Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Toshiba Launching Hybrid HDD by September

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 25, 2012 1:09:13 PM

The more of these we see included in built systems the cheaper SSD and other hybrid drives will be. Looking forward to upgrading to SSD in the next year as price for capacity finally make it very inviting.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 1:55:01 PM

I think these are far too late to market. The 64GB to 128GB SSD's are in the price range of standard laptop hard drives. For the vast majority of computer buyers a 64GB SSD is far more capacity than they have any use for. For the vast majority of people the few pictures, songs and documents they keep on their computer would fit on a DVD. While the OS, OS updates, and apps take 30 to 40 GB. Then a small group of people don't need any more than a 128GB SSD for their decently sized music and/or photo library.

Then there is the very small enthusiast and hobbyist minority that needs huge file capacities. These are those with huge music libraries (in lossless of course), photo libraries (in RAW format and multiple revisions), lots full length movies in HD, tons of games and other software or files.

In the business market. Most individual employee computers are still fine with the 64GB SSD. Larger servers are needed to hold all the data from all employee's but the individual average office worker does not need large capacities. In business markets only a small subset need large capacities these are the designers, engineers, scientists, &c. Whom usually will need a RAID with multiple terabytes of storage.

Really manufacturers of desktop and laptop computers need to make the SSD standard. I just looked at the prices and they have dropped again. The average $400 to $500 desktop or laptop computer's hard drive is more expensive than a 60 to 64GB SSD ($60 to $75). The average hard drive found in a $500+ laptop or desktop cost as much or more than a 120 to 128GB SSD ($95+).
Score
-4
Related resources
May 25, 2012 2:23:59 PM

velocityg4, I haven't found that 60/64 or even 120/128GB SSDs are large enough even for everyday use, so packing them in every computer because they're affordable probably isn't the answer. Like you said, a Windows 7 Home Premium installation, after updates, is creeping upward of 30+GB these days. Add in antivirus, browsers, MS Office (or the open-source version of your choice), and other applications, and you're already at 50GB or more. That makes it hard to fit even a modest music/video collection on a 64GB drive and still leave 10% free space so the drive can function.

Even the 128GB drive I recently bought for my gaming laptop would have been quickly overwhelmed if I didn't throw a 500GB drive in the second hard drive bay - and I don't even keep my music and videos on that computer, it's just that game installations take up as much room (or more) as Windows does.

Sure, $1/GB is definitely a good deal compared with just a year ago, but to put that in perspective, HDDs were about $1/GB when I built my first PC back in 2001, when Windows 2k/XP only took up a few GBs. The price per GB just isn't there to make them ubiquitous in the mainstream. Yet.

I can't disagree that they might be a little late to the market, but I wouldn't disparage them for that, considering the engineering that has to go into the hardware and firmware in order for the drives to reliably track usage and allocate the right data to the solid state chips. The design, prefab, testing, and mass-production timeline isn't a short one. This solution really is the best of both worlds (even if I personally much prefer to have two separate drives, one SSD, one HDD). I'd be willing to bet these will find a decent place in the market.
Score
4
May 25, 2012 3:06:38 PM

The only problem is that company build crappy laptop, I don't think the drive will be any better. Plus costumer service is awefull.
Score
-4
Anonymous
May 25, 2012 3:07:00 PM

120/128gb is enough for the average (non-enthusiast or media hoarder) user..

just that 120/128gb ssds are not exactly in the price range needed to trickle down into mid-grade consumer gear. if the lowest prices of ssd's of that capacity fell to $99 or so, then more average users may consider them for their advantages (faster boot, faster word loadup) over similarly priced hdds
Score
-3
May 25, 2012 4:27:26 PM

dextermatThe only problem is that company build crappy laptop, I don't think the drive will be any better. Plus costumer service is awefull.


