MacBook Pro HD
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Bejeweled 2 beaten
Next: iTunes - file size limit
From: David Kennedy on 4 May 2010 03:30 David Kennedy wrote: > My son has/had a 2Gb MacBook Pro - the 2Gb core due model. He has just > bought the 2.4 i5 MacBook Pro... > > So, as I'm presently running a 1.67HD Powerbook with 4Gb ram and a 320Gb > HD, the MacBook is 1.5 Gb ram and 80 Gb HD. So, do I grab the MacBook or > sell both and buy something else? > > If I keep the MacBook, how difficult is it to replace the HD? I'd like > to get at least 320 or so. > > Anyone have any experience of these? http://www.eselleruk.com/products/Samsung_2_5_400GB_Spinpoint_HM400JI_M7_SATA_5400_Internal_Hard_Drive-1480-16.html> or, with a shorter link <http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160423983537> -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: David Kennedy on 4 May 2010 04:56 Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > > Personally I'd go for a WD Blue 500gig, for speed reasons. > I wondered about that; do you actually notice any difference in use though? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 4 May 2010 06:09 On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:56:52 +0100, David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: >> >> Personally I'd go for a WD Blue 500gig, for speed reasons. > >I wondered about that; do you actually notice any difference in use though? It makes VMs work faster, but otherwise not really! You get used to it too quickly. Cheers - Jaimie -- "By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
From: Chris Ridd on 4 May 2010 06:56 On 2010-05-04 11:09:11 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:56:52 +0100, David Kennedy > <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > >> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: >>> >>> Personally I'd go for a WD Blue 500gig, for speed reasons. >> >> I wondered about that; do you actually notice any difference in use though? > > It makes VMs work faster, but otherwise not really! You get used to it > too quickly. What aspect of the drive makes it faster than the Samsung? -- Chris
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 4 May 2010 07:28
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:56:19 +0100, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 2010-05-04 11:09:11 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said: > >> On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:56:52 +0100, David Kennedy >> <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: >>>> >>>> Personally I'd go for a WD Blue 500gig, for speed reasons. >>> >>> I wondered about that; do you actually notice any difference in use though? >> >> It makes VMs work faster, but otherwise not really! You get used to it >> too quickly. > >What aspect of the drive makes it faster than the Samsung? Higher data density, which means that for the same spin rate you get more per second when streaming. Doesn't affect seek time, of course, so for smaller files no real diff. Samsung M7 400gig are 250gig/platter, two platters, 4 r/w heads. WB Blue 500gig are 320gig/platter, two platters, 4 r/w heads. No, I don't know how that adds up either. I suspect the platter capacity is a nominal value before block CRCs and reserving spare blocks, or some such. The newer Spinpoint M7E series are 320gig/platter, btw. Cheers - Jaimie -- "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. By Order of the Author." -- Mark Twain |