×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Western Digital Announces 1TB Mobile HD

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the better-sew-some-deeper-pockets dept.

252

Western Digital has announced a couple of new 2.5-inch mobile hard drives weighing in at 750GB and 1TB. The drives feature a 3 GB/s transfer rate and Western Digital's "WhisperDrive" tech along with specialized shock tolerance and head parking to ensure durability. "Both models are shipping now through various channels; the 1TB model is currently available in My Passport Essential SE USB drives. The Scorpio Blue 750GB model has a suggested sticker price of $190 while the Scorpio Blue 1TB is a mere $250. The My Passport Essential SE 1 TB portable drive is $299.99 USD and the 750 GB model is $199.99 USD."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

More Mobile Porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28843959)

Everyone needs more porn that is mobile.

Now I can upgrade my PS3 (3, Informative)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#28843979)

to 1 TB since you can put 2.5" hard drives in there.

Re:Now I can upgrade my PS3 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844113)

Economy not burdening you eh? :P

Re:Now I can upgrade my PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844259)

You've always been able to upgrade your PS3 to 1TB. 3.5" drive + USB enclosure.

Cool. Now my music will change again. (3, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844003)

The plan: Get one of these TB drives and stuff it full of FLAC rips from my massive CD collection. Then USB it to a WD TV box [wdc.com] and my cheapy $80 15in flat panel monitor, routing the audio to my insane audio system.

Finally: Done.

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (1)

ODiV (51631) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844167)

If it's just sitting there, why use a more expensive 2.5" drive?

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844269)

elegance - don't have to deal with the freakin' wall wart from a larger drive. Also, WD says the WD TV is optimised to work with WD passport drives. I don't really know what they mean by that, but I guess it is safe to consider it a good thing.

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (3, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844427)

elegance - don't have to deal with the freakin' wall wart from a larger drive. Also, WD says the WD TV is optimised to work with WD passport drives. I don't really know what they mean by that, but I guess it is safe to consider it a good thing.

Really? Really....? You really think they say it works best with THEIR drives for any reason other than to make you think you should buy their drives? It's just marketing fluff, like when Kraft Mac and Cheese says it tastes great with Kraft Parmesan cheese on top, as if any other Parmesan cheese isn't going to provide the same taste sensation.
-Taylor

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (3, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844827)

... Kraft Parmesan cheese ...

There is no "Kraft Parmesan". There is a product called something like it - even containing cellulose if I recall correctly - but it is not Parmesan cheese [wikipedia.org]. Kraft's abomination is an attempt to identify a crappy, industrialized low quality item as a high quality, hand made product of specific origin. In other news: It is only champagne if you make it from special grapes from a special region in a special way. If it isn't, it is sparkling wine.

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844929)

... Kraft Parmesan cheese ...

There is no "Kraft Parmesan". There is a product called something like it - even containing cellulose if I recall correctly - but it is not Parmesan cheese [wikipedia.org]. Kraft's abomination is an attempt to identify a crappy, industrialized low quality item as a high quality, hand made product of specific origin. In other news: It is only champagne if you make it from special grapes from a special region in a special way. If it isn't, it is sparkling wine.

Actually that's exactly what they call it. They don't call it Parmigiano-Reggiano, but they do call it Parmesan.

http://www.indojin.com/shop-online/catalog/images/kraft-parmesan.gif [indojin.com]

Of course it's almost nothing like good Parmigiano-Reggiano, but if we're being pedantic, you are wrong in saying there is no "Kraft Parmesan", even if they are wrong in calling it that.

-Taylor

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844949)

It is only champagne if you make it from special grapes from a special region in a special way. If it isn't, it is sparkling wine.

Which means exactly what if you just want to get buzzed?

As a related question, what if a chemist made an exact chemical copy of a "real" champagne? Would you still claim that the location mattered?

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (3, Funny)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845329)

Mac-N-Cheese is made with cheddar. Using parmesan would result in a bowl of pasta vomit. Every cheese has a proper usage.

Re:Cool. Now my music will change again. (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844375)

With a 2.5" drive via USB you don't need to provide it power, it gets it from the USB port. With a 3.5" drive you need an external power source and a wall wart.

Glad I waited... (1)

shadowmage36 (840208) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844035)

I am now exceedingly glad I waited to purchase a new HDD for my laptop. While this is just slightly ridiculous, now I can give windows i nice happy 250 GB to play with and give linux 500 GB.
And then all shall be right with the universe.

Re:Glad I waited... (2, Informative)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844211)

I am now exceedingly glad I waited to purchase a new HDD for my laptop.

The drive is 2.5 inches, but it is 12.5 mm rather than the standard 9.5 mm thick [anandtech.com] - so it is unlikely to fit in a laptop. On a side note, I wish they started using metric proper instead of this mix of metric and legacy measurements.

Record my life, I guess (2, Funny)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844059)

I've loved IT for decades, and this level of data storage still boggles my mind. At every step, I could think of applications for greater storage - "oh, more OS space is needed", "wow, music would be nice", "movies... obviously", "make an incremental restore point at any point in time"... ok, now what???

I guess I'll just record my life so I don't forget where I put my keys? I'm sure I'm suffering from lack of creativity in my old age, but that's all I think can think of anymore!

Re:Record my life, I guess (2, Insightful)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844383)

You're forgetting about BluRay, up to 50 GB per movie, granted not everyone needs all the extra audio and whatnot so you can probably trim a few GBs here and there.

Re:Record my life, I guess (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844507)

I've loved IT for decades, and this level of data storage still boggles my mind. At every step, I could think of applications for greater storage - "oh, more OS space is needed", "wow, music would be nice", "movies... obviously", "make an incremental restore point at any point in time"... ok, now what???

I guess I'll just record my life so I don't forget where I put my keys? I'm sure I'm suffering from lack of creativity in my old age, but that's all I think can think of anymore!

Yeah, I was just thinking of that last week. If you read the Wikipedia Entries on Petabytes and Exabytes, and Zettabytes it really starts to make you wonder what we will be using all that space for. On 50 meg drives it was more space for documents, then a couple of gigs and you had just enough space for all your music. On Terabyte drives you can store lots and lots of BluRay rips, something we didn't even think about ten years ago. A good movie collection might still be a few TB though. Beyond that though, what kind of media will we come up with? We always seem to come up with something. Fully Immersive 3D environments a la holodeck? Full copies of human memories?

Wikipedia mentions some research that says "all words ever spoken by human beings could be stored in approximately 5 exabytes of data" if stored in text format. That's freaking amazing. ALL WORDS EVER SPOKEN is an insane concept and thinking that we have technology capable of storing something like that just blows my mind.
-Taylor

Re:Record my life, I guess (2, Interesting)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844591)

Hmmm... let's see. I've got about a terabyte of stuff that I've accumulated over the years. Every CD/DVD/Video cassette I've ever bought or borrowed from a friend has been digitized, reencoded and written to a hard drive. That's 100-300 MB per CD and somewhere between 700 and 8000MB per movie. Over the years, I'm up to a 120GB music collection and 800+GB of video... _without_ downloading a single one. If you're a pack rat, you'll fill a terabyte pretty easily, even with legal means :)

If I'd downloaded and kept everything that would remotely interest me, I'm sure I'd be sitting on dozens of terabytes of data by now...

Re:Record my life, I guess (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844603)

At every step, I could think of applications for greater storage - "oh, more OS space is needed", "wow, music would be nice", "movies... obviously", "make an incremental restore point at any point in time"... ok, now what???

And you know what... The Exchange Administrators still only give 50mb for your mailbox 10 years later. ;)

Seriously, what is up with that... My home computer has more hard drive space than many business servers combined.

Re:Record my life, I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28845147)

server space also cost a LOT more money. You know tape drive, tapes, robotic library, offsite storage aint cheap...

Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844093)

I can understand having this much space at home, for movies, TV series, pictures and the like, but on the go ?

it's the same thing with iPods. the 30 GB model I had was enough to put all my music there, but I only listened to a small subset of it, nothing that a cell phone with a 4 GB couldn't handle.

so, wouldn't it be better to have a smaller, but more energy efficient and thougher disk better ?

then, at home just load and unload what you need, and that's it.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (4, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844253)

Imagine being a photographer on the Paris-Dakar race [wikipedia.org] where you're shooting hundreds (thousands?) of photos on a high-res DSLR for three weeks (a week before hand, the race, the aftermath) out in the field. There are a ton of week long sailing races [flickr.com] that any one photographer might blow through 1000 photos a day. Highest quality 1080p is said to consume 1GB/minute. How many hours of video could national geographic tape with just three of these in the field with a MacBook Pro? Lots of options for pros. Consumers will buy these but rarely use them to their potential.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (4, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844351)

