Slashdot Mirror


Hard Drives Down To A Dollar A Gigabyte

Junky191 writes "I doubt anyone else noticed this- but today is the first day where mass storage is available for $1 per gigabyte (according to pricewatch,). There are several stores now selling 120GB models for $120 shipped. This is truly an amazing milestone for those of us who once spent $500 for the fantastically large 10MB models. I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB." With discounts, the price has been that low for a little while.

715 comments

  1. This is old news. by Faggot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disreputable dealers have had 120GB for $110 for months now. FP, btw.

    --

    But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.

    1. Re:This is old news. by Nevermore-Spoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why is this modded down as flamebait?!?...it's just fact!?! this is OLD NEWS

      --
      I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
    2. Re:This is old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >looks like a homophobic mod to me.

      Clearly only a homophobe would use the word "faggot" for their name...

    3. Re:This is old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disreputable dealers have had 120GB for $110 for months now. FP, btw. Why mod'd as offtopic? what the hell it's right on topic and he's right it's been months....where is meta modding when you need it...and aparently the slashdot servers are running on 486's like the barmonkey, and thier stories take 6 months to appear

    4. Re:This is old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People may not like this guys name or sig, but thats no reason to mod the posts down.

      WTF?

    5. Re:This is old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you mention getting the first post, mods can't help but use their points to mod it down, even if it is on topic.

    6. Re:This is old news. by geniusj · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps look at his username or email :)

    7. Re:This is old news. by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Because of his name and sig, it gets taken as a troll. Mentioning FP is also ungood. Plus, why would you want to buy from a disreputable dealer?

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. wow man by voudras · · Score: 1

    i remember when they were a $1 a mb

    1. Re:wow man by Hirsto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn! I remember when they were $250 a MB, course this was when a MB was 1024KB and not 1000MB. Ah, the magic of marketing!

    2. Re:wow man by DaBunny · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, you remember when 1 MB == 1000 MB. Now *that's* magic!!

    3. Re:wow man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      I remember paying around 1000 USD for a 5 MB Shugart sometime between '82 and '84. I still have the manual for it... this is from the days when a manual was *real*. Timing diagrams, interface specs, etc.

      You're just a newb.

    4. Re:wow man by kfhickel · · Score: 1

      You young pups. Try $10,000 for 1MB! This was in the days when a TRS-80 Level II was a hot machine!

    5. Re:wow man by Qrlx · · Score: 3, Funny

      You see, Vergon 6 was once filled with the super-dense substance known as dark matter, each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds.

    6. Re:wow man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta account for inflation. :)

    7. Re:wow man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the animals?

    8. Re:wow man by elphkotm · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? I remember when 1MB was like 90,000 punch cards d00d! I have r0x0red j00 wit teh old aeg sklilz n00bler!!11

      --

      <Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
    9. Re:wow man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My pet ate them ;-)

    10. Re:wow man by Scud_the_disposable_ · · Score: 1

      how can a pound weigh 10000 pounds?? isn't a pound a unit of measurement? =)

    11. Re:wow man by orangesquid · · Score: 2

      Right near me is a store called second source, where you can sometimes find neat stuff and get good deals.

      Sadly, they sell hard drives for 5 cents/megabyte, flat rate. A 120 gig drive there would be six grand. They don't sell drives that large, though, they only sell drives in the 10MB-1G range (I shop eBay for my older drives, now...)

      Now if IDE drives are so cheap, when we will see cheap SCSI drives like this? The only extra stuff is more complex circuitry (which is debatable, since IDE drive controllers are getting quite complex these days). Although vendors want to displace SCSI with USB (slow), USB 2.0 (still not quite as good as SCSI), and FireWire (approaching SCSI in some respects, surpassing it in others, maybe someone could make loads of $$ off of a FireWire/SCSI translator?)

      I've used IDE/SCSI translators (the ones by Acard are fantastic), but they aren't too scalable and sometimes give funky SCSI errors on my IRIX machine (although I think that was a shorting problem, as I've insulated everything better now and I haven't seen the same errors in months).

      Well, at any rate, if IDE only supported more than two devices per bus, my fileserver could use an upgrade. Guess I'll be buying a many-port IDE card sometime soon... or maybe I should look into small hardware RAID systems? Software RAID can be tricky to set up, slower, etc etc.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    12. Re:wow man by isorox · · Score: 1
    13. Re:wow man by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      What animals? I didn't say anything about any animals.:D

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  3. Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Monkelectric · · Score: 1, Informative

    The prices for HD's have been down around 1$/gig for months, especially on surplus stores like comp-geeks.com (new, not used).

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    1. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by fname · · Score: 1

      And at obscure Mom & Pop stores like Fry's. For example, I bought 2 120GB (one for my PowerMac, one for my DirecTiVo) drives for $100 each in August.

    2. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spending money at fry's is it's own punnishement.

    3. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 1
      Does anyone know where I can get _1_ gig for _1_ dollar? I don't want 100 gigs for 100 dollars. I just want 1, like the advertisement says. Anyone? (note that I'm being silly ;-)). Anyone?

      --gal

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    4. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by dougmc · · Score: 2
      Does anyone know where I can get _1_ gig for _1_ dollar?
      here.

      Actually, their usual price for 1 GB drives is a bit more than a dollar, but you can occasionally find one marked for $0.99 ...

      note that I'm being silly ;-)
      Not really that silly. 1 GB drives are still useful. Actually, what would be really nice would be 10 GB drives for $10. Or even 10 GB notebook drives for $20 :)
    5. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Greedo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      A 1 gig drive? Wow! Just imagine what you could do with a Beo...

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    6. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ask a silly question..

      http://www.pcliquidators.com/

      Look in the dollar bin, As-Is hard drives for a buck. Pulls from systems, not guaranteed. I snagged a handful of em on another order, and they worked fine for the purpose (booting a headless router setup). I got a 3.6 gigger that worked fine.

      Of course, if you want a tested and error free pull, it's 20 bucks.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Fry's has been having specials for months on *new* HD between 100 and 120GB for $100 to $120. Just check the newspaper ads for Fry's spread.

      p.s. CompGeeks rocks! Very good store and support for non-bleeding edge hw.

    8. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Nevermore-Spoon · · Score: 1

      why are the people who are pointing out this this is old news being mod'd down....sounds like the Cmdrtaco is starting to get pissed for being behind the times......

      --
      I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
    9. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fry's != mom and pop store

    10. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody here does not understand sarcasm.

    11. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2

      They're not quite that cheap yet. And yes, I do go by there every now and then. Might even swing by there today.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    12. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by zootread · · Score: 1

      He's right you know. I've seen plenty of rebate deals (e.g. Bestbuy) that made drives effectively $1/gig. There was a WD 100 gig 7200 rpm for $100, followed a week later by a WD 120 gig 7200 rpm for $100! That is less than $1/gig and this was back in August.

      --
      Zoot!
    13. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      Why is this flamebait? What because of the title, well it is actually obvious and if it isn't well your brain is operating at the speed of a 486SX.

    14. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. As others say, the downmod is totally inappropriate because what Monkelectric says is true. On July 31, I ordered an 80 gig drive (82.34 if you use base-10 gigs) for $72. Found it on ... wait for it ... Pricewatch!

    15. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by fname · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that this discussion has been modded down is ridiculous. It's clearly a salient point, and it was the 1st one to point it out. Seeing that modded down to -1 (Flamebait) makes me start to wonder about the efficiency of this moderation system. Anyway out of -1 hell, since most won't even see it? I'd like to know who modded it down.

      And yeah, this IS off-topic, do your worst. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that this article getting posted is outright ridiculous. This news is at least 5 months old, posting it as a story defies logic for a site that is "News for Nerds." Get with the program.

    16. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by mkldev · · Score: 1


      Umm... I bought an 80 gig drive for about $80 almost a year ago on Pricewatch. $1 a gig is pretty expensive. Three months ago, some of the commodity drives (80 gigs or so) were running 85 cents a gig on PriceWatch. They've actually -increased- in price since then, and now they're coming back down again... The price just fluctuates.

      At 80 gig capacity, the price has been about $1/gig for the better part of a year, maybe more. 80 gig drives are considered commodity drives -- the cutting edge is much larger, and the 80 gig size is purchased in large enough quantities by manufactureres that the R&D investment has been paid for, and the per unit cost has thus fallen commensurately.

      The 100 and 120 gigs are just starting to fall into sufficiently high use (and be sufficiently dwarfed by newer drives) for their prices to fall to that level.

      As for rebate deals, the Best Buy deals are almost always lousy. I got a 120 gig WD drive at Circuit City after thanksgiving for $90 after rebates. That's 75 cents a gig, if you're counting.

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
    17. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by zootread · · Score: 1

      Well my last drive purchase I spent $140 on a 80 gig WD Special Edition (8MB cache) and that thing was worth it, it is blazing fast. $1.75/gig. Price per gigabyte doesn't take into account performance afterall.

      --
      Zoot!
    18. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Monkelectric · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the support (and the couple other people who said the same thing) :) I think the problem is that some idiot gets mod points and he's DYING to use them, so he picks on someone making a "negative" comment ... Although I was trying to be funny and make a serious point. Maybe I wasn't funny enough ...

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    19. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Yep, with a 1 gig drive you can:

      o Put your swap file / partition on it
      o Use it as temp space for CD burning
      o Keep a copy of your W1n98SE CD files on it

      o If you're running Knoppix Debian, copy cdrom:\knoppix\knoppix to a FAT partition on the drive (destination == \knoppix directory) and use the boot disk (or dd the boot-en.img to a 1-cylinder / 1.5 meg partition and set it's boot flag to Active) - Knoppix will then run from the HD instead of CD.

      www.knopper.net
      www.knoppix.net

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  4. Buck a gig by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Leet, now I won't feel so bad knowning that my swap space is only worth a buck.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a little doubt.

      What's the advantage to having huge swap space if you have enough RAM? I always thought that I'd never fill the RAM if I didn't run too many programs at the same time.
      I always keep reading/hearing you have to allocate twice the RAM for swap space.

      I'd love to get an explanation for that.

      Yes, I'm drifting offtopic, I know.
      Posting Anonymously to avoid flames.

    2. Re:Buck a gig by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 1
      Does anyone know where I can get _1_ gig for _1_ dollar? I don't want 100 gigs for 100 dollars. I just want 1, like the advertisement says. Anyone? (note that I'm being silly ;-)). Anyone?

      --gal

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    3. Re:Buck a gig by glwtta · · Score: 2
      far as I can see it's mostly just a precaution. rule of thumb:

      running out of ram and having to swap == bad
      running out of swap == very, very double plus ungood

      since disc is cheap, it's easy enough to allocate a lot of swap, but if you are actually using it, then you might look into buying some more ram.

      of course I could be completely wrong.

      Of course I am sure that the moderation gendarmes (or harpies... yeah, probably moderation harpies) will descend on us with mighty vengeance for heretically straying away from the true, blessed path, which is "The Topic"

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Buck a gig by dakers27 · · Score: 1

      better yet, get 6 of them and a promise supertrak sx6000 and run raid 5 that would give you ~600gigs for ~$700. This would be real news if less than $1/mb counting the space you lose to raid 5. Since these things are so big now i would never run them without some kind of redundancy. if i lost 120gigs of data i would be pretty pissed. imho raid 5 should be standard on anything other than low end bargain pc's. just my 2 cents

    5. Re:Buck a gig by kevcol · · Score: 2

      I have a 1.2 gig disk you can have. But you have to pick it up yourself, I won't ship it. Price to you: $1.2

    6. Re:Buck a gig by zootread · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why have twice your RAM in swap? Check this link for an explanation. Note that it doesn't apply to Linux. On my Linux box I have 768MB RAM and 512MB swap space and it runs nicely.

      --
      Zoot!
    7. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course I am sure that the moderation gendarmes (or harpies... yeah, probably moderation harpies) will descend on us with mighty vengeance for heretically straying away from the true, blessed path, which is "The Topic"

      nay.. its not offtopic, we're talking about a $1/gig here, and that includes swap space. now, if I started talking about the last time I got a blowjob, that might be offtopic, though its been moderated up in the past quite a few times.

      zootread

    8. Re:Buck a gig by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I run a computational cluster of twenty diskless machines, each with 1GB of RAM. They don't have swap and have already cranked out over 100,000 hours of processing time.

      It all depends.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    9. Re:Buck a gig by The_K4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason taht some OSes like the 1:1 relationship the artile talks about is that in some OSes the data in RAM gets written to the swap space durring "free" cycles. This means that if room is needed in RAM that page can be jettosoned without having to do a write back then. So if your OS does this, and your not currently using RAM much you *should* have an exact copy of most of the pages on the HDD. If you suddenly start doing a MASSIVE amount of calculations on something that is currently not in ram at all, you don't have to swap all those current pages out (they have alreadys been copied there) just dump them and load the new stuff. The less writing you have to do before you load the faster you can get the load done.

    10. Re:Buck a gig by isorox · · Score: 2

      Hey, mine's worth less then a cup of tea!

    11. Re:Buck a gig by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      The good news is that hard drives are a dollar per gigabyte. The bad news is that you still can't buy hard drives for a dollar.

      So where's this moore's law going anyway? I want my 256-node array of 386's for twenty pounds, like the equations say they should cost.

    12. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one reason is if your machine abends and does a core dump you need at least as much swap as you have RAM to hold the data. Back in the day gamers used to allocate 2.5-3x RAM for swap, but I think that was due to the fact that people had less RAM because it cost more.

    13. Re:Buck a gig by quinto2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      less than a cup of tea.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
    14. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just say $1 per millibit? That's quite expensive...

    15. Re:Buck a gig by TariqX · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know what the average consumer or even the open-source developer working from a home machine would do with 1 TerraByte of storage (someone said he/she can't wait for it to be a buck) or even what do you need with more than say 40 gig?

      I am a software developer and an avid mp3 and mpeg(grin) collector yet all I have at home is a total of 30 gigs.

      I just wonder

    16. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you obviously haven't been doing a whole lot of collecting. I have been collecting anime mpegs, and fully expect to use up 120 gigs in the near future. In the IRC channel I leech from, there are people with nearly a full terrabyte (full) of anime.

    17. Re:Buck a gig by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Or just disable swap entirely. Virtual memory is an idea whose time has come and gone.

      Ram is cheap enough, and the speed difference between ram and disk has grown so great that the idea of putting programs in and out of memory as they run is obsolete.

      I have run my linux boxes this way for months with no ill repercussions.

    18. Re:Buck a gig by CTho9305 · · Score: 2

      You do realize there are some pretty smart people at Microsoft, right? Presumably *nix coders are also intelligent. Could you provide some detailed system specs and benchmark results showing that disabling swap does not harm performance? An intelligent OS would not swap something to disk unnecessarily.

    19. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neuk jou.

    20. Re:Buck a gig by isorox · · Score: 1

      actually, mines worth less. Then a cup of tea [followed and made it worth nothing]

    21. Re:Buck a gig by xenocide2 · · Score: 2

      Average consumer, not so excited. The rampant growth does allow us to consider some storage methods otherwise considered wasteful, somewhat like journaling fs. On the other hand, businesses and similar units may find the increased size useful. The guys at #ksu say their logs for some of their networks takes something like 150 gigs compressed. Thats for 6 months worth of data. I'm not sure what they're doing with it or how they might compress it better but I do know that even with the new 7 terrabyte storage system its unlikely that as a user my ~/ will be increased enough to host a few files for my friends.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    22. Re:Buck a gig by jwilcox154 · · Score: 1

      You might be able to go to a local Gig for free, oh, wait sec, your talking about 1,000,000,000 Bytes, Never Mind.

    23. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 pond krijg je op de markt. Maar veel ervoor kopen kun je niet, vieze ouwe boer die je bent.

    24. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      actually, mines worth less. Then a cup of tea

      Also Richard Nixon?

    25. Re:Buck a gig by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Or you could get truly radical, as I did, buy lots of RAM when it was Really Cheap ($51/gig) and do away with the Windows swapfile entirely.

      Before anyone pipes up that this will cause problems, you should know that I've got two systems (W95 and W98) that work their asses off and have been running that way for about a year now (even with multiple honkin' big apps running, neither ever uses all its system RAM). I've also had swap turned off occasionally on the XP box, and on a low-memory W95 box, without ill effect. (The low-memory box was actually a good 3x faster without it, and it has NEVER crashed.)

      When I do let Windows have a swapfile, I put it on a dedicated partition, which is thus effectively "wasted" space. Was quite the horror back in the days when $40/meg was a GOOD price, but seems pretty trivial at today's disk prices.

      Oh wait, I'm back on topic. Damn, now I'm in for it. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    26. Re:Buck a gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know plenty of people who filled there 80gig hard disk very quickly with movies off p2p, plus others who do video editing at broadcast quality who need the space

    27. Re:Buck a gig by geniusj · · Score: 1

      I usually go with at least the amount of ram .. The reason? savecore -- I want to be able to have a crashdump be successfully written out :).. To do that (on most OS revisions) you need at least as much swap as you do memory along with space available wherever you dump it from swap (typically /var/crash)

      Cheers,
      -JD-

    28. Re:Buck a gig by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      Virtual memory is an idea whose time has come and gone.

      HDD swap is just a small part of memory virtualization. Virtual memory is here to stay, and it's a good thing.

      Also, It's good to have swap space, even if you have tons of memory. You can never have too much memory, especially in linux. Linux will use as much of your memory as it can as a hard drive block cache. If you don't have swap, memory that could be used as cache to speed up the application you're currently using will be wasted storing a program that you've left unused but running. Having no swap won't reduce functionality, but unless you don't do any I/O intensive work, not having swap WILL reduce your performance. I'd consider that an ill effect.

    29. Re:Buck a gig by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      You can use mcore instead. (If you're running linux, that is.) That'll save your dump even if the crash made the hard drive unaccessable, and it doesn't require swap.

    30. Re:Buck a gig by TGK · · Score: 2

      And mine's worth less than a cup of tea. Without milk, or sugar, or tea.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  5. Re:Netcraft now confirms: by BSD+is+Alive · · Score: 1

    and thank the good lord for that!!

  6. Perspective... by Yoda2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1957, the first hard drive was introduced as a component of IBM's RAMAC 350. It required 50 24-inch disks to store five megabytes (million bytes, abbreviated MB) of data and cost roughly $35,000 a year to lease - or $7,000 per megabyte per year. For years, hard disk drives were confined to mainframe and minicomputer installations. Vast "disk farms" of giant 14- and 8-inch drives costing tens of thousands of dollars each whirred away in the air conditioned isolation of corporate data centers.

    1. Re:Perspective... by n3rd · · Score: 2

      It required 50 24-inch disks to store five megabytes

      That gives me a crazy idea: RAID5 with floppy disks! I'm sure this would have been big in the 60's, but alas, I was born too late.

    2. Re:Perspective... by PD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what it would take for them to be reliable. Is it just me, or is everyone finding that out of 10 disks they pick up, about 8 of them won't even format properly?

    3. Re:Perspective... by image · · Score: 5, Funny

      > 1957, the first hard drive was introduced as a component of IBM's RAMAC 350. It required 50 24-inch disks to store five megabytes (million bytes, abbreviated MB) of data and cost roughly $35,000 a year to lease - or $7,000 per megabyte per year.

      Man, I knew I should have waited a little while longer before buying one of these.

      It always happens. You buy the hottest/fastest toy out, and just 46 years later they're releasing something seven million times better.

    4. Re:Perspective... by John+Harrison · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At the Gates Building (yes, it is that Gates) home of the Stanford CS department they had an interesting display near the entrance. It was a platter from the first hard drive the university ever owned. It was part of a card catalog system at Green Library. It is huge. If I remember correctly it was about 4 feet in diameter and an inch thick of solid metal. There was a large gouge in it where they had a head crash once. I can't remember how much it stored (7 megabytes sticks in my head for some reason) by the density was very low. The plaque next to it said that it wasn't very reliable and generated lots of heat.

    5. Re:Perspective... by slipgun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's what it would take for them to be reliable. Is it just me, or is everyone finding that out of 10 disks they pick up, about 8 of them won't even format properly?

      Not quite that bad, but certainly at least a third of the disks I buy won't format. Never mind, shouldn't be much longer before I'm exclusively using CDs to boot.

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    6. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone else is finding out that they should finally buy a CD burner.

      Fucko.

    7. Re:Perspective... by KeyserDK · · Score: 1

      I think someone tried to this, Floppy RAID. Was a site specificly for stupid ideas like that =).

      If only i could remember where =)

      --
      still reading?
    8. Re:Perspective... by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI, the parent post is a quote taken from this web page: http://www.angelfire.com/pq/pcmuseum/storage.html

      --
      Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    9. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these (or a similar, later model) is on display at the Omniplex science and aerospace museum in Oklahoma City. My wife couldn't understand why I was interested in looking at something like that... I spent about 10 minutes looking it over.

    10. Re:Perspective... by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Heh. Work out the math using a 120 gig drive with those kind of costs.

      To lease a 120 gig drive at the same rate per megabyte would cost $860,160,000. For the purposes of that calculation I assumed 1024 megs per gig.

      Almost a BILLION dollars per year. Crazy.

      Work it out a different way. I picked up a 60 gig drive for about $75. That's about one-tenth of a cent per meg. (0.122 cents to be precise). This means the cost per meg has gone down by a factor of 5.7 million.

    11. Re:Perspective... by rastachops · · Score: 1

      And MUCH more that $860,160,000 if the initial guy didnt take inflation into account!

    12. Re:Perspective... by Yoda2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I should have posted the link. Unfortunately, the page launched popups and I figured they would annoy the crap out of everyone.

    13. Re:Perspective... by Mike+Monett · · Score: 1

      To lease a 120 gig drive at the same rate per megabyte would cost $860,160,000. For the purposes of that calculation I assumed 1024 megs per gig.
      Almost a BILLION dollars per year. Crazy.


      Especially when you consider the data rate. It would probably take close to a year to read the thing!

    14. Re:Perspective... by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've noticed this too, but not quite that bad. Back in the 80's and 90's, floppy disks used to be very reliable, not perfect, but pretty good. I've noticed a huge drop in quality over the past 4 or 5 years, though. They are basically not usable anymore. I haven't experimented with different brands, though, maybe there are better ones out there which maybe cost a little more.

    15. Re:Perspective... by plaxion · · Score: 3, Funny

      7 megabytes sticks in your head?! I'm sorry to hear that. You must have a horrible time being able to remember things. ;)

    16. Re:Perspective... by MadLibs · · Score: 3, Funny
      The plaque next to it said that it wasn't very reliable and generated lots of heat

      wow...and to think...for just a second there i thought they were talking about my ex.....

    17. Re:Perspective... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
      Not quite that bad

      Last time I checked, a 33% failure rate was worse than a 20% failure rate. :-)

      It does seem like the floppies got cheap and inexpensive at the same time.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    18. Re:Perspective... by Binestar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Was a site specificly for stupid ideas like that =).

      If only i could remember where =)


      I think you are thinking of Slashdot.

      =)

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    19. Re:Perspective... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
      Oh, forgot to ask:

      Why can't you use a Windows boot floppy and the "Create bootable CD" feature in Adaptec EZ cd creator to make a bootable CD with DOS on it? I did this and dropped the win98 directory from the install CD onto a bootable CD. Poof, no more floppy.

      It works for me.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    20. Re:Perspective... by mcelrath · · Score: 5, Interesting
      At the Fermilab Computer Center there is a display at the entrance. On a round table about 4 feet in diameter are various storage devices over the years of various density. Floppies, hard drives, zip disks, etc. Then you realize the table itself is one of those 4 foot platters from one of those ancient hard drives...

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    21. Re:Perspective... by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, a 33% failure rate was worse than a 20% failure rate. :-)

      But not worse than 80% (re-read the post the parent was referring to).

    22. Re:Perspective... by Spamlent+Green · · Score: 1

      I think the parent poster is experiencing an 80% failure rate... (8 in 10 bad).

    23. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "The plaque next to it said that it wasn't very reliable and generated lots of heat."

      I wonder why they put such a thing at the entrance to the Gates Building (yes, it is that Gates).

    24. Re:Perspective... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Beats me, I'm still using floppies I bought in the 90's (on the rare occasion I need one) they're still working fine so far...

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    25. Re:Perspective... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      For me, part of the problem is that I haven't actually bought any new floppy disks in years. I keep recycling disks from a big box I have full of them in my basement; some of these are almost 20 years old. I usually use them only to make temporary boot disks, and I've been getting at least a 25% failure rate.

      Another factor is that you can buy a brand new floppy drive for $8.00 on newegg.com. (I can remember when one floppy diskette cost almost that much.) I'll bet that they've cut a few too many cost corners on these drives.

    26. Re:Perspective... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

      My step mom has worked with computer since the early 70's.

      She used to work over at nasa and various other companies around silicon valley. She used to bring the old platters home and make things like wall clocks and side tables and coffee tables out of them.

      They we really cool... wish we had held onto them.

    27. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plaque next to it said that it wasn't very reliable and generated lots of heat.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same

    28. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If I remember correctly it was about 4 feet in diameter and an inch thick of solid metal. There was a large gouge in it where they had a head crash once.
      You shouldn't crash my drive head, Johnny. My second great step-uncle crashed my drive head once. Once.
    29. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it just me, or is everyone finding that out of 10 [floppy] disks they pick up, about 8 of them won't even format properly?

      Haven't we been here before? I remember when (80's?) PC Magazine reviewed floppy manufacturers for disk reliability.

    30. Re:Perspective... by mkoenecke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would popups annoy anyone on Slashdot? I figure everybody here is either using Mozilla (or a Mozilla-based browser) or running something like Proxomitron. I haven't seen an unrequested popup in over a year, at least.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    31. Re:Perspective... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

      Even better, a RAID5 array of cordless mice! A truly new paradigm in HCI. :)

    32. Re:Perspective... by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      The bytes were only 7 bits. The drive was introduced in 1956.

      IBM started moving to 8 bit bytes later that same year, and the word "byte" was also coined that year, at IBM.

    33. Re:Perspective... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      that would be why I use mini CD-RWs and packet writing software ;-)

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    34. Re:Perspective... by LarsG · · Score: 2

      It would probably take close to a year to read the thing!

      And imagine the horrors of running a non-journaled fs.

      "Due to an unscheduled fsck, the computer lab will be unavailable for the next month"

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    35. Re:Perspective... by shoemakc · · Score: 2
      It always happens. You buy the hottest/fastest toy out, and just 46 years later they're releasing something seven million times better.

      Only 7 more payments to go...

      -Chris

      --
      --an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
    36. Re:Perspective... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Man, I gotta get me a few more old hard drives... and a time machine... :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    37. Re:Perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I only have about 1 in 100 (white box) not format.

    38. Re:Perspective... by Pranjal · · Score: 1

      ..There was a large gouge in it where they had a head crash once...
      What they don't tell you is that the head crashed because of a fatal crash caused by MSDOS 1.0 kernel which was at that time being developed by a young scientist called Bill Gates.

    39. Re:Perspective... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that doesn't apply to the 4 foot diameter part....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    40. Re:Perspective... by stevey · · Score: 1

      Not quite that bad, but it's certainly getting worse. I've still got floppies from my early University days (in 95) that I can read.

      Disks purchased more recently haven't survived for as long..

      (I don't think I've bought any unformatted disks since at least 1988 - nowadays they all come pre-formatted, and I tend to leave them as MS-DOS floppies for the increased portability).

    41. Re:Perspective... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
      Oops, I thought it said 8 out of 10 would format properly. Evidently I only read 80% of the words in his post...

      My apologies to the poster.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
  7. Yeah, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $120 for 120GB. That's lovely, but what about reliability? Where did that go?

    1. Re:Yeah, great by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So show me some statistics to support your contention that today's drives are less reliable. No, I don't want to know some third-hand story about your wife's friend's brother who said his hard drive failed. I want real, statistically significant numbers.

    2. Re:Yeah, great by merlyn · · Score: 2, Funny
      If you don't think my wife's friend's brother is statistically significant, you haven't met him.

      {grin}

    3. Re:Yeah, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't implying that hard drive reliability is nonexistant these days, but it would seem likely that with such a massive price drop (I paid well over $300 for a considerably smaller hard drive a few years back) there's probably something going on to make the drives cheaper. Ideally it would mean that the hard drive manufacturers have produced more cost efficient ways to create hard drives so that those savings can be passed on to their customers. However, I've seen prices drop more frequently because manufacturers have cut corners in a desperate attempt to stay afloat in a competitive market.

    4. Re:Yeah, great by MikeFM · · Score: 2

      Actually I've gotten several of these cheap drives and they seem to be doing fine. I was a little paranoid because I usually only buy Western Digital but for this project massive amounts of storage was more important than reliability.. anyway they seem to be working pretty well. Mostly Maxtor drives I've found at this price range.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    5. Re:Yeah, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just got a Samsung for $132 after shipping, about 2 weeks ago. You're not stuck exclusively with Maxtor.

    6. Re:Yeah, great by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      I wasn't implying that hard drive reliability is nonexistant these days, but it would seem likely that with such a massive price drop (I paid well over $300 for a considerably smaller hard drive a few years back) there's probably something going on to make the drives cheaper.

      8kbytes of RAM used to cost hundreds of dollars. Is modern RAM that much less reliable? Prices on everything related to computers has nose-dived. Floppy drives used to cost over $200 each. Now you can pick them up for under $10 -- and in much higher capacity. Just look at a magazine from the mid-80s.

      I believe that hard drives have become far more reliable. Sure, there have been some bad runs of drives from IBM and Fujitsu. That's always happened. Drives can now handle much greater g-forces both operating and non-operating. The number of head and platters has dropped while capacity has gone up. In the days of MFM and RLL hard drives, we used to have to refresh the sectors on hard drives so that they would not develop bad sectors. That simply does not happen any more.

    7. Re:Yeah, great by Blkdeath · · Score: 2
      So show me some statistics to support your contention that today's drives are less reliable. No, I don't want to know some third-hand story about your wife's friend's brother who said his hard drive failed. I want real, statistically significant numbers.

      If I ship you last year's RMA sheets, will you pay the C.O.D. charges?

      Otherwise, can I interest you in a stack of IBM DeskStar's or a couple of cases of Fujitsu 20-30 GB drives?

      As an aside; if HDDs are truly more reliable; why are most major manufacturer warranties now only 1 year?

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    8. Re:Yeah, great by timster · · Score: 2

      I bought an IDE hard drive a couple months ago, and it works just fine. A friend of mine bought one, and that works too.

      Everyone, notice how silly this comment sounds? That's because the only people ranting about hard drive quality are the people who have had problems. That's why the parent requested STATISTICS, and that's why your anecdotes are worse than useless.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    9. Re:Yeah, great by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 2

      So show me some statistics to support your contention that today's drives are less reliable

      Bad move. You just picked on somebody who's hard drive crashed three days ago....

      Lets just say Fujitsu hard drives are not reliable

      --
      wot no sig
    10. Re:Yeah, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it could be normal. IIRC, the $1/MB barrier was broken about 10 years ago. so in 10 years, we have 1000x the disk space for the same price. a rough estimate yields that disk space doubles every year for the same price.

