PDA

View Full Version : Macbook Pro with 64GB SSD (20s to boot)



leon
11th November 2007, 10:48 PM
This is how a laptop should be.

http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/11/the-first-macbook-pro-with-a-64gb-ssd/

Huy
11th November 2007, 10:56 PM
That is pretty impressive.
I reproduced the same on my MacBook/5400 Seagate 2.5" and it was about 35 seconds.

phoenixonline
11th November 2007, 11:20 PM
How much do these drives go for?

FBTN
11th November 2007, 11:20 PM
I want this in my Mac Pro now NOW and NOW.....
4 x 2TB SSD would be nice. hope next year....

Mctastic
11th November 2007, 11:23 PM
i've envisioned, for a good few years, solid state flash to be the future & possibly life for older 'vintage' computer systems.
hopefully these ship in Apple systems, very soon. Of course, an ideal basic capacity would be at least 100GB. Apples switch to solid state, in some ipods & iphone is a show of the companies direction here. good going! hopefully also eliminate/reduce drive crashes & irrecoverable data loss.

MacTime
11th November 2007, 11:28 PM
Looks good, can't wait. How long realistically till we see something over the 100gb size available though Apple?

kevin7
11th November 2007, 11:38 PM
hopefully apple will upgrade it next year jan along with penryn processor...

Macbook pro +SSD + Penryn Processor.... sweeeet... :p

Mctastic
11th November 2007, 11:41 PM
well, Mactime, .. it's all up to the likes of Seagate, Western DIgital, .... Samsung?? wait, the drive companies, WD, Seagate, Toshiba etc. do they have a stake in SDD technology? Samsung on the other hand is different, and have development in many technologies..... hmm, guess we'll have to wait & see who produces the goods then.... so to speak

mab
11th November 2007, 11:59 PM
How much do these drives go for?

About 1000 USD

Currawong
12th November 2007, 12:14 AM
The video shows the MBP booting in 20 seconds, but from the Apple logo, when the software actually starts loading, it's closer to 10 seconds. Very damn nice.

jrad
12th November 2007, 01:10 AM
4 x 2TB SSD would be nice. hope next year....

If you look into the trend of flash (and this isn't exact... its rough, but this rule has always worked for me) its x2 every year. December last year they came out with the 32g SSD... 11 months on and we see 64! Same goes for flash memory and USB Sticks too, they x2 every year! (for the same cost with USB sticks, that is). I predict 128g SSD by the last quarter next year...

Huy
12th November 2007, 01:15 AM
So hopefully by 2009, Apple will be using SSD in their MacBook Pros :D

And maybe I'll be on an iPhone Rev. B or C.

leon
12th November 2007, 07:09 AM
I want this in my Mac Pro now NOW and NOW.....
4 x 2TB SSD would be nice. hope next year....

For the Mac Pro I would get one of the PCI card Flash drive solutions. Can't find the link at the moment, but they were much faster than the SSDs.

Arkhum_Eramak
12th November 2007, 07:18 AM
I forget how big they were, but Liebermann (http://www.go-l.com/home/index.htm) had SSD drives in all of their laptops over a year ago. Then again, that is Liebermann for you.

spargo
12th November 2007, 07:34 AM
Aren't Dell already doing this in their ultra-portable 12" widescreen laptops? I think so..

kendals
12th November 2007, 07:46 AM
Yeah, I recall seeing the new Dell XPS laptop using one or two, I think? Or having the option, anyway.

Very cool drives! Imagine booting up that quick all the time, and then the applications loading quickly, and everything being smoother...mmm...I hope the iMacs get them in a year or so when I want to upgrade!

chrism238
12th November 2007, 07:56 AM
Looks good, can't wait. How long realistically till we see something over the 100gb size available though Apple?I seriously wonder how much disk space people require on their laptops? I admit that I have two other desktop Macs that my laptop speaks with, regularly, but if I remove most of my multimedia "fun" from my laptop, the operating system and my real work will easily fit on a 64GB SSD.

MrJesseRoss
12th November 2007, 08:09 AM
I don't think a high-end notebook like the Macbook Pro could have anything less than 100GB of SSD storage.