"Imagine being a photographer on the Paris-Dakar race where you're shooting hundreds (thousands?) of photos on a high-res DSLR for three weeks (a week before hand, the race, the aftermath) out in the field. There are a ton of week long sailing races that any one photographer might blow through 1000 photos a day. Highest quality 1080p is said to consume 1GB/minute. How many hours of video could national geographic tape with just three of these in the field with a MacBook Pro? Lots of options for pros. Consumers will buy these but rarely use them to their potential."

And then he drops something the size of a cigarette pack into the drink or into the sand and it's all gone. They need to make sure they buy 2.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844417)

Conversely, he can carry 15 somethings the size of a cigarrette pack with him exceedingly easily where that would be untenable before, especially given power requirements.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844693)

Highest quality 1080p is said to consume 1GB/minute.

Is that right? I thought completely uncompressed 1080p was supposed to be something like 3Gbps. Looking at the wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

The movie industry has embraced 1080p24 as a digital mastering format in both native 24p form and in 24PsF form.... For live broadcast applications, a high-definition progressive scan format operating at 1080p at 50 or 60 frames per second is currently being evaluated... as it has doubled the data rate of current 50 or 60 fields interlaced 1920 Ã-- 1080 from 1.485 Gbit/s to nominally 3 Gbit/s.

Ok, so it looks like that's a future standard. But 1920x1080 * 3 channels * 8 bits per channel * 24 frames per second = about 1.2Gbps, right? I don't know if the cameras have good compression built in, but 1GB/minute still sounds low to me. Is my math wrong?

Anyway, point taken. There's a use for compact large-capacity hard drives.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845101)

I googled h.264 gb per second storage and 1gb/sec was the 8th result or so. I make no claims to it's accuracy. Its a good, round ballpark number though.
 
fun fact about movie standards (and I know this because I used to be an art house movie theater projectionist) is that most digital transfers (to "film") are 4096x2048 already. 1080p as a standard is a huge step back in quality to what you're already seeing as "digital". The only plus right now of getting rid of film is financial and economical reasons (savings the consumer will never see). Oh and less projector shake and cheaper bulbs (also cost savings that won't be passed on to the consumer). Actually as it turns out they fixed the shake long, long ago, but most people have never seen a movie on a high end projector (IMAX excluded) so they don't know what they're missing. A first run print (I.e. Movie critic's edition) on a good projector in a properly set up auditorium with a good projectionist is an amazing production. Crappy projectors in a cheaply built megaplex run by teenagers produces a crap experience. Which is why so many people prefer a blu-ray on hdtv - its really hard for the average consumer to fuck it up using name brand hardware.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844329)

so, wouldn't it be better to have a smaller, but more energy efficient and thougher disk better ?

But making smaller, more energy efficient disks also mean that it's easier to fit bigger, higher capacity disks into the same packaging. It's part of the same deal.

I mean, yes, I agree with what you're saying. Putting this drive in my laptop would be overkill. My laptop is currently only using 25 GB. But the nice thing about having lots of different options is everyone can get what they want. With the new flash-based notebook drives, I can get a small, fast, energy-efficient drive, and with this release the guy who actually has use for a 1TB drive in his laptop will be able to get it. We all win.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844341)

What makes you think a desktop drive is more energy efficient? Tougher maybe, but certainly not as energy efficient...

That being said, what about users whose primary computer *is* their laptop. I have a big honkin' fileserver at home, but I'm not always there. It's nice to have a selection of stuff (games take a rediculous amount of space nowadays) on the go, especially when you're going away for a few weeks.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844607)

I have a big honkin' fileserver at home, but I'm not always there.

Then plug in your 3G modem, MiFi router, or phone with a tether plan, and mount it remotely. Of course, it's not for everybody; some people don't find it worth $60/mo, and others find it too expensive for the 5 GB/mo cap that all the carriers enforce.

games take a rediculous amount of space nowadays

DS games aren't more than 128 MB. Or is that more "greeniculous"?

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

anthony.vo (1581427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844405)

For some people, a laptop is their only computer. Laptops have been outselling desktops for years, if you haven't noticed.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844451)

I have the same thought.

When I bought my MSI Wind, I decided to upgrade the HDD to a 320GB merely because I wanted the faster 7200rpm and because it was fairly cheap. I then put the old drive in my PS3 so it didn't go to waste. The old drive from the PS3 is now my OS drive for my Media Center.

I think with all of my utilities and OS it's taking up maybe 6GB? There's probably some music on there, too.

I keep all of my media on my Media Center and that is because its in my living room. Music, TV Shows, Movies, etc are all on there. That's where I enjoy my media.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (2, Insightful)

orev (71566) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844597)

Some of us don't enjoy having our data spread out all over the place on multiple systems with multiple drives. I don't want to have to worry about if I'm going to want some file while I'm traveling, so why not just take everything? That's what these allow people to do.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

d4nowar (941785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844673)

Yes, and here's why - many people (students) use laptops as their main and only computer.

DJs use laptops with Serato/Torq/Traktor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844721)

A lot of them prefer .WAV-quality format for their tracks. Since none of those apps support FLAC, I could see someone using up 1 TB fairly easily.

Re:Seriously, is that much space neccessary ? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844909)

I can understand having this much space at home, for movies, TV series, pictures and the like, but on the go ?

I actually use my MSI Wind netbook as more-or-less my primary machine nowadays. The main problem I had with the netbook is the lack of a DVD drive, so my solution was to just spend $100 for a 500GB 2.5" hard drive and copy images of every DVD I own to it. I take my netbook almost everywhere since it's so light, and it's quite handy to be able to show any movie from my collection whenever I'm at a friend's place. It's also been handy for offloading several gigabytes worth of photos/videos from my digital camera while on-the-go. The convenience is well worth $100.

Parity with desktops now (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844103)

Roughly two 2.5" drives fit in the space of a 3.5" drive (using common adapters). So with a standard two-drive 2.5" to 3.5" adapter (such as a Bay Rafter), you can now have 2TB with 2.5" or 3.5" drives as your choice.

What might this be useful for? It would reduce the space needed for a RAID-5 array. For example, you could have four drives in two 3.5" slots, running in RAID-5, 3TB usable. With desktop drives, you could at best do RAID-1 with 2TB usable.

It also potentially could have performance benefits. It's not clear if this is a 7200RPM drive, but the performance of two drives in RAID-0 might be better than a desktop 2TB drive. Of course, the cost would be $600, nearly four times what you'd pay for 2TB of storage in desktop drives.

Re:Parity with desktops now (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844237)

It actually is clear -- it is 5200rpm, 12ms seek, 8MB buffer.

(at least it is clear if you download the spec sheets from WD)

Re:Parity with desktops now (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845149)

Which is why I will stick to my seagate 7200RPM 500G drive :)

WD pulled the same thing when they launched their 2TB 3.5" drives, they all originally came out as "green" drives, which means 5200rpm spindle speed.

So when will we have big raid arrays on notebooks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844109)

Raid is not a backup, but it's DAMN good cheap insurance against bad bits and the occasional clicking death. Laptops are the new desktops. Make it happen.

The disk is the bottleneck on newer laptops. Speed up the bus, and you waste less cpu hours waiting. Which saves energy, at least potentially.

These things are tiny, and for $1200 bucks you could have 4 of them in a portable array. Would work pretty effing well in a, say 21 inch macbook pro.

Steve, if you do this, I won't sue... promise.

Sweet Zombie Jesus that's so cool!!! (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844115)

Yes, now laptop computers can have a whole terabyte to get bashed around, lost and stolen! Yeah!

No, seriously it's Sweet Zombie Jesus level of coolness. Really.

Reliability? (2, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844133)

That's a lot of bits and bytes in a very small space... what's the expected Real Life Span of one of those? I mean it would make a great backup solution, but would you really trust it over (or at least on par with) say, a 3.5" 1TB internal hard drive? Most people I know use these to backup their photos/home movies (pirated media's not worth backing up in most cases, and can be had for free more or less instantly nowadays with BT; home movies are only archived on one computer typically).
 
Personally, I'm wary of keeping anything on a drive much larger than 300GB for long term data storage.

Re:Reliability? (1)

beatbox32 (325106) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844401)

Well if it's like any of my past Western Digital experiences, they've probably kept the Crap Out After Warranty Expires (tm) feature.

Re:Reliability? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844407)

"Personally, I'm wary of keeping anything on a drive []for long term data storage."

I'm sure you meant the above.

Re:Reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844475)

Personally, I'm wary of keeping anything on a drive much larger than 300GB for long term data storage.

I think the current "safety size" is about the 600 GB mark these days. For Western Digital at least their last "very stable" drives are the 640 GB Black series. Any bigger and all brands seem to get flaky. Not that there aren't good ones that are larger, but it's much more of a gamble.

Besides, we're pushing right up to the edge of the old moving parts technology. It won't be but a few more years till everyone is solid state. Especially on laptops like what this thing is intended for.

Re:Reliability? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844895)

I don't knob who steals media on the high seas?

But when you *download* media from the net, there are many rare things to keep. Some of them so valuable, that you might never ever see anyone on this planet have it again.

I own music that there are only 7 pressed vinyls of on the whole planet. I own videos of rare events that you can't get off the net at any chance.
I own movies in full-hd, with german and enlish ac3 streams, two comment streams and full chapters. Try to find something like that on the net.

Believe me, I know this better than anyone. Because I lost half my data when a buggy recovery program tried to read the wrong MFT of an NTFS file system that i thought I'd need no backup of.
Well, I was incredibly wrong. All that lost stuff is simply nowere to be found anymore.

I went pro: I run a multi-p2p-network server 24/7, with a script constantly hunting, downloading and archiving everything out of my lost collection, that it can find. (mldonkey, I LOVE you!) With the most generic search queries possible. It took me 3 years to restore the first 30% of the lost files. And I can wait probably another five years to for the rest. Until I give up. Much of it will be gone forever.

Re:Reliability? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845001)

Personally, I'm wary of keeping anything on a drive much larger than 300GB for long term data storage.

Why the arbitrary figure? On every announcement of a new drive size, people always wonder about the reliability because of the seemingly huge size. I recall this being said about 1GB drives, and now we're at 2k times that size.

I really can't say I've seen a reliability difference based on differences newness of the drive or the absolute capacity. If you're not backing up, you're risking the loss of your data, regardless of the size of the hard drive. It doesn't even have to be drive failure. What if you lost power? Do you have battery backup? Even notebook batteries can occasionally cut out before the OS expects the battery to be depleted. What if the software corrupts your data? Or you realize that you deleted the wrong file too late for an undelete?

Capacity vs formats (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844149)

So hard drive technology has not yet reached it's brick wall. It's good to see that the miniature sized drives also getting huge capacities and are quite affordable. Now, if only SSD's would catch up with larger capacities and more importantly, less stratospheric prices.

As for speed, my WD passport USB2 pocket drive is fast enough to play back full HD video without dropping frames, so there's no speed problems there. Now if only the eeePC had a faster processor.....

Re:Capacity vs formats (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844409)

Have you studied up on the new Intel X25-M G2 drives? Apparently they're nice and fast, and the G2 drives are much cheaper than the G1 drives. Still not cheap, but getting there.

Its a good thing too... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844151)

I was running out of space for my massive collection of...

No, I wasn't going to say that, you perv.

Re:Its a good thing too... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845279)

Bits, I didn't know that bits alone made you a perv.

I thought it was what the bits looked like when read in a certain way.

Transfer rate (4, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844197)

The drives feature a 3 GB/s transfer rate...

Read: The drives feature a SATA 2 interface, which has a theoretical maximum of 3 Gigabits/s transfer rate, while in practice you'll get 1/4th of that if you're lucky.

Re:Transfer rate (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844459)

Got any data to back that up?

Re:Transfer rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844581)

This is common knowledge. Google it.

Re:Transfer rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28845195)

It's well known fact.

SATA 2 interface transfers at 3 Gbps using 10-bit encoding resulting in theological maximum rate of 300 MB/s.

Drives on the other hand only sustain typically 50-75 MB/s linear read speed and that is as the GP rightfully said only 1/4th to 1/6th of the theological maximum rate.

Re:Transfer rate (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844697)

And don't forget that's 3Gbit/s in 10 bit encoding with two parity bits, so you'll at most get 300MB/s. From cache you can get fairly close to that but reading from platters is slower, couldn't find any info on actual sequential read/write speeds.