    11. Re:Yeah, great by darthwader · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had saved over 100 MB of detailed reliability statistics for all sorts of hard drives for the last 15 years. Unfortunately, I was keeping them on an IBM hard drive, and it failed last week. Sorry.

      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    12. Re:Yeah, great by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      Maxtor, generally seems to be good. But I have a 27GB 5400 RPM maxtor that I got I think in '99 or '00. Until recently it's been fine, but twice now it's crapped out on me. First time I had WinXP on it *ducks*. The Windows dir was wiped, I then installed Win2k *ducks* on a different drive and ran chkdsk cleaning it mostly up but the windows dir never recovered. I then started using it to store downloaded files and it pooped out on my again. chkdsk cleared it up mostly with a few files lost. So it could be nearing it's end or NTFS suckieness showed itself.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    13. Re:Yeah, great by Antipop · · Score: 2

      Who do you order from? Most of the cheapest sites on pricewatch are notorious for sending back merchandise or not sending it at all.

    14. Re:Yeah, great by rppp01 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and I've had hell with IBM drives. I've lost 2 in the last year. My older 8 gb drive works fine, however. Go figure.

      I am inclined that reliability goes down when quantity goes up, and longevity of a product goes down when the prices also go down.

      --
      They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
    15. Re:Yeah, great by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      As an aside; if HDDs are truly more reliable; why are most major manufacturer warranties now only 1 year?

      Because they found that customers preferred a lower initial price to a longer warranty. I've said this before: I'll be happy to sell you Maxtor drives and warrant them for five years if you'll pay me 50% more than Maxtor charges. Does that change the quality of the drives? Does it change the reliability? Of course not. Warranty costs are affected not only by drive reliability, but also by transportation costs, personnel costs (to service the drives), telephone support costs, building rental costs, etc.

    16. Re:Yeah, great by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Bad move. You just picked on somebody who's hard drive crashed three days ago....

      Last time I heard numbers, Slashdot got over 250,000 unique visitors per day. I'm not surprised that one of them had a hard drive crash recently. Sorry for your loss, but that's not statistically significant data.

      Lets just say Fujitsu [theregister.co.uk] hard [theregister.co.uk] drives [theregister.co.uk] are [theregister.co.uk] not [theregister.co.uk] reliable [theregister.co.uk]

      Yes, Fujitsu had a manufacturing problem based on chips that they purchased from Cirrus Logic. But there have been defects in many product lines, including drives, for as long as I can remember. I want to see an overall trend. Do drives have a shorter MTBF now than they did, say, ten years ago?

    17. Re:Yeah, great by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Good point.

      As my network BW increases and I won't tolerate high latencies, I'll probably start complaining about error rates like 1 per 1e18 as being atrocious.

      Never mind that I put up with much worse error rates using a handset coupler for 110 baud modems some years back...

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    18. Re:Yeah, great by Regul8or · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am the statistic. I used to work in a data center doing sys admin work and we had about 30 IMB hard drives ranging from 30-60 GBs. Keep in mind this is a data center. The temperature was always kept nice and cold, the humidity was controlled, and the power was conditioned through a UPS with battery backups and a diesel generator... the whole nine yards. Thankfully most of these drives were put in relatively unimportant servers, but in the end about 75% failed.

    19. Re:Yeah, great by Tyrall · · Score: 1
      Amazed not even one person has posted in response to this; normally there's loads of them.

      For processors, motherboards and hard drives, I normally go to NewEgg, who have both a great track record on DOAs for me (4 or 5 in 2 years and several thousand dollars of gear), and they've handled those in a pretty competant manner.

      They're not always the cheapest, but they're certainly in the top tier for processors/disks. They have pretty shitty pricing on memory unless they're having a special, and everything else is about average street-price.

      Hope that helps.

    20. Re:Yeah, great by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " So show me some statistics to support your contention that today's drives are less reliable. No, I don't want to know some third-hand story about your wife's friend's brother who said his hard drive failed. I want real, statistically significant numbers."

      Most brands should be avoided except in the SCSI department.

    21. Re:Yeah, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem is that you keep installing a boot-sector virus.

  8. *Old Man Rant* by Cyclopedian · · Score: 5, Funny
    Time to burn some Karma...

    Bah! You kids with your newfangled hard drives! Why, in my day, we worked with ferro-magnetic drives. Sure, the magnets were big, and they were powerful, and dammit if you didn't get a nice buzz while working around these things. That was the way it was, AND we liked it!

    AND I had to walk uphill! Twice! In the snow! Buzzed out of my mind!

    /end Old Man Rant

    1. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah.. the pretty light show (and dust cloud) when there was a head crash. The good old days.

    2. Re:*Old Man Rant* by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I *DID* walk to school in the snow. Down to about -30 degrees F. Below that I could stay home. Granted, this was when I lived in Fairbanks, AK in the 1970's, but still..

      What what pointless rants are we going to fling at our grandkids?
      "Why, when I was your age we didn't have PVRs! You had to record your shows to tape!"
      "Spoiled brats! We didn't have cable TV until I was twelve!"
      "Oh, the teleporter is too slow? We had to drive for an hour in a car!"

      and other pointless irate ramblings.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    3. Re:*Old Man Rant* by redbaron7 · · Score: 1

      Ferro-magnetic drives? Aye they were luXury. Wi only 'ad paper cards. Lots of paper cards. Don't get em mixed up either - would take months to sort 'em out.

      Paper cards wer so expensive wen thi came out, like, wi culdn't AFFORD the puncher! Aye, we had to use ar TEETH! Good thing Binary only 'ad two bits - a hole or no hole.

      Of course in them days Binary wa' still a newfangled invention. Wen I started out we were still using UNARY. One bit. Tha was it! Tell them Linux whippersnappers, and they wuldn't believe yer!

      RB

    4. Re:*Old Man Rant* by jackjumper · · Score: 5, Funny

      *Zeros*!?! You had zeros????

      All we had was the letter 'O'...

    5. Re:*Old Man Rant* by CaseyB · · Score: 2
      Well, I *DID* walk to school in the snow. Down to about -30 degrees F. Below that I could stay home.

      Luxury. Below -40 we might sometimes get a ride to school. But stay home? Never. -55C, there we were. The downside to living in the far north is that there are no snow days.

      "Look! It snowed outside last night! A lot! And it's really cold!"

      "Yes dear, just like yesterday, the day before, and the month before that. Get dressed."

    6. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why, in my day, we worked with ferro-magnetic drives.

      You had MAGNETIC disks?? In MAH day, we lopped off the end of a wooden log and put pits in the wood with a chisel! And we spun it with a hand-crank! You jus' TRY cranking the disk with one hand while yer typing with the other hand! Damn sap gettin' all over the place...

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:*Old Man Rant* by CodeMonky · · Score: 5, Funny

      You jus' TRY cranking the disk with one hand while yer typing with the other hand! Damn sap gettin' all over the place... I'm quite skilled at this actually. Oh you said cranking the DISK. Nevermind.

      --
      --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    8. Re:*Old Man Rant* by lostboy2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh. I still have my old "portable" (size of a suitcase) Zenith with TWO 5-1/4" floppy drives (no HD). TWO! No more swapping floppies when you want to run a program *and* save something, or when you want to copy a file from one floppy to another. L33T!

      "When I was a kid, we didn't have 'L33t'. All we had was 'Cool', and we were damned glad to have it!"

    9. Re:*Old Man Rant* by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would have gotten a ride, if we had a car. I didn't live far enought from school for the cold-weather bus to pick us up, either.

      I remember one really bad cold snap when it got to -72 F. I saw an arc of golden-yellow ice coming out of a snowbank. It took me a few minutes to realize that what I was seeing was dog pee that had frozen in mid air.

      I do not miss that kind of cold at all!

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    10. Re:*Old Man Rant* by bmwm3nut · · Score: 3, Funny

      is that -40F or -40C :)

    11. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my day we had to walk to school barefoot uphill both ways. We did wrap Barbed-Wire around our feet for traction. Wanna know what we et bak den?

    12. Re:*Old Man Rant* by z_gringo · · Score: 2

      When I was a kid, we had to crawl for miles on our hands and knees over hot coals in the freezing rain jus to stand in line to pay $1000 to rent disk space on a 5Mb drive......

      --
      -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
    13. Re:*Old Man Rant* by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2
      That's nothing my first computer didn't have any permanent storage at all. Switch it off and you lost everything.

      (Ok, technically it was a pocket calculator ;-), but it was a turing complete, programmable pocket calculator: ti-58)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    14. Re:*Old Man Rant* by katarac · · Score: 1

      "Oh, the teleporter is too slow? We had to drive for an hour in a car!"

      Reminds me of the comedian Dane Cook. paraphrase - "In the year 3000 everything will be instant. But the DMV will still take, like, nine seconds. 'NINE SECONDS, C'MON!!! I GOTTA BE AT WORK IN THREE SECONDS!!'"

    15. Re:*Old Man Rant* by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      "Oh, the teleporter is too slow? We had to drive for an hour in a car!"

      sister mariam has something to say about your bulk matter transporter. er,I mean teleporter.

    16. Re:*Old Man Rant* by DemiKnute · · Score: 1

      "When I was a kid, we didn't have 'L33t'. All we had was 'Cool', and we were damned glad to have it!"

      I thought I was getting up there, but damn, you are old. When I was a kid, we didn't have 'L33t', but at least we did have 'kewl'.

      I remember being suprised that the 100mb HD on my 386 filled up that fast.

      --
      .
    17. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      You had wooden disks?? We had to chisel stone slabs! And without a hammer!! ;-)

    18. Re:*Old Man Rant* by dheltzel · · Score: 1

      So, it was your generation that used up all the vowels! Luckily, we will soon be opening up new vowel fileds for domestic drilling! The future lokks so much brighter for our kids! Dennis (oops, I think I'm over my vow3l qv0tz f0r th3 dzy!

    19. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was your age I had to get up to change the channel.

    20. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Jardine · · Score: 1

      You mean this?

      And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever, leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair?

      -- Sister Miriam Godwinson,
      "We Must Dissent"

      Yay for Alpha Centauri!

    21. Re:*Old Man Rant* by themadpoet00 · · Score: 1

      duuuude, I remember those! I had one when I was 10 or 12... and I'm only 18. methinks I be a bit behind the times here.

