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!

IBMs 73Gig Drive

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the 2000-thousand-albums-please dept.

IBM 128

goon wrote in to point us to this bit at about the new UltraStar 72ZX which has a 4.9ms seek time, is an inch thick, and can store a comfortable 73 gigs. Its supposed to be available in 2000, and will make porn webmasters and MP3 addicts alike very happy.

cancel ×


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

Re:A lot of music... (1)

GRH (16141) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611781)

I'm afraid that the next drive for my mp3 player may need to be one of these.
Since getting into mp3s, I've evolved from a 2G, to a 2G + 6G, 6G + 13G and that's now full!
73G would keep me out of trouble for another year.


Re:Not enough for service packs. (0)

Sparke023 (42024) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611782)


Linux on huge disks (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611783)

Actually, this seems to be a good time to ask.

Can you actually install Linux on those huge harddrives? My understanding was that Linux (on Intel systems) was limited to 8 Gb, but this seems wrong since I've read about people who had 9Gb drives and running Linux.

Note, I'm not talking about the boot partition (which has to be inside the first 2 Gb), but rather whether Linux can "see" past 8 Gb. Anyone know before I plunk down money for a 20 Gb harrdrive?


Re:mp3 is yesterday's breakfast. (2)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611784)

Amen brother! Why use lossy compression with that kind of space. Simply digitize the sample raw and, at most, bzip2 it ... absolute clarity. Resample as mp3 for the car unit as required ...

Re:A lot of music... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611785)

Screw MP3's, just rip cds.

73 gig = ~140 cds, depending on how long they are.

I've got ~ 200-250 in my collection, half of which are of dubious listening value. (What was I thinking when I was in college).

Add some LP's in, copied to magnetic media to preserve their condition, and the good parts of my collection would fit on one hard drive.

Now I just need a computer that has halfway decent sound and I'm set.


Re:Additional Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611786)

I almost bought one last week when I got my new PC. In the end I settled for a 22G coz of the price. It's fast :-)

Re:IDE will be a PITA (2)

nevets (39138) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611787)

My system can only handle 8.4G. :(

But when I buy a new computer I will like one of these!!

Just a note, with a 70+G drives, thats a lot of data to loose if one were to crash. What is the best media to use to back these suckers up?

Steven Rostedt

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611788)

Does that mean m$ will be removing the 2G limit for partitions then ?

No you wouldn't (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611789)

You'd be nice to all of us and write a modified MP3 compressor for somewhere around 168 or 256 Kbps with focus on full range of sound quality ... less data loss, especially in classical, etc. music. With that kind of space you'd want to store every CD you own in MP3, not just store the MP3's you've got bigger ... :)

Re:73GB? (1)

Quantum Fire (43114) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611790)

69 gigabytes? I can definetly see why the marketing people might want to change it :)

Re:Not enough for service packs. (1)

Carbon Blob (30194) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611791)

Just this morning I as supposed to 'upgrade' my computer to Office 2000, etc.

The upgrade program told me I didn't have enough room on my C: drive, and aborted. I have 180MB free - what do they want?

I guess I need one of these IBM drives...

Pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611792)

IBM's 36.4GB (SCSI) is available for about US$860.

Re:mp3 is yesterday's breakfast. (1)

suqur (28061) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611793)

Yeah, but, come on, man!!! You can have about 7 and a half WEEKS worth of music on that drive! acckkk drool ugg heart attack

And imagine if you put four of these in a RAID... music for a lifetime. wow.


MP3: not just an addiction -- a way of life

next tech (2)

mTor (18585) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611794)

So... how long before we get terrabyte storage for under $300? I don't think magnetic media will ba able to store this much so what is the next tech that will be able to do that? Holographic memory?

Wow! (5)

eriko (35554) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611795)

You could get Windows 2000 AND Office 2000 on the SAME drive!

Minor nitpick about 1 inch thick (2)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611796)

The only mention of size of the 36G version, and it's not clear:

Arriving this year, though, will be new 36GB drives. The drives are based on the same innards as the 73GB model, but will be only 1 inch thick. Current 36GB drives aren't as thin.

It's not clear whether the double capacity version is also 1 inch thick.


mp3 is yesterday's breakfast. (2)

schmack (32384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611797)

forget MP3, with 73GB i'd keep my audio in 44KHz AIFF files!

Um..... Wow. (1)

handorf (29768) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611798)

Like, WOW.

