Soündless Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I cant decide wheter or not to upgrade to the 200 or stay with the 160. would the slower speeds really effect me? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
trav1085 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I'd go with the 160 (Is that the fastest one?) as I don't think 200GB is needed. Are you going to have 200GB of documents on your computer? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216704 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 I am going to divide it up into 3 partitions, one 4 windows, one for tiger and 1 4 leopard Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216742 Share on other sites More sharing options...
non sequitur Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 why 3? why bother giving a whole partition to leopard? its coming out within half a year and the leaked copy is an unstable beta. go with 160, divide into 2 partitions, one for windows, one for os x. besides, 200 gb is only 4200 rpm. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216804 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 would 4200 rpm be as slow as the one in my ibook g3 900 mhz wit no upgrades? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216829 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 From 5400 to 7200 gave me 10+ more score in xbench. EDIT: Go with the 200 Gb, it has way more space, with your macboo pro, you will probably get a 105+ on xbench because of the 4 MB cache. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216831 Share on other sites More sharing options...
asap18 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 he isnt aiming for a "good xbench" score, go with the 160 gb because it uses perpindicular recording and makes up for only being a 5400 rpm. im getting one for m macbook soon too. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216843 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo50 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 160 gb it's more than enought for laptop. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-216965 Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 160 gb it's more than enought for laptop. Theres never enough I'd like to see a 320 perpendicular in a 2.5 The 160 is the way to go. 160 is as high as it gets in SATA. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-217077 Share on other sites More sharing options...
applen00b Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 what about the 100 gb 7200 rpm drive? would that offer better performance than the 160 gb 5400 rpm drive?? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-218339 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 they dont have it anymore Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-218910 Share on other sites More sharing options...
asap18 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 they have it in the faster models Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-218962 Share on other sites More sharing options...
head Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 i heard bad things about the 100gig 7200 hd in apples macbook pro´s. i dunno where, but i read in an article that many hd´s with 5400rpm have better access times and so on... the best thing would be a perpendicular drive.... fast and not so power-consuming... Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-219134 Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 You won't notice a difference between the two drives until they start to write to the outer edge of the disks. So go for the 160 and get a Firewire drive if you truly need more space. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-219760 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 he isnt aiming for a "good xbench" score, go with the 160 gb because it uses perpindicular recording and makes up for only being a 5400 rpm. im getting one for m macbook soon too. I was comparing it to how fast his computer is. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/31195-macbook-pro-hard-drives/#findComment-220477 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts