Slashdot Mirror


A Terabyte of Data on a Laptop Hard Drive

KaosConMan writes: "TechnologyReview.com has an article describing a new technique being developed by General Electric and IBM to further decrease the size needed to magnetically store data. This new technique could produce 150 gigabits per square centimeter-- that's ~57,000 songs on an iPod or a terabyte on a laptop size hard drive!"

223 comments

  1. cool. I mean, hot by kipple · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder
    1. how much does that thing heat up
    2. how in hell I'm going to back up a terabyte from my laptop. I already have there too many things that I care about (I do backups on cd-rw), but with a terabyte of data I'd better have two of them and go with raid.....

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:cool. I mean, hot by bodin · · Score: 2
      1. Yes. Do care about the temperature. And the
      power consumption. And the NOISE!

      2. Don't care about the backup. The good thing about having a terabyte of data is that the need for network connections at awkward places now gets minimised.


      Think about it. You have
      In other words: Have instant access to archives of mail, news, movies, music, i.e. instant access to your backups as they are on your drive!


      Put everything in a gigantic CVS and make the laptop just a cvs-mirror. Not the master.
      Wouldn't it be good with just one big CVS?

    2. Re:cool. I mean, hot by josh+crawley · · Score: 2

      That's the thing. When you back up your computer (if you do), do you clone the whole drive, or do you get rid of the replacable stuff?

      Games these days take up a gig for install. Why would you want to back up canned data like textures or default files from a popular OS? I'm waiting for these cd games to take DVD forms and install a few gigs of data in textures.

    3. Re:cool. I mean, hot by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      "instant access to your backups as they are on your drive!"

      So what happens when the drive dies on you? It has been known to happen... so all your 'backups' just died too, huh?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    4. Re:cool. I mean, hot by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny
      1. how much does that thing heat up

      It gets hella hot with the amount of pr0n you can fit on a terabyte!

    5. Re:cool. I mean, hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard of a laptop being stolen?
      A hard disk breaking?

      If it happens to you, I'm sure you would appreciate that backup.

    6. Re:cool. I mean, hot by jonelf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see why a hd would heat more just because it's stores more? Magnetic media doesn't have to be refreshed like RAM.

      To adress your second concern I would say that the only viable solution for home computing backups has been to backup to another hd for a couple of years now. Backup systems that handles hundreds of GBs are just way too expensive. I solved the problem by just backing up my mail, documents, projects and so on (300MB). The other 50GB I can download from my friends if I ever get a total crash...

      The current implementations of NTFS and ext2fs is said to handle 2TB. Figure running a defrag on such a beast!

      --
      /J - to know recursion you must first know recursion
    7. Re:cool. I mean, hot by gylle · · Score: 1

      RAID is no substitute for backups (and vice versa). For example: what if you are a little too light on the 'rm -rf'? However, with a second terabyte harddrive you can of course do real backups to the other drive. Think of how many DAT tapes that drive makes up for. So, I would go with three drives: two for the RAID, and a third for backups.

    8. Re:cool. I mean, hot by kipple · · Score: 2

      hard disks get bigger and faster, spinning around with more and more rpm - thus generating heat.

      a 2Tb data will have to be FAST... accessing 2tb with actual speeds will be a pain.. I suppose.

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    9. Re:cool. I mean, hot by packeteer · · Score: 2, Funny

      i agree with you... i have many files such as divx movies, mp3 files, and (misc) jpg's :)... these i dont need to backup becaue although losing them sucks its not totally crucial... well maybe the jpg's can stay... they are so small :)...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    10. Re:cool. I mean, hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually harddrives get smaller and smaller. They do spin faster and faster, but I don't see why this new drive would automatically have to do that... after all the data density alone would give it a fantastic transfer rate.

    11. Re:cool. I mean, hot by jonelf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not necessarily because higher density means that you will cover more data at the same speed.

      Today we have 160GB disks with under 10ms seek time. 1TB isn't that far off and you could always increase the number of heads.

      --
      /J - to know recursion you must first know recursion
    12. Re:cool. I mean, hot by chamenos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well,

      1.The reason hard drives have been getting hotter and noiser, is due to the rpm getting higher and higher, in order to increase the data transfer rate. Now, since what this new technology does is increase the density of data stored on the hard drive by about 10 times, and subsequently by almost 50 times, more data would be able to be read by the read/write heads of the hard drive in one pass. Therefore, the hard drives's data transfer rate would increase when operating at the same rpm as your current hard drive, without needing to get any faster. The data transfer rate would still be faster even if you slowed it down by a bit. So basically, the hard drive probably wouldn't get any hotter than what's available today, since there's no need for the rpm to increase and even if it does get faster (and thus, hotter), the noise and heat increase caused by the faster rpm would be well be worth it when considering the very substantial increase in the resulting data transfer rate.

      A 5,400rpm 160GB hard drive would have a higher transfer rate than a 7,200rpm 20GB hard drive, assuming they both use the same number of discs and read-write heads, etc. If what IBM & GE predict comes true, then such a hard drive with the predicted initial 10 times increase in data density would only have to spin at around 540rpm, in order to get the data transfer rate as the 5,400rpm 160GB hard drive I mentioned earlier. This is of course assuming the storage capacity remains the same (160GB). Therefore, noise and heat would both go down since this imagined hard drive of mine would spin at one tenth the speed of a 5,400rpm hard drive, which is already considered slow now.

      2.That's assuming you do store a terabyte on your laptop. And it does state in the article that the technology is predicted to be ready for the market by around 2008. By then, I think it would be very safe to assume that optical storage would have made substantial leaps and bounds by then. Most probably, by that time 27GB writable or re-writable blu-ray discs might have already become commonplace and backing up a terrabyte hard drive wouldn't be much harder than backing up a 45GB hard drive today with 700MB CD-R or CD-RW discs. Easier, in fact.

      Basically, if this new technogloy works as planned, I really don't see how its going to pose any new problems that we don't already have with magnetic data storage. In fact it would more likely alleviate and lessen some of the problems we do have, such as the problems of noise and heat. Power consumption might go up though, due to the smaller footprint of the bits being stored and hence the stronger amplification needed to read the bit, though a lower rpm might make up for this (suspected) increase in power consumption. However I'm not too sure about this, so someone correct me or enlighten me if I'm wrong. Also, seek times might go up but then again, they will most probably have solved this problem as well by the time this new technology becomes available.

      In conclusion, you either aren't familiar with how hard drives work, or haven't yet read the article properly. In either case, your fears are rather unfounded.

    13. Re:cool. I mean, hot by racerx509 · · Score: 1

      see, thats how they are powered as well. The Terabyte drive also acts as its own nuclear reactor. Its soo hot, that it achieves fission right after bootup

      --
      13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
    14. Re:cool. I mean, hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      with a terabyte of data I'd better have two of them and go with raid.

      No, RAID will not protect you from the things most likely to cause problems, like a virus, bad code, or someone walking away with your laptop. You want 2 of these, but the other should be on another system that you keep in sync with the laptop. No more problems of "oh, that file is at home", 2 syncronized systems would nicely back up each other.

    15. Re:cool. I mean, hot by WNight · · Score: 2

      Seek time is important too, which is a combination of head-travel speed and roational latency.

      This will give them a reason to keep the RPMs up. If they drop them, for instance for 540, that'd that about 111ms for the disk to rotate to the right spot to be read. Not a killer, once, but when the data becomes fragmented it's unacceptable.

      In the old days they had drives with multiple sets of read heads, spaced evenly around the drive. I figure we'll go back to this some day, when the heat from multiple heads is less than the heat from increasing the speed.

      Adding a second head would let them have speed equivalent to a 7200rpm drive in a 3600rpm one. With four heads that would be equivalent to a 15k-rpm drive...

  2. No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    20 meg hard drives should be enough for anyone. Anything more will just be wasted.

    1. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by muon1183 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but 20Gb goes pretty fast, i mean, once you start dual or triple booting (I've had up to 4 OS's on my system at once). That, and any av takes up tons of space.

      -OS sig, contribute here

      --

      There's no sig like SIGSEG
    2. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer a beowulf cluster of 20mb hds rather than a tb hd. byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte, petabyte, exabyte... anyone know what's next?

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    3. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gigaquads! "Cap'n, we can only store 80 gigaquads in the ship's computers!"

    4. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by TMLink · · Score: 1

      Re-read the post your replied to.

      --
      Every time a guy gets a threesome, somewhere in heaven an angel gets his wings. --Cary Tennis
    5. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      I'd like to have a backup copy of the entire Internet on my hard drive. That'll be the day.

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    6. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Armond+Carroll · · Score: 1

      Also, think of it this way. 150GB per square centimeter, think of a hardrive smaller than the palm of your hand. It could store prolly store gigabyte after gigabyte of data.. Think of one the size of your whatch, thats 150GBs right there.

    7. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by prmths · · Score: 1

      that's always bugged me... WTF is a gigaquad... i know it's star trek.. but what type of data? possibly analog? or 4 state? (off, low, high, on)?

    8. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... open foot insert mouth

    9. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember 20 years ago....no one will ever need more than 128k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think positive for the future and expand your horizons!

    10. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Patrick13 · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates just announced at microsoft.com that a 64 TeraByte hard drive should be enough hard disk space for anyone, unless of course, they intend run use Windows XP second edition*.

      *release date: December 2008

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    11. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I believe it's yotta and then zotta.

      Seriously.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    12. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wine doesn't work on PPC linux boxen though.

      My iBook will soon have MacOS 9, MacOS X, Debian, and Windows2000 (under virtual PC). My 30gb drive is at it's limits.

      It's quite funny this thread started in reply to a joke about a 20mb drive, yes?

    13. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by quigleymd · · Score: 1

      Please now.. don't be ignorant.
      Dont you remember hearing '640k ought to be enough for anyone...'

    14. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      No, it zettabyte then yottabyte

    15. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      It's technobable... They realized if they used any real data storage unit, it would start to sound silly in a few years, so they made one up.

    16. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I agree that by the time this drive is available that only the ISP will need such a large hard drive. I believe we will be transmitting data at or around 10Mbit per second. At that speed a ISP could store all the software and data(movies and music). The ISP would then maintain the drive and its data and free the home user whose computer will then be smaller that a paper back book.

    17. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0
      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    18. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      I don't belive an official prefix has been decided upon, however harpi- then grouchi- have been suguested.

    19. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I can never remember those! Might as well call them "way to friggin' big for now!" (at least for the next 4 years.)

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    20. Re:No one needs a hard drive that big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, i have 230 gigs of harddrive space on my main server.
      i have 40 gigs or so free... space gets chewed through really really quickly when one is hosting for more than one person, or even for just a lot of media.

  3. No bit is an island... by Raleel · · Score: 2

    um..hmm..guess that saying doesn't apply anymore

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
  4. What about the fine print? by ErikTheRed · · Score: 3, Funny

    As in, if you use them or more than eight hours a day, do they die within three months like a half-dozen of my "deathstar" drives have done?

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:What about the fine print? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! I've got a DeathStar 100gig sitting in a box with great cooling, and I have replaced the fucker 5 times in the last year!

    2. Re:What about the fine print? by ObitMan · · Score: 0

      Mine has run 24/7 for the past 6 months with no problem. my cooling consists of CPU fan, 1 slot fan, PS fan and intake fan in the front of the box.
      what are you people doing to your drives?

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
  5. That big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, with a hard drive the size of the top of your lap you should be able to fit 1TB of data onto it. It would be a pain in the arm to carry, but hey with that much space you could put a lot of ...

  6. Text stories? Images? Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Porn is pretty variable, but whichever form it is, it's still a lot of porn!

  7. 40GB is enough for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The junk pile just gets too big.

  8. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is already obsolete. Terabytes of information on a creditcard sized medium have been announced years ago.

    1. Re:Yawn by Com2Kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AC thus spoke:

      This is already obsolete. Terabytes of information on a creditcard sized medium have been announced years ago.

      And it was replied:

      Along with anti-gravity, ways to earn infinate money, and the secret of eternal youth.

      The only difference is that this announcement comes from an actual lab with people who have actual degrees.

    2. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and by people who know how to spell 'infinite' and not 'infinate'.

  9. Spinning media by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    What are the limitations of flash RAM? At some point will we be able to rid ourselves of all these moving parts?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Spinning media by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      A while back there was some stories on solid state drives in a variety of sizes. Considering how cheap memory is these days I wonder why they are not becoming mainstream. Did the poof off into the land of vaporware?

    2. Re:Spinning media by ObitMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the ball bearing cartel has very strong connections.

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    3. Re:Spinning media by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of a solid state drive would be very expensive and not so much dependent on the price of memory. The crucial factor is that essentially every 1-2 GB of memory would require a seperate processor. Ever notice how your computer has a limit to the amount of RAM it could have? This is the same kind of deal. You'll end up paying around 10x the price of the memory for an equivalent sized solid state drive.

      --
      Have you been stalked by Seth today?
    4. Re:Spinning media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats funny... though a 32bit memory could only control about 4gig (not 2 gig) A 64bit memory controller could in fact manage 16777216Terabytes (OK, so I gorgot the next word up)... I dont think thats gonna be an issue :)

      Tom...

    5. Re:Spinning media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limitation of FLASH is that it is still too expensive (and it always will be). It take a lot of steps to make a FLASH chip than a disk platter.
      It is a matter of coating magnetic material on a platter vs connecting all the different transistors and capacitors correctly on a giant crystal of silicon. You have to provide defect management in the chip level to get the yield high enough.

      Right now hard drive is $2 (Canadian) per GB on a 40GB or 80GB hard drive. I paid around $65 U.S. for 128MB of smartmedia.

      While FLASH is sexy, it is still not a good way to make economical dense storage. Hard drive is getting near the speed of FLASH. Dispite of /. clueless luser bitching, hard drive is not going away anytime soon.

  10. pr0n? by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

    Apart from pr0n divx rips, I imagine it would be very hard to use up 1 terabyte of storage. I am quite happy with about ~60 gigs for everything in my home (65% of that free space is doing nothing). This is spanned over multiple hard drives with multiple operating systems. I wonder what kind of sane person would need that much store on a laptop?

    --

    Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
    1. Re:pr0n? by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. Due to the small capacity we currently have, we home users haven't used PCs in manners that consume large storage space. Although, some may have made home videos of family and friends, but, the space is limited. With terabytes of space not only are we able to have more stored video content, but, possibly even larger and better quality. I'm sure once hard drives of that size are commnonplace, there will be many uses for consuming such space. Don't forget about games. Eventually the game of the year will be a 10gb install.

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    2. Re:pr0n? by neksys · · Score: 2

      If there's one thing I've learned over the years, its that no matter how large my hard drive, I'll quickly learn to fill it up and need more space. So I've got a terabyte of space? I'll start ripping my music CDs as raw audio to ensure the copy of I have on my harddrive is exactly the same as the CD. I'll start copying game cds to my hard drive to minimize that pesky cd-switching. So on and so forth - and you can damn well bet that (bloat/soft)ware writers will find ways to make their programs as large as possible in the same manner. It's the nature of the beast.

    3. Re:pr0n? by muon1183 · · Score: 1

      Heck, at that point, give up cd's and stuff. Games might as well just be shipped on HD's. Plug in the drive, mount it, and you're ready to go. Of course, if Micro$haft has anything to say about it, 97% of your Terabyte of space will be taken up by Winblows.

      -OS sig, contribute here

      --

      There's no sig like SIGSEG
    4. Re:pr0n? by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't really like bloated software. I don't think anyone would; not even the creators of bloated software. What would be nice, though, is a hard drive with a 20gb partition for software installations (programs/games/OS - several partitions for multiple OSs) and the rest for storage or however one deems necessary. The only reason hard drives are useful is basically for storage of whatever data we find use for. I suppose this is offtopic, eh? Bah!

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    5. Re:pr0n? by cpaluc · · Score: 1

      Well, i'd quite like to be able to backup about 15 of my DV tapes - they're 12Gb per 1hr tape. That's about 20% of your terabyte for not very many tapes. I'm sure that when video cameras start recording at better resolutions in coming years we'll have no problem filling up that Tb.

    6. Re:pr0n? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I nominate parent post for the Most Pointless Microsoft-Bashing Post Of The Day-award.

  11. Ok, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there some kind of inside joke at Slashdot I'm not aware of? I've been reading /. for years, and no one told me about this. Probably two or three times a month, there's an article about a new processor that's going to run a million times faster than everything we have now, and will take up the space of a 'AA' battery without producing any heat, or, there's an article about a new data storage technique that's going to fit a trillion TBytes within an area the size of an Red Penguin cinnamons box, and will cost about as much as a can of diet coke.

    Will someone please let me in on the joke?

    1. Re:Ok, wait a minute... by cpaluc · · Score: 1

      Well, I think reality is delivering. I'm pretty impressed that these days I can fit a 40 gigabyte laptop harddrive in a USB/firewire case in my shirt pocket (and plug it in to practically any computer).

    2. Re:Ok, wait a minute... by denttford · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes - the drive runs so hot it should be considered vaporware.


      Heh. Sorry.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    3. Re:Ok, wait a minute... by Sircus · · Score: 1

      Not too long ago, people were using 286s at 10MHz with 2Mb memory and 20Mb hard disks and thinking themselves lucky. How many Great Leaps Forward do you think it took to get from there to now, where my desktop runs at >1GHz, has 1.5Gb RAM and has a quarter-terabyte of storage?

      These things might not always live up to exactly what's claimed for them, but we do have a huge number of big steps forward, leading to the astronomic rate of progress embodied in Moore's law.

      That the marketing people forget Gelsinger's coefficient when telling us about the latest Moore's law advance is their natural way...

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    4. Re:Ok, wait a minute... by Destoo · · Score: 1

      Vapourware?
      When it's from IBM, it's always a good story on slashdot.

      It's the company we all love.
      Why? No clue.. there's probably a thread that explained it, but I missed it.

      "To the astonishment of all parties, IBM emerged as a staunch friend of the hacker community and open source development."
      -The Jargon File, on IBM node at everything2

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  12. 1TB iPod by i1984 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I can't wait for my 1 terabyte iPod!

    Lets see...a 10GB iPod costs $399 -- that's $39.90 per gigabyte. So extrapolating to 1000 gigabytes...yes...we'll have a $39,900 iPod!

    I'll take two of them; just let me find my checkbook. Oh shoot, I must have left it in the McLaren...I just hope it isn't in the Bentley. Well, I'll just have my chauffeur bring it 'round in the helicopter. Do you have a pen I could borrow?

    The real question is whether this technology will be better (and cheaper!) than any other high capacity memory when it's (maybe) released in 2008.

    I have my hopes pegged on static random access technology that doesn't depend on disk technology. Instant power on and no difference between storage and application memory are likely to be killer technologies.

    1. Re:1TB iPod by boa13 · · Score: 1

      Instant power on and no difference between storage and application memory are likely to be killer technologies.

      Especially if you manage to put your system in an unstable state, or an application manages to corrupt your memory... err, data.

    2. Re:1TB iPod by seen2much · · Score: 1

      Actually the 10Gb iPod lists on http://www.apple.com as $499.00 and the 5Gb lists as $399.00. I therefore used a linear forecast to detremine that a 1Tb would list at $20,299 (a little cheaper). Still, a little out of my price range.

      --


      "Beware the squirrels"
    3. Re:1TB iPod by Thunderbear · · Score: 1

      Twenty years ago a 5 Mb harddrive was big and expensive, but not unattainable

      Ten years ago a 1 Gb hard drive was the same.

      Today a 200 Gb hard drive is the same.

      If anything the development has accellerated.

      --

      --
      Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...and...Tubular Bells!"
    4. Re:1TB iPod by jonelf · · Score: 1

      This is not an issue since you would access your static memory just like you access a disk today only much faster and not with average access time but an exact one. There are

      --
      /J - to know recursion you must first know recursion
    5. Re:1TB iPod by 0x20 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a 200GB hard drive is unattainable today. 160GB is the top end.

    6. Re:1TB iPod by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Yes and No. 200GB doesn't look like it is commercially obtainable by mear mortals unless you have a hard drive engineer and really deep pockets. 180GB is though...Seagate makes that SCSI drive. Pricewatch lists it at $999. Give 'em a few months and they should have a 200GB model out.

    7. Re:1TB iPod by Asprin · · Score: 2

      Instant power on and no difference between storage and application memory are likely to be killer technologies.

      Especially if you manage to put your system in an unstable state, or an application manages to corrupt your memory... err, data.

      Or worse, the other way around: think "virus".

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    8. Re:1TB iPod by monotone · · Score: 0

      Unless my math is off, and it very well could be

      5mb -> 1gb = 204.8x growth
      1gb -> 200gb = 200x growth.

      By your example, the development appears to have slowed.

    9. Re:1TB iPod by bohnsack · · Score: 1

      Western Digital announced a 200 GB drive on June 17th.

    10. Re:1TB iPod by bohnsack · · Score: 1

      oops... here's the correct announcement (June 25th) for the 200GB drive.

    11. Re:1TB iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5mb -> 1gb = 204.8x growth
      1gb -> 200gb = 200x growth.

      No. HD manufacturers use base ten in their abbreviations to inflate the listed capacity of their drives, so both cases gave 200-fold increases. It's pretty clear the parent poster was only concerned with the approximate rate of growth, so your distinction is irrelevant.

  13. That's great, but... by chasec · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...how many Libraries of Congress is it?

    1. Re:That's great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. For some reason, the terms MEGABYTE, GIGABYTE, and TERABYTE don't seem to mean anything these days. People want to know how many Libraries of Congress, MP3s, DVD movies, or pr0n images something can hold. Maybe they should just start advertising hard drive capacities as like "50LoC's" or "500DVDs".

    2. Re:That's great, but... by neksys · · Score: 2

      It's about 1 LoC, as the number I most commonly see associated with the Library of Congress (in text) is 2^40 bytes - or 1 terabyte.

      I'll only be impressed, however, when they develop a 1 petabyte drive, which is probably more text than has been produced in the entire history of man (in all languages). A drive that size would also hold 19 months of broadcast quality, full screen, raw video, as opposed to the paltry 14 hours provided by a 1 terabyte drive.

    3. Re:That's great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or the people who bitch about it on a message board for lonely penises.

    4. Re:That's great, but... by schwatoo · · Score: 1

      And how much data could you fit onto one the size of Rhode Island...

      --
      I have trouble with passwords among other things.
    5. Re:That's great, but... by breon.halling · · Score: 1
      ...how many Libraries of Congress is it?

      I'd say about one Texas worth.

      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    6. Re:That's great, but... by glwtta · · Score: 2

      Don't forget HumanGenome (HG) - roughly between 1Gig and 100 Terabytes (that's what Celera has now...)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  14. Posted previously. by Wohali · · Score: 3, Informative

    Double-check what you've posted already, guys, please...

    --
    "But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
    1. Re:Posted previously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's posted verbatim right here in fact. Quite disturbing.

    2. Re:Posted previously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how ALL of these repostings are done by timothy.

      He has to lose some of that ignorance factor, and actually *gasp* READ PAST POSTS.

      Timothy has wasted a number of post-spaces on /.

      *crosses fingers* I hope he wises up soon.

  15. Floating Problems? by stuffman64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The first thing that crosses my mind when I see the illustration on the page, is how the heck are they going to be able to keep the head floating just right over the media. Today's drives are nearly perfectly flat to keep an even boundry of air to fly the head. With the pillars dipicted in the illustration, the drive will drag air and create turbulence. Even if the valleys are somehow "filled" in with another material (probably with some sort of plasma vapor depostion process), it is quite possible that the surfaces will not match up quite right. And the filler cannot mess up the magnetic properties of the material, or else this process is nearly pointless.

    Unless of course, they just sprinkle some Pixie Dust on it and magically make it work.

    --
    --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    1. Re:Floating Problems? by g4dget · · Score: 2

      Maybe it will run in a vacuum; of course, keeping a constant head-to-disk spacing will get harder, but not impossible (e.g., using mechanical spacers and fine tuning via piezo actuators). The media might also simply become non-rotational.

    2. Re:Floating Problems? by 2g3-598hX · · Score: 1

      I imagine what will alleviate this problem is that to have the same access time the head will travel considerably less distance, and so have a smaller velocity, creating less drag and turbulence. IANA computer engineer, however...

    3. Re:Floating Problems? by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      Read the small print. The islands are only 5 nanometers high (and about ten times that wide). The head should sail right over it, a lofty 20 or 30 nm above the surface and still only "look down on" one island at a time.

      A much harder problem will be head tracking. With uniform media, you just need the head to return reliably to the same place when you tell it to. Now you have to actually get the head over a pre-existing feature on the disk, which is much harder.

  16. Reliability? by Sheetrock · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As mentioned elsewhere in here, as we pack greater densities into the medium the effect of heat on the data is easier to notice.

    However, another concern I have is with magnetics. Larger capacities mean that more magnetic signals are being clustered into smaller spaces, which would seem to make them more prone to distortion by magnetic forces external (the Earth, electric outlets, sunspots) and internal (SDRAM, the laptop monitor, and nearby signals on the drive itself). It's all well and good that the signals can be packed into the drive, but simultaneous advances in read/write head technology and nanoferris combinatorics in the drive wheel need to occur before we can start realizing data densities of the type we'd seriously drool over.

    Although, to tell you the truth, I never thought we'd reach a gigabyte in a desktop system either. However, the economic incentives just don't seem to be a driving force in any PC technology development lately, so I'm guessing it will be a while before we can pick this up at Best Buy.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Reliability? by saveth · · Score: 2

      However, the economic incentives just don't seem to be a driving force in any PC technology development lately, so I'm guessing it will be a while before we can pick this up at Best Buy.

      I agree. I don't see the average consumer needing this much disk space, any time soon. In fact, the largest hard drive PriceWatch mentions right now is only 181.6 GB, and it's SCSI -- not even a consumer drive.

      Before we begin increasing hard drive sizes, we need a reason. Servers always tend to need more space, but if we're talking about buying these drives off the shelves at Best Buy, we need a good reason to put them there, in the first place.

      Average consumers need enough space to fit their operating system, some office applications, a few documents, and a game or two or three. Say, 10 gigs, maximum. Yet, computer manufacturers are suckering them all into buying 40G or 60G drives. Maybe it's because of higher demand for MP3/DivX storage or something; I'm not sure.

      Either way, there's absolutely no reason your typical consumer is going to need a terabyte of storage in a tiny space.

      I see it like this. Hard drive sizes are proportional to the space needed to store data, obviously. Let's say MP3s are 5M per song. Let's then say DivXes are 700M per video. Then, we can assume the next media format, maybe holographic imaging or something, will be about 10G per file, if we extrapolate the current trend. ONLY THEN, will consumers need a freaking terabyte on a drive the size of a laptop's.

      Am I ranting, yet? Good night. :P

    2. Re:Reliability? by jonelf · · Score: 1

      How about storing HDTV movies? Last I heard that took about 27GB for 2 hours and that's in MPEG-2 not raw. 1000/27=37 movies on a 1TB disk.

      --
      /J - to know recursion you must first know recursion
    3. Re:Reliability? by Burning1 · · Score: 2

      Consider that back in the days of the 386, people might have said the same of our current 120GB HDDs... Trust that if there are such issues, there will eventually be solutions.

      Where there is a will, there *is* a way.

      (I admit that arguably, such comments about 120gb drives may be correct... -_-)

    4. Re:Reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me. Only an unlimited amount of space will satisfy unlimited space needs.

      Just like my desk, extra space will always find a use.

  17. YES!!! by Warmth+Is+Life · · Score: 2

    If they hurry, I'll actually be able to run Final Fantasy XI!

    1. Re:YES!!! by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

      stfu. you slobber over male members.

    2. Re:YES!!! by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

      Ack, please ignore that. Let a friend mess around with the computer with /. open. Sorry. :)

    3. Re:YES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter the costs, FF XI will be worth it.

      FF XI brings meaning to many lives.

  18. Other factors to consider... by MoThugz · · Score: 1

    OK, so it's able to store more on the same area... So does this automatically make it good? What about in terms of price, how much do we pay per MB on this new media? Durability? How will these plates be read, is it faster than the current method? Even if this is so, will it reduce or increase heat produced as compared to IDE or SCSI drives?

    Anyone has any test results on this proof-of-concept test done by IBM? And I thought they were selling off their hard drive business.

    1. Re:Other factors to consider... by panurge · · Score: 1
      First, I doubt flying height will be a problem. This is nanoscale and the feature height is likely to be less than any sane flying height.

      Second, provided a small enough sensor can be made, there is no reason why signal integrity should be a problem. What matters is the local strength of the magnetic field, compared to ambient. If the domains are isolated, inter-domain interference is reduced, and the signal should be, in effect, sharper.

      Which leaves rotation as the problem. Perhaps they could try running a grid of minute wires through the substrate, and use currents in the wires to polarise or read the polarisation of the individual domains

      Oh, wait a minute...core

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  19. troll?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps it wasn't that funny, but it was on topic and it wasn't trolling... moderators on crack again?

    1. Re:troll?! by naejulak · · Score: 1

      Could it be moderated any other way though? Hard to see that modded up as "insightful."

    2. Re:troll?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it have been left unmoderated?

    3. Re:troll?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that sort of crap is moderated 'funny' all the time. it just depends on whether they bothered to log in or not. ACs are prime targets. nobody cares when they're shot down.

  20. I though IBM was getting out of the bad drive mark by SWTP · · Score: 1

    I though IBM was getting out of the Hard Drive market?

    Punchcards and now this. Funny!

    IBM... It Beats Me, I Bought Macntosh or even I Brought Money.

  21. New story, same old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick and tired of hearing these daily reports of "dramatic" advances in technology. I'll see it and believe it when it's served up to me on my plate. And not a moment before that.

  22. A terabyte? by detritus. · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow! Think of how much Warez I could get off the Apple demo systems at Circuit City!

    1. Re:A terabyte? by sharkey · · Score: 2

      how much Warez I could get off the Apple demo systems at Circuit City!

      MS Office for Mac, AND the entire works of Kevin Costner in DivX.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Maybe.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  23. Nanotechnology everywhere by brendanoconnor · · Score: 1

    More and more articles seem to be appearing about nanotechnology from the medical science to that of a harddrive to CPUs. It will be interesting to see how many various ways nanotechnology will go, and more interesting to see if it is actually cost affordable.

    Now as far as a terebyte of harddrive space, just how long would that take to format, and if I used any current type (NTFS, FAT, etc) how much of that space would I actually lose? It's great they think they can make this, but wouldn't it be nice if we could actually use the entire amount of space that we current have? I have a 40gb formated as NTFS and I lost about 2.63GB of space. Now of course 2.63GB is nothing when you still have 30gb spare, but its hardly the point.

    Thank You.

  24. conversion? by Troll+on+ice · · Score: 0

    So what is the capacity in STU (Standard Texas Units)?

    --
    Karma: Bad (mostly affected by moderation done to your comments)...Now i know why.
  25. Awesome. by sawilson · · Score: 2, Funny

    If this coincides with the latest microsoft windows release, there should be at least enough space left for britneyinvegas.jpg.

    1. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also nominate this post for the Most Pointless Microsoft-Bashing Post Of The Day-award.

