and put a 1.8" HD in there, too. They're used in iPod Classics and how thick are those? With capacity up to 160GB right now, that'd be enough for me and a darn sight better than an anemic 64GB. I'm sure Toshiba would be willing to give them good pricing since AI has already predicted that iPods will soon drop the HDs, so they need a new market for the devices.
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.
as disgruntled, kinda happy, windoesnot user - and happy iphone owner - the price/perf of my laptops (esp when under 1k with dedicated graphics) has always kept me from the lovely mac designs...
I always see the nice displays, keyboards, and the how-you-say, "friendly", O/S every time i try out the wi-fi service at local aapl store
but this! This will be first MAC i have owned since SE/30 !! sounds like a dream!
tried SONY mini-vaio, other feeble attempts at portability..
cant wait - please make it happen - and please Mr Jobs dont make it too expensive
(but hgh quality, with lots of RAMdisk, and fast boot times, and and and...
Internal space mostly. Sure you COULD do both but in an ultraportable?
I'm with Kolchak. I would find a way to do both. With no optical drive in it, wouldn't the space be there?
Asus seems to have set a high standard for ultra portables. Read about it here at Ars. And Ars isn't the only one who's enthusiastic about this machine.
If Apple enter this market they're going to need to differentiate themselves from what's currently available. A 160gb HDD with flash for quick boot times would be a nice way.
According to Wikipedia, SSD memory has a median cost of about $8/GB at the consumer level (more for really low-level [<2GB] or high-level [>32Gb] applications) compared to $0.25 for HDD. With all the extra area without an optical drive, Apple doesn't have to buy one expensive 64GB compact SSD ... they can use multiple lower-capacity SSDs at the $8/GB price point and build them directly into the motherboard. They would probably say it was more reliable because the different drives all operated independently.
That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.
Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.
If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?
I don't think anything 'touch' at that magnitude will come out until the end of '08 at the earliest. People just aren't ready. I am, but I'm the minority.
And remember, Apple could very easily come out with an minimalist aluminum ultrathin HDD/SuperDrive external combo with its own battery. It would probably be a .75" thick by 13" diagonal form factor and have its own SDRAM cache to make retrieval times faster. They could probably price it at under $300 without much trouble - perhaps 250GB or so and standard Superdrive.
I'm with Kolchak. I would find a way to do both. With no optical drive in it, wouldn't the space be there?
Asus seems to have set a high standard for ultra portables. Read about it here at Ars. And Ars isn't the only one who's enthusiastic about this machine.
If Apple enter this market they're going to need to differentiate themselves from what's currently available. A 160gb HDD with flash for quick boot times would be a nice way.
The Eee PC is a low cost entrant at $399. Expectations are fairly low at that price point. Not saying it isn't nice and I MIGHT get one depending on how it feels but its not an Apple kind of product. Except maybe as a phone.
Eh...I guess you can have a 8 or 16GB worth of flash aboard but you're trading ruggedness for drive space. If they are dumping the optical drive they are really minimizing the size/weight as much as possible.
To me its not worth having a spinning disk in an ultraportable you're optimizing for size/weight while keeping a 13" screen size.
I don't think anything 'touch' at that magnitude will come out until the end of '08 at the earliest. People just aren't ready. I am, but I'm the minority.
I also would naturally doubt that they will come out with a touch anything by the MacWorld Expo, but then again no one expected a touchscreen-only iPhone at that time in '07. And those patents are directly related to the concept of virtual keyboards - heck, the articulating framework patent had an image of a virtual keyboard, and the other part said stuff about "being able to feel buttons on the screen". How much more explicit can the patent lawyers get?
I really can't say for sure, but I won't be surprised if we see the TouchBook come January.
According to Wikipedia, SSD memory has a median cost of about $8/GB at the consumer level (more for really low-level [<2GB] or high-level [>32Gb] applications) compared to $0.25 for HDD. With all the extra area without an optical drive, Apple doesn't have to buy one expensive 64GB compact SSD ... they can use multiple lower-capacity SSDs at the $8/GB price point and build them directly into the motherboard. They would probably say it was more reliable because the different drives all operated independently.
That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.
Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.
If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?
Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.
Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.
According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.
There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).
Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".
According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.
There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).
Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".
You're making up your own prices. Don't do that.
You can only go by products that are released. You don't know anything else.
The Samsung is an SSD. Modules are not SSD's. And each module would need to have its own controller on-board. That would raise the overall price, not lower it.
Apple doesn't use SSD's in the iTouch, iPhone, or any of their other iPods. The use the much slower Flash modules, which are much cheaper.
Comments
No...the 1.8" SSDs are drop in replacements for 1.8" HDDs. Same for 2.5" SSD vs 2.5" HDDs.
Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...
No...the 1.8" SSDs are drop in replacements for 1.8" HDDs. Same for 2.5" SSD vs 2.5" HDDs.
It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.
Yeah, but is this because the SSDs are designed to be dropped in as a replacement for a HDD and so are designed to be the same size or because they actually need the space? Would an SSD enclosure done from scratch for Apple be thinner...
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.
It's also possible to implement a SSDD directly on the motherboard. With 64GB as the highest available capacity and prices around $1000, it's not yet economically feasible. In 2009, with 128GB SSDDs costing less than $500, it will be. Then it should be possible to produce a 1/2" thick laptop.
Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.
Don't be so sure about that pricing. The $1,000 is to OEM's, not the enduser. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will see 128GB versions for $600 OEM price. hopefully, it will drop more than that, but I wouldn't say it's definite.
$1000 is the current (or recent) price to OEM in sample volumes, not production volumes. Prices will drop fast as volumes ramp up.
I will never understand this "either/or" mentality. Sure, put some flash RAM on the motherboard to speed up boot time and increase battery life. But go ahead and put a 1.8" HD in there, too. They're used in iPod Classics and how thick are those? With capacity up to 160GB right now, that'd be enough for me and a darn sight better than an anemic 64GB. I'm sure Toshiba would be willing to give them good pricing since AI has already predicted that iPods will soon drop the HDs, so they need a new market for the devices.
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 always see the nice displays, keyboards, and the how-you-say, "friendly", O/S every time i try out the wi-fi service at local aapl store
but this! This will be first MAC i have owned since SE/30 !! sounds like a dream!
tried SONY mini-vaio, other feeble attempts at portability..
cant wait - please make it happen - and please Mr Jobs dont make it too expensive
(but hgh quality, with lots of RAMdisk, and fast boot times, and and and...
I will never understand this "either/or" mentality.
Internal space mostly. Sure you COULD do both but in an ultraportable?
Internal space mostly. Sure you COULD do both but in an ultraportable?
I'm with Kolchak. I would find a way to do both. With no optical drive in it, wouldn't the space be there?
Asus seems to have set a high standard for ultra portables. Read about it here at Ars. And Ars isn't the only one who's enthusiastic about this machine.
If Apple enter this market they're going to need to differentiate themselves from what's currently available. A 160gb HDD with flash for quick boot times would be a nice way.
$1000 is the current (or recent) price to OEM in sample volumes, not production volumes. Prices will drop fast as volumes ramp up.
No, that's pretty much what the final price is.
The drive is already out.
Read this, to learn something about these drives.:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2216514,00.asp
That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.
Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.
If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?
I'm with Kolchak. I would find a way to do both. With no optical drive in it, wouldn't the space be there?
Asus seems to have set a high standard for ultra portables. Read about it here at Ars. And Ars isn't the only one who's enthusiastic about this machine.
If Apple enter this market they're going to need to differentiate themselves from what's currently available. A 160gb HDD with flash for quick boot times would be a nice way.
The Eee PC is a low cost entrant at $399. Expectations are fairly low at that price point. Not saying it isn't nice and I MIGHT get one depending on how it feels but its not an Apple kind of product. Except maybe as a phone.
Eh...I guess you can have a 8 or 16GB worth of flash aboard but you're trading ruggedness for drive space. If they are dumping the optical drive they are really minimizing the size/weight as much as possible.
To me its not worth having a spinning disk in an ultraportable you're optimizing for size/weight while keeping a 13" screen size.
I don't think anything 'touch' at that magnitude will come out until the end of '08 at the earliest. People just aren't ready. I am, but I'm the minority.
I also would naturally doubt that they will come out with a touch anything by the MacWorld Expo, but then again no one expected a touchscreen-only iPhone at that time in '07. And those patents are directly related to the concept of virtual keyboards - heck, the articulating framework patent had an image of a virtual keyboard, and the other part said stuff about "being able to feel buttons on the screen". How much more explicit can the patent lawyers get?
I really can't say for sure, but I won't be surprised if we see the TouchBook come January.
According to Wikipedia, SSD memory has a median cost of about $8/GB at the consumer level (more for really low-level [<2GB] or high-level [>32Gb] applications) compared to $0.25 for HDD. With all the extra area without an optical drive, Apple doesn't have to buy one expensive 64GB compact SSD ... they can use multiple lower-capacity SSDs at the $8/GB price point and build them directly into the motherboard. They would probably say it was more reliable because the different drives all operated independently.
That would place consumer cost for 64GB of memory spread over the whole notebook a little over $500 - much more manageable. And 64 GB is more than you think; I have a first-gen MacBook with a tiny 60GB HDD (which really means 54.2GB) and it still has 20GB of space left even though I have all my music and pictures and a bunch of freeware programs (including Maya) and a bunch of home movies. I can't rip a bunch of DVDs to it, but with my external 250GB drive I'm perfectly fine.
Multiple SSDs might even mean that data speeds would be faster since data would be on smaller areas. The reason that the 64GB SSD is so expensive is that they pack it all into one small drive.
If they went this route, they could easily come out with a 12 or 15 mm Notebook - or, dare I say it - TouchBook?
Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.
Forget Wikipedia. Their numbers, as usual, are off. Look at the article I posted earlier to see how they are REALLY priced. Over $1,000 for the new Samsung 64GB model.
According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.
There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).
Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".
According to an April 25, 2007 Engadget article citing a Samsung press release, SSD is currently at a median price of only $7.50/GB. The 64GB SSD is $1K because it is all one module packed into a very small space, but at consumer cost of $7.50 for more reasonably sized SSDs, Apple could pack five 16GB SSDs into the motherboard of this new notebook for a total of 80GB at only $600 - and remember, that's consumer cost quoted by Samsung.
There is no way Apple paid $250 for the flash memory in each of the iPod Touches ($1000/64GB=$15/GB, $15/GB x 16GBTouch=$250).
Knowing Steve's love of all things sleek, I can't see him marketing an "impossibly thin" subnotebook unless he can get it under .75".
You're making up your own prices. Don't do that.
You can only go by products that are released. You don't know anything else.
The Samsung is an SSD. Modules are not SSD's. And each module would need to have its own controller on-board. That would raise the overall price, not lower it.
Apple doesn't use SSD's in the iTouch, iPhone, or any of their other iPods. The use the much slower Flash modules, which are much cheaper.
Read this, to learn something about these drives.:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2216514,00.asp
Nothing new in the article. I put a 130MB SSDD in a Libretto in 1999 or 2000, so I have some experience with SSDDs in laptops.
Prices drop. SSDD prices are dropping fast.