Beta
×

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!

Hitachi to Release Half TB Drive Soon

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the thats-a-whole-lotta-nekkid dept.

Data Storage 607

samdu writes "Hitachi has announced plans to release a 7200 RPM 3.5 inch 500 GB hard drive in the first quarter of this year." Maybe this one won't require a new motherboard to use. I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs.

cancel ×

607 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yay! (4, Funny)

ikea5 (608732) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278489)

More porn, yay!

Re:yay! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278534)

What is this "porn" you speak of? Perhaps you misspelled pr0n?

Re:yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278579)

What is this "pr0n" you speak of? Perhaps you misspelled P0rn?

Re:yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278684)

Nope, I'm pretty sure I spelled pr0n correctly. Maybe you're just not 1337 enough to have learned the proper spelling? :)

w00w0w0 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278495)

pisty fisty

Tonight at 10 (3, Funny)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278496)

Hard drives get bigger and bigger, we might reach the 1TB limit one day ! More at 10.

Re:Tonight at 10 (1)

chill (34294) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278641)

Hard drives get bigger and bigger, we might reach the 1TB limit one day ! More at 10.

So, you're planning on buying two of them?

Re:Tonight at 10 (1)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278746)

To get 1tb I'd get at least 4. Where else would I backup 1Tb for cheap ?

That's the problem with home users now, they have 200gig hard drives but they never think they might lose that 200gig pretty easily..

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278501)

did I get it?

Re:FP (0, Troll)

lostinchicago (692439) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278526)

you were close..... kinda

Not quite. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278630)

You are but another failure in a long line of failures, each failure being more spectacular than the previous. To sum it up in haiku form:

You fucking fail it
First post is just not for you
Death is the answer

Well what an interesting article (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278505)

Sorry but I can't think of a single interesting thing to say about the launch of a new hard-drive whose only claim to fame is it being a bit bigger than the previous biggest.

So... anyone got anything interesting to say?

Re:Well what an interesting article (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278545)

Err, it's got NCQ, staggered start up and SATA II (300MB/s)?

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278551)

You've just summed up 99% of technology "news" these days. I find technology to be quite boring and passionless these days. I no longer consider myself a technophile, and I get more excited when garbage day comes than about some stupid piece of metal.

I cooked a vegetarian lasagna the other day with eggplants and garlic and tomatos and parmesan ... mmmm... delicious, that's a lot more exciting than some hard drive!

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278612)

I cooked a vegetarian lasagna the other day with eggplants and garlic and tomatos and parmesan

Bah...That's nothing. For mother's day, I made my wife a Tofu Lasagna, with Soy Cheese.

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278709)

vegetarian lasagna? Isn't that taking unborn baby plants and murdering them?

Re:Well what an interesting article (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278788)

Wow... That sounds much more interesting than a bigger/smaller/faster/"with better something" device.

Can you post the recipe? I'm sure the mods won't bother modding you down, they'll save the points for politics or vi/emacs.

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278680)

Maybe an actuall TB would merit the front page, but this is just slashvertising.

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278699)

So... anyone got anything interesting to say?

Yay! More porn.

Re:Well what an interesting article (1)

Refrag (145266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278700)

If I buy two of these, I can fit a Terabyte in my Power Mac G5.

Buying one will get me .75 Terabytes.

That's cool.

Re:Well what an interesting article (4, Insightful)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278702)

So... anyone got anything interesting to say?

Seriously... isn't this a wonderful industry?

If you answered "no" to the above question, please exit stage left. Thanks for playing.

I don't consider myself "old", but my first PC was an XT with *dual* 5.25" floppy drives (that required a soldering iron for overclocking when there was no such word as "overclocking"). My second PC was a 386SX with an 80 megabyte hard drive.

As much as I knew it would happen (just looking at the graphs in Byte Magazine was enough to see that), it is still amazing to me. I'm just happy to be working in such a dynamic industry.

Enough nostalgia for now...

Re:Well what an interesting article (2, Insightful)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278752)

I don't consider myself "old", but my first PC was an XT with *dual* 5.25" floppy drives

Bah! My first computer used a cassette to load programs (at about 300 baud, I think). Eventually, we got a single floppy for it (single sided, what's that, 180K?)

(and, yes, I guess I do consider myself old. though at least I never used 8" disks.)

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278792)

though at least I never used 8" disks

Hey, keep my sex life out of this...

Re:Well what an interesting article (1)

Cat_Byte (621676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278782)

Tandy 1000 with dual 5.25" floppy drives souped up to 640K memory and an RGB monitor. 2nd computer was a 486 with a massive 40meg drive. At 2400 baud it took awhile downloading from BBSs but I did it. I even remember using Stacker 2.0 because drive space was so tight. These days I just yawn at drive sizes.

Re:Well what an interesting article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278787)

So... anyone got anything interesting to say?

At least it wasn't about a smaller capacity iPod than than iPod mini?

Re:Well what an interesting article (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278796)

Makes me wonder if Slashdot had a story about the first "half GB" hard drive...

Searching the archives out of curiosity didn't yield any results with the obvious key words...

3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (3, Interesting)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278518)

The specs for te 7K500 (500GB) include 817 Mb/s max. media data rate, 8.5 ms average seek time, 7,200 RPM, 4.17 ms average latency, ATA-100/Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s.

While it's nice to something as fast as possible, is there a point to have a 3.0Gb/s interface to a product that can only handle 817Mb/s?

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (4, Informative)

teg (97890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278567)

While it's nice to something as fast as possible, is there a point to have a 3.0Gb/s interface to a product that can only handle 817Mb/s?

On drive cache.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1)

analog-1 (133358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278751)

Besides the cache in the drives, a disruptive, upstart technology like RAID allows you to pull data from multiple drives at once, multiplying the transfer rate by the number of drives in use.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278568)

While it's nice to something as fast as possible, is there a point to have a 3.0Gb/s interface to a product that can only handle 817Mb/s?

The drive's onboard cache runs a lot faster than the drive itself.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (3, Informative)

jm92956n (758515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278572)

Maybe so you can put two drives on one controller?

Yes.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1)

Newtonian_p (412461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278586)

Maybe if the data you want is in the Hard Drive's cache, the transfer rate could be higher than 817 Mb/s.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278593)

That's 3Gb/s from/to cache, 817Mb/s to/from spinning elements. Also, latency figures in...

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1)

crow (16139) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278616)

There is a point: cache.

When you get a read hit, you get it at 3GB/s. And more importantly, when you queue a write to the drive, you do it at 3GB/s. With SATA, like SCSI or fibre, you can queue a bunch of writes and have the drive order them in a mechanically-optimal manner. Meanwhile, your computer can do other things, including issue reads.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (2, Informative)

archen (447353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278652)

Assumably you could have a lot of data pushed down the pipe and have the hard drive cache queue the data until it can be transferred to the drive. Obviously you wouldn't get anywhere near 3Gb sustained transfer though. I'm thinking that 3Gb has more to do with the SATA standard, and nothing to do with the fact that hard drive technology is no where near that level.

Re:3.0Gb/s - 817 Mb/s? (1)

pdawson (89236) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278662)

The specs for te 7K500 (500GB) include 817 Mb/s max. media data rate, 8.5 ms average seek time, 7,200 RPM, 4.17 ms average latency, ATA-100/Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s.


While it's nice to something as fast as possible, is there a point to have a 3.0Gb/s interface to a product that can only handle 817Mb/s?


Well, if it has an onboard cache RAM, data on that cache will be sent out at the 3.0 rate. So it does help a little.

Yeah! (1, Funny)

EightBitHustler (840576) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278533)

Hello Usenet!

Rooms full of drives (5, Interesting)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278535)

In the eighties, our raised floor had a TB of storage - 48 six-foot by 4-foot cabinets with the power, cooling, and connectivity that implies, as well as thousands of dollars in maintenance fees.

Now I can hold a TB in one hand...

I like this decade better.

Re:Rooms full of drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278613)

But in the 80's we had Cosby. Cosby, I say!

Re:Rooms full of drives (5, Funny)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278733)

> 48 six-foot by 4-foot cabinets
>Now I can hold a TB in one hand...
>I like this decade better.

Because you are now on steroids?

to paraphrase: (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278802)

The power of the TeraByte, In the palm of my hand.

use for backup (3, Insightful)

feenberg (201582) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278538)

Am I the only one who likes 5400rmp drives because he thinks they will last 72/54 times as long as 7200 rpm drives? We use large drives for backup, and since the access is all sequential, the high rotation speed isn't that important to us.

Re:use for backup (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278618)

The idea that 5400 RPM may last longer is based on assumptions and heresay. The high rotation speed helps on sequential data transfer speeds too, not just random access.

Re:use for backup (1)

Graemee (524726) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278649)

Unless they're laptop ones. we replaced 50 out of the last 400 laptops we got. All 5400 rpm drives.