      Vote now.

    2. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto,
      count me in
      i mean come on.....what more does a copy of redhat offer over a free pirated copy of winxp that the average consumer would really need?
      all the superior stabality and more control that the user has over a computer in linux is nothing when a pirated copy of winxp pro is free and easier to install. and winxp pro is already very stable. extra stability is nothing if the average user doesn't NEED it. Honestly man, winxp is the death kneel to any attempt linux might be able to muster at any form of mass market penetration.

      so linux zealots, suck it up. a good product is nothing without superior market penetration, domination, and marketing strategies, all of which microsoft excels in. extra stability is nothing if the average user doesn't NEED it.

      and really, referring to Microsft as M$, micro$oft, or whatever doesn't make you more cool than the loser you are.

    3. Re:Awesome. by ken_mcneil · · Score: 1

      Judging by the responses to this article, if I was Microsoft, I would ship an entire collection of Britney porn with the next Windows. That would be quite the Easter-Egg!

      Maybe they could replace the Blue Screen Of Death (TM) with some sort of sweaty hard nippled clip of her singing "Oops...I Did It Again."

  26. My one question: by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here is an interesting question: How much computer data storage would be required to hold every single type of media created by humans in their whole history of being. I am talking about every single movie, every song, every written work, all the books, all the newspapers & magazines. All the folklore and tales. All the mathematical and scinetific journals. All the philosophical and poetic works.....everything!
    Keeping in mind that it would be compressed to afford maximum storage with minimal loss of quality using all forms of compression available today. It boggles my mind to think of all the works that we humans have produced. All that information.

    --
    >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
    1. Re:My one question: by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      I don't think we'll see a hd large enough in our lifetime. Also, as time progresses, our technology will be enhanced in all fields. Movies will be of higher quality, and thus, probably consume more storage space. Same applies with audio. Test documents and formatting should maintain fairly small. Books can consist of formatted text, pictures, and maybe even audio. Same applies with newspapers and magazines. Although, I'm not too sure about audio, but, perhaps in the future we'll turn the page of a magazine and hear another one of those annoying AOL ads.

      Depending on compression and resolution, as well as quality, there'll never be a hard drive large enough. I don't think anyway. There's far too much media that's ever existed and the total amount of media will always increase.

      With today's standards and typical resolutions, compressions and qualities I'd assume maybe an exabyte would suffice.
      1 exabyte = 1024 petabytes. 1 petabyte = 1024 terabytes

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
    2. Re:My one question: by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      I think I read somewhere that some guy predicted it would take 8 exabytes. I really don't remember how many gigs or terabytes that is.

    3. Re:My one question: by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      The biggest in size will be video.

      Uncompressed video is rated in sizes of FUCKING HUGE. This terabyte drive wouldn't even hold all that much.

      For compression it depends on what you define as minimal loss of quality. Lossless compression still comes out to be pretty damn big (which is less than fucking huge).

      Even with crappy looking divx it still adds up and you would have a hard time getting ALL TV, movies, and whatever other video media that humanity has produced to fit in anything.

      It also depends on resolution. NTSC, PAL, etc, and of course all digital video and picture formats have set resolutions but both video and still film and all physical artwork (which I count as media) don't have pixels, so you have to decide what resolution to scan them in at.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    4. Re:My one question: by chamenos · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ in reference to your remark about DivX.

      DivX only looks crappy if encoded crappily. Well-encoded DivX files look no different than the DVD or whatever it was copied from.

      DivX is really just the mp3 of video. If well encoded, it is really undistinguishable from the original. Don't let audiophiles and videophiles tell you otherwise. 95% of them are elitists who can't really tell apart a non-compressed CD track and the 320kbit mp3 compressed version of it.

    5. Re:My one question: by leshert · · Score: 2

      The bigger issue is that once you have it compressed with a DivX-like format, you're done. No more editing, reuse, etc.

      If you ever intend to use the video for anything other than simple playback, you have to use lossless compression, which translates into "bring on the terabyte drives". I do DV editing on a 13GB drive, and it makes me very, very sad.

    6. Re:My one question: by chamenos · · Score: 1

      Yup, but that's a small sacrifice to make for the superior quality to file size ratio (if its just for playback). I just had to vent out that bit of pent up anger at audio and videophiles, or maybe just elitists in general. It was just him referring to "crappy looking DivX" that got me up.

      btw, I think 60GB hard drives are going for pretty cheap now....might be time to upgrade :)

    7. Re:My one question: by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      I know DivX can be encoded with very nice quality.

      By crappy looking DivX, I meant DivX that was encoded at poor quality settings for even smaller files. Like an mp3 with a bitrate of 32 will be crappy sounding mp3.

      Sorry for any offense.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    8. Re:My one question: by chamenos · · Score: 1

      I wasn't mad or anything, and no offence was taken at all =)

    9. Re:My one question: by arielb · · Score: 1

      yeah but that's not a problem for the original post who wanted to record all of human history and store it on one hard drive. Divx should be just fine

      --
      ---
  27. Further Reading by Overcoat · · Score: 2, Informative

    An slightly longer article on patterned media was published in Technology Research News back in February 2001. The article goes into more detail about how the technology works and about some of the problems associated with development of it. Linkeroo

  28. What about Texas? by Moita+Carrasco · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed no one has mentioned Texas yet... it always comes up when size is the issue.

    ...can we fit Texas in one of these hard disks?

    --
    MoitaCarrasco "Everyday I beat my own previous record for the number of consecutive days I've stayed alive." - CARLIN
    1. Re:What about Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is bigger

  29. IBM Hard drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have dealt with enough IBM drives at work over the last two years to say confidently that they are flaming heaps of shit. We keep sending drives back, and they keep returning drives that go belly up. Now your telling me that the have made smaller technology in a market they claimed to have jumped ship in? I wouldn't touch anything "hard drive" related from IBM with katz' dick.

    1. Re:IBM Hard drives by SWTP · · Score: 1

      I have had the same results. Except for one drive that is still running they all die a very early death!

      The spects do not meet what it does when it does work!

    2. Re:IBM Hard drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, why you dumb nerds all had to hop onto the Deskstar bandwagon is beyond me. For all the talk of "Joe Sixpack" and pitiable feckless consumers you guys sure have a ways of making groupthink seem respectable.

  30. Don't low-level format it often... by klui · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...since you'll probably wait a couple of hours for the thing to finish formatting. And imagine backing that sucker up--I know that many don't have backups of our primary drive. Better get a large-capacity medium to do that.

    1. Re:Don't low-level format it often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backing up that much data (1 TB) to tape currently takes less than 8 hours writing to four 9840A tape drives over a fiber (1 gigabit network). Now that the 10 gigabit protocol has been approved and provided you pushed the backup onto 8 drives you wouldn't have much of a problem backing a TB up (likely wouldn't have to bother scheduling the backup at night like most TB backups are done - they ake a while) in a couple hours. Even then, Storage tech has their 9940 drive out now which I believe can write even faster.

      Currently that amount of data is stored across many 120GB SCSI hard drives in a disk array.

      I guess the biggest concern with having a TB hard drive would be the speed at which you could get data off of it. I would imagine (haven't tried it) that you can get a TB out of 8 hard drives over a fiber network faster at the same time than you can out of one hard drive.

  31. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This new technique could produce 150 gigabits per square centimeter-- that's ~57,000 songs on an iPod or a terabyte on a laptop size hard drive!"

    In related news, the RIAA was said to be pushing Congress to make sale of portable MP3 players with >1Tb capacity illegal, citing the widespread increase of piracy which would follow as evidence the devices couldn't possibly be used legally.

    RIAA representatives pointed out at a press conference late this afternoon that an iPod capable of storing 57,000 songs would mean the purchase of 4750 CD's (Averaging 12 tracks/disc), coming out to a total of over $85,000 (At $18/disc). Clearly, representatives stated, no consumer would spend $85,000 on CD's, so the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that anyone interested in a portable MP3 player with >1Tb of capacity intend to pirate their music.

