You know, we're not actually certain we want to trust 1.5TB of our
precious precious NES ROMS invaluable work data to a single drive, but that doesn't mean Seagate's latest Barracuda isn't droolworthy regardless. The jump from 1TB to 1.5TB is the "largest capacity hard drive jump in the more than half-century history of hard drives," according to Seagate, and the perpendicular-recording drives should begin shipping in August. There are also a pair of Momentus 2.5-inch 500GB notebook drives coming in Q4 in 5400 and 7200RPM speeds, but like big brother, pricing is unavailable -- we've got a hunch you might want to start saving those pennies, though.
[Thanks, Dave]
posted Jul 10th 2008 5:10PM
My God.
Yes??
its god :-o and he wins the internet
God. Can you make the Mac fanbois go away? Not your friendly average Mac user, but the zealots who make me want to gnaw off someone's face. Thanks.
Sincerely,
John Doe.
PS- Oh and please let someone invent a 48 hour battery that is edible like a cookie when it can no longer hold a charge. That would be really swell. so when a battery can no longer hold a changer for the last time the heat from the system bakes it into a cookie that can be passed around. Mmmmm cookie. :-P
I won't get excited until they develop a 1.5TB solid state drive. Then I'll be absolutely drooling. ^_^
Oh, it'll happen. Hopefully within a decade or so.
I know the year isn't over yet, but didn't Seagate say they were coming out with 2 TB drives this year?
No, they said 2GB in 2009.
That was supposed to be 2TB.
This thing is AWESOME. Too bad it'll cost way too much for me. :(
They can't get away with charging more than double the price of a 1 TB model. That would be $399 maximum at today's prices.
I know that there are many 3 platter 1 TB drives already, so Samsung for instance could easily pip Seagate with a 5 platter, 1.66 TB drive. Seagate has to stay in line with pricing on this bad boy.
I'll pass on this one. I'll stick to having three 500GB drives. Safer than loosing it all in one failure.
Heaven forbid you should "loose" all your coveted roms and pr0n.
I prefer tight data in the event of a failure.
Hard drive mirroring FTW!
Since when is it OK to lose 1/3 of your data? I don't know about you, but losing that much would cost me more than the extra drive.
Unless it's in my DVR, in which case I want 1 HUGE drive.
You sound just like the guy who said he wouldn't trust all his data to an 80gb drive. Times change, man-- change with them.
"You sound just like the guy who said he wouldn't trust all his data to an 80gb drive. Times change, man-- change with them"
A couple things:
1. I won't need that much (I hardly even use up 80 GB, so I have two 80GB mirrored... yes, I am the guy who wouldn't trust my data on an 80GB drive... j/k)
2. Currently, I'd see it cheaper to buy three 500's than the coming 1.5TB, unless the HDD is going to be less than $250 (since I can pick up a 500GB drive for a little more than $80 easily)
3. If I wanted 1.5TB storage, it would all have to be mirrored... meaning I'll need to buy two. No thank you.
Every ROM for every game made for NES and SNES would fit on a 1.44Mb 3.5" floppy.
you couldn't be more wrong
a floppy?...surely you jest?
probaby closer to a 25GB blu-ray
Actually, the storage needed for both NES + SNES is about 9.2 GB. That's 22,107 roms to be exact.
/sarcasm
I feel kind of bad about low ranking him for that egregiously wrong comment, because somehow I think we're playing right into his hands...
Tarvus just won this round of the internets.
Every NES ROM zipped is around 65-70 MB.
SNES games range from 256k to several megabytes.
You guys better learn about GoodMerge, the cool way of storing your ROMs.
All commercial NES and SNES roms GoodMerge 7zip total less than 2GB.
"Every ROM for every game made for NES and SNES would fit on a 1.44Mb 3.5" floppy"
I would have thought they'd topple over.
1.5TB of NES roms??? impossible!
Especially when every nes rom (including JP, EU and crappy rom hacks and demos) is around 200mbs
That thing laughs is the face a 128gb SSD
Finally, it's about time we got some drives bigger than 1TB. Now I can really start considering upgrading my NAS. It always seemed like it would be dumb to upgrade 750GB drives to 1TB drives, but 750GB to 1.5TB, now that's an upgrade!