Any price point information anybody? I could do with one of these, but I have a feeling that I'd need to go SCSI to take advantage of it.

Anybody have any more technical specs?

Then again, I doubt I could sleep in a house with this damn thing. Probably sounds like a jet taking off!

Well... (1)

Boolean (15853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611799)

I didn't see a cost mentioned... wonder what its gonna cost? The fact that it is an inch thick is mind boggling... but the biggest ever? Wasn't there a three terabyte refrigerator hard drive?

Additional Link (2)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611800)

The 36G Version [] has specs listed on IBM's web site already, but no mention of the 73G drive.

It would be sort of nice to not have to do a "make distclean" ever again ;-)

Storage Observations (3)

Effugas (2378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611801)

I'd say we're about three weeks away from conspiracy theorists deciding that Magnetoresistative technology was Alien Derived.

IBM is pretty much owning price/performance and raw storage curves--it's insane how fast storage expectancies have dropped. $10/GB is the magic number now, and I'm pretty sure we have IBM to thank for that.

64MB of RAM now costs more than a 12GB IDE drive. The mind boggles.

I believe this is the same technology jump, incidentally, that means 2GB on a one inch Microdrive platter. Personally, I'd prefer a third party reverse engineering of MiniDisc, but a 2GB swappable drive would also work fine.

I must say, I'm enjoying the storage (r?)evolution. The media server we're building into our stereo cabinet will store more music than we'll know what to do with...;-) And yes, the code will be nice and GPL.

Here's to mindless abuse of technology...

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research

Re:IDE will be a PITA (1)

Wizzu (30521) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611802)

I ran into that problem myself, when I bought a new 13GB disk for my Linux server awhile ago. I solved it by changing the disk geometry settings in fdisk (under "advanced", IIRC). Apparently it's now handled using 1644/255/63 as C/H/S -- I forgot what I changed it to, but that's from the kernel boot message. Works fine.

What disk size do you sysadmins actually trust? (1)

Eg0r (704) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611803)

I now use 9.1Gb hitachi 91WS UWSCSI drives and they've proven to be quite reliable, however I've always been sceptical about bigger size hard drives (wasn't 4.3 the reliable threshold last year?).

No pr0ns and no mp3s for me, just a lot of CT scans and them again processed one way, and another way, and yet another way.... that's a lot of space!

I'm not that scared about the server crashing 'coz I keep my results up to date on DLT (this is a research server I'm talking about, not an actual hospital database server), but if I were to upgrade to bigger disks, I'd be skeptical about their reliability, and 73Gb sounds far too much to be 110% reliable...
I know I'm too paranoid to be running free, but I'd still be interested about what you people think... what do you think the reliability threshold is these days?


Re:Well... (1)

Harri (100020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611804)

Wow, and my refrigerator doesn't even _have_ a hard drive...

Re:Drive (1)

studboy (64792) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611805)

leave more room for Windows, and mount its partition under Linux. Dunno if Solaris can read Win filesystems.

I've always had best luck with 1OS/1drive myself.

FAT partition size limit (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611806)

Actually, the 2 GB maximum partition size limit only existed with FAT16. All Windows9x versions since Win95 OSR2 can handle FAT32, which copes significantly more (don't remember the exact number).

Re:Storage Observations (2)

Cuthalion (65550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611807)

Personally, I'd prefer a third party reverse engineering of MiniDisc

You mean sony's optical audio medium? I think it's not worth the bother. 74 minutes at 5:1 compression means it doesn't hold a lot more than a zip disk. (~160 MB?) They do, however, have a kind of anime-cyber-cool to them which zip disks lack. I'm not sure how fast they CAN be, since for standard audio applications they only NEED to deliver 30 KB/s.

All that aside, a MD based portable MP3 player would be nice.

Re:IDE will be a PITA (2)

TommyW (75753) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611808)

You've not looked quite far enough. There's an explanation of the problem further through the same document:

12.1 IDE problems with 34+ GB disks

Drives larger than 33.8 GB will not work with recent kernels. The details are as follows. Suppose you bought a new IBM-DPTA-373420 disk with a capacity of 66835440 sectors (34.2 GB). Recent kernels will tell you that the size is 769*16*63 = 775152 sectors (0.4 GB), which is a bit disappointing. And giving command line parameters hdc=4160,255,63 doesn't help at all - these are just ignored. What happens? The routine idedisk_setup() retrieves the geometry reported by the disk (which is 16383/16/63) and overwrites what the user specified on the command line, so that the user data is used only for the BIOS geometry.

The routine current_capacity() or idedisk_capacity() recomputes the cylinder number as 66835440/(16*63)=66305, but since this is stored in a short, it becomes 769. Since lba_capacity_is_ok() destroyed id->cyls, every following call to it will return false, so that the disk capacity becomes 769*16*63. A patch is available - probably it will soon get into some official kernel.

I can vouch for this first hand, since I've got one of the IBM 37GB drives. Andreas' patch certainly seems to fix the problem. But it'll be nice when it does officially get to be part of the kernel.
Too stupid to live.

Re:73GB? (1)

Cuthalion (65550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611809)

And don't think formatting comes for free either!

how much can you trust these kind of drives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611810)

Saw an interesting article in Scientific AM regarding extremely large drives that was questioning their reliability. I wonder how accurate this article is.

Re:Linux on huge disks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611811)

Correction: for Linux, there is no 2G barrier. With a modern BIOS, the only restriction is that the stuff in /boot needs to reside below the 8G (1024 cylinder) barrier, so that LILO can operate safely. Then after booting, Linux can then access however big a disk you might have. I have installed Linux to a partition residing above 8G, booting it from floppy after installation. Then I copied everything in /boot to a small partition below 8G, and edited /etc/lilo.conf to access that code and to write the lilo boot sector to that partition. Now System Commander can boot this copy of Linux just fine!

Re:Linux on huge disks (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611812)

I'd say yes you can. I have two 8.4GB drives and one 20GB drive mounted on my Linux 2.2.12 system. No problems at all, standard fdisk, mke2fs and mount managed it without any extra settings, and it works perfectly fine.

The only sad part is the time... mke2fs did take a while... ;) And I fear the time when I have to "test" the fsck times... =/

Re:IDE will be a PITA (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611813)

Another 70 Gb drive. Otherwise you're going to be changing DATs all night...

Did anyone notice Zip disks are 10x as expensive.. (1)

mattz (82905) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611814) a hard drive? $150 gets you a 15 gig, a zip disk .1gig costs $10???

Re:seagate already has 50G (1)

eo (7103) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611815)

That's why the article mentions that the drive is late, and was supposed to be shipping now instead of 2000. IBM is still behind Seagate in the high end, a (small) source of embarassment to IBM.

Re:73GB? (3)

Delphis (11548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611816)

Heh.. 69GB ? .. this thing really IS a drive for porn ... :>

Yeah, but back then (1)

Markvs (17298) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611817)

(I'm assuming this was 1989/90 or so?)

MS-Word 4.0 for DOS was 4 megs.
Wasteland (the game) ran off a single 720k floppy.
DOS itself was less than 3 megs.
The 5.25" floppy was not only still in production, but you usually got software on BOTH sized disks!
The 28.8 modem had JUST come out.

I had an long term, ongoing project when I was an undergrad. Had to document readings off of a server every week regarding logins. It was in WordPerfect.

In 5.1, it was 168k.
In WordPefect 6.0 for win, it was 821k.
In WordPefect 8.0 for win, it was 5 megs.

I doubt I added more than a half a dozen pages between version upgrades... size is relative.

Re:next tech (1)

PakRat77 (102953) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611818)

Protien chains storing data? In quantum computing movement?

Re:Yeah, but back then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611819)

I myself was constantly shuffling programs in and out of my 40mb drive on my 286. I kept the second, ~10MB drive for games, but it always filled up quickly with those 10 floppy games that I kept on there. Ahh the good old days! When you could hack video games with a hex editor.

Re:Drive (1)

Delphis (11548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611820)

Definitely ... Windows is FAR more innefficient for storage that Linux so it eats up all it's share while Linux still has masses free. Best to give Windows more space for game installs as well .. as they can be insane.

Well, my Linux partitions were fairly free until I started turning CDs into MP3s ....

Re:FAT partition size limit (1)

turbohavoc (79880) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611821)

But it would be really groovy to make this big FAT16 partions as well if it was possible..

FAT16 allows 16 bits cluster adressing, meaning that you get 2^16. Divide 73GB with that and you get 1.06 MB per cluster... really efficient on your disk space!

Re:Drive (1)

chandler (98984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611822)

Actually, Windows drives have the following characteristics (you can see that when you mount them): rw, noexec, nosuid, nodev. That means that it's stupid to put stuff other than MP3's on them - it's an "all or nothing" access mode, sort of like mounting FAT16 from Windows NT.

Re:FAT partition size limit (1)

ostiguy (63618) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611823)

Win95 has an arbitrary 2gig FAT 16 limit. One can create a 4 gig FAT 16 partition with NT. Of course, that only makes sense if you are going to convert it to NTFS because of cluster considerations. matt

Re:Off Topic RAM Prices (1)

NickHolland (91075) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611824)

Actually, I had a couple people tell me RAM prices were on their way up a few days BEFORE the earthquake.

The earthquake increased the effect, but prices were already on their way up. I've seen this repeatedly -- something happens some place that has something to do with semiconductor production, and RAM prices shoot up before the pipeline has a chance to go dry, and hang there as long as possible. That's the way a market economy works. You charge what you can get.

Observation (getting further off topic): We always seem to need to add $100-$150 worth of RAM to our computers:
Back when 48K was common, we paid $150 or so to up it to 64k.
When 64k was common, we paid $120 or so to up it to 128k.
... (I'll spare you the rest of this progression)
Now, we want to add another 128M to our systems, but I'll wait until the price drops back down to $150... 8)

Hard disk prices just seem to drop.


Re:What disk size do you sysadmins actually trust? (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611825)

Reliability, all other things being equal, should be BETTER with one honking large drive rather than multiple smaller drives (my reasoning: MTBF/number of drives).

Don't forget, you're getting a ton of additional speed out of these puppies, also, presuming the rotational speed is the same.

No, what I'd be worried about is backup, even with a DLT stacker. So we can cram 70GB on a DLT, on a good day. That sure doesn't seem like as much as it used to. Some corresponding revolution is going to have to happen with backup technology - I hope...

software reliablity is more important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611826)

The author wildly extrapolates error estimates to make it sound like cosmic rays are responsible for crashing Windows. I don't buy it.

I'm impressed by the engineering that produces computer hardware, recent Intel goofs notwithstanding. I'm not impressed by Jolt Cola software "engineering." Netscape crashes daily. Window managers crash weekly.

Hardware is not the reliability bottleneck. The author's best statement is his last:

As hardware reliability catches up to increased computing power, perhaps operating systems that don't crash every few days or weeks won't be too far behind.

Re:IDE will be a PITA (1)

Ares (5306) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611827)

Robotic Library. Cost: $2500 (for an Exabyte 10H, 140GB compressed) and up

Still 2 gigs per file (2)

heroine (1220) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611828)

Well even if you like watching movies 5 minutes at a time, it would take hours to delete all 24 2 gig files such a movie would take.

Re:Max partition sizes for 95 & 98 (1)

quade]CnM[ (66269) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611829)

Has anyone actualy worked with large FAT32 partisions. I would think that as a FAT32 approaches 100 Gig or so, it would become such a mess. What do you peaple that have FAT partisions on those 20+ gig drives see. Is it slugish. I quit using FAT partisions when a 3.2 Gig drive was average. Currently I use Ext2 on a 9 Gig disk.

Re:Still 2 gigs per file (1)

Pyrrus (97830) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611830)

so we come up with a hack that would let you distribute MP3 or MPEG or whatever with a data file that tells the playing software to to play this file and then in five minutes use this file... it should let you delete them all as one as well. and did the minimum system requirements jump on me again, I'm using a 10G hard drive and it's HUGE compared to the 165M hard drive on my 486...

Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.

Nice server drive (1)

Bill Henning (504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611831)

Sounds like it will make a nice server drive. I know, SCSI is preferred for servers, but a 4.5ms ~70Gb drive is nothing to sneeze at; just think how much cheaper two of these puppies with a PCI RAID-0 controller would be than some nice UW SCSI drives with a raid controller...

Re:Minor nitpick about 1 inch thick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611832)

The specs are now on IBM's web site. The 72GB version is about 1.6" thick (41.6 mm). Also, it's 5.3ms, not 4.9. The smaller sizes are 4.9ms. The thing that caught my eye was the 22.1-37.4 MB/sec sustained transfer rate.

Backup, anyone? (1)

NickHolland (91075) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611833)

O.k., 73G (or more accurately, a lot less!) on one drive is cool, but what about backup?

Virtually all backup devices are measured using "compressed" capacity, which is bogus, at best. Fraud might be a better word. Usually, on a big drive, you have either huge databases (which typically compress well) or lots of graphics and sound files, which compress hardly at all. Selling a drive based on its compressed capacity is kinda like measuring the interior space of a car by including the roof rack and the potential trailer you could tow.

I'm a little concerned that backup technology isn't really keeping up with HD technology. I'm even more concerned that hardly anyone pays attention to backup technology around here -- I only saw one person ask how you would back the thing up, and the one reply was to another drive. Having one on-line backup is NOT a backup strategy!

It scares the heck out of me to see people buying 10+G drives without a thought to backup. Even if it is all programs, trying to rebuild a system after a data loss is very, very time consuming.

I'm also a little ticked off over the quality of backup devices. I've replaced far more tape drives in my client's servers than I have hard disks. Really pathetic. A friend has assured me DLTs are much better than the DATs I normally recommend, and that may be true, but $3000 for a drive and $100 per media, well, that's a few DAT drives. I gave up on Travan drives on servers -- I've had astronomical failure rates on both drives and tapes, but curiously, they seem to do o.k. on Windows 9x workstations.


Re:Storage Observations (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611834)

Some enterprising company *really* needs to get around to exercising the MiniDisc format.

I want this puppy to plug into a 3.5" bay on my computer as a backup media and as an audio recording media (using Sony's compression or MP3 compression, my choice); I want it to plug into an automobile audio bay to play back my music; I want to use it as a portable walkman-style playback unit; and I want to be able to use it as a backup media through the parallel port on computers that don't have the bay interface.

The car interface doesn't need an amplifier et al; I'll supply my own. It just needs to be a convienent way of plugging in the deck to the system.

The computer bay interface should be high speed, and function just like a normal hard drive (making it compatible with all OSes, I hope).

The parallel port interface should be compatible with Zip's parallel port. Makes it more likely that the target computer already has the necessary software installed.

All in all, it'd be damn sweet. :)

Re: back then - Hex editing System Shock 2 (review (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611835)

I just did that in System Shock 2. The adventure was neat, but the running out of ammo and stuff sucked, so I used UltraEdit (Great program) and gave myself 32K nanites and 32K modules. It might have worked with higher numbers, but I didn't need any more...

And the game was great. Go up to a dispenser and get 100+ clips, auto-repair tools, etc.

Then it was just a matter of running around and doing stuff.

BTW, was I the only one who couldn't find all the display panels for the uplink code?

I had three numbers, for four digits, out of five. I didn't know the order, but the 6 had a ] next to it hinting it was at the end. So I tried all the combinations and hit it fairly quickly. Luckily the program didn't start auto-failing all password attempts after three failures in five minutes. :)

Cool game. Too bad you couldn't actually interact with anybody. And you didn't meet any NPCs, just heard messages. And, like most games, you're the only one to survive. Too bad some of the 'cool' people who left the neat messages didn't make it.

But, definately playable. The only drawbacks were the engine (yuck) and the clumsy hand-to-hand weapons.

Re:Storage Observations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611836)

64MB of RAM now costs more than a 12GB IDE drive.

Last week, yes. This week, they are running neck and neck with RAM nosing out EIDE hard drives. Check using queries;

Hard Drives EIDE 12.0GB

System Memory PC100 128MB

Re:Still 2 gigs per file (2)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611843)

...on *32-bit systems*, courtesy of things like the size of an offset or file length. Even 'tho ext2 itself (design-wise) can handle larger files, the programming interface doesn't.

?????Porn Webmasters, MP3 addicts????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611844)

So when's Slashdot going to evolve into a porn site? Cowboy Neal would have a totally different connotation!

Controller (2)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611845)

Anyone notice that this is a Fibre Channel drive? I doubt even the hardest core MP3 junkies will be adding a FC controller to their systems.

Better of with a pair of 50GB LVD drives, more space and less $$ (when you take the conrtoller into account)


Transfer rates (2)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611846)

Quite apart from the problem of finding a backup device with enough capacity, it's going to take longer and longer to just copy all the data off these ever bigger devices.

The capacity goes up because the recording density increases. This increases the transfer rate too, but only by the square root of the capacity increase (because reading speed depends on the linear, rather than area, density).

So unless spin speeds increase further (which is a problem because of heat), a disk of double the capacity takes 41% longer to copy.

Re:A lot of music... (3)

jonathanclark (29656) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611847)

CDDB the online CD database claims
"still the world's largest CD database with over 390,000 titles and 4,500,000 audio tracks".