Re:Transfer rate (2, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845179)

Of course not, they were very good at hiding the fact that their "green" desktop drives are really just 5400RPM drives, they even obfuscated it from their own datasheets.

As an interesting note, the new line of Patriot SSD come very close to the 300MB/s speed, clocking in 280MB/s in reads.

Re:Transfer rate (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844975)

Also, the transfer rate is usually the rate of the interface, not of the disk itself. Which usually is just a fraction of that.

Wont fit in most laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844209)

This won't actually fit in most laptops since it's 12.5mm in height and most are designed for 9.5mm height drives.

Re:Wont fit in most laptops (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844323)

You'd be surprised. Friday night, I hooked up with a dude. He drops trou and I see a fucking 12.5" monster uncut cock. Thick, too. I didn't think my ass could take it, and I've been on the receiving end of a couple fistings! Well, it was uncomfortable at first, but my ass accommodated all of him. I was walking funny the rest of the night and even now, my ass hurts, but I hope I hook up with him at this week's LUG.

Re:Wont fit in most laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28845123)

Don't worry I'm sure you will :)

2.5 inches? Are you sure? (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844223)

I look at the My Passport Essential SE [wdc.com] specs and see length of 3.1 inches. I look at the WD Scorpio Blue [wdc.com] and see 2.75 inches. Nowhere on their site do I see 2.5 inches. Unless they're doing some horrible rounding.

Re:2.5 inches? Are you sure? (1)

ben kohler (1109391) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844477)

2.5" refers to the platter size, the actual size of that form factor is 2.75" wide. And that passport is an external drive, which means even more outside casing, so 3.1" is reasonable.

Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844509)

Now look down in your pants and tell me what you find.

Re:2.5 inches? Are you sure? (2, Informative)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844523)

I look at the My Passport Essential SE [wdc.com] specs and see length of 3.1 inches. I look at the WD Scorpio Blue [wdc.com] and see 2.75 inches. Nowhere on their site do I see 2.5 inches. Unless they're doing some horrible rounding.

I think that is platter diameter inside the drive.
-Taylor

Excellent! (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844245)

So now, we'll not only be able to store CowboyNeal's entire porn collection on one disk, but have a cheap second disk to store CowboyNeal's entire personality and consciousness! He's going to be like, immortal, or something,... ;-) The only question is, WHY in the hell would we want to do that?!?!

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28845311)

So now, we'll not only be able to store CowboyNeal's entire porn collection on one disk

It's still going to take 1000 of these to hold that. CowboyNeal has atleast one petabyte of porn, probably closer to two.

I'm looking forward to the speed increase. (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844261)

A 5400 RPM drive of this size should have twice the data transfer of drives that are currently available (500GB). In fact, this should have 10x the throughput of my current laptop drive. I'm drooling already...

Obviously, this only applies to sequential reads/writes. Is there any other bottleneck, or can I actually expect to write large files 10x faster?

Re:I'm looking forward to the speed increase. (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844527)

Unless I'm confused, disk size doesn't relate to transfer speeds. I'd assume it is near the same speed as the 500GB. You'd never hit the 3 GB/s transfer rate that SATA2 is capable of unless you were running several of these in a RAID.

Re:I'm looking forward to the speed increase. (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844801)

Well, if the disk is full and spinning at a constant rate, the head is passing over a given number of bits each second--this rate depends on the disk size. (I don't think the number of platters should matter.)

I'm making a big assumption--that the head can read/write as fast as the disk spins. Even with large and sequential reads/writes, I don't know whether this is true.

Re:I'm looking forward to the speed increase. (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844893)

Well, I'm an idiot. I've thought of a bunch of unstated assumptions I made that are probably wrong. I still think a bigger drive may have more throughput, but it's not something that I can take for granted without detailed specs (that I don't have).

Cripes, it's like they're IN the porn business... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844303)

...oh give me a break. Like 1TB on a laptop is gonna be used for Word Docs or "official business"...Please.

YouTube != porn (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844665)

Some people shoot home movies. Lots of home movies. Then they edit the movies and upload them to YouTube or Vimeo or somewhere similar. But get this: YouTube doesn't allow porn.

Re:YouTube != porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844845)

there's youporn for that...

Re:Cripes, it's like they're IN the porn business. (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844755)

2 and a half inches doesn't get you into the porn business.

Believe me I've tried.