Ultrabooks use Sandy/Ivy Bridge ULV chips or AMD ULV chips, both of which would see a large performance improvement for consumers from a mechanical hard drive to a hybrid hard drive.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 5:48:16 PM

kurazarrhvelocityg4, I haven't found that 60/64 or even 120/128GB SSDs are large enough even for everyday use, so packing them in every computer because they're affordable probably isn't the answer. Like you said, a Windows 7 Home Premium installation, after updates, is creeping upward of 30+GB these days. Add in antivirus, browsers, MS Office (or the open-source version of your choice), and other applications, and you're already at 50GB or more. That makes it hard to fit even a modest music/video collection on a 64GB drive and still leave 10% free space so the drive can function.Even the 128GB drive I recently bought for my gaming laptop would have been quickly overwhelmed if I didn't throw a 500GB drive in the second hard drive bay - and I don't even keep my music and videos on that computer, it's just that game installations take up as much room (or more) as Windows does.


Allow me to disagree. The biggest use of laptops isn't for games or playing music/videos that are on HDDs, it's for business, internet and streaming. For that, a 64 GB SSD is enough.

Windows 7 64 bit take up to 30 GB max, common office features (Word and Excel) maybe 0.6 GB top. Anti-virus? Like 0.1 GB. A browser? Are you kidding me? 0.3 GB top. With a clean Windows 7 64 bit install with all my browsers, all my programs except games and music/videos I have about 35 GB and I'm generous here. I have a uncompressed backup on my external HDD to prove it. 64 GB is enough for the majority of users.

As for games, installing 3 of them with a 15 GB footprint each gives you 35 GB (Windows) + 45 GB (Games) = 80 GB. Well, a 128 GB SSD is enough for that. You'd be better served by a full desktop if you want more, but since it's for a laptop, I'm pretty sure 99% of all users are covered in this scenario. And since gamers aren't even remotely the majority of users on laptops, you get a pretty good idea that 80 GB is more than enough, let alone 128 GB.

As for music, 45 GB of music, even at 10 MB per song, represents about 4500 songs. Well, 4500 songs is much more music than a normal person has, especially when they bought each and every one of them at 0.99$ on ITunes and other distributors. But even with 80 GB (35 GB from Windows, 45 GB from music), you still have enough with a 128 GB SSD.

As for videos, the normal laptop comes with a 500 GB HDD. It will never be enough for videos. So if I have to choose between "not enough on my HDD" and "not enough on my SSD", guess which one has the best performance? People that have too much videos already have an external drive for that anyway. And let's be honest, in an age of digital distribution and streaming, the only reason people have that amount of videos saved on their HDD is because it's pirated. I'm not against it, the day the MPAA deliver anything with a greater quality than Netflix will be the day they crush the whole pirate movement (which will never happen btw), I'm just saying that it can't be used as an excuse to say people have that much videos. It's not true and when it is, it's usually not legal. It's a moot point to argue.

So here you go, your entire post debunked in 3 simple logical facts. Sorry bro. I am an enthusiast and I understand that 128 GB will never be enough for us, but for 99.9% of all laptop users, it will and that's the only truth.
Score
-1
May 25, 2012 6:34:05 PM

velocityg4I think these are far too late to market. The 64GB to 128GB SSD's are in the price range of standard laptop hard drives. For the vast majority of computer buyers a 64GB SSD is far more capacity than they have any use for. For the vast majority of people the few pictures, songs and documents they keep on their computer would fit on a DVD. While the OS, OS updates, and apps take 30 to 40 GB. Then a small group of people don't need any more than a 128GB SSD for their decently sized music and/or photo library.Then there is the very small enthusiast and hobbyist minority that needs huge file capacities. These are those with huge music libraries (in lossless of course), photo libraries (in RAW format and multiple revisions), lots full length movies in HD, tons of games and other software or files.In the business market. Most individual employee computers are still fine with the 64GB SSD. Larger servers are needed to hold all the data from all employee's but the individual average office worker does not need large capacities. In business markets only a small subset need large capacities these are the designers, engineers, scientists, &c. Whom usually will need a RAID with multiple terabytes of storage.Really manufacturers of desktop and laptop computers need to make the SSD standard. I just looked at the prices and they have dropped again. The average $400 to $500 desktop or laptop computer's hard drive is more expensive than a 60 to 64GB SSD ($60 to $75). The average hard drive found in a $500+ laptop or desktop cost as much or more than a 120 to 128GB SSD ($95+).


