
Back when Apple computers were still running PowerPC chips, Apple fondly referred to the megahertz myth as an argument against Intel chips. Intel had ever-soaring clock speeds, but Apple computers said their slower-clocked PowerPC chips performed the tasks faster with better architecture. They say you can only go so high in terms of clock speed, and then beyond that, any increase in raw processor clock speed would only give marginal improvements.
Indeed, the processor is not the only defining point of a computer’s performance. And it’s not the raw clock speed that defines how well a processor chip performs, but also its architecture.
And so I now come to the “Gigabyte” myth. In this day and age, it’s not uncommon to see computers with 200+ GB hard drives. In fact, the minimum for notebook computers these days is 60 GB, I believe. Or even 80. And that’s on the low end.
Enter “netbooks,” or cheap ultraportable computers. Asus’ groundbreaking EeePC 700 series initially came with 4 Gigabytes of solid state primary storage. WTF? 4 Gigabytes? That’s anemic by today’s standards. But then you have to consider that this is an inexpensive ultraportable computer. So solid state drives were great to have, but we would have to make do with 4 GB, given cost concerns. And consider that people don’t usually use netbooks as a primary computer, but rather as a mobile computer for use when other portables are just too heavy.
And for me, this is just how I use my netbook. Mostly it’s an ultraportable computer I can keep in my bag for those times I need to go online while on the road or anywhere outside my home office or around the house . And because of this, I believe that bigger is not always better, when it comes to storage. I have a desktop Mac, and a standard-sized laptop, both of which have relatively larger hard drives. I don’t run iTunes on my netbook, and I don’t find the need to. So I’m content with the small amount of primary storage, which I could expand with SDHC anyway.
Of course the exception would be one of my netbooks, the HP Mini Note, which has 160 GB of storage (95% of which is unused), which is, in fact, the largest single piece of primary storage I have at home! But then again, the extra space is largely unused.
But back to my argument—Is it just me or does everyone else think bigger is better?
Most people I meet find my Asus EeePC 900 great, except for the small hard drive. 12GB? Could Windows fit in there, they ask?
But of course! Windows only eats up about 2GB or less. It’s a matter of optimizing the software. And the computer came bundled with Windows XP, so Windows could fit in there, for a fact! Even unoptimized, you can run your OS and your apps fine on a 4GB + 8GB setup, or some combination thereof.
A lot of online forums I visit find 4GB and even 20GB lacking, to the point that the relatively small storage space is a deal breaker. I guess those are the kinds of people who want to keep all their downloaded music on their netbook hard drive. Or their porn.
So my point is this—do you really need large storage space on a computer that is considered secondary?
Asus Philippines has done some research and found that most Filipinos would buy small notebooks as a primary computer. And so they didn’t launch the SSD-based EeePC 901 and 1000 here. Heck they didn’t even launch the 901 here. They did launch the 1000H, though, and that came with 30GB hard drives or larger.
But for me, I wouldn’t rely on a netbook as a primary computer. So I’m pretty much contented with a small drive that can hold my OS, and a handful of documents. Anyway, I could expand storage with SDHC cards. And I can burn archives to DVD anyway.
Sure, you never know when you’ll need the extra storage. Like, 20 years ago my PC-XT compatible had 20 Megabytes of storage, and I was ecstatic when I got the hard drive upgrade (where previously I just loaded everything off of 768 KB diskettes.
From my point of view, having a smaller SSD-based hard drive is better for these reasons.
Bigger is better is a myth when it comes to storage—at least from certain perspectives.
Help save the environment with new green thoughts!
5 Responses
Andre Marcelo-Tanner
September 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
1i find the 20GB of the 900 great, even if the netbook was your primary PC, you wouldnt want to store everything on it because its not that accessible, you’d want to get a portable 300GB+ hard disk like a WD Passport to store everything on.
jhay
September 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
2It all depends on how one uses the hard drive or device that holds it. If it’s a main work machine, then go for the big drives. If it’s a secondary machine, go lighter.
“Bigger is better” I think has been pushed by marketing campaigns.
Nap
September 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
3In general, i don’t believe in the “larger the better” slogan. The default SD card in my DSLR is only 512MB when there are already 8-16GB models available. My ipod’s dinosaur hard disk has been serving me well since 2005. My phone’s 1 year old memory card is more than enough to keep show n tell photos of my daughter and a few mp3s of “emergency” mp3 songs (again, for my daughter). I’m happy with my 4GB flash disk (actually a gift to me) even if 8-16GB flash disks are now common.
BUT for my Asus EEE PC 1000H, I wish I had more space than the 80GB it came with. Currently, it is my main laptop so I wish my MP3 collection was already in there as well as the photos I’ve gathered from all my paid and hobby photoshoots.
And for my backup external harddisk, I wish it had more than 250GB in it because all my data are backed up there including the tons of video I’ve made all these years. It only has around 7GB free but I still need to backup around 8 hours worth of video in it.
I guess it depends on what you’ll be using the storage for. “The more the merrier” may or may not be always the best.
cartman7110
September 27th, 2008 at 12:03 am
4Hey there. Nice post.
You’re right – not everything big is better. But sometimes it works too.
Actually, technology also aims to make things smaller, cheaper, and faster.
As for hard drive. You’re point is well founded. There is typically no need to have a massive hard drive on a backup notebook not unless you start making this backup the primary. The only other reason on getting a bigger drive is if the cost difference is so small.
But I think the manufacturers are actually targetting the netbooks in the PH setting (since we’re a “poor nation”) as the first time buyer or low income family laptop versus a carry-me-everywhere-internet-appliance second laptop. Kaya they pack it with bigger hard drive options or end-users typically modify it.
My two cents.
Zigfred
October 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
5I fully agree ! I use an ASUS Eepc myself. You don’t need lots of hard disk space.
By the way Marghil Macuha and I have just launched our free new blogging ebook. You might want to help us promote it. Check it out at http://www.zdiaz.com/index.php/2008/09/29/finally-our-very-own-guerilla-blogging-ebook/
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply