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!

The First Terabyte Hard Drive Reviewed

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the that-is-a-lot-of-dvd-rips dept.

Data Storage 495

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech has a review and benchmarks of the Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 1TB Hard Drive, which ushers in the terabyte age. It performs well on HDTach and PCMark benchmarks, though not as speedily as professional-grade drives. It could be just the ticket for digital media junkies. 'One of the first issues to note is that you may not see an actual one terabyte capacity on your system. First, the formatted capacity is always less than the raw space available on the drive. Directory information and formatting data always take up some space. Second, the hard drive industry's definition of a megabyte differs from the rest of the PC business. One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 10^6 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 2^20 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes. Once installed and set up, Hitachi's 1TB hard drive offers up an actual formatted capacity of about 935GB, as measured by the OS. That's still a lot of space, by anyone's definition.'" Update: 05/17 21:52 GMT by Z : Adding '^s' missing from article.

cancel ×

495 comments

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

Zonk (1, Insightful)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169865)

If you're going to give a condescending explantion of how hard drive space is measured ("News For Nerds"), at least get it right.

We all have our own opinions about Slashdot editors, but it's hard to believe Zonk even read the summary. It's nonsense.

Re:Zonk (2, Funny)

guspasho (941623) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169937)

Exactly.

"One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes"

What the hell does that even mean? 106 bytes? 220 bytes?

Re:Zonk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169997)

I think 10^6 and 2^20 - although not spotting that error in editing? ouch!

Re:Zonk (0, Redundant)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170025)

Well, that's just an exact quote from the original article. Should have put [sic] next to it at least...

Re:Zonk (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170017)

That stuff is all pulled directly out of the article and I have no idea what they were trying to say. Its like they forgot words. Twice.

Re:Zonk (4, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170087)

It was probably originally typed as:

One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 10<sup>6</sup> bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 2<sup>20</sup> bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.

And then the tags got stripped somehow.

Re:Zonk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169957)

I suspect it was meant to read 10^6 bytes and 2^20 bytes, but something got lost at some point.

Re:Zonk (3, Informative)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170001)

I see where they screwed up.. in this sentence:

One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.
"106" bytes should have been written as "10^6 bytes", and "220 bytes" should be "2^20 bytes". Either that or actually put the powers in superscripts.

Re:Zonk (0)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170487)

Thanks for clearing that up. That made my head asplode.

Re:Zonk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170641)

Perhaps the editors should be required to preview their messages before they're posted, like ACs.

Re:Zonk (5, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170123)

It's not a race Zonk, you can hit the preview button once in a while.

From this day forward all badly formed posts shall be known as Zonks.

Zonkonomics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170255)

"If you're going to give a condescending explantion of how hard drive space is measured ("News For Nerds"), at least get it right."

Would you like to hear the condescending explaination of economics ("New for Economists")? Lord know slashdot usually doesn't get that right.

Lots of space? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169901)

"that's still a lot of space, by anyone's definition"

I said that when I got my first 6Gb drive a decade ago - that was a hell of a step up from 200Mb - now it wouldn't even fit a quarter of my mp3's on it!

WTF (0, Redundant)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170129)

Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.

Can someone decipher that sentence for me? 1MB = 220 bytes? Eh? Is Westmoreland in charge of OS byte definitions?



(sorry for tagging along on your post... it was reasonably close to the top...

Re:WTF (0, Redundant)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170401)

it looks like the >sup tags got stripped or something. it's like that in TFA. presumablely they mean 2^20 bytes, which is correct.

Re:WTF (0, Redundant)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170503)

Considering that the information is already up top ill tag it on here since it was asked again.
When they said 1MB = 220 bytes, they meant 2^20 or 2<sup>20</sup> Bytes.
Bring on the -1 Redundant.

Deathstar (1)

Andrew Lindh (137790) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170333)

This 1TB drive has now finally earned the it's name "Deathstar"....

Re:Deathstar (2, Insightful)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170769)

Such innovation....you too can have the 1TB "click of death"...

Now when will the first 1TB drive come out with a name I can trust? (Seriously, how they never retired the DeskStar name is beyond me.)

If you don't know what I mean... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lots of space? (0, Offtopic)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170527)

My first hard disk was an external 5Mb box for Osborne 1, it was a HUGE step up from single sided 5.25" 92Kb single sided floppies.

Now I need faster broadband (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169923)

So that I can fill this new drive with pr0n ;)

Re:Now I need faster broadband (4, Funny)

lord_sarpedon (917201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170443)

No, it just means you'll get to consolidate what you already have ;)

New New Math? (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169933)

One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.
That was from TFA (not just the summary). I asked my calculator about that but it just got a headache.

SUP tag missing - 10^6 and 2^20 (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170365)

Apparently, their publishing system doesn't support <sup> tags (or [sup] if it's BBCode based).
The thing was supposed to be 10<sup&gtg</sup&gt and 2<sup&gt20</sup&gt which should render 10^6 and 2^20 (slashdot doesn't allow sup tags neither... but you got the point).

Re:New New Math? (1, Funny)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170553)

One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.
That was from TFA (not just the summary). I asked my calculator about that but it just got a headache.
This is GREAT!

Finally a controversy about measuring disk space where someone claims that a megabyte is neither a power of two nor a power of ten. 220 bytes, who would have guessed?

106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (1)

hf256 (627209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169941)

What do the 106 bytes and 220 bytes in the summary mean?
I understand that hard drive makers use powers of 10 in preference to powers of 2 and it's a coincidence that 2^10 is close to 10^3, but the summary makes no sense as it stands.

Re:106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (4, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169999)

They mean that superscript tags don't work when submitting stories to slashdot. If should read 10^6 and 2^20.

Re:106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170051)

Actually, those superscripts didn't work in the article either. Whether they work in /. is beside the point.

Re:106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (1)

Falkkin (97268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170273)

I don't know that Slash is really to blame here. The initial article had the same text verabtim, also without any superscripts. See the bottom of this page: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2131553 ,00.asp [extremetech.com]

Re:106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (3, Insightful)

Mundocani (99058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170403)

Regardless of whether the original article had it wrong, someone at Slashdot should've read the posted summary text and noticed the error. You shouldn't be a "News for Nerds" editor and not immediately notice that the sentence makes absolutely no sense as written.

Re:106 bytes and 220 bytes, ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170079)

The superscript was lost in the translation. That is 10^6 and 2^20

eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169949)

>One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes

ok I may be drunk but WTF is this all about? are there operating systems that randomly think a megabyte is 220 bytes or nearly 5000 times more?

Re:eh? (0, Redundant)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170251)

It's whatever editing or posting software was used eating characters. Manufacturers report a megabyte as 10^6 bytes (1,000,000), while computers report a megabyte as 2^20 bytes (1,048,576).

Re:eh? (-1, Redundant)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170631)

Manufacturers report a megabyte as 10^6 bytes (1,000,000), while computers report a megabyte as 2^20 bytes (1,048,576).
Bzzzt. Wrong.

Manufactures correctly report a megabyte as 10^6 bytes (1,000,000), while good quality computer software also reports a megabyte as 10^6 bytes, while reporting a mebibyte as 2^20 bytes (1,048,576).

For an example of bad quality software which confuses binary and decimal prefixes, see Microsoft Windows.

'106' should be '10 to the sixth' (1, Redundant)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169951)

For anyone confused by the summary: a hard-disk-maker's megabyte is 10^6 (1 million) bytes, whereas an operating system's megabyte is 2^20 (1,048,576) bytes. The summary was supposed to use a superscript, but the superscript got lost so '10 to the 6th' became '106'.

Re:'106' should be '10 to the sixth' (1)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170539)

The article has that problem too. "Second, the hard drive industry's definition of a megabyte differs from the rest of the PC business. One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 106 bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes. Once installed and set up, Hitachi's 1TB hard drive offers up an actual formatted capacity of about 935GB, as measured by the OS." Glad it was fixed on Slashdot.

hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169959)

Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 220 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.
I see, so one byte is 4766.2545 bytes?

why explain prefixes? (3, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169971)

Is there anyone out there who would be buying a 1TB hard drive who doesn't already know the difference between binary and decimal prefixes? I think their target market is well aware of the differences between GiB and GB.

Actually, it seems some Microsoft programmers still don't know the difference. At least most open source apps properly distinguish between binary and decimal prefixes. Not so for Windows...

Re:why explain prefixes? (1, Insightful)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170063)

GiBs and MiBs are silly anyway. I happen to prefer Microsoft's usage in this case.

Re:why explain prefixes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170153)

yes:
GiB is for base ten
GB is base two.

hmm which do computers use, I seem to forget.

Problem is (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170157)

I know the difference, but I still fall for it!

It's like those 49.99 prices that somehow computes in your brain to $40.

With 1TB being 0.93TB the slack is actually becoming quite large. I remember when I thought 70GB was enormous, and now that just a rounding error? Damn, I'm going to be pissed the next time I fall for it. Just like I was when I lost 35GB on my current drive... damn I'm pissed again.

Re:why explain prefixes? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170507)

Applying metric prefixes to bytes is simply wrong anyway. Metric prefixes are base 10, why did they start applying them binary values just because of an arbitrary approximation of 1024 (or 2E10) and 10E3? When you call a 1000 GiB drive 1000 GB, you're not using esoteric nomenclature. You're stating something that's wrong. Sadly, it'll probably take lawsuit to change things.

Re:why explain prefixes? (2, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170681)

No, it isnt.
From a user perspective, it doesnt matter shit if a byte is 8 bit. That solves the whole "base 10" crisis you seem to have.

Next, gather your brain for some thought: you have a CPU that runs at some Ghz, and memory busses/network cards that run at megabyte/s.

Now guess what kind of "mega" those aspects used from the beginning of time? Yes, SI.
Just for some strage reason, for memory and disks people thought that 1024 is close enought to 1000 as not to matter.
Too bad now we are at 10^9 vs 2^30, where the relative differences arent ignorable anymore (8.5% is quite abit..)

Now the next problem with the binary idiociy in storage space is the plethora of bastardisations: People doing megabytes as 1000 kiB, or Gbyte as 1000 MiB, or 1000000 kiB, which all gives different results, of course...

106 and 220 bytes (0, Redundant)

Tofof (199751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169987)

Article summary should read 10^6 bytes, not 106, and similarly 2^20 not 220.

Why is this still a discussion? (5, Insightful)

Grelli (98061) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170029)

Don't complain about the fact a megabyte isn't what you thought it was. Complain about the fact the industry still uses it for labels. But don't try and make the megabyte a mebibyte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix [wikipedia.org] vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_prefix [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (3, Insightful)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170257)

The reason why nobody uses "mebibyte", "kibibyte", "gibibyte", and all of these other terms are because of two reasons: they are new and relatively unknown, and they just sound stupid and unnatural (try pronouncing them). It is commonly accepted knowledge in electrical engineering and computer science circles that we use 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, etc. when describing kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes, respectively, except when dealing with data storage capacities (which I feel is a marketroid invention and a sales gimmick. "10^9 vs. 2^30? Who'll know the difference?"). It's been that way since the 1960s. The new terms like "mebibyte," "gibibyte," and the rest of them just sound silly, hard to pronounce, and unnatural.

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170469)

and redundant, don't forget redundant.

seriously, The computer uses power of two, it's how it measures things. We should use BI prefix, anything else is just cheap used car saleman gimmicks.

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170589)

A compromise is that you write "mebibyte" but pronounce "megabyte" in the privacy of your own house.

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170283)

Alright, after reading that, I want a yottabyte hard drive in my house server- ought to be good for recording all sensor data, including DVR, for the next century or so....

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (5, Funny)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170415)

Don't complain about the fact a megabyte isn't what you thought it was. Complain about the fact the industry still uses it for labels. But don't try and make the megabyte a mebibyte.

What!?! Next thing you'll be telling me is that a kilometer isn't 1024 meters long. Please, stop this madness before it spreads!

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170545)

But don't try and make the megabyte a mebibyte.

Sure. But I will try to make my terminology not function as a form of birth control.

Re:Why is this still a discussion? (4, Insightful)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170621)

The difference between the two numbers is due to this:

Manufacturers have an interest in you paying more and getting less, while computers do not. Manufacturers who are successful and have the cash to spend can then lobby international standards bodies to skew "standards" in their favor, regardless of historical context and practical day-to-day usage patterns (both technical and linguistic).

Don't side with "the man" on /. unless you enjoy tar + feathers, not even if it means bucking the "standard".

75gxp for lifez (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170033)

its too bad I refuse to buy anything with the name "deskstar" in it since IBM refused to replace a 75gxp I bought that died 3 months after I bought it.

Yeah I know hitachi bought IBMs HD business, but the least they could have done was gotten rid of deskstar.

Re:75gxp for lifez (1)

Fus (809178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170155)

I fervently agree! I didnt have a 75GXP, but I've seen too many of the "DeathStar" line die while on service calls. Rebrand FTW, Hitachi.

Reality (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170037)

when mounted, we want to to say 1 terrabyte, not meh, nearly one terrabyte. The OS is the measureing stick, use it.

I sure as hell don't want it to say 106 bytes.

Actual formatted size... (1)

reaktor (949798) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170437)

The article author failed to mention: when formatted, this drive is actually only about 400GB. /end sarcasm

Re:Reality (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170823)

"when mounted, we want to to say 1 terrabyte, not meh, nearly one terrabyte. The OS is the measureing stick, use it."

I'll bite. First of all, we want it to say terabyte or TB. Notice the lack of dubbel r's. Furthermore, I don't care a bit what the OS (which OS is that?) measures it. Please use measurements ones that humans, not computers or nerds understand, TB for 1,000,000,000,000 bytes is fine with me. And then there is the issue of filesystems. If you would format this with some arcane filesystem, you might loose a lot of data storage right away.

In other words, they've more or less nailed it, even if they use it for commercial reasons only.

Ahh Slashdot (2, Insightful)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170043)

Where nobody R's the TFA but instead spends their time making fun of the summary.

Re:Ahh Slashdot (1)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170265)

I don't have time to read frivolous articles about whatever it is the Slashdot editors decide to pull out of their ass. I have better things to do with my time; like spending nearly ten minutes refreshing the page secure another first post. :P

Re:Ahh Slashdot (4, Funny)

croddy (659025) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170501)

eh, you're not missing anything anyway. TFA is just one of those meager gear review sites with 20 words per page spread out onto 8 pages all mostly covered with a bunch of empty rectangles.

what is the DEAL with all those empty rectangles anyway?

Re:Ahh Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Tatisimo (1061320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170715)

Those "empty rectangles" are to a web site what a tip jar is to a street musician or an empty cup to a hobo. It's where you throw in your part to keep 'em going... (and maybe keep 'em drunk, too!)

Re:Ahh Slashdot (1)

cching (179312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170633)

Where nobody R's the TFA but instead spends their time making fun of the summary.

Ok, let's spend some time making fun of your post then. The 'the' in 'the TFA' is redundant, the the fine article?

:-P

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Newegg Reviews (1)

Nanidin (729400) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170047)

"Once installed and set up, Hitachi's 1TB hard drive offers up an actual formatted capacity of about 935GB"

I'm sorry I can't pull a specific link for you, but if you go look at the reviews of 500gb drives on Newegg or Outpost or other online sites...

You'll find reviews that say "Only got 450 gigs on my 500 gig drive but it's close enough, I give it 3 stars!"

how did my cat get in the sink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170067)

did you put my cat in the sink you know he doesn't like sinks whats wrong with you

The Obligatory Post... (1)

frostilicus2 (889524) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170069)

But it's still not big enough to hold my pr0n collection.

Re:The Obligatory Post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170271)

Mom!

I asked you to stop posting at Slashdot.

Your (humiliated) son

Damn... (1)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170111)

I remember when I was 9 or 10 and the family computer could hold 10 gigs. That was nearly unfillable at the time.

Sorry, just being nostalgic.

Re:Damn... (3, Interesting)

NorbMan (829255) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170185)

I still have a 10 Megabyte (yes, Megabyte) hard drive on an Apple //. It still isn't full.

Re:Damn... (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170193)

You youngster you !

My first PC with a Hard drive had 32MB (yes MB)

Re:Damn... (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170205)

WHen I was 9 or ten, I sat quietly waiting for the home computer to be invented.
I may have thrown rocks at my neighbor from time to time.

Re:Damn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170229)

So you must be about 15...

Re:Damn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170295)

My "9 or 10" computer had, as I recall, 40 megs. With Stacker I was able to store around 70 megs. That was only 20ish years ago. How times change!

Re:Damn... (3, Insightful)

netscan (1028690) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170297)

I remember when I was 9 or 10 and the family computer could hold 10 gigs. That was nearly unfillable at the time. Sorry, just being nostalgic
Okay, how many read this and said quietly to themselves "Man I'm old..."?

Re:Damn... (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170435)

I'm only 23 and I still said "Man I'm old".

When my family FINALLY got around to getting a decent family PC, we had a whopping 3GB. I was hot shit on the block for about 6 months.

Re:Damn... (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170667)

Dunno, the first thing I said quietly to myself was, "Man, that guy sucks at finding warez." Really, an unfillable hard drive? How is that possible? :)

Re:Damn... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170301)

Heh. When I was 9 or 10 my family computer was using 1.2MB 5.25" floppies. Hard drives were a luxury . . .

Re:Damn... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170555)

my uncle would likely feel positively ancient at this discussion. his first computer (kit-built apple II, i think) used an audio cassette drive for storage.

Re:Damn... (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170687)

When I was 15, most families couldn't afford computers (though that was about to change, since the Apple II had just come out). At my high school, we had computers with two 8-inch, single-sided floppy drives (Ohio Scientific, if you're interested). They held 275k, each. I remember my math teacher bragging because, if you got double-sided disk drives, you could have an entire megabyte on line.

Re:Damn... (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170391)

10 gigs? My first storage medium was audio tape. I thought a 100kb microdrive was luxury. The fact that I could write my college reports 4 pages at a time in Tasword was a revelation.
 

Re:Damn... (1)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170511)

WTF? Are you 12 years old now or something? 10GB was orders of magnitude larger than anything I could possibly hope for when I was "9 or 10" years old.

Re:Damn... (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170533)

Sigh. First computer I used with a hard drive stored a whopping 20 megabytes. And we considered it huge. There were lots of mainframe drives in service at the time that were only 100 megabytes (e.g. IBM 3330).

The first computer I owned in my own right had two 720k floppy drives. Then I moved up to a 700 MB hard drive. Now I have several hundred gigs. The "little" external Firewire drive I bought for my laptop is 80GB, and I have a 4GB thumb drive in my back pack.

...laura

Maxtor does it slightly better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170125)

Maxtor does (did?) it slightly better. For their 320/300 GB drive, they called it 300+20 GB. Formatted capacity? 298 GB. *thumbs up*

First review? ummm... Anandtech, March 19th.... (4, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170195)

Initial review March 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49 [anandtech.com]

Follow-up RAID performance April 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49 [anandtech.com]

Follow-up to the follow-up April 23rd:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 74 [anandtech.com]

Re:First review? ummm... Anandtech, March 19th.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170355)

Did you actually read the title? It says that it is a review of the first terabyte hard drive NOT the first review of the terabyte hard drive.

English is hard.

Sloppy editing. (3, Funny)

Gricey (154787) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170289)

Come on, look what you're pasting. What you thought was a story about ponies could be the next AACS encryption key!

Wow, I love ponies.

Formatted capacity? BAH! (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170303)

I just vi /dev/sda

 

WOW, 1TB (4, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170319)

I remember when I paid $150 for a 10meg MFM drive! (poke c800:50 ;)
I remember paying $1000 for my first 1gig drive!
I remember paying $500 for my first 1TB of drive space (6x300gb drives ok 1.8TB unformatted)
I remember paying $350 for my second 1.1TB of drive space (4x320gb Just last week)

I can not wait to get to my first 6TB system! I may have said, many years ago, that I would never fill 1gig, but I know I can fill 6TB It should not take me more than a couple of months.

Man how things have changed!

Then 8mhz, 640k ram and 10megs.
Now 2.4Ghz dual core, 2gig ram, 1.1TB HD

I wonder what we will say in another 16 years.

Re:WOW, 1TB (2, Insightful)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170851)

I can not wait to get to my first 6TB system! I may have said, many years ago, that I would never fill 1gig, but I know I can fill 6TB It should not take me more than a couple of months.


There's one big difference though:

When you bought your 10 MB drive, you were going to store your operating system and word processor documents on it, with a few games.
When you bought your 100 MB drive, you stored the same, plus a few MP3s.
When you bought your 1 GB drive, you stored a large part of your music collection on it.
When you bought your 100 GB drive, you stored your entire music collection on it, as well as a few TV show seasons and several movies.
When you bought your 10 TB drive, you stored... more movies...

You see? We've been increasing the capacity of what we can store, so we went from regular files, to MP3s, to whole movies, to whole TV seasons... but from there? What takes more space than a season of a TV show? What is the next magnitude of data file size? What will you store on your 10 TB drive that will take up all the space?

Math (2, Informative)

KrayzieKyd (906704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170339)

1,000,000,000,000 bytes / 1024^4 = 931.23 GB formatted. Math is our friend.

Re:Math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170745)

"GB formatted"? That's the wrong name. The overhead of formatting a terabyte drive is *not* 9.95%. What you did is a conversion from TB to GiB.

Megabyte/Terabyte (4, Informative)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170347)

We can only guess what Zonk meant to say. But I'll try to make some sense.

First, hard drive manufacturers have always calculated drive space differently than the rest of the entire computing world. It allows them to say that a drive is bigger than it really truly is. They've been able to do it for years, and lawsuits have been lost and won on this very issue. But essentially, their use of the metric words "kilo," "mega," and "giga" are the literal meanings of "1000," "1,000,000" and "1,000,000,000" instead of the computing world's 1024 multiplier.

Therefore, a "kilobyte" to them is 1,000 bytes (as opposed to 1,024 bytes in real life), and a "megabyte" is "1,000,000" bytes (as opposed to 1,048,576 bytes [1024 x 1024]), and a "gigabyte" is 1,000,000,000 bytes (instead of 1,073,741,824 [1024 x 1024 x 1024] bytes in real life).

The real difference in a terabyte? Divide 1,000,000,000,000 by 1024/1024/1024 and you get 931.32 gigabytes. That's a theoretical limit, mind you, and there is overhead for cluster size, partition info, FAT tables, etc., so you really don't even get that.

Doesn't that byte?

yuo Fai7 I7! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170349)

TO ITS LAID-BACK alreadY aWare, *BSD 'I have to kill share, this news

"...by anyones definition" (3, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170477)

hmm. I guess you could say that "935GB ought to be enough for anybody".

Note to future self: remember when 1 terabyte was considered a lot of storage? those were the days....

Re:"...by anyones definition" (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170669)

Note to future self: remember when an exabyte (a million terabytes) was a lot of storage. However, it'll take 2.5 years to fsck it all.

I look forward to more write-ups like this (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170529)

Perhaps the next story on Bill Gates or windows might consist mostly of a paragraph explaining that Microsoft is a company.

SI prefixes are powers of thousand. (4, Insightful)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170581)

Cue the ensuing Mebi/Gibi/Tebi vs. SI notation fights.

While it's takes a while to get used to it, I actually prefer the Bi-units now. 4,3GiB or 4,7GB is already a huge difference when talking about DVD capacity. At terabyte, it gets enormous.

Linux already uses those units.

Only place where I still see a purpose for using binary units in computing is memory - address bus is still addressed exactly with n lines so memory capacity will be 2^n. For all other cases, it's not needed. Yes, the hard drives have 512 to 4096 byte sectors, but who cares when were talking about trillions of them?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix [wikipedia.org] for more.

I want a 5400 (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170619)

While I know that most folks like the faster larger disks, the truth is that these are NOT used in most businesses. Many business will use >= 10K, SCSIed and raided (save the small ones). These will be used in home drives or as LARGE storage. It would make sense to have these spin at lower speeds to increase the MTBF. In particular, if these are raided, then you can get plenty of speed.

Windoze (3, Funny)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170639)

Finally! Enough space to install Windoze Vista SuperUltimate Edition with SuperBloat64 and added memory mismanagement!

8TBs with redundancy in XP? (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170775)

Ok, might as well ask here since i havnt been able to get a good answer anywhere else... I just built a server last week, its an empty case pretty much, just a spare drive for the OS and some storage, with 8 free drive bays, i want maximum storage density, so im waiting for 1TB HDs in the $250 price range... I've got a PCI-E slot for a controller card and you can get an 8 port one for about $300, but i've read that the maximum you can format an array to in windows is about 2TB. I'd prefer to have everything in a RAID5 for a single 7TB array, is there any way to do this with windows, or am i going to need smaller arrays at the expense of more parity drives? :( And yes it has to be windows, network DVD player software, sharing, etc.

But what happens when.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19170811)

..the drive crashes or dies.

I thought losing 80GBs of data was bad.
But ~1TB of data is just too much information to lose at one time, for me.

Update (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19170833)

"Update: 05/17 21:52 GMT by Z : Adding '^s' missing from article."

WTF? now we can't pretend it wasn't a mistake and make fun of the 'stupid' submitter. Curse you!
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>