I was just asking yesterday why its taking so long to come out with hard drives larger than 1TB and here we are. Still seems like it took too long. Not that I'm going to buy it, but I want the price of 1TB drives to drop so I can buy one of those.
Yep, exactly what I was going to say.
LOL dudness, you're right!
Ditto... I was wanting bigger drives to come out to drive down the price of the 1TB drives.
All thanks to: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html
Get Perpendicular!
Can I have my five minutes back now? That was a total rip-off of Schoolhouse Rock. For shame. I'm just a lonley Bill.
It was supposed to be, you chump.
-jp
HAHAH I remember that animation from long before perpendicular was even out, thank you for bringing up memories of 6GB Microdrives! Now that we have the 30,000 song....oh wait, still 6GB... Ironically flash is now what holds more in the micro arena, unless I just stopped following microdrives and they somehow got amazing without anyone knowing...
500GB drives are the best value for money at the moment, you can pick one up for under $80
Got an external 1TB with 32mb cache and eSATA for $169 shipped last week. Seems cheap for that extra 500GB...
Would be nice if you guys gave credit and linked the original submit from the author of the post:
http://www.hothardware.com/News/Seagates_Latest_Desktop_HDD_Has_15TB_Capacity/
I'll take 4.
Seconded
anyone know the height of those two 2.5-inch drives?
I see what you did there.
largest capacity jump? 30% ? not likely. by GB it might be the highest, sure, but not by percentage. not even close.
crap, my bad. 50%. reverse math, lol. still not even close though.
I loathe the advertising for hard drives. I have five externals because my 400 GB drive [maximum available at the comp was purchased] is a joke.
I would be willing to bet everything I own that when someone fires up one of these 1.5 TB drives they are presented with 1.2 TB as the maximum storage available. Does 1.2 = 1.5? NO IT DOESN'T. Hey Seagate, do us a favor, put 1.2 GB on the side of the boxes.
The amount of storage you get when a drive is plugged in, THAT is the amount that should be on the box. My point is, stop all the false advertising and tell the consumers what they're actually getting. It's called being honest.
My drives are as follows:
2 x 750 GB - only 698 GB available
1 x 500 GB - only 465 GB available
2 x 400 GB - only 372 GB available
Those figures are disgusting. All the drive manufacturer's had to do was put the secondary amounts on the box and I would be a happy customer. Instead, everyone who buys a drive is being lied to.
They will be presented with 1395GB of usable capacity.
You lost everything you own.
Actually, manufacturers do include the "visible space" on their packaging (albeit in fine print) and most also explain how an OS calculations are different than those that HDD manufacturers use.
That's not even 1.4 TB! THE HORROR!!!!!
That means I at least get to keep a few things.
Calm down, chief. There's no false advertising here. 1.5TB is really the capacity of the physical drive. There's no conspiracy to keep you from your precious disk space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Overhead
GB GiB because 1024 1000. This topic gets beaten to death with every new hard drive release. Can we please let it rest once and for all? Pretty please?
Since there's no editing function, let me fix my previous comment:
GB != GiB because 1024 != 1000. This topic gets beaten to death with every new hard drive release. Can we please let it rest once and for all? Pretty please?
Ugh, yet another person who doesn't understand numerical bases. HDD uses the SI definition of giga- (1000^3, base-10), which other memory is base-2 (SI definition is gibi-, 1024^3).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion
noob
Isn't the issue that they should put 'formatted capacity' on it, and that lots of space is lost to the filesystem itself, discuss. ;)
Oh and let's not forget that they put things like '16MB cache' on these HD's, but is it really 16MB?
Incidentally, I do think they should use the binary definitions on HD's since you don't use them for analog data do you?
I can't wait to format this drive with ReiserFS! (although, I should make backups; I don't want a corrupt filesystem to cause a bloody mess...)
*rimshot*
I can't wait to format this drive with ReiserFS! (although, I should make backups; I don't want a corrupt filesystem to cause a bloody mess...)
Ouch, it was bad enough the first time...
Blame engadget™.com™ for not processing comments fast enough, or alternatively giving people feedback it's being processed.
i'm holding out for the 500TB Drive. I got so burned 10 years ago with my 1.5GB drive.
1024 mb = 1GB
1000 mb ≠ 1GB
1.5 "TB" will probably be around 1.45 TB Formated ~1,464,843.75 mb
your first part is only true in Windows (and Mac? idk).
with the IEC system, it's the other way around:
1024 MB ≠ 1 GB
1000 MB = 1 GB
...and...
