Seagate can't stop announcing 1TB disks: Barracuda 7200.11 and ES.2
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jun 25th 2007 9:39AM
posted Jun 25th 2007 9:39AM
Update: Seagate just gave us some clarification on the 7200.10 vs. 7200.11: "The 7200.10 that was announced was a 250GB single-platter design; the purpose of it was to leverage the new areal densities we achieved and put it into the current 7200.10 chassis with the core electronics. It is shipping today. The 7200.11 and ES.2 use the same areal densities but are a new generation design with updated electronics, etc." So there you have it.
The 1TB 7200.10 was a disspointment to me since it only had a 16MB cache while the Hitachi had a 32MB cache. But, looks like the 7200.11 and ES.2 have 32MB caches, wooo. Can't wait to see a 7K1000 vs 7200.11 shootout
1024 GB = 1 TB
Do does this drive actually have 800-900 usable GB space, not the 1024 GB that it should? It should be illegal for these harddrive manufacturers say a harddrive has a certain amount of GB when it actually has less. If a 1 TB drive can only have a certain percentage of usable GB space, then the manufacturers should increase the amount of space so the consumer actually gets 1 full terabyte of space.
It should not be illegal for hard drives manufacturers to state it has 1 TB when it has less USABLE SPACE because its true. Read the first post of this thread and it will tell you the truth. :)
http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?t=118330
Uh oh. Cue the purists who will insist that you refer to 1024^4 by that unbearably pathetic name "tebibyte". But I fully agree. If the computer sees 1 TB as 1024^4 (and all of them do), then that's exactly how hard drives should be sold, not under this bullsh*t premise of 10^12 in order to deceptively inflate real storage potential.
@greg
My point is that the manufacturers should be advertising the Decimal Capacity, NOT the Binary Capacity. If they advertise 1 Terabyte of space, then users should see 1 Terabyte of usable harddrive space.
I agree... There's a perfectly good decimal name that they should be using instead: the trillion-byte drive.
Jaxim, you mean they should be advertising the binary way, not the decimal way. Decimal is base 10, hence using 1000 like HDD manufacturers do is the decimal way. Using multiples of 1024 (2^10) is the decimal way, and the way OSes typically report disk usage. In standard English usage, a kilo-something is a thousand of them. It's the way OSes report things that's off; a terabyte *should be* a trillion bytes. That's what tera means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tera-).
Oops... "multiples of 1024 (2^10) is the decimal way" should say it "is the binary way"--that will teach me to post at 2 am.
Umm - is this the same company that announced their new 7200.2 mamouth drives for notebooks to steal another company's thunder - still can't buy them.
105Mb/s sustained transfer rate!
Just a quick clarification on the above Blog. The 7200.10 that was announced was a 250GB single-platter design; the purpose of it was to leverage the new areal densities we achieved and put it into the current 7200.10 chassis with the core electronics. It is shipping today. The 7200.11 and ES.2 use the same areal densities but are a new generation design with updated electronics, etc.
David
Oh wow, updated electronics! Man, can't wait to get me some of those!
I'm glad the other manuractures are right on the heels of hitachi....but i still don't see any of the drives actually for sale anywhere despite the claim they are shipping. my two hitachi on order don't show a ship date. a quick scan online yields nothing on the seagate either.
They may be right on the heels of hitachi but wait awhile the reliablillity isn't there with seagate and the others. Hitachi had this technology for quite sometime and already experienced and fixed the problems the others are having because they rushed just to claim they have it out there. Go with what works, that would be hitachi
Seagate uses the media to get your bus. all the others sell on product strength. don't waist your money buy the Hitachi drive.
Oops... "multiples of 1024 (2^10) is the decimal way" should instead say it "is the binary way"--that will teach me to post at 2 am.
No preview, no edit, no delete. Fantastic. I replied to the appropriate thing above, so just ignore this dupe.