    1. Re:In related news... by netsharc · · Score: 1

      In a corporate office somewhere, a thud can be heard as Hillary Rosen has a heart attack and falls upon reading this story.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  32. No, that is a different technology. by tg_schlacht · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You article and thread for which you give a link is referring to the "Millipede" method which is a mechanical method of data storage.

    The article this thread is about is a refinement of the magnetic method of data storage.

  33. RAED by DarkHelmet · · Score: 3, Funny
    So, considering how expensive this is, shouldn't putting these puppies in parallel be instead RAED? (Redundant Array of Expensive Drives)?

    In all honesty, it sounds like one of those leet haxor people talking.

    I g0t me a l33t 1tb RAED dr1ve. I 0wn j00!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  34. Circular? by NeuroManson · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hope they aren't thinking of using the design that the example shows, it's an awfully inefficient use of space... Would be more effective to either make the particles pyramidic, that way you could have an even smaller point for magnetic fields and since it tapers at the tip, less chance for "crosstalk" from one particle to the next... Since we're talking something on a molecular scale, there would probably be less in the way of drag or heat buildup, whereas the cylindrical design is just begging for it...

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Circular? by clark625 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would think that a pyramid would be a neat advance, but it's probably not feasable. The costs associated currently are too high for consideration.

      The problem with pyramids is the formation. Hard drive manufacturers like to use Si, polymers, metals, and the like. Doing a photolithography step on them isn't difficult--but finding an etchant that will prefer to etch in a pyramidal shape is rather tough. If you can find one, it usually will etch down such that you end up with pyramids facing into the substrate.

      Not that it can't be done. I recall some work done creating pyramids on GaAs substrates. It may be extendable to other material systems as well. But GaAs is a zincblend crystal structure--not a diamond structure like Si is. The zincblend readily makes itself agreeable to off-axis etching (especially if you get the proper offcut wafer).

      Maybe if the polymer could be self-assembling and would itself produce the desired pyramidal shapes, then everyone would be happy. Doing a metalization step over top of that would not be difficult at all. But I'm not terribly great at dealing with polymers--I don't know where the limits of self-assembly are. I'm sure someone else does, though--and I know of several journal papers you might consider.
      Anyways--your idea is good, but it's an ideal. At this moment, there doesn't really exist a practical way to make metalized pyramids without steps that would either be prohibitively expensive (I'm talking processing time here), or steps that would require too large of feature size.

      --
      Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
    2. Re:Circular? by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      What about using molecular assembly methods rather than lithography to begin with? Sure, it's expensive, but you can make it in bulk, and really, are we going to expect TB HD technology to be cheap in the short term... Oh, as an alternative, you could make the individual particles separately from the disc strata, with one compund at the base favoring an ionic attraction to the disc... When "dipped", the particles would bond electrostatically to the disc, after which a quick heat bonding could be used to permanently fix said particles to the disc, much like how toner bonds to an imaging drum and subsequently the paper that rolls across it... Just a thought...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    3. Re:Circular? by clark625 · · Score: 2

      Molecular self-assembly isn't terribly expensive in terms of money (well, indirectly--but I'll get to that). The R&D required can be huge in terms of time and money. Companies prefer to apply techniques already developed and that are proven. Also, self-assembly is extremely expensive in terms of processing time and technician's expertise. You can't do them in batch steps in my experience--instead it's one at a time and there's lots of inspecting to ensure things turn out as desired. Didn't work? Throw it out and start over (or try and recover what you can if possible). So much for a high yield.

      Irregardless, another huge problem will be adding particles (or molecules) to a substrate in a particular orientation. If I pattern the substrate, I will know exactly where every single bit will be relative to the others. I can write my HD controller with this in mind (including timing between bit reads and writes, etc). If I throw a bunch of particles on top, I can't be sure of their spacing. I might also get regions with different densities than others (even good printers suffer from this). I seriously doubt that this could be made such that these problems can be alleviated.

      Neither of these problems can be easily dealt with. Not that they won't ever be overcome, though. Maybe you'll be the first one to prove me wrong :)

      --
      Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
    4. Re:Circular? by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Well, call this a silly thought, but what if a comb was made out of nanofibers, kind of like a microscopic rake? That could be used to align the pyramids properly...

      These are all hypothetical questions, however...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  35. What does it mean? by cca93014 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the Library of Congress will instantly shrink to the size of a matchbox? Or is it that my laptop will turn into 5 libraries?

  36. How much capacity is 57,000 songs? by gafferted · · Score: 1
    How much capacity is required for a song?

    • 2Mb? -> 111Gb
    • 2.5Mb? -> 139Gb
    • 3Mb? -> 167Gb
    • 3.5Mb? -> 195Gb
    • 4Mb? -> 223Gb
    Is there some standard sized song that I don't know about?

    Andrew

    1. Re:How much capacity is 57,000 songs? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hm...

      1 Tb is 10^12 bytes right? Ok, not exactly, but the correct magnitude? :)

      1 * 10^12 / 57 * 10^3 = 17,543,859 bytes/song.

      So it seems the author is using 17 Mb mp3's or something... Must be one of those "wooo i need l33t 640kbps mp3z cuz 256kbps dont r0x0rz".

      Or it's just an approximation. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:How much capacity is 57,000 songs? by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

      Why bother compressing at all when you've got that much room!!

      --
      No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
    3. Re:How much capacity is 57,000 songs? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      This new technique could produce 150 gigabits per square centimeter-- that's ~57,000 songs on an iPod or a terabyte on a laptop size hard drive!

      Um, no. Measurements are given for different machines based on size of the drives.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  37. Can you say.... by djupedal · · Score: 0

    ...wearable server? LOC's never streamed better.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. ...57,000 songs... by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...57,000 songs on an iPod or a terabyte on a laptop size hard drive!"

    ...or about 28% of my porno collection. : )

    1. Re:...57,000 songs... by psych031337 · · Score: 2

      "...57,000 songs on an iPod or a terabyte on a laptop size hard drive!"

      ...or about 28% of my porno collection. : )


      Good thing you mention... It is just way beyond me why anyone and their dog use the "xxx songs" phrase to measure storage volume... hell, I listen to psytrance tracks which usually play 10mins or more... and I try to stick to 192kbit or VBR mp3 files. So, how many songs can I store now? What if I want to store 3sec uncompressed PCM/WAV jingles?

      >>>fastforward 3 years>>>
      Salesdrone: "...with this hatchback model you get an amazing boost of storage volume! It totals about 240pounds of marijuana or 11.5 standard M-16 transport crates..."

      hmmmm...
      --
      +++ath0
    2. Re:...57,000 songs... by Burning1 · · Score: 2

      Kind of reminds me of my brother, a while back... He used to be heavily into replica Katanas, and had set his eye on a particular model that cost about $300... From then on, he'd measure the value of anything else in 'swords.'

      The result was comments such as: Currently I'm in the market for a used car in the range of 8-10 swords.

      I admit that he did discover a good way to fuck with car salesmen. ^_^

      Regarding music... I agree... Diamond sold me a MP3 advertising 90 minutes of 'CD Quality' music, and a few hours of recorded talking; both useless figures.

      Slashdot really has entered a marketing mindset, hasn't it?

  40. One size 7 1/2 human skull should do it... by djupedal · · Score: 0

    Wetware has the best odds of meeting this spec.

    1. Re:One size 7 1/2 human skull should do it... by sirsex · · Score: 0

      Well, MAYBE my brain :)

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Pity the poor french. by caveman · · Score: 1

    Egad. At $1/Gb tax courtesy of crazy french hard drive tax, it'd be far too expensive.

  43. Well. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
    I know this one fellow who edits and stores video material, films and television shows in his spare time. I assure you from having seen him work; 20Gb is just about enough to make you want to pull your hair out!