    22. Re:*Old Man Rant* by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

      And my mom still has a typewriter with no one ("1")key, just a lowercase L ("l"). She got it in college and, yes, she couldn't afford a "1" key. One of my first programming jobs was fixing a mailing address database that had some, but not all, the "1"s in the street numbers and zip codes represented as "l".

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    23. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, WIMP. I grew up in Montreal. That was summer weather.

    24. Re:*Old Man Rant* by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      ... one really bad cold snap when it got to -72 F.

      You must have lived in the Interior. On the Arctic coast, it usually ran about -30F and a 30knot wind. I can remember walking home from the BIA school in Unalakleet in a whiteout, looking up at the power lines to find my way. There was a road, with a ditch, but it was so drifted over that I couldn't tell where it went by feel. The snow was blowing along the ground, so I couldn't see anything horizontally, but I could see the sky, sort of.

    25. Re:*Old Man Rant* by archen · · Score: 1

      More like "When I was your age _I_ was the remote control".
      "Kid, change the chanel" Anyone remember that? Now that we have remote controls and automatic car washes, there really just aren't any good reasons to have kids.

    26. Re:*Old Man Rant* by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      I presume that's a joke from somebody who knows that they're equal?

      But it's pretty cold to sleep out on the ice in, I seem to remember...

    27. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the damn breeders keep pumpin' 'em out like there's no tomorrow, overpopulating the world so there'll really be no tomorrow...

    28. Re:*Old Man Rant* by zrk · · Score: 2

      Stone Slabs? Oh please! For our long term storage, we had to make marks in wet clay and wait for the clay to dry in the afternoon sun. Not only that, we were always worried that herds of wooly mammoths would wander by and stomp all over our data warehouse!

    29. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we worked with ferro-magnetic drives" dam dude all we had were sticks and some stones... my how times have changed !!

    30. Re:*Old Man Rant* by jemenake · · Score: 1
      What what pointless rants are we going to fling at our grandkids?
      Actually, I recently pondered why my generation (GenX) is so aware of how dumb "Old Man Rants" are... aware enough that we probably won't ever do them in earnest.

      What I concluded was that, it wasn't so much that my generation was *aware* of how dumb they are as much as it was that the previous generation was *un*aware. This, I concluded, must be because they were never on the receiving end of these kinds of rants.

      Think about it for a moment. Recently, technology has been advancing at such an incredible rate that it drastically changes the life experiences of adjacent generations. For example, when I was growing up, the first remote control we had was a *sonic* one... with little internal hammers that would impact round aluminum bars and make certain frequencies of "pings". One generation later, we've got touch-screen LCD remotes whose buttons reconfigure themselves depending upon what device you're controlling.

      But it wasn't always this way. For example, it was hundreds of years between major advancements in something so crucial as maritime navigation... things like the compass... a reliable time-piece... the telescope... the sextant. Several generations would live and die between these major advancements.

      So, I've concluded that there just wasn't all that much different between generations back then... not enough stuff that made the next generation's life easier enough to make the previous generation bitter about it. I kind of imagine that the best rant they could come up with would be stuff like:

      "When I was your age, we didn't HAVE maple axe handles.... we had OAK ones... and we were THANKFUL, DAMMIT!"

      Just doesn't have the same ring to it... so I figured the old dudes just didn't bother. So, our parents never really got the overdose of "we were thankful" rants to realize how silly they sound.

      Oh, and... next time one of your folks springs the "When I was your age, we didn't have..." line on you, just say "The *reason* you didn't have it was because of the depression... which is because you guys made the stock market tank... which was due to, in today's parlance, 'irrational exuberance'. So, you brought it on yourself... ya old fart!".
    31. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I still have my old "portable" (size of a suitcase) teletype!

    32. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Piker...[g] During the Great Winter of 1969, I walked to school in temps that reached -72F (*before* wind chill factor). In Montana, there IS no temp below which one may stay home from school!!

      And when I was a boy, we had to carve our own PCs out of wood! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    33. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Hmmph. All *we* had was I, V, X, L, C, and M. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:*Old Man Rant* by Tim+Browse · · Score: 2

      Couldn't afford a "1" key? Most typewriters just didn't have them - I don't think it was a cost issue, inasmuch as you could get one with a 1 key if you paid enough, but I could be wrong.

      I think it was the norm rather than just poor students who couldn't afford one.

      It's cool to use it as a way of seeing how people learned to type though - for example, before I disabled Jon Katz's articles, I used to notice things like "the l980s" a fair bit from him.

      Tim

    35. Re:*Old Man Rant* by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 2
      Many if not most manual typewriters didn't have one, I'm sure. Mom's didn't. The electric Brother I learned to type on had a 1, as did my Dad's office's IBM Selectric. I still love the Selectric and if I had to have a typewriter (and could afford it), that would be the one.

      But the last time I had to use a typewriter, I shamed myself with how thoroughly computers had spoiled me by having a backspace key.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    36. Re:*Old Man Rant* by PsychoElf · · Score: 1

      haha, thats great. I actually have an antique typewriter that i got from my grandma that doesn't have a 1 key. I was looking at that qwerty setup and thought "wtf, the 1 isnt on here anywere"

  9. Wookie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Hard Drives Size Increased by m.e.l.l.e.n.t.i.n.e · · Score: 0, Funny

    I doubt anyone else noticed this- but today is the first day where mass storage is available (according to pricewatch). There are several stores now selling 12GB hard drives models for only $250 shipped. This is truly an amazing milestone for those of us who ran out of space downloading Yanni mp3s. I just can't wait for the days when hard drives are replaced by women. Pretty women.

    --

    Producer: NEXT!!
    Ralph Wiggum: Chicken necks
  11. Future slashdot headlines by guido1 · · Score: 1

    Processors are getting faster! Recent chips hit speeds of 1Ghz!

    Microsoft still not releasing source code!

    This isn't really new, nor is it news...

    1. Re:Future slashdot headlines by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      it's friday afternoon, lighten up. a few more hours and you can go crack open the ice cold refreshment and be done till the dreaded monday rolls back around again. 63 Hours away from the display, away from flurescent humm, and away from $1/1GB HDD stories.

      lighten up. go re-read that BarMonkey story...

    2. Re:Future slashdot headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. Problem is, most of these nerds actually read this website over the weekend too. Pisses me off. Sometimes a story gets posted Friday night (and you know they're all reading then) and it's something I might have a good insightful comment for. But by the time I get to work Monday morning, it's way too late and nobody'll read my great comment way down at the bottom of an old story. Dumbasses, take the damn weekend off and go learn how to get some tail!

  12. it's all relative by jpsst34 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB.


    And at the same time, our storage needs are 2^10 times as large due to 10^3 more data, 10^3 more illicit mp3's, 10^3 more pr0n, 10^3 more overhead in a microsoft binary document format, etc., etc., etc.

    --
    How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    1. Re:it's all relative by aaandre · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the MP3s. By that time we'll be living in a pay-per-view, pay-per-listen and pay-per-breath economy.

      Cheers

    2. Re:it's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as someone here once pointed out... after all that data...

      your life's work can easily fit on a single CDR.

      us humans are pitiful wasters of eraseable/resueable magnetic media!

    3. Re:it's all relative by Duds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but we may have reached a slight plateau.

      Sound files are not getting much bigger per minute. Totally uncompressed audio is no more than 5MB/min tops in a format like shn.

      Video isn't going to get a heck of a lot bigger than DVD-Video sizes.

      I mean, the 40MB drive I had just over a decade ago, no music, no video. And that's what's driving it.

      Unless someone finds a huge new use for space (delete microsoft joke) then maybe it'll at least slow.

      course it won't stop immediately. But Music, then Video drove expansion in size. What NEW is coming along to do that?

    4. Re:it's all relative by damiam · · Score: 1

      Virtual reality.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:it's all relative by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      3D video. I don't know if it's progressing or not, but it's about the only think I can think of that will have any signifigant increase in storeage requirements (other than more pictures/music/video, of course).

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    6. Re:it's all relative by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      But Music, then Video drove expansion in size. What NEW is coming along to do that?

      Umm, how about 3d worlds ? Right now, your average FPS fits on a cd and looks like a warped cartoon. What will happen when people expect all the characters to be totally lifelike ? At the very least, you will need a lot of high resolution textures for every nook and cranny.

      There's also the possibility of raw HDTV... but I'm sure that a broadcast flag will stop us from ever doing anything with that (chuckle).

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    7. Re:it's all relative by prockcore · · Score: 2

      And at the same time, our storage needs are 2^10 times as large due to 10^3 more data, 10^3 more illicit mp3's, 10^3 more pr0n, 10^3 more overhead in a microsoft binary document format,

      Speaking of overhead.. doesn't it take more overhead to type 10^3 instead of simply typing 1000?

    8. Re:it's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Sound files are not getting much bigger per minute. Totally uncompressed audio is no more than 5MB/min tops in a format like shn.

      Maybe so, but only for CD quality audio. What about when 96 khz, 24-bit becomes the standard? Or even more? I'm not one of those wackos that claims to hear the difference between this a CD quality, but it is useful in some applications, especially sound editing and processing. I forget what specs SACD and DVD Audio use, but they're already more than CD quality.

      Video isn't going to get a heck of a lot bigger than DVD-Video sizes.

      Ha! What about fully uncompressed (or losslessly compressed) video? At DVD resolution, that's about 13 gigs per hour. What about HDTV resolution? That's well over 70 gigs per hour uncompressed. What about higher resolutions? What about higher color fidelity (48 bpp instead of 24)?

      Man, I'm glad the world isn't completely full of self-limiting thinkers like you. You sound like that famous quote (whoever said it, Bill Gates, or not): "Nobody will ever need more than 640k." If the world only had people like you, we'd still be in the dark ages!

    9. Re:it's all relative by Duds · · Score: 2

      Although raw HDTV is going to need a lot more reliable speed.

      You're talking a steady 20MB/sec which is asking quite a lot of your average 5400rpm drive (which is what most of the big ones are)

    10. Re:it's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, almost forgot - what about surround sound audio? 6 channels at 96k/24b is about 10 times the size of CD audio right there. Point is, plenty of room for growth in both areas you pointed out. And let's not even get started on applications that are just over the horizon, or maybe haven't even been thought of yet!

    11. Re:it's all relative by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

      Totally uncompressed audio is no more than
      5MB/min tops in a format like shn.


      SHN is compressed audio--it's just that the compression is lossless. The upper end of consumer-quality digital audio is somewhere around 24-bit samples at 48kHz -- that would be around 8.4MB/min per channel, so I predict stereo sound files will slowly get larger and larger until they hit about 18MB/min, surround-sound files potentially three times that.