Nice, except you probably can't use them (5, Informative)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844483)

These are 12.5mm drives. The VAST majority of laptops from the last several years (certainly any new enough to have a SATA interface) only allow for 9.5mm drives. I'm sure there's some Alienware rig that's large enough to take them, but chances are your laptop will not.

This is a marketing stunt to say "we're first", even though it won't be usable for most people.

Re:Nice, except you probably can't use them (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845049)

Not only that, they say "now shipping", but where? They don't even offer the drive for sale on their own web store, and it's not even listed at Newegg.

Re:Nice, except you probably can't use them (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845153)

What do you mean, won't be usable for most people? They're USB drives, not internal SATA drives.

hopefully (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844657)

they will switch their giant power-hungry 3.5" external drive models like the 2TB Mirror edition to this drive to conserve both power and space.

The mirror edition is a friggin' brick and a half!

not happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844739)

my 2 year old WD HD died on the weekend, so I'm not buying that brand for a while.

Too big to lose? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844779)

I must admit that this capacity is attractive in that form factor but 320GB is about as big as I "need" really... actually bigger than I need. The last time I was deciding on a new drive for my latest Fedora install (I always install fresh and mount the old drive into a USB case for data recovery), I decided that while the price of a 500GB drive was within the "affordable" window, the lower price of the current high performance 320GB drives was quite attractive and at the same time was more than adequate for the purpose.

I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having excessive amounts of pictures and porn video, but I still have ample free space for other things like DVD rips and the like. But at some point the time required to move and manage that amount of data on a single device becomes a time and resource consuming process. Any larger than 300GB and the data begins to become unwieldly.

Just read the comments on Newegg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844781)

Just read the comments on Newegg to see how WD disks are no longer made like they used to be.
WDs now seem to have a high rate of disk failures. I cannot personally attest to this since I've only had 1WD and it lost all my data (not enough datapoints to infer), but certainly the thousands of recent reviews on newegg prove a point?

Re:Just read the comments on Newegg... (1)

DanJ_UK (980165) | more than 4 years ago | (#28845219)

I can. I've had Deathstar, Seagate, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital drives over the many years and out of all of them the ONLY drive (x2) I've ever had fail were both Western Digital drives, one that was no more than 6 months old might I add.

I hear the external WD MyBook drives are particularly bad at failing due to power supply issues too.

It's become possible to record your life (1)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 4 years ago | (#28844805)

On an interesting aside, but related to this: It is now economical and technically possible to record one's entire life. A wearable camera can record video and audio. There are some which are so unobtrusive they record through a pinhole in what look like reading glasses. This kind of portable storage assures that one could always have plenty of space for recording and you could maintain a library of your days at home using cheap hard drives. Storage is cheap enough now that you could add a couple of terabytes to a storage array each year for a couple hundred dollars.

With reasonable compression, (Mpeg-4 AVC/H.264) you could record an entire year of video at roughly SDTV quality - Something like 640x480 or perhaps 480x360 or something (considerably better quality than first generation Youtube video) and it would fit a year in just about one terabyte. At this rate though, if you can carry one terabyte and afford to have a few terabytes per year, then it's not beyond possibility that you could record everything at 720p or better.

If you recorded video at 1080p using a bit rate equivalent to a high quality Bluray disk (higher quality than broadcast HDTV) you could fit roughly one week of continuous recording on a one terabyte hard drive. If you dumped it every few days to a big array of drives recording life at a high frame rate and quality is not out of the question. No doubt in the near future, with storage prices as they are, it will become feisable to store that much as well.

It raises some interesting possibilities and questions. A person could theoretically be assured of never forgetting anything. Of course, there is also the question of whether one would really want their entire life recorded.

Did Western Digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844879)

stop sucking, somewhere along the way?

In my personal pantheon, they were next to the bottom, above only Maxtor.

They were originally really good, then really bad, then up to slightly above mediocre, then back to really bad again...

Seagate, up top, tied with Fujitsu and Hitachi (at least their SCSI product; the Seagate ATAs are pretty good too).

And yes, I know, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Underlying technologies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28844919)

I wonder what technologies are currently improving, driving this storage density increase. Giant Magnetoresistive heads had their day starting the late 90 's. Perpendicular recording hit a couple of years ago. What kind of refinements to these and other technologies are driving these continued impressive gains?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...