Re:use for backup (2, Insightful)

bluGill (862) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278710)

At least you backup...

I'm not so sure you are gaining anything though. Your point is correct, and 5.4k drives don't run as hot, two points in your favor.

However, that assumes everything else is the same. If they used higher quality components in the faster drive, it might last longer. It wouldn't surprise me, an extra $.05 on bearings can make a large difference in the price after all the layers of suppliers is gone through, enough to account for the difference in price.

Its all just speculation unless you get MTBF numbers from the manufacture.

Yay....but (4, Funny)

bwcarty (660606) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278542)

Will it be big enough to install Longhorn on?

Wheres the RIAA and MPAA?? (1)

NerdBuster (831349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278546)

You know the day will come when the RIAA and MPAA will want a ban on large drives because their "only" purpose is to store illegal mp3s and movies.

Or just add a tax (1)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278687)

Maybe instead they'll just ask for a tax to be added to the price of all large-sized hard disks, say anything above 137GB.

They can point to the tax we pay on blank VHS tapes as an example.

Re:Wheres the RIAA and MPAA?? (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278690)

So... my friends massive porn collection is illegal?

Inching up (3, Funny)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278550)

It's nice to see hard drive capacity start to inch upwards once again. We were stuck in the 250-300GB range for too many years.

Now, when am I going to see this capacity in my iPod? ...

only 1/2 a TB? (1)

jedir0x (522662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278552)

Fuck 1/2 a TB, i want like 9 TB... and i want it to be 1"x1", and i want 1TBs internet too... imagine the porn you could watch? 1600x1200 porn delivered in above DVD quality straight to your projector onto the bedroom wall.

Re:only 1/2 a TB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278665)

I'm sure that's not the only thing that'll be projected onto the bedroom wall if you watch streaming HDTV porn at lifesize.

Lucky the walls will be white because of the projector display.

I continue to be amazed.... (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278554)

at the increasing capacity of spinning magnetic media when about 20 years ago (I guess when thin-film heads came about), many pundits said that the medium had reached it's physical limits.

Just where to they squeeze these extra bits from on the same size platter?

Half a TB? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278557)

Since when does a TB only exist out of 1000MBs, which aren't even actual megabytes, but some twisted form of false advertising?

A Fairy Tale (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278560)


One day Hitachi invented a 500 gigabyte drive. The RIAA said "The public is evil, that's 100,000 5 MB MP3s!" Then the MPAA cried "The public is evil, that's over seven hundred 700 MB xvid movies!" So their lobbyists went to Washington to get these high capacity drives made illegal. And their shareholders lived happily ever after.

The End

Re:A Fairy Tale (1)

GregoryD (646395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278797)

just wait until it is every text, video, image, and data that has ever existed up till that date and time.

there will be a concieveable time in which people will have everything, now.

Sounds like an OS problem ... (3, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278565)

Maybe this one won't require a new motherboard to use. I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs.
Sounds like an OS issue. Linux handles 200+ GB drives just fine on my p3 box with ATA/33 controllers.

Seriously, as long as you get the kernel in the part of the disk that your motherboard supports, (or don't boot off that disk at all), Linux will work with it, no matter what motherboard you've got. No 128GB limit to worry about, even if you don't have ATA/100 (or is it ATA/133 that is supposedly required to support 128GB+ drives?)

I've even read those 200+ GB disks on a Pentium 120 Dell's onboard controllers on Linux. No problem -- Linux knew to ignore the BIOS settings on the drive and just made it work.

Re:Sounds like an OS problem ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278644)

No, there are hardware problems beyond the BIOS with "large" drives and old controllers too. You were probably just lucky to have a "good" controller.

Re:Sounds like an OS problem ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278677)

Sounds like a winblows problem actually. My x86_64 server happens to handle a 1.2TB partition just fine...

Re:Sounds like an OS problem ... (4, Interesting)

badfrog (45310) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278713)

Yes, I'm quite suprised a Slashdot story included the motherboard comment. My file server is an old P200 running samba on a 160GB drive, and even with a rather old Red Hat installation (7.3) no extra configuration is required.
All it can support under DOS/Windows is 8GB. It's so ancient the MB doesn't even support IDE CD-ROM booting.

Re:Sounds like an OS problem ... (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278754)

No, there are quite a few motherboard chipsets that only show at max the first 130GB of the disk, ignoring the rest. This is the maximum they can address. Some BIOSes are happy to hand addressing off to the OS, some arent, so your point of getting the kernel in the lower boundry is a little bit pointless when you want to dual boot. Dont assume that just because you havent come across it it must not exist, because it does and its a pain.

How many movies, MP3s can one possibly use? (3, Insightful)

aquarian (134728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278571)

I wonder what everyone's doing with all these huge drives, other than indulging a compulsive collecting habit. How much music can one listen to, and how many movies can one possibly watch?

That is a seriously interesting question (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278672)

Do you suppose it's some people's desire to pull down every piece of available information in the world onto their own hard disk?

Is this some kind of new obsession - just because it's becomming almost technically feasible?

Re:How many movies, MP3s can one possibly use? (4, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278679)

One potential non-infringing widespread use: this would be a reasonable size for a HDTV PVR unit.

Broadcast flaggot (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278743)

[500 GB] would be a reasonable size for a HDTV PVR unit.

But given the broadcast flag, how much of this DTV programming will actually be marked recordable?

Re:How many movies, MP3s can one possibly use? (1)

Skynet (37427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278701)

I really hate this argument. 500 GB is alot but with:

- Digital video editing
- Digital photography (7MP+ soon to become the norm)
- Music
- Movies (Porn)
- Games taking up multiple GB

In a few years it won't be enough.

Re:How many movies, MP3s can one possibly use? (1)

fr2asbury (462941) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278703)

Not just mp3 for out and about but you can keep your songs in flac for local listening if you want to compress at all. It's not always just a matter of more files, but we can use bigger, less compressed files with the bigger disks.

Re:How many movies, MP3s can one possibly use? (2, Interesting)

civman2 (773494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278747)

Digital video editing eats hard drive space like a fat kid eats ice cream. I've done some tinkering with home movies, and I had to go out and buy an 80 gig HDD just for that. Raw video captured off of my camcorder takes up about a gigabyte for every four minutes. A 90 minute tape, which is convienently about the amount I can burn to a single DVD, takes a little over ten gigs of hard drive space. Now factor in the additional space required to edit and work with that video, as well as slice it into smaller clips, and it gets up to about 20 gigs for a single project. A full length project would be even more space. Now imagine you were doing several projects, or that you wanted to back up the projects original parts. You don't delete your PSDs when you're done with a photoshop project, why should I have to delete my clips when I'm done with a video project? Only storage space is the issue.

Drive arrays for consumers (2, Interesting)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278597)

What I want to see is an array of HDs made for the consumer. Slap a couple of iPod-style drives together in some sort of RAID configuration, give it a controller, and we'd see a drive with excellent throughput and reliability! .. Just wishing! ...

Imagine a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278793)

...BEOWULF cluster of these drives!

Why not read platters in parralel (1)

yorkpaddy (830859) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278599)

does anyone know why they don't read hard drive platters in parralel? from what I understand they read them one at a time. If the read them in parralel, throughput would increase at a multiple of the number of platters in a drive.

Re:Why not read platters in parralel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278756)

I modded you troll because you're a dumbass. They do read them in parallel. Do a little Google search next time before talking out your ass.

Misalignment (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278780)

Hard drives read from one platter at a time because the platters' read heads sit on moving arms, and the arms easily become misaligned.

How many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278602)

[insert mandatory "how many library of congresses is that" comment here]

Scotty, I need more power... (1, Funny)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278603)

The drives include another key feature of SATA II, staggered spin-up. Staggered, or delayed, spin-up enables the host to individually "spin-up" drives in multi-drive configurations. This reduces the power draw of a booting system, enabling system designers to reduce the size of the power supply and minimize the total cost of ownership for end-users.

Screw that, keep those system designers off my power supply, I want more power not less!!

Why not faster? (5, Interesting)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278606)

Does anyone know the reason why the speeds of these drives are rarely upgraded? I mean, IDE is just 7200, which it has been for years, S-ATA is 10.000 sometimes, but not really very much faster still.
Is it technically difficult? Is it unnessecary?
And now that I think about it, what is taking those solid state disks so long ?

Re:Why not faster? (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278744)

Seagate Cheetah U320 SCSI drives are available in 15,000 RPM models. Much faster than that and you have problems with the spinning media deforming due to the stress.

Re:Why not faster? (2, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278765)

How fast do you think you can make a pound of metal spin with only a few watts of power, without falling apart or exploding, etc?

I don't know exactly what the mechanical problems are, but 10,000 RPM is pretty friggin fast. I remember years ago hearing that 4,800 was the absolute fastest speed they could go for some reason or another.