      Video isn't going to get a heck of a lot bigger than DVD-Video sizes.

      Not yet, it won't. But soon (within 5 years I'd bet), it will. DVD-Video uses lossy MPEG compression and has a maximum resolution less than the display on your computer. Uncompressed 1040i HDTV data streams are FREAGIN HUUUGE.

    12. Re:it's all relative by Duds · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I should have used "lossless" rather than "uncompressed"

      Oh and I'm assuming a lot of the video growth is offset by an improvement in lossless video codec's compression.

    13. Re:it's all relative by jpsst34 · · Score: 1

      Nah. I was just trying to show off my smarts that 10^3 is roughly the same as 2^10. Four years of engineering school, and all I have to show for it is a crummy t-shirt, trite knowledge, and /. karma.

      --
      How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    14. Re:it's all relative by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes and No.

      HDTV will require larger file space plus 100 Gigs is still only about 50 Hours of Video or less.

    15. Re:it's all relative by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      You're actually under the reality for the size of a video at DVD quality. 720*480 pixels make 345600 pixels. at 3 bytes/pixels, it just makes 1036800 (1MB) for one image. Then you have 30 images per second, which makes a second 30MB, a minute 1.8GB, an hour 105GB.

      Ooops, lots of needs for HDD free space here!

    16. Re:it's all relative by keez · · Score: 1
      > 3D video.



      Indeed. Working with modern fMRI equipment at Stanford's hospital labs, we generate over 6 GB of voxel data per patient, for just 10x10 mm progressive scans at a resolution of about 1.5 mm. Three dimensional video, as long as it's voxel- and not vector-based, will present significant data storage challenges.

    17. Re:it's all relative by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Sound files are not getting much bigger per minute. Totally uncompressed audio is no more than 5MB/min tops in a format like shn.


      Well, that's debatable. There's some buzz about using AC3 for audio, which means files will AT LEAST DOUBLE if that happens. Personally, I've been waiting for some time to see studios figure out that they could sell albums with each track seperate, provide a default mixer setting for each song, but allow consumers to mix it as they like. Now that could put sound up into the order of 10x the size of current audio. Then there's always higher sampling rates, which could further increase the size. Still, the size of audio doesn't worry me.

      Video isn't going to get a heck of a lot bigger than DVD-Video sizes.

      WHAT?!!! That couldn't be more wrong. Video is going to do nothing but get more huge. Right now, DVDs are digitized and seriously compressed, which means people like me can see tons of artifacts in any DVD... "Stair-effect" on straight lines, "rainbow" discoloration of small objects with different colors in close vicinity... And more and more and more. You really shouldn't have gotten me started on this rant :-). I have yet to watch a LaserDisc, but the fact that it is not digital makes them sound perfect... The fact that they aren't going to be around much longer doesn't make them sound very good, but better than being distracted by MPEG-2 artifiacts everywhere.

      Then, when video-size sky-rockets, they will also provide more angles, possibly even 3-D video, which will seriously increase the need for more storage.

      Storage isn't as cramped as it used to be, but we continue to use it for much much more, which means the drive for bigger storage isn't stopping for a long time still.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:it's all relative by Duds · · Score: 2

      Yes personal insults. Very classy.

      We should be looking to save space rather than rely on HD growth. The best non-lossy compression should be worth a hunt.

    19. Re:it's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      artificial intelligence applications and databases, of course.

      let's say, something that is a replacement "drone" for a human worker will have to store terabytes of "common-sense" information we take for granted.

      games especially will get more and more involving and intelligent. will need a lot of memory and processor speed than we have or will be provide for many years to come.

    20. Re:it's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding me... it's so obvious...

      transcribed DNA of out pets and loved ones so the rayleans (sp?) can clone on demand! Just hit "print" ...

  13. been this way a while.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, its been this way for quite some time. Doubtful if you noticed tho.

  14. Now if only they were as reliable... by evilpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd applaud this too, if only the reliability weren't going down faster than the price. Hell, I'll sell you a 5-inch-footprint hunk of metal that won't work for just $50. I'll even stamp 50TB on it.

    So, in other words, I agree that it is a milestone, but I think they are already pushing the technology and cutting QA corners to get the price point. I will always either pay more for my drives, or by about 20% lower capacity than the biggest cheap drives (usually the latter, because I'm cheap, cheap, cheap!). That way I seem to avoid the semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild ritual.

    1. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I haven't had any more trouble with HDDs I've bought in the last couple of years than I ever have.

      Mayhaps you are exaggerating, or perhaps your semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild is caused by another problem?

      Frankly, I'd rather spend 120$ for a 1 year warranty drive than 500$ for a 3 year one. Simple math shows it to be cost-effective.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by SquadBoy · · Score: 2

      Has it ever occured to you that cheap stuff is cheap for a reason and that if you bought quality up front you would have fewer problems and save money in the long run? I have had no more problems recently that at any other time in the past 20 years.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    3. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2
      I agree. Between 1998 and 2000 I as worked as a tech at a local college. We had over 1,000 workstations and plenty of servers over the three campuses that I worked at. I can count on one hand how many hard drives we had crash or develop bad sectors during that time. Boy was such a thing rare back then.

      In the past year, I must have came across 5 or 6 crashed hard drives - all the "latest and greatest".

    4. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That really depends on how much your time is worth to you, doesn't it.

      If the joy in your life comes from tracking down all the mp3s you just lost fom the 120gig hard drive crash, then rebuild every year.

    5. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      That's what I said. I don't buy cheap for work, but I buy cheap for home (because money is my most valuable resource), so when I buy, I buy well back from the bleeding edge on price. I'm saying it seems you can get higher quality by either spending more money in toto (same capacity, higher price), or my spending more money per gigabyte (lower capacity, same price). I tend to do the former at work, the latter at home.

    6. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

      That way I seem to avoid the semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild ritual.

      But what you fail to realize is that if you have to buy two new hard drives a year, you're doing exactly what the manufacturer's want! Buy the drives with longer warranties and then send them back; make the manufacturer's pay for their own poor quality.

    7. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by lostchicken · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Would you pay twice as much for the same capacity? If so, then get two, big, cheap drives, and use mirroring RAID. You get much faster data rates, and you have backups.

      Best of both worlds...

      --
      -twb
    8. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Cyno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's something I've learned about PC hardware. You must plan for failure. That's what RAID and backups are for. I've been buying harddrives for $1/GB for over a year now. I buy the cheapest drives I can find, 80GB Seagates, and use a few 100-200GB drives to build a RAID. The Seagates work well in swapable drive bays and have been very stable. I had one problem and it was only a missing pin, no data loss or corruption. But then again none of the data I store of them is important by itself.

      The best technology today IMO is a few cheap 1394 controllers, some 1394->IDE converters and the cheapest $/GB drives you can find. Build a RAID, probably in a custom case with like 8 or 12 5.25" drive bays, use swapable IDE enclosures and have the box email you when the logs show a drive is about to fail. It might cost a little initially but it is mostly fault tolerant and dirt cheap in the long run.

    9. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Khomar · · Score: 1

      This problem makes me sometimes wonder if Microsoft and the hard disk manufacturers really are working together. Not only does Microsoft's software consume more and more disk space, but their new licensing schemes require you to purchase additional licenses after one two many hardware replacements. This is bad enough when you want to upgrade your computer. It is downright disgusting when you have to repurchase Windows XP because your hard drive crashed!

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    10. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by jridley · · Score: 2

      This all depends on how far back you go. If you compare to the MFM ST506 drives of the late 80's, today's drives are really very reliable. If you compare to the Seagate 1/2 height MFM's of that era, they're god-like reliable; some models of those damn things had a half life of about 60 days. We had a case of 20MB drives from Seagate (case = 20 drives); yes, half of them were dead within 60 days, some within 2 or 3 days.

      Even the more reliable ones, such as Micropolis or Miniscribe, weren't as good as today's Maxtor drives, certainly not as good as today's Seagates. (Seagate has, happily, turned around and started making generally good drives).

    11. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is something you can only say if the data is not valuable to you.

      In a business, saving $140 over three years for choosing the cheaper drive is going to make you look very stupid when that drive fails.

      One single extra day of lost work for one single employee might very well cost more than what you saved.

      Simple maths? I don't think so.

    12. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you put the dollar signs after the numbers?

    13. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by klparrot · · Score: 2, Informative
      You get much faster data rates

      With RAID 1 (mirroring), your write rate is no faster; if anything, it's slightly slower. But you're right when it comes to read performance; it can be up to twice as fast, with the two drives behaving like a stripe set.

    14. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      RAID

      Cheap drives mean the home user can afford it now. That's real data protection.

      I'll take 2 120 giggers for 240$ in a RAID 1 array over 1 240$ drive any day of the week.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    15. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But what you fail to realize is that if you have to buy two new hard drives a year, you're doing exactly what the manufacturer's want! Buy the drives with longer warranties and then send them back; make the manufacturer's pay for their own poor quality.

      Here, let me help you standardize on the way you pluralize words:

      But what you fail to realize is that if you have to buy two new hard drive's a year, you're doing exactly what the manufacturer's want! Buy the drive's with longer warrantie's and then send them back; make the manufacturer's pay for their own poor quality.

      You're very welcome.

    16. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      You seem to be of the 'more expensive = more reliable' school of thought.

      RAID

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    17. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by malarkey · · Score: 1
      I'll sell you a 5-inch- footprint hunk of metal that won't work for just $50. I'll even stamp 50TB on it.

      Reminds me of:

      "Hey I tell you what, you could get a good look at
      a butchers ass by sticking you're head up there...but wouldnt you rather take his word for it?"

      ---Tommy Boy, 1995

    18. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by ErikZ · · Score: 2


      That quote is horribly mangled.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    19. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by GauteL · · Score: 2

      There is normally a reason why drives have a 1 year warranty instead of a 3 year warranty.

      Yes, RAID will help you improve your reliability a lot, but there are plenty of businesses where RAID really isn't the right solution. Besides, the cost of the drives is not at all the only cost involved here either.

      My point is that this is NOT simple maths. If a drive costs $500 and has a mean time between failure of 4 years, it is often a much better solution than a $100 drive with 1.5 years of mean time between failure.

      The warranty the company offers is of course not necessarily equivalent with reliability but it can be an indication.

    20. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      MTBF ratings have gone up, not down, on consumer level drives, though.

      Any business that risks crucial data on the basis of a statistic like MTBF deserves what's coming to them.

