|
#1
| ||||
| ||||
| technology moves a step further: 32GB Flash drives announced http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070104-8555.html 32gb is easily enough for a notebook, and it's the size of an ipod drive, and it's silent. and fast. and $600. and i know fryke wants this in a macbook.
__________________ Dual 1.8GHz G5 2GB, 1TB, Radeon 9600XT 128MB, 10.5 20" Apple Cinema Display + Dell 2005FPW 20" dual-head iBook G3 700MHz 640MB, 40GB, Rage128 16MB, 10.4, dying battery |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| This is old news. 32 GB is not enough capacity for notebooks the way that people are using them today. There are many iPods with higher capacity. It is silent, but so is roadkill. Fast, compared to what? $600 is just a tad expensive, especially for such small storage capacity. |
|
#3
| ||||
| ||||
| Well: My goal for such a drive in a notebook was maximum battery life. Ever since the eMate 300, Apple has not produced a notebook-style machine that truly caters for the writer on-the-go. I know, my MacBook works quite well, but it's a far cry from being in a park for 6 hours, writing stories in the bright sun. ... I must say, though, I've kinda given up on this. There just doesn't seem to be a real market for it. (That being a notebook, not the drive.)I'll still consider such a drive - if its price comes down a little.
__________________ macnews.net.tc is active again. MacBook Air 13" 1.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.5 Hackintosh Core2Duo 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.5 iPhone 3G 16 GB white, AppleTV 1G 40 GB Mac user since 1987, Apple Product Professional 2007, 2008. Apple Certified Support Professional 10.5 |
|
#4
| ||||
| ||||
| This targets ultra-portable. But still not 100% competitive against 1" and 1.8" drives.
__________________ My current machine is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz 24" with MacOS X 10.5. My Apples are here. My oldest Apple was born in 1977. GS/P/>SS d-(++) s+: a+ C+(C) U* P L+ E--- W++ N- o+ K? w O-- M++ V PS+ PE+ Y- PGP t+ 5 X+ R tv-- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y? Time is not changing, I'm just traveling through time. |
|
#5
| ||||
| ||||
| If it could be used as a cache it'd be beneficial. The OS already has the hot file location on the hard drive which is dynamically moving recently/most accessed files to the fastest part of the hard drive. If they could expand this to work on flash RAM and move a lot of applications to that ram it'd speed up a lot of operations. You could fit most of your applications on there for sure and some data could be cached there for increased performance.
__________________ MacBook Pro 2.16GHz Core2Duo 3GB RAM, G4 1.4GHz OSX Tiger 1.25GB RAM, Dual 2GHz G5 OSX Tiger 2GB RAM (freakin shweet) Athlon 64 Windoze XP for school work (programming) 1GB RAM dferns@macosx.com |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|