Ok we have almost had all the typical responses (1, Troll)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278617)

We got the more room for porn post.

Good job.

We got the when will we see this kind of capacity on my iPod post.

Good job.

Now all the need is -- (drum roll please) --

But does linux support it yet?

Re:Ok we have almost had all the typical responses (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278785)

You're forgetting: "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!"

(Or maybe... "In Soviet Russia, Half-Terabit drives release Hitachi" or "In Korea, only old people use half-terabit drives" or "Netcraft confirms..." or... ARGH!)

What I never understood.... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278623)

Is why in the storage realm, everytime they hit some stupid short-sighted limitation, they implement some new addressing scheme or something as a band aid, (LBA, etc etc), which is suboptimal, but somewhat understandable, *BUT* the solution itself is very short sighted, providing for capacities of 25-30% more than the limitation hit, but will break beyond that, and do the same thing after a few months when their capacities hit the new limit. I figured at least with SATA they had a chance to mostly start from scratch with a new protocol and do it right for a long time, but no, they inherit some of the very same pathetic limitations and have already had at least one iteration of addressing change.

Why is it that we see more and more jumpers on drives, and have to update motherboards/bioses again and again and again as the capacities increase and addressing scheme of the day breaks?

Hitachi, feh (2, Insightful)

retro128 (318602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278627)

I won't touch Hitachis. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last DeathStar I owned. That's nothing compared to a friend of mine though, who had to turn in his 75GXP 4 times under warranty before he finally figured it wasn't worth the trouble and scrapped the drive. The magnets that came out of it are more useful than that drive ever was.

Yes, I know I was burned by IBM rather than Hitachi, but when I was asking some techs who still work in the tranches about it, saying that they were not big fans of Hitachi drives would be putting it lightly.

Re:Hitachi, feh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278789)

>>The magnets that came out of it are more useful than that drive ever was

They put MAGNETS in it??????

Well, I guess that could account for the reliability issues!

500GB? Hitatchi? (1)

j.bellone (684938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278633)

Damm, where have I been? I thought we've already reached 500GB already. My bad. This is very interesting though; soon we'll be in the multiple terabytes of data on operating systems (in normal consumer use). Will operating systems be able to handle this? More specifically, will Windows hit the dirt or not work properly? I hope I'm not getting a whiff of the old Windows 98 problem with too much System ram.

Hitatchi (spelling?) though? Aren't they on the "no-no" list for hard-drives as of late? Sorry, I don't keep up with the times, I'm not a big movie buff so I don't need *that* much space ;).

1 year warranty?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278646)

If Hitachi follows suit with their recently released 400Gb drives, a one year warrany is all you'll be getting. I think I'll stick with Seagates 5 year hassle free waranty.

Re:1 Year Warranty?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278804)

Yeah, I wouldn't want to backup 1500 CDs worth of FLAC audio (7500 CDs worth of MP3 audio) and then have to pay to get another hard drive if it failed. That, or re-rip upon every hard drive failure. At least a 5 year warranty gives some reassurance that things won't fail.

Two cheap 500GB hard drives in a mirrored setup would be fine however. If one failed, you could get another hard drive. Better still, use the second hard drive in a removable caddy, and store it elsewhere in case your house gets destroyed / virus wipes array / etc.

Not to taco (1, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278659)

I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs.

Why don't you try running linux, which will ignore the BIOS and do it's own HDD geometry homework.

I know you need Windows because linux is hard for non-technical users, but all the drive makers have their own soft-bios utilities to support the larger drives on old hardware.

They have had these since the 2 gigabyte barrier.

There's also add-on controllers if you really need a new interface feature, like the next only-exists-on-paper UDMA speed.

Replace the mobo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278668)

mofo mobo

Thread on SR (3, Informative)

Sivar (316343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278683)

There's an interesting (as far as "new drive is bigger than old ones!" is interesting) thread [storagereview.net] on Storagereview.com which includes some insights as to how this thing is built, and why it uses lower-capacity platters than even Seagate's 400GB drives.

500GB not for speed (1)

jchawk (127686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278694)

"I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs."

I'm sure there will be a PCI card that you can tie into, these type of monster size drives aren't typically used because of their speed, they're used for storage of various things.

If it were about performance you're probably not going to use this style of drive anyways. When your storage needs aren't limited by size persay but by I/O, you'd be better off investing the money in a scsi solution. Especially if you were in an enterprise situation you'd go with a NAS device. There are some pretty kick ass models out there that offer a lot of storage, and massive I/O for around a 100k.

