Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jaba813 · Apr 14, 2007, 02:23 PM

I'm about to pull the trigger on a new MacBook and want to make this computer purchase the last one I make for a while. With that being said, I want to make all the desired upgrades now rather than later.

My question for the board is: will I notice a difference between the 160GB HD and the 200GB HD. They obviously have different RPMs but I would be inclined to spend the extra $90 to upgrade the 40GB, but I want to have the best system at the same time.

Thanks in advance,

Chris

SLiMeX · Apr 14, 2007, 02:47 PM

I would buy the lowest hard drive they have, then upgrade. Seagate is going to push out a few very high capacity laptop drives in the very near future with decent RPM's. Wait until they are released, then upgrade yourself.

jaba813 · Apr 14, 2007, 03:11 PM

I'm not the most technically savy person, so I think that I would prefer to have Apple do all the technical work for me. I know that is probably a bit financially stupid, but I don't want to mess anything up.

With that being said, should I go with higher RPM and a lower capacity or a higher capacity and a lower RPM?

SLiMeX · Apr 14, 2007, 03:23 PM

Lower capacity, higher RPM.

peeb · Apr 14, 2007, 03:55 PM

Weeeell - it kind of depends.... All things being equal, a faster drive will be faster than a slower one, but a full drive is slower than an empty one, so if you are going to be filling it up immediately, you might actually be better off with a slower, slightly emptier one. What will you use it for? You will notice the drive speed primarily on booting, application launch, and saving / loading large files as well as paging to and from the disk, so ask yourself how you will use the machine. You might think about a fast 7200 FW800 external if you use adobe apps as a scratch disk.

mfbernstein · Apr 15, 2007, 09:44 AM

Or you can now buy a 7200RPM 160GB drive if speed is the sole concern. Unfortunately, it's even pricier than the 200GB 4200RPM.

(And no, I don't think it's worth the price premium, but it is an option).

jamil5454 · Apr 15, 2007, 11:41 AM

If you can tie your shoes you can install a hard drive into a MacBook. It's really that easy. Check here for a guide:

iFixit: iPod, iBook, & PowerBook Parts and Accessories

Klipse · Apr 15, 2007, 09:33 PM

well its not exactly advised to get a 7200RPM 2.5" HDD for your macbook, as it consumes more power i guess..

post_break · Apr 15, 2007, 09:37 PM

Cmon solid state drives..... anyways I personally would stick with 5400.

vwgtiturbo · Apr 16, 2007, 11:07 PM

Look, I fully understand the argument for upgrading via the aftermarket to save some cash. However...

BUY THE LARGEST HDD YOU CAN. Forget the RPMs. Simple physics tells us: even though the larger drive has a slower RPM, it's areal density is higher, and even at a slower RPM, will have the same throughput as the higher RPM drive. Think of it this way... although the actual area scanned per second may be smaller with the slower drive, that area may be twice as populated with data as the area on the faster drive (due to it's larger total capacity over the same size platter), therefore, the actual amount of data read is the same or greater.

Does that make sense or does it only make sense in my head?

MrMacbookMan · Apr 17, 2007, 02:04 PM

I personally upgraded my 60 gig for the 160 gig 5400 rpm and have been very pleased with it. I would suggest the 160, if you really need more space, you can pick up a very large external hd for relatively cheap (for example buy.com has 500 gig external for $120). Also, I replaced my hard drive, and it really is very simple, but you don't want to chance it, that's understandable to.

PacHead · Apr 17, 2007, 03:29 PM

Screw the larger drive, that's my 2 cents !

When i upgraded a powerbook a while ago from a 4200 to a 5400, the speed improvement was very apparent, and the whole machine seemed much faster, obviously a 7200 would be even better ! Screw 4200 drives, I wouldn't even consider one anymore, regardless of the size. If you need to store that much stuff just get an external or something. And especially since the choice is between a 160gb 5400 or a 200gb 4200, screw that, get the 160 gig, it's not like 40 gig means that much.

vwgtiturbo · 04:07 PM

If you went from a 100GB 4200 to a 120GB 5400, then naturally, I wouldn't expect the speed of the slower drive to be the same as the faster drive, seeing that the density is close. If you doubled your drive capacity, and went to a faster drive, does that mean that the INSANE speed difference is due to the faster spindle, or a combination of the spindle speed and density?

Personally, I bought the 200GB, and even doing some fairly intensive stuff, I haven't noticed any slow-down, even relative to my 7200rpm desktop drives (SATA3gb/s).

The only valid argument I see against the larger drive is the cost. The speed difference isn't noticeable to me (coming from an X2 powered SATA3gb/s machine, I know speed), much less, noticeable enough to do without the extra capacity. All that being said, maybe the better option is to go for the lowest HDD available, then go aftermarket for a monster drive that IS screaming fast. At least that way, there isn't any room for discussion

Oh, and carrying an external drive is a pain in the a@@, much less for a measly 40GB. This is especially true if you are quite mobile (verus MILDLY mobile). Each unto his own, I suppose.

PacHead · Apr 17, 2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by vwgtiturbo

The speed difference isn't noticeable to me (coming from an X2 powered SATA3gb/s machine, I know speed), much less, noticeable enough to do without the extra capacity.

I don't know how fast the new 4200 notebook drives are, but the difference between my SATA desktop drives (10k,7200k) and my notebook 5400 drive is like day and night. The thought of even using a 4200 notebook drive scares the hell out me.