    As for myself. . . Using pseudo-careful space management, I've never hit a wall with my trusty old 10 Gb drive. --And I regularly use my machine to do significant high-graphics print publishing jobs. Basically, computers have already hit the point where I no longer care how they advance, (just so long as they don't get any more 'user friendly'!). --PC's finally achieved a level of functionality about six years ago where they could do everything I needed quickly, easily at chump-change prices.

    And that's the future, baby!


    -Fantastic Lad --When is the Phantom Editor going to make a Clone of Clones? I'd love to see that film done right!

    1. Re:Well. . . by xiphiasoft · · Score: 1

      I was fine with my 325MB HD. (Running freedos) Then I met GNU/Linux. 2GB.

      --
      War is not the answer. War is the question. NO is the answer.
  44. Re:Fucking morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually your grandmother is such a whore and gets around so much she's been on more people's computers than, well, people. In any case if she hasn't already used Linux she could probably figure it out in 2 or 3 lessons. She's used to learning lots of curious things so she'll be a natural.

    As for overpriced, see above reference to your grandmother.

    As for translucent-colored cock, would your grandmother like that?

  45. No kidding. . ! I remember that as well. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I wonder what made them change their tune. Perhaps they didn't bother shutting down their R&D departments; you can always still rent out your tech to other companies, I suppose.


    -Fantastic Lad

  46. Security implications? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article states that the new technology will only use one magnetic grain per bit as opposed to the hundreds currently used.

    I wonder if this means that once a cluster is overwritten, there is no ghosting effect that could allow the previous data to be retrieved. Once the data's gone, it's gone. A single magnetic grain can only be set one way!

    So NSA or whoever won't be able to retrieve those docs you wiped just before they busted into your home/office....

    In the light of this, this tech. it is probably not in the security industry's best interest!

    So as well as getting space for all your music and porn, you don't have to worry about the data persisting on your drive when you want to remove it... all in all a good thing!

    --
    And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    1. Re:Security implications? by Nameles · · Score: 1

      You can do that already with low level formatting, no?

    2. Re:Security implications? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      Apparantly not, I understand that it IS possible using very very expensive equipment and a clean room and very skilled technicians to still pull data off a hard drive even after a low level format. That could of course have been FUD but I recent;y read it somewhere, just can't remember where. I think there was a recent slashdot ramble about it.

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    3. Re:Security implications? by zoombat · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, data can still be recoverable using advanced (read "very expensive") methods because some magnetic residue is left of the device even after the bits are changed. For example, typically the data tracks on a disk are wider than the data stream that is written to it.. and because there's some imprecision in the writing of data, there may be some area outside the actual stream that gets data written to it.. allowing the possibility that it can be at least partially recovered even after more data is written to it. So according to the theory, if you took the drive apart and looked at the platters very closely (or recalibrated the drive heads), you'd be able to access those parts of the disk.

      Supposedly even data written to RAM can be recovered under certain unusual circumstances even after a power off.

      Tapes have a similar issue, and it is quite possible for people to recover stuff off of audio tapes. I heard recently that sometime soon someone is going to take another crack at the Nixon Watergate tapes... no one has tried to recover data from them since around 1970, so perhaps the recovery techniques or technology has improved enough to allow something to be learned!

      I don't know that much about data recovery, but I bet you could find some info if you googled a bit.

    4. Re:Security implications? by foo+fighter · · Score: 2

      Right, but how long would that wipe take?

      Completely wiping my disks at work (writing psuedo-random data to disk three times followed by writing all 0's) takes over two hours on my 40GB ATA100 drive.

      On a 1TB disk the wipe wouldn't get very far during a FBI raid before the plug was pulled.

      A better solution to quick wipe a disk that size would be to use a very high power electro-magnet.

      And that brings up another point, how long does it take to access data on any given part of the disk? Unless there is some huge advance in access speed 1TB on a disk isn't terribly useful.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    5. Re:Security implications? by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      This way, you'd need a single pass wipe of binary zeros, which would be much faster.

  47. Byte me. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
    Yeah, whatever.

    It's not as though there isn't technology available yet to store all the data you could ever want stored quickly cheaply. Whatever became of holographic and fluorescent read/write CD technology?

    They had working models of those machines, for crying out loud! They had manufacturers lined up to produce the various chemicals and parts to make it a go. I was reading emails from a fellow who was running a demo of a desk-top version nearly five years ago.

    And let's face it; even the top of the line computer which even makes a brief ice-berg appearance in the standard news forums is ancient technology by any number of arbitrary standards.

    Or NOT arbitrary, I mean.

    --We're a bunch of consumer monkeys bouncing around waiting for the next big thing, but we'll only get it when the powers that be decide we're good and ready. --Wouldn't want people to have computers which didn't waste a billion otherwise useful hours per year. Oh no! Computers which don't suck up attention by the gallon might allow people to use their time NOT being distracted by all the insane shit going down around their ears these days! Between television, computers and game boxes, people are pretty much doped up right-smart-good! Opiate of the masses, indeed. Bah.

    Terabyte this.


    -Fantastic Lad

  48. IBM working on storage technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we going to get more of those glass platters?

    http://www.tech-report.com/news_reply.x/3494

  49. Jack Valenti... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is having a coronary over this already! You evil, evil, fileswappers, you!

  50. Oh yeah. . , forgot to add. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Magnetic storage is of such a nature that it can be blanked at a distance by a relatively low power EM weapon. Holographic storage would, presumably, stand a higher chance of surviving.

    Is this something to consider, or am I way off on this?


    -Fantastic Lad

  51. working with 1Tb by Sarin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've made myself a terabyte fileserver a while ago, everything's raid-5 so there's redundant data incase one of the 160gb drives crashes. I wouldn't want to use a single gb drive, imagine yourself collecting a lot of data and then that single drive crashes, all of that work would be for nothing. I got firewire installed on it so the speed is really fast for other computers.
    Another thing is you have to be very tidy with your archive, otherwise such a big drive is going to be very messy.

    1. Re:working with 1Tb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "imagine yourself collecting a lot of data and then that single drive crashes,"

      much like those of us who unfortunately bought IBM GXP hard drives:

      http://www.tech-report.com/news_reply.x/3494

  52. Holy f***ing s**t, but who needs that much? by Biggles_the_pilot · · Score: 0

    Remember when 120 meg hard drives started to come out, and you said, "I my f***ing God, I'll never fill it up or really need all that space."...

    --
    I have no sig
  53. Aah! by Jugalator · · Score: 2

    I found myself smiling at this post, and then I noticed the score +2: Insightful.

    I thought it was just a joke. Was it? Don't know if I should laugh or cry at RIAA's foolishness if it's true...

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  54. Like this. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    E-bomb


    -Fantastic Lad

  55. It's all fun and games ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... until someone pokes an eye out.

  56. More space again... by Mika_Lindman · · Score: 1

    Looks like a news like this pops up every month or two. But where is the real hardware? I quess all these new storage devices are just too expensive to manufacture when compared to old fashioned hard drives.

  57. Just imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these!!! by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    Somebody had to.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  58. It doesn't matter... by RiotXIX · · Score: 1

    Microsoft will still make applications that use up 97% of it, and people like the RIAA will prevent it from being used for anything practical.

    --
    "You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
  59. But seeing hard drive prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As these prices fall, we'll see the 1 TB version for $9.95 at Walmart.

    Everyone will laugh about how they once had a 10 TB version. "Gee, you can't even store more than a couple of movies on that!"

    Bob "The guy with some 5MB ST-506's still floating around" Johnston

  60. A TB iPod? by ellem · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't all those MP3's be really heavy?

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  61. Yeah, sure by ishark · · Score: 2
    A Terabyte of Data on a Laptop Hard Drive

    from the pleasant-daydream dept.

    ....that's ~57,000 songs on an iPod


    You obviously don't work for the RIAA, do you?

  62. When, exactly? by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    57,000 songs * 3 minutes / song * 1 hour / 60 minutes * 1 day / 24 hours = 118+ days of continuous 24-hour music

    (a) When, exactly, are you going to listen to all this? Not to mention collect it?