Estimate an audio track to be on average 3MB, and you are looking at 12 terabytes
of music right there. From my experiences CDDB has pretty good coverage of english
music, but it's lacking some foreign titles. So add 10-20% more to the estimate. They are
currently working on a version with international character sets, so it might be a lot higher
if they don't have any Asain titles. Also you add maybe another few TBs for new
bands and old bands that are not available in CD form.

I wonder how many years it will be before 16TB is easily affordable? Less than 10 if moore's
law holds for storage. hmm.. it would take you ~64 years to listen to it all though. course
there is very little of that which you actually *want* to listen to. that's where group filtering comes in.

Anyhow, my prediction is that within 10 years an ordinary person will have a complete collection of the world's published music in their home. Legal issues aside, I think this is pretty exciting.

Max partition sizes for 95 & 98 (1)

werld (102206) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611848)

Does anyone know the max partition size in windows 95 and 98? I'm pretty sure that solaris is in the terabyte range.

What's next? (1)

ComputerWiz (103007) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611850)

Actually 73Gig is nothing. I could fill up a 73Gig drive in no time. I think the way to go is with Ferroelectric Molecular Optical Storage Nanotechnology. Colossal Storage has invented new ways of non - contact reading and writing with non destructive reading of information to a ferroelectric molecule, which not only results in a far larger capacity (4 gigabits/ maxing at 40 gigabits compared with 40 gigabits/ up to 500 gigabits/, but also the speed is fantastic; The FE Drive will have much higher disk spindle speeds over 10,000 rpm and higher bandwidth data transfer rate parameters over 500 mbps. What all this means, is that someday we will get away from our present magnetic HD's and break way beyond the 1Terrabyte! And we are not talking 10years down the road! The technology is here today, and wil be available to mass consumers by 2002. Click here for more stuff about ferroelectricity []

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611852)

Lets see, 2G * 24 partitions (drive letter limit) = 48 GB. What do I do with the rest?

(Answer: Install Linux).

FAT Cluster Size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611855)

Hey, if you theoretically put FAT16 on this thing, the cluster size would be like 1 meg! (If I calculated it correctly)

And I thought 16K was bad.

Re:Wow! (1)

NettRom (39971) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611862)

You could get Windows 2000 AND Office 2000 on the SAME drive! only 'till the first service pack comes around.

Re:next tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611863)

Now holographic memory will make the porn masters happy.

Re:Storage Observations (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611864)

That is in large part due to the fact that IBM
has been porring massive money into figuring out
how to build these things. IBM has a lot of really cool R&D stuff going on around. (And have gotten a few Nobel prizes over the years for it)

Not enough for service packs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611865)

You might be able to get Office 2k and Win2k on it, but once you add a service pack or two it won't fit anymore. Of course Microsoft will tell us, that the produict is good and doesn't need any service packs. :)

Bill Silverstein []

$2 / gigabyte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611866)

Disk prices are approaching $10 / gigabyte in local markets, mainly on the 12-20 GB disks. The price of a new box tends to start in the $400s and falls to the $100s in maturity. So thee 70 GB class will enventually send the price to about $2 / gigabyte.

Re:Well... (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611867)

The "refrigerator hard drive" mentioned consists of many spindles in one case. Calling that a hard drive is a stretch.


Re:$2 / gigabyte (1)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611868) has the IBM ultrastar 36xp 36gb u2wscsi fcal 7200rpm hd * order online and use promo code: 704P, qty 1/order * ibm hard drives, part 08l8411 $ 1056

That's $29/G :-)

How reliable are these larger drives? (1)

Juln (41313) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611869)

I pay a lot more for a smaller , super-reliable than I would for a huge drive that clacks and sputters in a couple of years.
I am deciding what kind of auxillary hard drive to get and I am not so sure about this 20GB drive i found for $220 ... but um, i guess that looks pretty small next to this one.

Digital VCR from week -> month (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611870)

A number of digital appliances are limited to two disk boxes for practical reasons. For example personal digital VCRS currently top out at 28 gigs- 25 hours of viewing- or about a week of offline viewing for a typical viewer. The new disks will gradruple this capacity to a month.

Re:Linux on huge disks (1)

jimhill (7277) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611871)

'And I fear the time when I have to "test" the fsck times...'

I betcha that at least one of the journaling file systems for Linux will be available by the time this drive is on shelves -- my understanding is that ext3 is almost ready for beta testing and that XFS will be done soon.

It won't eliminate fscking but it should alleviate a lot of it.

LBA? (1)

detritus. (46421) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611872)

Will this hard drive exceed the limit of LBA? I still can't believe that they haven't just created a BIOS efficent enough to hold enough cylinders, heads and sectors for the new drives.

Needless to say, we're still putting a floppy controller on motherboards. Thank iomega for that. Hello? some industry standards here?

Re:A lot of music... (1)

My_Favorite_Anonymou (36494) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611873)

but then you need a AI serach engine for your PLAY LIST. "Hel, what was the playlist I heard the other day when I was eating a strewberry? No not before I went to the holloweed party, something like 'lalala -lala la'.... What you can't find it?!?"

What's the different from that to a commercial free radio station. Ever wonder what people go to blockbuster which has the world's choises and pick up a copy of "Superstar"? Because people LIKE to eat up the ads. You can afford to have every phonebook from every city, but you don't need to.


Re:Minor nitpick about 1 inch thick (1)

Porky Pig (32612) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611874)

apparently the format 73GB drive is
'the size of a paperback', whatever the
size of a paperback is.

Re:Storage Observations (1)

Dr_Hajj (75351) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611875)

Some enterprising company *really* needs to get around to exercising the MiniDisc format.

I want this puppy to plug into a 3.5" bay on my computer as a backup media and as an audio recording
media (using Sony's compression or MP3 compression, my choice); I want it to plug into an automobile
audio bay to play back my music; I want to use it as a portable walkman-style playback unit; and I want to
be able to use it as a backup media through the parallel port on computers that don't have the bay interface.

The car interface doesn't need an amplifier et al; I'll supply my own. It just needs to be a convienent way of
plugging in the deck to the system.

The computer bay interface should be high speed, and function just like a normal hard drive (making it
compatible with all OSes, I hope)....

Don't forget breakfast in bed !!

- Hajj

Re:Additional Link (1)

jbridges (70118) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611876)

PriceWatch already lists the Maxtor 93652U8 36.5GB drive (9gig per platter, 4 platters).

It's only $290

Price Watch Search Maxtor 36.5 []

Of course the most gig per buck is the Maxtor 27.2GB for $201. (I payed $260 a few weeks ago)

The 27.2GB Maxtor transfers at over 18meg per second according to the Adaptec SCSIBench32 in EZ-SCSI 5.0 (which does test IDE as well as SCSI).

Pretty impressive for a 5400RPM consumer level drive!

Re:Max partition sizes for 95 & 98 (1)

treke (62626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611878)

Using FAT16 you are limited to 4 gig, under FAT 32 I believe the upper limit is around 2 terabytes

Re:A lot of music... (1)

jelle (14827) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611880)

The most difficult problem would be to personally keeping it up-to-date. In comes an automatic update system (bandwidth, esp in the 256kbit range will be damn cheap and common too (how big does a broadcast channel need to be to be able to send out _all_ new music?)), but then why download music you're not going to listen to. So my guess is there will be repositories easy access, much like video on demand, but then audio (or video clips thrown in for free?), and then not on-demand, but automagically tailored to your own personal taste by smart selection, 'buddy'-systems, deejays, and whatnot. A whole new industry I'd say. 1000 million people in the richest countries, each of them their own personal radio channel.

And still we'd have to listen to those ads that pay for it all...

Everything will change, but then again it will all stay the same.

Bigger is better? (1)

Ender2 (32011) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611881)

Just a question. But at what point is a hard disk to big? Or will we always find files to fill up any size drive with? If I get a 73gig hard dirve and fill it up with games, OS's, and neat stuff, then it will take me 116 650meg CD's to back up my system. While I'll agree that bigger is better in this instance. The down side is that Other storage form techolngy, like burnable DVD's or the like are not yet availbilty

Re:Wow! (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611884)

The current partitioning scheme doesn't allow for more than 16 partitions, and with Windows, that's reduced to 13.

(Up to 4 primary partitions, and you can have 4 extended partitions per primary partition, but Windows needs to be on a primary to boot...)

73GB? (3)

tomk (20364) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611891)

Don't forget, this drive is "only" 69.6 Gibibytes.

Those funny marketing people.


Things change (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611892)

I remember my old 43MB Seagate ST-147A that had to be split in two partitions because DOS 3.30 couldn't handle partitions larger than 32MB. LOL!

Great (1)

ToOn (56014) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611893)

And I need more real estate, since my mods/skins/levels outside of my regular on-line games takes up about 3 gigs alone...

porn? Bah. MP3's? ok... yeah.

Off Topic RAM Prices (2)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611894)

64MB of RAM now costs more than a 12GB IDE drive.

I have heard rumor that the devistation of the earthquake has been "repaired" (not saying it wasn't devistating as far as personal life/property), and that RAM manufactures were up to full speed already.

The rumor further says that it's the markets willingness to pay over $2/M still that has kept the prices up for the last couple weeks, when not that long ago prices were well under $1/M.

Anyone know of any proof of these "rumors"???

What's the big deal? (1)

2sheds (78194) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611895)

After all, it's only really 73 thousand megabytes. Use a proper numbering system! james

Sorry, 157A of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611896)

How could I forget.. :)

It's Gonna Be A While (1)

leiz (35205) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611897)

I've been looking at the hard drive industry and for the last two years I've been drooling at their hard drives all this time. First came the Deskstar 8... then the Deskstar 14... then the deskstar 22.... then the deskstar 34... and now the ultrastar 72. yes, we are all excited about these HUGE hard drives, but IBM has a tendency to announce them a long time before their release. And when they do release it, the OEMs such as DELL usually gets it first. Unless you got some inside connection with IBM or an OEM, I don't think you'll be able to get your hands on one of these babies for another six month.

BTW, IBM tech support was kind enough to replace my dead 10 gig with a 14.4 GB :)

There is no statute of limitation on stupidity.

Re:next tech (1)

radja (58949) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611898)

Tesa rom anyone? holographic storage on tesa adhesive tape... already sticky BEFORE use...

Space is gonna do me good (1)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611899)

I want. Though it would be nice if IBM would announce a general price range.

And to think those big honkin' 4.3g disks in the RAID at work cost only $1200 a pop five years ago.

Drive (2)

chandler (98984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611903)

I'm running out of hard drive space right now... this is sweet.
Brian's Rule For Hard Drive Space Says:
Actual hard drive space=Total hard drive space/Number of OS's.
I have 5 GB total / 3 OS's (Linux, Windblows, Solaris) = 1.66 GB.

A lot of music... (3)

.pentai. (37595) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611904)

Ok, for 256kbit mp3s, it's approx 2 megs per minute...that means 512 minutes per gig. So 512 minutes * 73 gigs means approx. 37376 minutes, or just under 623 hours, which is just under 26 days, a few days short of a month.

Now if we're talking 128kbit mp3's, well then you're good for a few months.

Not that anyone would *EVER* hoard that much copyrighted material, oh no, not us, that would be wrong...

Oxford explains it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611905)

IBM always releases fatass drives with 5400 rpm
and speedier 7200rpm drives with less platters,
due to heat production.

Those drives always have the latest interface chips (ATA66), very
impressive sustained read/write specs, excellent price/performance ratio,
and most importantly, space.

IBM also had Drive Fitness Test on IDE first,
that tool used to be for DOS-32bit, but if you
had a drive getting louder, and found out
through this tool that it is likely to fail
and IT DID, you should be glad IBM storage
division engineers are as clever as they are.

Doh of course Mr.Oxford had a backup!

seagate already has 50G (3)

mysticbob (21980) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611906)

i'm always bugged when a press release garners more attention than real products. seagate makes 50G drives today. you can get them today here [] .(also they have some drives which are slightly less than $10/G) or read the specs on the 50G here [] .

cool -- large, but cool.

IDE will be a PITA (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1611907)

It will be a while before the IDE version shows up, but when it does will we be ready? According to the Large Disk mini-HOWTO [] , current systems can't handle
a size over 33.8 GB. The problem is that with the default 16 heads and 63 sectors/track this corresponds to a number of cylinders of more than 65535, which does not fit into a short. Maybe no BIOS in existence today can handle such disks. Linux still needs a patch.

We just need a fast CD-ROM (1)

Zule_Boy (45951) | more than 14 years ago | (#1611908)

Of course no one would hoard that many MP3s. That would be wrong :)

Now I just need a really fast CDROM to rip MP3s to store on my 69GB Linux Partiton. But really, now big is too big for one drive? I really dig RAID (5) because it is redundant, but you could lose months of work (or MP3s) if that drive were to toast.

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>