Anonymouse23290120/128gb is enough for the average (non-enthusiast or media hoarder) user.. just that 120/128gb ssds are not exactly in the price range needed to trickle down into mid-grade consumer gear. if the lowest prices of ssd's of that capacity fell to $99 or so, then more average users may consider them for their advantages (faster boot, faster word loadup) over similarly priced hdds



BS. Most people like to store things such as photos and videos on their computers, not to mention software such as M$ office and the documents they make with it. Every regular user whom I know fills up even 250GB HDDs with music and other such files. The average user is best suited by having at least 250GB of HDD capacity, if not more.

thethirdraceAllow me to disagree. The biggest use of laptops isn't for games or playing music/videos that are on HDDs, it's for business, internet and streaming. For that, a 64 GB SSD is enough.Windows 7 64 bit take up to 30 GB max, common office features (Word and Excel) maybe 0.6 GB top. Anti-virus? Like 0.1 GB. A browser? Are you kidding me? 0.3 GB top. With a clean Windows 7 64 bit install with all my browsers, all my programs except games and music/videos I have about 35 GB and I'm generous here. I have a uncompressed backup on my external HDD to prove it. 64 GB is enough for the majority of users.As for games, installing 3 of them with a 15 GB footprint each gives you 35 GB (Windows) + 45 GB (Games) = 80 GB. Well, a 128 GB SSD is enough for that. You'd be better served by a full desktop if you want more, but since it's for a laptop, I'm pretty sure 99% of all users are covered in this scenario. And since gamers aren't even remotely the majority of users on laptops, you get a pretty good idea that 80 GB is more than enough, let alone 128 GB. As for music, 45 GB of music, even at 10 MB per song, represents about 4500 songs. Well, 4500 songs is much more music than a normal person has, especially when they bought each and every one of them at 0.99$ on ITunes and other distributors. But even with 80 GB (35 GB from Windows, 45 GB from music), you still have enough with a 128 GB SSD.As for videos, the normal laptop comes with a 500 GB HDD. It will never be enough for videos. So if I have to choose between "not enough on my HDD" and "not enough on my SSD", guess which one has the best performance? People that have too much videos already have an external drive for that anyway. And let's be honest, in an age of digital distribution and streaming, the only reason people have that amount of videos saved on their HDD is because it's pirated. I'm not against it, the day the MPAA deliver anything with a greater quality than Netflix will be the day they crush the whole pirate movement (which will never happen btw), I'm just saying that it can't be used as an excuse to say people have that much videos. It's not true and when it is, it's usually not legal. It's a moot point to argue.So here you go, your entire post debunked in 3 simple logical facts. Sorry bro. I am an enthusiast and I understand that 128 GB will never be enough for us, but for 99.9% of all laptop users, it will and that's the only truth.


Many games take between 20GB and over 50GB of capacity. For example, WoW Cataclysm can easily use up to and over 50GB and it's a common game and it's also not the only game that uses this much storage capacity. Also, if someone stores higher quality songs such as ripped from DVDs or CDs, then the songs can reach over 40MB per song. You're all also ignoring the bloatware that many OEM computers come with (we're talking about average users and OEM computers are what they tend to use). 128GB is not enough for most people, not even more non-gamers. Also, with the browser, they can use far more than .3GB if you (like most average users) don't clean out browser data occasionally.

We're also forgetting about other things such as drivers (drivers can take several hundred MB to over a one or more GB) and so much more.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 7:28:52 PM

blazorthonBS. Most people like to store things such as photos and videos on their computers, not to mention software such as M$ office and the documents they make with it. Every regular user whom I know fills up even 250GB HDDs with music and other such files. The average user is best suited by having at least 250GB of HDD capacity, if not more.