    (b) Don't you think the critical part of the system might be something other than storage space? Like, say, the battery?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  63. Its a start... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    I could easily consume 1.2 TB in a consumer device, but that would only hold the 200 DVDs I currently own. I think I'd need at least 2.5 to 3 TB to make it worth while and to include my CDs and a little future storage space. Of course, with HD now "live," I see a need for a HD server in the next 4 to 7 years which could easily surpass 4 to 5 TB in size.

    I have no fear about "too much" storage. It's a shame these devices are mechanical, though, as the reliability and complexity tends to place a large fixed price (esp in a consumer device) before the first bit can be placed.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  64. Why do you think removeable storage exists? by Joel+Ironstone · · Score: 1

    Removeable media has existed for as long as computers have. Data you won't use all of the time can be put on a shelf or stored. There is a hierarchy from registers to cache to memory to hard-disk to removeable storage. Put things in the right place, do you really need to store 200 DVD movies on your computer (how many times do you watch each one). Heck, do you really need 200 DVD movies at all?

  65. 1 TB ... And No Way To Back It Up by ausoleil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The higher you climb, the further you fall. But in this case, the more you store, the more you will lose.

    Every time hard drive storage gets denser, we further space ourselves away from effective means to make archival backups of this huge amount of data we are carrying around. While your MP3 collection might be expendable, a week's worth of digital photos might not be. Or any other data you can imagine.

    When is a cost-effective 1 TB DLT drive going to come to market?

    1. Re:1 TB ... And No Way To Back It Up by smart.id · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point. But I assume by the time this technology becomes public, there will already be large, multi-gigabyte solid state forms of memory, that people can use as hard drives and such. We'll have to see.

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
  66. 1000 hours of any media sufficient by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Two terabytes gives you a thousand hours of video, ten thousand hours of audio. It becomes hard to find and use that many hours, even with the best indexing schemes.

  67. -1 Redundant by someonehasmyname · · Score: 1
    --
    Common sense is not so common.
  68. Ever read Popular Science? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    They always tout new and wonderful cars and boats and airplanes and tools and anything else that sounds fantastic, with absolutely no distinction as to the degree of possibility.

    Welcome to the WonderfulWeirdWeb's online Popular Science.

  69. Bill G. will be pleased by bschoate · · Score: 2, Funny

    At today's sizes, a laptop hard drive with that density could hold over a terabyte of data...

    ...clearing the path for future versions of Windows.

    1. Re:Bill G. will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or clearing the path for more bloated shitty Linux distributions.

  70. We use them. by eddy · · Score: 2

    We use them?

    I've had one 75GXP die on me (it took 11months so you might still have your fun ahead of you) and the one I got in replacment is dying as we speak (read errors). I was burning a woody ISO when I suddenly heard weird noises... well, that drive I've only had for three months and it was only manufactured some FOUR months ago according to the sticker!

    All that "not enough cooling, bla, bla bla" is just pure bullshit, this is happening despite of anything you try to do to avoid it.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  71. Re:1TB iPod in Canada - C$21,000 in tariff's by ashitaka · · Score: 2

    Forget about the cost of the player (which will always be around C$500). The proposed new tariffs in MP3 players will add $21,000 to the cost!

    Fundamental mistake being made here by the CPCC: You can't base a fixed tariff on something that is as dynamic as Moore's law.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  72. Tiny Hardrive by BasicOp · · Score: 1

    What they were saying was that a Terabyte hard drive could be made that is about the same size as your laptop hard drive. Most people wouldn't take advantage of that... but how about having 150 Gig on a square centi-meter. Now that would be awesome. My PDA could hold my entire MP3 collection. The possibilities are amazing... Imagine all of your electronic gadgets holding that much info. You could store entire encylopedias on pocket sized objects. But where it gets really excitting is the possibilities with servers... Ridiculous amounts of storage could replace entire business data mines. Clear out that room of hardrives and make way for that little box in the corner over there.

  73. Re:I though IBM was getting out of the bad drive m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    considering they own like half the patents on storage devices like hard drives i doubt they are going anywhere.

    They are not doing the hard drives anymore. ie they will not have IBM hard drives for sale.

    They will license their tech to other mfgs though.

  74. According to the Quest commercials... by falser · · Score: 2

    all you need to do is become one of their customers.

  75. Constant Storage Technology Hype... by mike3411 · · Score: 1

    It seems like about once a week there's a new story about how "researchers at [insert pretty much any company name here] have determined a way to fit [insert some ungodly large number here] bytes of data into an even smaller space". I think I've been seeing stories like this for long enough at this point that some of the early ones should have become real products by now. What gives? We're still using essentially the same format (albeit with increased areal density), and very few of these products seem to actually materialize. I'll get excited when I can find it on pricewatch.

    --
    Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Constant Storage Technology Hype... by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I remember reading in Byte many years ago about a gelatinous cube that could hold over a terabyte in a one inch cube (would that be a jigglebyte?). Still haven't seen one.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  76. IBM out of hard drive business? by HiThere · · Score: 2

    I thought that IBM had gotten out of the hard drive business? Are they going to build a new startup?

    I suppose that there could be a bit of latency in the time-to-print cycle, and that might explain it. (Or perhaps it was General Electric that they sold their business to?)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  77. Re:fuck you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you *have* to mod it down twice?

    that really hurt my karma =/

  78. Er, we need a better head technology by avarame · · Score: 1

    More data in the same space means tighter track spacing, among other things. Tighter track spacing means more tracks overall on the disk. Now, let's imagine seek times stay the same - 9ms or so on decent drives. Well, in that 9ms we can find any byte on the disk, but unfortunately, that's a smaller fraction of the overall data. You have to seek over greater "distances" (explained in a moment) to deliver more data. Note that "distance" is not physical length the head must move, but rather the head must reach more bytes which may or may not be conveniently contiguous. This means that the greater the density, if the head technology stays the same, the throughput will stay the same. Now, today the very best way to beat this problem is to set up a RAID of one flavor or another. But only a very small percentage of computer users use RAIDs. Some kind of "ninety-percent" solution needs to be made for people who have one built-in HD that comes with their computer. Else, throughputs will stay the same while capacity increases greatly - not the best situation.

    --
    Save time now so you can waste it later
  79. Protecting it? by Methedup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With such extremely compact data, the thing I would most worry about is a scratch, such as bumping you TB-laptop while accessing: Instantly you have a couple GB of bad sectors! Oh, the pain. Just pray that it hits a clean spot...

  80. Re:1TB iPod in Canada - C$21,000 in tariff's by Jardine · · Score: 1

    Ah, but that tariff is very simple to get around. It only applies to mediums on which a musical work has never been recorded on. So all that the manufacturer has to do is put a sample song on the player. It doesn't even have to stay on the player, they can erase it right after.

  81. Re:fuck you! by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    what the hell, How is a sarcastic comment about everquest a troll? Offtopic, perhaps.

  82. Re:*BSD Is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Slashdot, FIX YOUR SHIT!!

  83. Removable storage, anyone ? by billcopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess this means my shiny new DVD burner is already obsolete. Backing up my desktop to 4.7gb DVD-RW discs was decent, but now if I end up with a TB or two on my raid array, I'll have to find another backup system. And no, tapes don't cut it, nor does carrying an extra pair of hard drives around. Where's that 155tb optical disc we've been hearing about for the last ten years ?

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  84. I DO need a Terrabyte. by jiminy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For those of you who are saying that a terrabyte is a rediculous amount of data storage: Forget not that a 10MB hard disk was once considered massive. Today, you couldn't hope to put most programs into that amount of space! Not to mention those of us who have a tendency to hoarde mp3's and DivX's (myself included). Hell, my current project is a machine that spec's an even terrabyte of disk space! It would be very convenient IMHO if i could simply drop in one hard drive and have it done. (As opposed to spending hours configuring 10 100GB drives in some type of RAID)

    --
    Base 2 yields only ARTIFICIAL Intelligence