1024 MB = 1 GiB.
outside the IEC system, the following can be true:
1024 MB = 1 GB
1000 MB = 1 GB
and thats the raison d'être of the IEC system, of which 'GiB' is a part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#IEC_standard_prefixes
read the links a couple of people posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Overhead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion
your second part is a bit off too. if you divide 1.5 TB down to bytes by using "1000" between each level (TB/GB/MB/KB/B), then multiply back up to TiB using 1024 between each level, you get: 1.36 TiB / 1396.98 GiB / 1,430,511.5 MiB.
For some reason I think this new trend of putting the lowercase i in is annoying and somehow pretentious, but I had that before with things the IEC introduced, their symbols and conventions although practical seem somehow to radiate something unpleasant, like the square shapes for logic gates rather than the traditional old system, it's so.. you know.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate)
The whole thing screams out the type of people that think it up.
Im assuming by "love" you mean "pr0n".
I just bought the Iomega 1TB HD. Should I have waited?
Not at all, you now can buy this too when available and fill 2.5TB total, that should tie you over for a few months. depending on how many BD discs you dowload in a week.
Drobo are you ready for this?
6 Tb of storage in a sleek black box.
Serious n00b question:
Is there any particular reason why this won't work with the new Mac Pro I'm about to buy? The mac store advertises "up to 4TB of hard disk storage". I'm hoping it says that because of current drive capacity, not some limitation in the OS?
Thanks,
~Trav
It'll work, chief. It'll work just fine.
But if it doesn't, you can give me the Mac Pro.
Wow, imagine 4 of these in a Drobo. You'll have 4 x 1.5 = 6TB of space. Even with the overhead of the redundant copies, that'll still be over 4TB of space, meaning you'll end up with THREE 2TB drives mapped that you'll have to keep track of separately, etc.
Anybody want to fix the stupid 4TB limit on USB drives yet? Or should we just wait until there is a 4TB drive available for laptops?
You only get 3 x the capacity when using the 4 drives on a drobo, so you'd get:
(4 x 1.5) - (1 x 1.5) = 4.5TB
not 6. The new drobo has firewire too :)
Oops, I meant 2TB limit.
been fixed for a while... Since 1.1.2 rolled out a few months ago. The new limit is 16TB so even four 5 tb drives will still be one big pool.
I'm very happy with Seagate drives but I'm wishing they would spread the love to some larger laptop drives. I can put a few hard drives in my PC but if I want to keep my laptop portable I could use a much larger hard drive.
The OWC Woot site has the Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 2.5" drives available, as mentioned on Engadget previously. Unless you absolutely need a 7200rpm drive, in which case I think you're still stuck at 200GB or maybe 250GB OEM, the laptop drives have just kicked up a notch recently after being stuck at ~100GB for some time...
Well, both WD and Seagate have 320GB 7200RPM notebook drives out...
That's going to take quite some time to format/defrag I can tell you, quite some time.
"largest capacity hard drive jump in the more than half-century history of hard drives,"
Who thinks that shit up? thats like some excessively epic stuff that Napoleon would say.
Wow you are familiar with what napoleon said? In french too?
Actually, 1.5TB will be near to 1.4TB.
The exact capacity will be 1.396,98GB (almost 1397GB).
Gradius
Looks like I'm going to wait till the launch of this drive before setting up my array of 12 drives. Although I needed only around 10TB of space for my home office, it still seems like a good idea to wait for the 1.5 TB drives. Even if these are going to be expensive, the prices on the 1TB drives will fall again which is still a good reason to wait.
I disagree with the risk factor about trusting a drive with so much of data. That's what RAID is for.
I plan to use 12 drives in RAID6 with the XFS filesystem.
Looks like I'm going to wait till the launch of this drive before setting up my array of 12 drives. Although I needed only around 10TB of space for my home office, it still seems like a good idea to wait for the 1.5 TB drives. Even if these are going to be expensive, the prices on the 1TB drives will fall again which is still a good reason to wait.
I disagree with the risk factor about trusting a drive with so much of data. That's what RAID is for.
I plan to use 12 drives in RAID6 with the XFS filesystem.
Sorry about the double post. Now I look like an idiot.