|
Posted by J. Clarke on November 29, 2004, 1:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options Al Dykes wrote:
>>Kasar Hausen wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it, laptop drives have just not been keeping up with
>>> desktop drives, capacity-wise. I realize that they are never likely to
>>> match, but the divide has been widening.
>>>
>>> Since I only ever buy laptops and always buy "desktop replacements", I
>>> wonder if anyone knows of a laptop (weight/size/etc immaterial) which
>>> accepts desktop drives internally.
>>>
>>> An added bonus would be the ability to use two drives in a RAID array,
>>> so that I need not worry about backups.
>>
>>If weight and size are immaterial then why get a laptop at all? The whole
>>point of a laptop is portability and what you're asking for would run the
>>weight and power consumption through the roof, not to mention compromising
>>reliability--if you look at the specs on laptop drives you'll find that
>>they will take considerably higher g-loading before they break than will
>>desktop drives. You might want to look into building a lunchbox
>><http://store.jinco4me.com/luboxco.html> if you need a machine that you
>>can
>>carry in one hand. The PC2-H6 could hold a full RAID-5 array with
>>hot-spare. Not cheap or light though and doesn't run on batteries.
>>
>>And no, a 2-1/2" drive will never have the same capacity as a 3-1/2" drive
>>made using the same generation of drive technology. Laptops use 2-1/2"
>>drives because they are smaller and consume less power and thus allow a
>>smaller, lighter machine with a longer run time.
>>--John
>
>
> I see that 2.5 inch form factor is the comming thing for server-grade
> disks, driven by on-board disks for blade servers and the need to fit
> a petabyte of disk space in a few racks.
In a way it makes sense--the 15K RPM drives already run reduced-diameter
platters, so it probably isn't much of a stretch to move them to a 2.5"
case.
I notice Seagate's first effort is a 73 gig drive--I find myself wondering
whether two of those actually consume less volume than one 3-1/2" 140 gig.
>
> These disks are on a different price/size curve than the cheapo disks
> made for PeeCees, but small and cool will be important for desktop
> systems soon, also. When production is fully ramped up, a 2.5 inch
> disk will be cheaper to make than a 3.5 inch disk.
>
> If the OP wants all-out performance in a portable package he should
> look for the "lunch box" systems that gamers buy. These systems have
> all the power of a desktop and none of the weight of the batteries.
While they have none of the weight of the batteries, they have weight in a
lot of other places, and lithium-ion batteries are not particularly
heavy--lithium is one of the lightest elements. The lunchboxes are no
lightweights.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| 
XML Sitemap