160GB hard drive in the next MacBook Pro?

I was going to buy the new MacBook Pro this spring, but now am considering waiting until an update later on this year (if it comes before the holidays).

Does anyone think it will be available with the new 160GB laptop drives, Merom processor (64bit Core Duo), Dual Layer DVD (hey, why not Blu-ray???) This would be sweet and Apple could showcase their innovation and leadership.

I don't think so. i installed a 120 gig hard drive on my laptop in early summer of last year, and i think the tech had been out for a while. still we didnt see a 120 gig until the macbook at macworld (i think, and if not, still not until late late late last year) Apple does not always seem on top of top of the line hard drive options

I'm also curious, didn't you say you were opting for the iMac. I mean, I guess you could be ordering/getting both, and I guess that's fine by me. But why'd you choose the 5,400 120 gb over the 7,200 100 gb hard drive? Just for extra space over extra speed? What is better anyways, 20 more gigs or 1,800 more rpm's or whatnot... This is a question to both C.K. and all you lovely comment-ers out there / in here.

In any case, the big deal for laptops is to have 7200 rpm drives as a standard.
I think this would be a significant performance boost. For the capacity, just get an external drive for multimedia content and you're done

Honestly, in 2008 we'll see drives much bigger than 300GB in laptops. I'm willing to bet that by 2008 we will have 600GB hard drives in our laptops and 1TB drives in our desktops. I mean come on, considering they've already made a 2TB drive in the size of a CompactFlash card, how is it possible we couldn't have drives 600GB and 1TB in size in 2008?

Yawn, I'm getting dual 100gb harddrives on my next laptop. Seriously.

300GB is as much as you can dream? Your dreams will probably be fulfilled in 2008. Think bigger. :)

And come on - operating systems don't take up the 100MB or less that they used to (unless you do some very unnatural things with Linux), but are you REALLY going to gripe about the gig and a half that Mac OS X (or Windows XP, or a modern Linux distro) take up?

On my computer right now (iBook G3/800) the OS and all of my apps (from Office to Photoshop to a billion things in-between) take up only about 10GB. On my work computer, it's similar - about 10GB.

The only thing we need larger drives for is our personal data, which is rapidly drowning out the space needed for the OS and code that manipulates it. I swear, there is no meaningful bloat in applications or OS's anymore - it's all in our data.

Didn't you just post about wanting to go buy a new Intel 20" iMac but they weren't available at your local Apple store yet? Either you just won that lottery, or just received the advance from your PSP Hacks book. :-)

there won't be any 160gb in the current macbooks. if you read further information, the current 160 are IDE, whereas the macbooks use SATA harddrives. the SATA versions are coming in the fall

Umm, you say you're having an 120gig HDD installed in the MacBook Pro you ordered, and soon the highest available HDD from Seagate will be 160gig, giving you, if you installed the Seagate drive, 60 more gigs.

Hmmm, last time I checked, the difference between 160 and 120 was 40. Am I missing something here?