      There is no substitute for a sound backup policy and/or RAID arrays.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    21. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, I hate to be a pain but, you get what you build for. From the samsung website the reliability data doesn't look that bad.

      Non-recoverable Read Error : 1 sector in 10 14 bits

      MTBF 500,000 POH

      Start/Stop Cycles (Ambient) 50,000

      Component Design Life 5 years

      So, a 5 disk RAID 4 array of these drives will hav a fatal disk failure every 11 years? That's what RAID is for, putting that many eggs in a non-redundant basket is your own fault.

    22. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by ottffssent · · Score: 2

      Simple maths? Yup.

      It doesn't matter a whit what the warranty period is if your only concern is data integrity. The hard drive *will* fail. It *will* fail at the least opportune time. It *will* take your data with it. What'cha gonna do about it? RAID of course. And if you've got the choice between 3 drives at $500 each or 7 drives at $140 each + RAID controller (RAID10 with hot spare), and you choose the $500 drives, you're fired.

      Putting your data in only one place is *never* the right way if it's at all important to you. Your data goes in one place so you can work on it. It goes in another place so the hardware can fail (redundancy to protect against a dead HD). It goes in a third place so the people can fail (Oops! I deleted a file three weeks ago and just noticed!). It goes in a fourth place so reality can fail (lightning, flood, etc.). And if you're paranoid, it goes in a fifth place in case something unforseen happens.

      Yes, it will cost you at least $500 for as much storage space as you could get for that $140, but that doesn't mean buying a $500 hard drive in the first place is the right answer.

    23. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by JoeBuck · · Score: 2

      Right, but you can assemble a bunch of those cheap disks into a RAID structure, and have complete reliability even in the presence of disk failures.

    24. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      Seagate made good drives back then also.

      The 20GB 5.25" 1/2 height drive was a disaster. I worked in a clone shop in those days & half the drives I pulled from stock failed, with a good number failing before the customer even took the machine home (burn-in was usually ~1 day).

      However, the 20GB 3.5" drive was faster (40ms vs 65ms average seek) and I never had one fail. It was more expensive and one of the first drives in that form factor.

      I had few failures with the 40GB 5.25" 1/2 heights . The 30GB RLLs failed completely less often than the 20GB MFMs, but had horrible data corruption problems.

      My favorite drives were the 40GB full-height drives. They used some kind of linear actuator instead of a swing-arm for the heads & shook the whole bench when running seek tests. Start-up currents are instructive (12V supply): 4A for the ST4051 full-height 5.25", 2.4A for the ST225 1/2 height 5.25" and 2A for the ST125 1/2 height 3.5".

      Anyone know if the 20GB MFM coincided with a new factory opening in Singapore?

      This post on the Classic Computing mailing list has more.

      Also search for segate st225 quality at Google...

    25. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by LookSharp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      use mirroring RAID. You get much faster data rates, and you have backups.

      No, you have redundancy. Backups are the thing you do twice every night and take offsite to different, hazard-proof locations with physical security.

      Right?!?

    26. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Andrewkov · · Score: 1
      That's something I've learned about PC hardware. You must plan for failure.

      Every sysadmin should do this .. Too many people think about "if it crashes" not "when it crashes". If your server's HD died today, what shape would you be in? That's the first thing you should ask yourself when thinking about your backup strategy... Trust me, I learned that the hard way!! LOL!

    27. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Blkdeath · · Score: 2
      You seem to be of the 'more expensive = more reliable' school of thought.

      Actually, following the thread it appeared as if he was talking about paying extra for triple the warranty, rather than opting for "cheaper is better" and sticking with a 1 year warranty.

      Frankly, if I'm managing 1000 workstations, I want to know that 2 years and 8 months from now I can ship them 200 defective drives and have replacements shipped back to me post haste. The data protection is my responsibility; not having to needlessly purchase replacement drives due to manufacturer defects (or overstated MTBFs) is just being responsible.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    28. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "...and have the box email you when the logs show a drive is about to fail."

      Out of interest (sorry if it's offtopic), how do you setup logs to tell you if a hard-disk is about to fail?

    29. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, MS OS's aren't coming close to consuming the 120GBs that todays drives are at. Redhat 8 was what, 3 or 4 CDs for the install? (and 2 or 3 others for source) Maybe they're in on it also!

      Second, you do not have to re-purchase, you just have to give a call to their office. The number pops up to call, it's toll free. Don't take their anti-piracy measures as a method to make money, they're not.

      Posting this type of dribble and misunderstandings (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not say lies) here will in no way turn anyone off from Microsoft. They make you look either childish, dumb, or, at worst, both, because we all know better.

      And please don't take this as an MS apologist, just a linux user who thinks linux is better on technical merits alone, and that FUD, intentional or not, hurts more then it helps.

    30. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

      All my personal documents and the like fit nicely on one CD for me at home.
      I go through about 12 CDs when I back up my MP3s though. This is about an annual or semi-annual ritual I do. Mostly to back up my e-mail.

      IMarv

    31. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought was prepared. I had an on-line backup that was automatically updated nightly. And then the on-line backup failed the day after the server failed. Doh! Right after I switched over to it.

      Now the on-line backup is a different brand.

    32. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...I would say that calculating the cost based on MTBF is pretty damn simple math.

      "Two plus two is four. Two plus two is four." -- Barney

    33. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1
      How are you going to get much faster data rates with 2 drives in a mirrored RAID?

      Maybe you're thinking of RAID 5 where you need 4 drives (I think) to get both redundancy and performance.

    34. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      I think the recent rash of specific drive makes/models being defective has caused most of this perception.

      We had the IBM Deskstar (Deathstar?) fiasco, for example - followed by the news about Fujitsu drives failing due to faulty capacitors used on their boards.

      Western Digital has had their share of questionable drives too. (I bought a couple of the 100 gig. WD1000BB drives recently. One was DOA, and the other developed errors after only 3 months of use. A friend of mine had similar problems with one he bought, too, from a completely different vendor at a different time.) Then, their decision to charge extra for the 3 year warranty (except for the 8MB cache "special edition" models) just adds the appearance that they're not confident about the reliability of their products.

    35. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what I want, more hard drives making noise. How about I just keep the one drive and get a howler monkey to go with it.

    36. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by markrages · · Score: 1

      The technology is called S.M.A.R.T. That stands for Some Stupid Cutesy Ancronym.

      Fow UNIX, you want to use smartd, which is part of smartmontools

      S.M.A.R.T. is pretty good at detecting normal failures. It is no help for when Windows decides to chkdsk your > 137GB partition and scribbles garbage all over the disk.

    37. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... by Cyno · · Score: 2

      Great idea! Use the monkey for backups!

  15. sorry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it seems as though this should've been expected, as in, not really news. disk space has been getting cheaper since its creation.

    sorry if i'm trolling.

    1. Re:sorry.. by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      it's still news when it happens though regardless of expectation of "new". At least in my eyes :)

  16. HDD cheap, but what about Sun servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a good, cheap Sun server (preferable rackmount) that I could pick up used for a good price and put in my basement rac?

    1. Re:HDD cheap, but what about Sun servers by PD · · Score: 1
    2. Re:HDD cheap, but what about Sun servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it is cheap now, but the E250s tend to go for >500, by thetime the auction closes... Think those are worth it?

    3. Re:HDD cheap, but what about Sun servers by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      netra's are cheap even when relativly new, so are used ultra 2's (ultra 2's really just sit in the shelf on the racks rather being truly rackmounted). If not ebay - check out some sun resellers of used sun boxes - sunresale.com is the only I can think of off the top of my head, but there are lots of them around

  17. MrByte420: This is your life - hard drive wise by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

    My dad who works in IT always likes to tell the story of the $25,000 his company spent in the 80's for a 400 meg hard drive the size of a dishwasher
    I remember my first hard drive, an RLL ST238 30 megger from seagate. Anyone else remeber having to do this? The drive came with a list of bad sectors and then you had to load up dos debug in an effort to run the program which came on your drive controler which you could then use to enter the bad sector list and low-level format the drive. That was something like $230 in '88 or so.....

    My new shiney 160gig maxtor was a measly $180 bucks and I'm sure I'm gonna feel really ripped off in about 10 years.....

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    1. Re:MrByte420: This is your life - hard drive wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My daddy can kick your daddys ass. Cuz he aint no pussy IT worker.

    2. Re:MrByte420: This is your life - hard drive wise by satsuke · · Score: 2

      For that old ST-238R . do you mean going into the only accessable bios on an XT by doing this in debug

      g=c800:5

      As previously said .. the drives are huge and cheap .. and if only because our data needs are that much more.

      If it gets to cheap than the market may very well dry up so that only OEMs get that cheap a price.

      Think of it this way, if the drives at retail have so little markup as to be useless to even sell it.

      Most people out there use the stock drives for they're machine .. if only because the MSIE cache is large but not the entire drive ..

      (and here I am with 290 gigs online with a desktop) .. I remember 5 years ago using Novell 4.1 where we gave people 10 megs of space and expected them to get by with it ..

    3. Re:MrByte420: This is your life - hard drive wise by spongman · · Score: 2
      400Mb? the backup PDP-11/43 that i got to sysadmin at school had two 20Mb dishwashers. I remember one day one of the drives crashed and when the Digital tech guy came round and pulled the dead disk pack out (2 large platters in a plastic case) he showed us the large circular-arc scratch in the disk's surface where the head had touched down.

      anyone else here remember RSTS/E?

    4. Re:MrByte420: This is your life - hard drive wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember!? I still know several folks using it in production!

  18. I've been there. by watchmaker1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    June, 1987. Graduated from high school, got a huge stack of cash as gifts.

    Bought an Atari SH204 20meg hard drive for my beloved 520ST, $985.

    Inside was the circuitry to make the atari interface speak MFM/RLL, and a full height 5.25" Rodime 20meg hard drive. 65ms seek time.

    If I've done my math right, that's $50,432 per gig.

    1. Re:I've been there. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      For some of us, it's still 1987. I have an SH204 for my 1024STfm. But I'm trying to get scsi working on the atari interface, so I can use some real storage...

    2. Re:I've been there. by kaphka · · Score: 1

      What did you plan on doing with an Atari ST and a 20 MB HD that was worth $985?

      That's not a troll, I'm sincerely curious.

      --

      MSK

    3. Re:I've been there. by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2

      What couldn't you do? No one needs more than 640k of memory, after all.

    4. Re:I've been there. by Junnonen · · Score: 1

      I guess in 1987 an Atari ST could do anything that PC could - and probably even more.