In a home environment you'd be better off running some dual or quad scsi drives in some sort of raid array. :-)

Impressive (1)

ryanvm (247662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278705)

I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs.

Sounds like the CmdrTaco Center for Pornography Storage is doing pretty well. At least we know the Slashdot subscription fees are going to a worthy cause.

Obligatory Pr0n Thread (-1, Offtopic)

chuckw (15728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278711)

Please include all pr0n comments here.

Well Crap (1)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278727)

Well great, right after I put 4 300GB drives in Raid5 on a sata, 8 drive card, this comes out. w/ 500GB drives the practical size of the array when full would be almost another TB. (the 4 300GB drives in raid 5 produce about 850GB now so I assume 8 drives would produce about 2TB).

Why new motherboard to handle drives? (1)

RainbowSix (105550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278728)

Maybe this one won't require a new motherboard to use. I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs.

An alternative to buying a new motherboard is to just buy a PCI IDE controller. The only reason for the upgrade is so that enough bits are used to address all of the sectors on the disk; the interface otherwise doesn't change. In fact, new hard disks sometimes come with controller cards in a bundle if you're too cheap to pay the $20. I'm currently running a pair of 40 GB drives on a Pentium 90 system [hostingwired.com] .

The home-brew video server comes closer to reality (4, Interesting)

multiplexo (27356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278734)

Video files are generally at least two orders of magnitude larger than audio files, so while it has been feasible for the last few years to build an MP3 server to store all of your music (and now it's even feasible for most geeks to build one to store their music in a compressed, lossless format) the same hasn't been true for DVDs.

But last night I was looking at the price for Hitachi's 400Gb IDE drive ($368 on at newegg.com) and figured that I could throw a pretty decent video server together for about five kilobux. I was thinking of getting a big case and power supply, eight of these drives and an Adaptec eight port SATA raid controller. Set up a Linux system, set up the drives and RAID controller as RAID-5 and you could get about 2,500Gb of storage, which works out to about 265 DVD images (assuming that each image was a from a dual layer disc and 9.4 Gb in size. Use SMB over gigabit ethernet to mount these images to your clients and then play whatever you like. Eight 500 Gb drives would give you about 3,200Gb of storage which works out to 340 images (making the same assumptions about the size of each DVD). I'm sure there are better ways of doing this, this is just what I came up with off of the top of my head.

Note that this assumes that you're not doing any processing on the DVDs. With a tool such as DVD-Shrink you could increase the amount of images you were able to store by stripping out alternate soundtracks, extra features and even the menus. And with DiVX re-encoding you might be able to (I don't know much about DiVX so comments would be appreciated) reprocess the video streams so that they used less space but were not visibly reduced in quality. If I had a spare 5 kilobux to blow right now I'd build one of these as a mighty heigh-ho and fuck you to Bill Gates, Jack Valenti and all of the other assholes in Hollywood and have the pleasure of having a whole-house video solution.

What use is this? (1, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278763)

At the risk of sounding like Mr. Gates fabled 640K comment back in the day, how in the world is a user supposed to make use of such a product?

1. My music collection? Nope, DRM prevents me from burning my CD's anymore...

2. Digital movies? Nope, again DRM requires me to buy a seperate copy of each work, even for backup purposes.

3. Software? Nope, that's all subscription based, I just get to pay my $37.50 a month and be happy with what they choose to offer.

So, I'm left with .txt, .sxw, and .doc files to fill up 500 gigs? I better get typing.

Hard-drives will never get bigger than this? (1)

iamvego (785090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278774)

According to Colossal Storage Corp., hard-drives will never exceed a capacity of 500Gb. http://www.colossalstorage.net/home_diskdrive.htm [colossalstorage.net]
Any truth to this?

speed, not space! (2, Interesting)

ikea5 (608732) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278781)

I'd rather have a 15,000rpm/200gig IDE drive then a 7200rpm/500gig one, seeing that hdds are the major bottleneck on performance.

HDTV!!! (1)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278786)

With 500GB of capacity, you could record about four hours of HDTV programming! Wow...

Well hot doggedy doo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11278800)

mobo ??? MOBO ???

Replacing them more ofter for a harddigedydisk that a ceepeeyou ?

I find that ppl that still call them mobo's tend to replace a lot of them when stuff is too hard for them. ( like utilizing harddisks )

You can fill up a 133Mhz P1 with a terabyte if you just use the proper stuff.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>