I just couldn't buy something with such little memory as 64GB, as the fact that the iPod's got 160GB would always be in the back of my mind. I want a notebook that has more storage space than a media player. Is that too much to ask?

gehenna
12th November 2007, 08:21 AM
the Asus EEE PC has 4 or 8gb of solid state storage. or was is 8 or 16gb, i can't recall...but its definitely making its way on to the market.

when compact flash cards came out they were hellishly expensive, i remember a friend got a 2gb card in asia for around $300NZD many years ago. now I can get an 8gb flash drive for $100...

a bit of patience and some eager anticipation will see these come right down in price and storage sizes increase exponentially over the next months/years. good times ahead. the bonus is this circumvents the battery issues many people have - and since there's no new battery technology on the near horizon for consumers this is a great way to squeeze a few extra hours out of a standard notebook battery.

looking forward the day when i can open my macbook lid, press the on button, and instantly see my desktop as though i were waking from sleep but actually cold booting!

gehenna
12th November 2007, 08:32 AM
I seriously wonder how much disk space people require on their laptops? I admit that I have two other desktop Macs that my laptop speaks with, regularly, but if I remove most of my multimedia "fun" from my laptop, the operating system and my real work will easily fit on a 64GB SSD.

we shouldn't have to remove the fun stuff to make room for things. my toshiba tecra a7 has a 100gb sata drive in it. its got a 60gb windows partition, and a 40gb ubuntu partition. so, now I have two computers on one laptop - both with less storage than if there was a single OS on the drive. So i'm scrimping and saving space here and there to make things fit. I want my music on my notebook, images, videos, swap file space, virtual machine space....and with 60gb of actual storage in windows it just doesn't cut it. same with ubuntu but its even worse cos i have 20gb less than in the windows partition. so really, i need a 200gb + drive to cater for everything i want to do with my notebook.

even when i had a single windows partition i was space conscious when working with quantities of large files.

then there's the macbook. 60gb of storage there - running windows on a 6gb parallels partition...so there's about 50gb left over after taking the stupid bits/bytes thing of "actual true capacity" on a hard drive into consideration. Add to that there are two user accounts on there, both with their own music/images/videos etc...so i'm running a macbook on a consistent 2-5gb of free space.

so in my opinion - space, space and more space! as much as I can get as quickly as I can get it!

one thing I just thought of too - does anyone suspect apple may incorporate hybrid drive into their notebooks to take advantage of time machine for notebooks? saves having to dock with an ext drive. although it means if your internals die on the macbook your data is gone. bad idea, forget i mentioned it :)

stewiesno1
12th November 2007, 08:49 AM
One of the problems with this kind of flash drive , solid state or whatever you want to call it is that they have at present a relatively short life. I read an article on a Mac forum -AppleInsider maybe - about this about six months ago and the tech guy that wrote it said that while the boot up times were fantastic the downside is that they were expensive and just not built to perform as defacto hard drives in laptops. I do however expect to see this change as the price/size ratio narrows and technology inevitably overcomes this problem.
Apart from being able to boot up newer laptops in record time I would expect older Powerbooks like Pismos etc to also benefit dramatically from this.
In the short term I think people will get one of these newer drives to boot from but also retain a standard HD for data etc.

Stewie

gehenna
12th November 2007, 09:00 AM
In the short term I think people will get one of these newer drives to boot from but also retain a standard HD for data etc.

Stewie

that's actually a bloody good point you make....having a ssd specifically for the OS would be a great interim measure, or even an end solution. it'd be kinda like running the OS in ram wouldn't it? except its read/writable by the user. could be a tricky one though - with big hardware and OS vendors potentially getting the ability to make parts of their software inaccessable by the ordinary means that we are used to with current disk storage technology. especially those hardware vendors that provide both their own hardware AND OS.....(not looking at anyone in particular as I don't want the same kind of flaming I usually get from being apple critical...oops, i said the A word...)

chrism238
12th November 2007, 09:53 AM
we shouldn't have to remove the fun stuff to make room for things.Sure, we shouldn't have to, and we all heil for a perfect world, but if there was a choice to save $500+ and 9 months' waiting, I'm sure that many prospective Macbook owners would settle for a 64GB SSD right now :rolleyes:

chrism238
12th November 2007, 10:00 AM
One of the problems with this kind of flash drive , solid state or whatever you want to call it is that they have at present a relatively short life. I read an article on a Mac forum -AppleInsider maybe - about this about six months ago and the tech guy that wrote it said that while the boot up times were fantastic the downside is that they were expensive and just not built to perform as defacto hard drives in laptops.Seems like some of these concerns are now being addressed (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/samsungs-64gb-ssd-better-faster-stronger/), but YMMV.

stewiesno1
12th November 2007, 10:49 AM
As I stated in my post chrism238, the speed is definitely there for boot up times and the saving on battery life alone would make some people think of getting one not to mention the quietness of having one of these - all points raised in that article you linked to. As always though being an early adopter will mean that it is a lot more expensive and a little unknown as well.
I'll try and find that article I read as well although it was a while ago.
I could get a 12 Gb one for my Pismo and try it out while leaving my 80Gb HD in there for storage. Hmmmm

Stewie

Edit : The other thing with these SS Drives is that they don't suffer the bane of all hard drives - file fragmentation although with OSX it does a pretty good job of minimising this with the tools built into the OS. What's more, because SSDs don't suffer performance degradation from data fragmentation (unlike HDDs), every single byte of space can be used without your system grinding to a halt. I think OSX likes a " headroom " of 10-15% free hard drive space to operate without any dramas so I would expect this figure to be lower with SS drives as well.

Brains
12th November 2007, 12:11 PM
Stewie does raise a very valid reason about the reliability of SSD (and NVFlash technology in general) ... as I've mentioned elsewhere, doing a write on an SSD has the same kind of effect as a cigarette does to your lungs, it removes a small but noticable portion of its overall life-span. SSD does not write at a per-bit level, but at a per-block level -- to change one byte in a block, the entire block has to be read into the controller's buffer, altered, then written out back to the block twice, read three times for verification, with another two writes if any one of the three reads returns a fail. If a second write-pass fails, the block is marked out as bad and a new block chosen to write to.

SSD & NVFlash are fine for systems where data is not being continually written out (such as in iPods and phones), but when you throw a normal OS like OSX or Windows at it -- both meaty systems which do a lot of disk-paging -- the device ends up having a very short life-span indeed. There are many reports on the web of geeks setting their pagefile to write to a solid state disk, and yes they gain an impressive boost in speed, but the device will inevitably fail inside a week, with a few reports of the device failing inside 24 hours.

The Eee gets away with using an SSD because it's OS, a small custom linux, does not write back to the SSD at every opportunity; instead, it runs solely from RAM, and only writes back when told to. The NEC and Liebermann laptops which come with SSDs as standard actually maintain a large block of normal DDR RAM in between the SSD and the actual system, and this large buffer is only written back to the SSD when it's needed to -- by reducing the amount of total writes to the SSD by a factor of twenty or more, the life of the SSD is prolonged markedly.

Me, I'm waiting for the much faster and much more reliable MRAM technology to mature, and that time is approaching. In the meantime, if you have a desktop machine you can opt for one of the PCI or PCI-E cards that appear as a SATA drive, or wait for Gigabyte to ship their recently-announced 3.5"-formfactor SATARAM drive -- a device no larger than a normal 3.5" hard drive, it has its own backup battery and holds up to 64 GB of small DDR2 memory. The data throughput of the SATARAM is phenomenal, up to six times faster than any mechanical disk on the market today, and its only speed-limit is the SATA2 connection itself.


B.

sox11
12th November 2007, 06:29 PM
awesome idea...we'll be seeing this if apple decide to produce a 12" macbook pro....but i would be more interested to know how much does it improve the battery life

xtreme2k
12th November 2007, 07:40 PM
32/64GB SSD is fine for me.

The rest of my data are on a Gigabit Ethernet anyway :)