[nabilanwar]

Now I dont know if you've already checked out this new option bfr, but the new Core2Duo Macbook comes with an option of 200gb HDD which runs at a slower speed of 4200rpm. While the other drives run at 5400rpm.

I really like the idea of having lots of space on a portable itself. My current iMac G5 (160gb) is definitely out of space, i'm struggling with it. I also plan to use a firewire mac to mac transfer to move about 150gb stuff to the new Macbook purchase.

Now i've thought about External Hard Drives, but i dont like the concept fully, i would like to have all my files all the time.

Now what i want to know from someone is that is this slower hard drive going to put a huge dent on performance or not? I do mostly day to day surfing the web, import photos, and from time to time I use high end audio apps.

Let me know. Thanks.

[Karpfish]

4200rpm is deathly slow.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by Karpfish 

4200rpm is deathly slow.

anyone else?

[cyrana]

Originally Posted by Karpfish 

4200rpm is deathly slow.

This one might be marginally better due to platter density, but I shudder to think of using one as my normal work drive. I'd only use a 4200 (if I had to) in an external drive.

[Ela]

I don't think I'd call the 4200 drives "deathly slow". It all comes down to how much data you plan to store.

If you've got about 75 GB of data, the 200 GB, 4200 rpm drive will actually be *faster* than the same amount of data on the 100 GB, 7200 rpm drive available for the 17-inch MBP. Take a look at the test results:

http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

So the 4200 rpm drive is not a bad idea if you need to carry a lot of stuff with you. That being said, I still opted for the 160 GB, 5400 rpm drive. I think it's the best all around compromise between capacity and performance. When at low capacity, the 160/5400 performs as well as a 100/7200 for random access and only falls behind in sustained reads and writes. The 160/5400 outperforms the 100/7200 when filled with 75 GB and up (which is my typical operation), and the 160/5400 only loses out to the 200/4200 drive when it's almost full.

[mduell]

Once you have 80-100GB of data on the drive, the 200GB is going to be the fastest for bulk transfers despite the slow spindle speed. However the seek time is going to be slow no matter how much data you have.

What does your usage depend on, bandwidth or latency?

[stwain2003]

Don't do it. If you get a 4200RPM drive, you will kick yourself everytime you open an app. Terribly slow!!! Go for the 160GB and youll be very happy.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Once you have 80-100GB of data on the drive, the 200GB is going to be the fastest for bulk transfers despite the slow spindle speed. However the seek time is going to be slow no matter how much data you have.

What does your usage depend on, bandwidth or latency?

what exactly does that mean, do u mean bandwidth as in network bandwidth?

[nabilanwar]

hmm, looks like mostly negative thoughts so far. thanks for the info.

i also plan to go with the 2gb RAM option, does this make app loads any better? I might be using Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Garageband etc. on the machine. Everything else is very very basic stuff, like browsing the web, using iPhoto, using iTunes, ichat, Mail and thats basically about it.

[stefanicotine]

Definitely go with 2 gigs of ram. If speed concerns you, then ram is the first thing you'll upgrade.

[nabilanwar]

okay, since i want this default hard drive size so much, let say i put the performance killer apps in a separate hard drive. This was plan to begin with, put my audio applications and project files in an 3.5 inch 120gb 5400rpm Magnetic Data drive. Wouldnt this solve the problem of sluggishness when it comes to performance tasks?

Default apps like iPhoto etc. could still be on the laptop itself. Do you think Apple's own iLife suite will be noticeably slow with the 200gb 4200rpm?

P.S. Does anyone know about external hard drive enclosures that are trustworthy and mac-esque. I have 120gb 5400 rpm Magnetic Data drive from my olden PC days. I plan to use this as an external but need a case. Any help shall be appreciated.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by nabilanwar 

what exactly does that mean, do u mean bandwidth as in network bandwidth?

No, I mean hard drive bandwidth. How fast data moves from the hard drive to the rest of the system.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

No, I mean hard drive bandwidth. How fast data moves from the hard drive to the rest of the system.

I just cant really tell by the numbers itself, i wish i could have 2 macbooks side by side with 200gb 4200rpm and 160gb 5400rpm. Even with the test results posted on this topic, i cant really tell how long of a delay this is.

My problem is clearly the amount of data i already have. Here's the data:

Current drive: 160gb (149gb actual space)
Amount of Free Space: 10gb
Total Data by the time i transfer to the macbook: 145gb

Proposed future drive: 200gb (probably like 185gb actual space)
So can already see that i only have 40gb of free space leftover.

Interesting quote from ZDNet:
"It's interesting to note that the new 200GB mechanism spins at only 4200RPM but with that much data compacted on those tiny 2.5-inch platters they can actually have a better transfer rate than 5400RPM drives since there is actually more data flying past the heads at any given moment."--http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=318

Another very techie (but unrelated to Apple) article from ZDNet tells us why people are getting ripped off by higher RPM drives. Its a difficult read, but very interesting once completed.

� How higher RPM hard drives rip you off | George Ou | ZDNet.com

Now it looks like the general thought here is, if you buy a larger drive with lower speed and partition it, you are going to get faster speeds. I may plan to partition off a portion, on top of using high end apps on a faster external drive. I am probably also going to be partitioning an unused portion for BootCamp.