Many games take between 20GB and over 50GB of capacity. For example, WoW Cataclysm can easily use up to and over 50GB and it's a common game and it's also not the only game that uses this much storage capacity. Also, if someone stores higher quality songs such as ripped from DVDs or CDs, then the songs can reach over 40MB per song. You're all also ignoring the bloatware that many OEM computers come with (we're talking about average users and OEM computers are what they tend to use). 128GB is not enough for most people, not even more non-gamers. Also, with the browser, they can use far more than .3GB if you (like most average users) don't clean out browser data occasionally.

We're also forgetting about other things such as drivers (drivers can take several hundred MB to over a one or more GB) and so much more.


Fine with me, if you live in a world where the 10 million users of WoW play on their laptop only and this represent 50% of all laptops in the world be my guest. Or if you live in a world where people don't work with the laptop their company lend them. Or if you think that people that need more than 128 GB for pictures and videos have enough with the paltry 500 GB HDD they commonly have on laptops.

My only point is, even with all the bloatware and crapware the majority of laptops won't need more than 128 GB, 64 GB in some smaller proportion. The majority is 50% + 1, and this majority is represented by business, internet and streaming. Not picture, videos, music and gaming.

If you talk about desktop user, then it's a different thing entirely.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 7:40:58 PM

thethirdraceFine with me, if you live in a world where the 10 million users of WoW play on their laptop only and this represent 50% of all laptops in the world be my guest. Or if you live in a world where people don't work with the laptop their company lend them. Or if you think that people that need more than 128 GB for pictures and videos have enough with the paltry 500 GB HDD they commonly have on laptops.My only point is, even with all the bloatware and crapware the majority of laptops won't need more than 128 GB, 64 GB in some smaller proportion. The majority is 50% + 1, and this majority is represented by business, internet and streaming. Not picture, videos, music and gaming.If you talk about desktop user, then it's a different thing entirely.


Every average person whom I know uses their laptops for storing media files be they pictures, music, or video. They don't have the same stuff, but they all have it. No one whom I know would be okay with a 128GB drive, especially since having most of a drive's capacity full decreases longevity and performance.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 25, 2012 7:43:36 PM

just checked: my music hitted 100 g and photos 30 g, and i'm not any enthusiastic. then there is videos, games etc...
Score
0
May 25, 2012 7:57:20 PM

blazorthonEvery average person whom I know uses their laptops for storing media files be they pictures, music, or video. They don't have the same stuff, but they all have it. No one whom I know would be okay with a 128GB drive, especially since having most of a drive's capacity full decreases longevity and performance.


And you know what? It's ok. All I am saying is that I think that even if you had a billion users who need more than 128 GB, you'd still have 4 billions who don't. Which is still 75% not needing it.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, it's not that important in the end, it's just my opinion after all.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 8:20:22 PM

Oh, and just to add something, people tend to hoard things, be it digitally or not. They are also very reluctant to let go of some of those things. There's "need" and there's "need". People tend to consider things as needed even if it's not, me included. "Need" is different than "nice to have". For example, you don't "need" a smartphone, but it's nice to have and very practical.
Score
0
May 25, 2012 8:28:21 PM

thethirdraceOh, and just to add something, people tend to hoard things, be it digitally or not. They are also very reluctant to let go of some of those things. There's "need" and there's "need". People tend to consider things as needed even if it's not, me included. "Need" is different than "nice to have". For example, you don't "need" a smartphone, but it's nice to have and very practical.


You don't need to have anything. Anything is what you want, not what you need. For example, I don't need to have a 2012 computer because a 2003 XP laptop with an old P4 and 256MB of RAM is enough for most work, even though it won't be fast. Heck, you could go even further back. When do you draw the line in that argument? It doesn't work because it is subjective. The average person uses more capacity than a 128GB SSD can reasonably provide, even if they don't when they first get it. Whether or not they need that much is irrelevant to that statement.
Score
0
May 26, 2012 6:16:28 AM

welcome toshiba for making 3.5" hdd
Score
0
!