Considering all these out of the box needs for space, do you guys still think i should go with 160gb 5400rpm? Can anyone who has actually used these 200gb 4200rpm drives give a testimony please.

[Macjunkie117]

I myself am kind of awed at apple's stupidity on this one. Looking at the configurations, I noticed that there are no 7200 rpm options, which is the only thing holding me back from buying one. I know that the 7200 rpm drives don't hold as much yet, but i only need 100 gb, which is what I have in my current powerbook (Toshiba 100gb 7200rpm)...Very sad, very sad

[stefanicotine]

Originally Posted by Macjunkie117 

I myself am kind of awed at apple's stupidity on this one. Looking at the configurations, I noticed that there are no 7200 rpm options, which is the only thing holding me back from buying one. I know that the 7200 rpm drives don't hold as much yet, but i only need 100 gb, which is what I have in my current powerbook (Toshiba 100gb 7200rpm)...Very sad, very sad

Have you even read this thread? The RPM's don't mean a whole lot.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by Macjunkie117 

I myself am kind of awed at apple's stupidity on this one. Looking at the configurations, I noticed that there are no 7200 rpm options, which is the only thing holding me back from buying one. I know that the 7200 rpm drives don't hold as much yet, but i only need 100 gb, which is what I have in my current powerbook (Toshiba 100gb 7200rpm)...Very sad, very sad

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choices. But i would like to point out that ZDNET columnist George Ou is talking about people as yourself that hold out for higher RPM drives where the cost-to-value ratio is dangerously bad. The computer industry is all about advertising "higher numbers", i totally believe that is exactly what dominates the industry. I used to be and still am always fooled by these higher numbers.

Btw, the people who mentioned the 4200rpm drives to be slow on this thread before, do you speak from personal experience or data charts?

[cyrana]

Two of my work laptops had 4200 RPM drives, so I speak from experience. They are lower platter density ones though.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by cyrana 

Two of my work laptops had 4200 RPM drives, so I speak from experience. They are lower platter density ones though.

ic. Thanks for the input.
Do you think this quote has validity? And if so, how good is the claim?

"It's interesting to note that the new 200GB mechanism spins at only 4200RPM but with that much data compacted on those tiny 2.5-inch platters they can actually have a better transfer rate than 5400RPM drives since there is actually more data flying past the heads at any given moment."

Anyone else know anything more about the drive in question 200gb 4200rpm 2.5inch platter?

[archurban]

but it's actually the same speed as 5400RPM because of the same transfer speed (1.5GB/s). so you don't have to worry about. didn't you even read tech detail spec? I will get 200GB for my macbook sooner. now, it's about $350 or less.

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by archurban 

but it's actually the same speed as 5400RPM because of the same transfer speed (1.5GB/s). so you don't have to worry about. didn't you even read tech detail spec? I will get 200GB for my macbook sooner. now, it's about $350 or less.

That 1.5 GB/s is actually 1.5Gb/s and is the maximum theoretical transfer speed, which you'll never see in real life.

Like mduell has suggested, 4200rpm drives will always be slower at finding and accessing your data, but the 200GB option can be faster at sustained transfers.

Higher rpm drives are well suited to applications like software development where fast access times help the compile process whereas a faster sustained transfer speed helps in audio applications where you need to stream as much data from a disk as possible.

To the OP:
Given your situation, I say go for the 200GB. If you have that much data you want to keep, this is really your only option anyway.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by jamil5454 

That 1.5 GB/s is actually 1.5Gb/s and is the maximum theoretical transfer speed, which you'll never see in real life.

Like mduell has suggested, 4200rpm drives will always be slower at finding and accessing your data, but the 200GB option can be faster at sustained transfers.

Higher rpm drives are well suited to applications like software development where fast access times help the compile process whereas a faster sustained transfer speed helps in audio applications where you need to stream as much data from a disk as possible.

To the OP:
Given your situation, I say go for the 200GB. If you have that much data you want to keep, this is really your only option anyway.

I think i'm ready to commit to the 4200rpm drive. Of course I am also going to have a faster external drive on which i shall be doing my power uses. Thanks to everyone for the input.

[stefanicotine]

Originally Posted by nabilanwar 

I think i'm ready to commit to the 4200rpm drive. Of course I am also going to have a faster external drive on which i shall be doing my power uses. Thanks to everyone for the input.

Keep in mind that although your external drive has higher RPMs, it won't be faster (or even as fast) as your internal because of the bottleneck on firewire and USB.

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine 

Keep in mind that although your external drive has higher RPMs, it won't be faster (or even as fast) as your internal because of the bottleneck on firewire and USB.

haha yes, i's aware of that, just trying to make myself happy that somehow it'd be speedier.

[stefanicotine]

Originally Posted by nabilanwar 

haha yes, i's aware of that, just trying to make myself happy that somehow it'd be speedier.

What I actually meant, was that a 7200 RPM drive with a 400 Mbps bottleneck is a million times faster than a 4200 RPM drive

[nabilanwar]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine 

What I actually meant, was that a 7200 RPM drive with a 400 Mbps bottleneck is a million times faster than a 4200 RPM drive

o well then good for me.