      But harddrives weren't that pricey for the PC, if I remember correctly..

    5. Re:I've been there. by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2
      The 'ST' series was a serious little computer for its day. It certainly didn't pack the bang of Amiga, but for the price you couldn't beat it.

      We certainly packed a bunch onto our 20meg ST HD -- games, music mixing software, spreadsheet data, etc.

      The ST really excelled with the first two; I believe many game companies used Atari as the primary development platform and actually ported to PC and Amiga _later_. (Dungeon Master and Sundog come to mind, as well as Sierra for a while I think) As for music, I believe it was the first consumer-affordable computer to come with built-in MIDI support, so there was a ton of music software written. IIRC, some famous musician still uses his ST because he hasn't seen anything better on modern Windows boxen. (can't remember who it is).

      To a great extent, tho', the average Atari ST buyer probably wasn't much different than your avg slashdotter--someone who enjoyed using the computer for the computer's sake, not just as a work tool or communication device. Before the rise of the Web, who remembers demon dialing their favorite BBS for 3 hours? ;-)

    6. Re:I've been there. by deathcow · · Score: 3, Funny

      >What did you plan on doing with an Atari ST and
      > a 20 MB HD that was worth $985?

      > That's not a troll, I'm sincerely curious.

      I had this drive also. You do the typical -- you pack the thing with 256 color dithered porn and warez that fit on (3) 720k floppies.

  19. Those were the days by mmoncur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, this is amazing if you've been around for a while.

    My first hard drive was 105MB (that's mega, not giga) and cost $600. Of course, that included the SCSI interface for the Atari ST I was hooking it to.

    The big question is where the lower-capacity drives are going. It seems like a decent drive always costs about $100 - and the amount you get for your $100 keeps increasing - but where are all of the 40GB drives that should be floating around for $40 apiece?

    --

    It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
    1. Re:Those were the days by cdipierr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't exist anymore because there's no money in it for the manufacturers. The costs to create a 40GB drive (not to mention packaging and shipping) is likely only a few $$$ less than producing a 120GB drive. Since the 120 sells for twice as much, it obviously makes sense to promote those.

      With that said, you can still get 20, 30 & 40 GB drives w/o much of a problem, just not at $1/GB.

    2. Re:Those were the days by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much of the price of the drive is independent of capacity. The additional platters and heads for high-capacity drives are significant, but so are the electronics and motors that are identical in 40G and 250G drives.

      Hence, the cheapest $/byte drives to manufacture are the highest capacity drives. However the highest capacity drives are often sold at a premium, leaving the best price point somewhere in the middle.

    3. Re:Those were the days by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They stop producing them as demand dries up. If their production line is churning out 40 gig platters, the drives are built with 40 gig platters. If they had to open a new factory every time they want to make a bigger platter, they wouldnt be 1$/gig - and legacy drives would cost just as much to make as ever.

      It's like chip fabs - where are the new 486dx's for me to build cheap routers out of?

      Newer XBoxes are shipping with 20gig drives, even though they only partition and use 8. 8 gig drives just dont exist, 20 gigs is the cheapest option.

      Now quit fighting progress. I like my 120 giggers.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:Those were the days by jim3e8 · · Score: 1

      Prices are so low due to mass production. As the older drives get phased out, their prices increase. You can see the same thing happen with old processors. If demand were high enough, old drives might be updated with new technology and produced with new processes.

      But price doesn't necessarily scale linearly, either. Even if demand for old drives did increase, and manufacturers used current technology to build them, some parts of the manufacturing process remain the same. So there are still fixed costs. Usually it's just not worth it.

    5. Re:Those were the days by spongman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the first hard drive i ever used was about 7Mb. It was connected to an Acorn BBC-B with a weird interface that made the disk look like 70 floppy-sized partitions that you could switch between using a custom command. I think that was around 1988.

    6. Re:Those were the days by image · · Score: 2

      > The big question is where the lower-capacity drives are going. It seems like a decent drive always costs about $100 - and the amount you get for your $100 keeps increasing - but where are all of the 40GB drives that should be floating around for $40 apiece?

      The answer is that it is competition, largely, that drives the price down (mostly due to technology advances that introduce higher capacity drives). Not a reduced cost of manufacturing.

      For example, it would cost a fortune to manufacture the 5MB IBM RAMAC 350 (as referenced in an earlier post), even today. Certainly not the fraction of a cent that the question would imply.

    7. Re:Those were the days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's easy: they're all sitting at the bottom of my file cabinet

    8. Re:Those were the days by Migrant+Programmer · · Score: 1

      where are the new 486dx's for me to build cheap routers out of?

      Right here.

    9. Re:Those were the days by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      reminds me of the old 20mb western digital one I still have sitting in my basement. Those were the days - where when it went bad - you mailed it back - they fixed it, stamped on the outer casing which blocks were bad, and mailed it back. I still keep that thing beacuse its hysterical to look at (has about 1/2 the capacity of it marked as bad)

    10. Re:Those were the days by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Do they still produce them, or is that just legacy data on the site? If you click "where to buy" you get a 404.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    11. Re:Those were the days by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

      My first HD was a 10MB on my pc then I got a 20MB drive. THEN I got a big 100MB HD full size 5" drive, never managed to fill it up. And of course it had to be partitioned in several volumes since DOS didn't support a 100MB drive. Ah those were the days.

      --
      my sig
    12. Re:Those were the days by itsnotthenetwork · · Score: 1

      Well in my day we didn't have any new fangled hard drives, we had to make do with our 5 1/4" 720K floppy drives... and we were dang glad to have that. We were so poor we had to eat dirt.

    13. Re:Those were the days by tadheckaman · · Score: 1

      It's like chip fabs - where are the new 486dx's for me to build cheap routers out of? http://www.ebay.com

      --
      My potato gun was confiscated by the United Nations. They said I wasn't allowed to have weapons of mash destruction.
    14. Re:Those were the days by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Umm unless you were tweaking drives were :

      3.5" : 720k single density, 1.44M double density
      5.25" : 180k single side single density, 360k double sided single density, and 1.2M double sided double density.

      Not too many people were using 720k 5.25" drives :p

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    15. Re:Those were the days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh yeah? The first hard drive I ever used was a large circular stone tablet with concentric cavities chiseled into it such that you could place and remove pebbles in each cavity to switch a bit on or off. I think that was round 3177 B.C.

    16. Re:Those were the days by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      If they're still available, I doubt that Intel actually does the fabbing... although there's a remote possibility that they do.

      Most likely, however, they have some other small chip fab do it for them. The technology needed to fab a 486 is archaic now, and the equipment is available cheaply (cheap to a fab that is... maybe half a million for a PVD instead of $25M for the latest .09 micron PVD... the savings in the photo stage should be even more extravagent) since few people want to buy the machines. Intel probably won't spare the fab space for such a low volume product, but there's a bunch of small fabs out there that would happily enter into a licensing deal.

      Of course, even if you manage to get a new 486 chip, you need a MB and memory for it too... and the PS connectors on old MBs are the old AT style, not the newer ATX. Fun fun!

    17. Re:Those were the days by Duds · · Score: 2

      Which is actually quite clever.

      Because in those days, all you really wanted the HD for was to avoid swapping disks.

      So you had your 100 discs and it was like having a very quick 100 disc multichanger.

      Somehow thinking about it like that was more impressive than "Here's 7MB"

    18. Re:Those were the days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These same fabs are still producing 486-like devices, or were shutdown. In IC manufacturing, there normally is just one generation of technology that you can upgrade to. After that, it is better to build a new fab from scratch.

    19. Re:Those were the days by benzapp · · Score: 2

      1988? Where have you been? Typically I wouldn't respond but considering a lot of youngins have moderator access today...

      This guy probably meant 1978, who knows.

      What I can tell you is I had a 386 25 with a meg of ram and a 20 megabyte hard drive in 1988. MS-DOS 2.0 added support for hard drives. Even the original IBM AT had a hard drive as an option.

      I even had 3.5 inch diskettes in 1988! amazing!

      OS/2 1.0 was released the previous year, and it REQUIRED a hard drive.

      So, this poster hopefully made a mistak otherwise... he needs to see a doctor. His memory is failing.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    20. Re:Those were the days by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Went to the computer swap meet last weekend. The SMALLEST drive I could find was 80gb. Not that I could complain, since it was a W.D. just old enough to still have the 3 year warranty, and I was looking for a reliable backup drive. (Tho given how junk fills the space allotted, I think it's likely gonna supplement yonder 40g instead. *sigh*)

      120gb seems to be the current standard; it's all the retail stores around here carry now.

      Far cry from the days of squeezing the last few bytes out of 360k floppies :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  20. "Fast" Hard Drives by m.e.l.l.e.n.t.i.n.e · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone actually go look at the drive listed? It's a 5400 rpm drive. My grandma can remember information faster than that.

    --

    Producer: NEXT!!
    Ralph Wiggum: Chicken necks
    1. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by Bake · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, uhm...

      Are you really going to store all your pr0n at your grandma's?

    2. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat offtopic, but does anyone know (both anecdotal and statistical evidence accepted :) if 5400 RPM drives are more reliable than 7200 RPM drives?

    3. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Grandma, detailing the pr0n mellentine had her memorize with her oh-so-fast memory:

      No wonder you're upset. She's lovely. And a darling figure...supple, pouting breasts...firm thighs. It's a shame you two don't get along.

      -Hanging Lady, Airplane, played by Ann Nelson

    4. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by geoffeg · · Score: 2

      Well it's perfectly fine for many uses. For instance, to store my music. Reading an mp3 off a drive doesn't require a lot of speed and if a 5400RPM drive is cheaper than a 7200RPM drive, I'll be quite happy with it. Besides, I RAID 1 any drives I get since most of them don't seem to last more than a year or two now. RAID 1 gives you an instant read speed gain, although it doesn't help your write speed.

      It utterly amazes me how a company can release a product like this and not really expect it to last more than a few years. Ahh, for the old days where people built stuff to last.

      Geoffeg

    5. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by dasunt · · Score: 2

      m.e.l.l.e.n.t.i.n.e writes:
      Did anyone actually go look at the drive listed? It's a 5400 rpm drive. My grandma can remember information faster than that.

      It doesn't matter. There is only a certain speed that we can read off of magnetic medium. Sure, 7200 would result in faster seek times, but assuming that I have a relatively defragmented 120 GB drive where I'm streaming large amounts of data off of (say, mp3's or video), I shouldn't see that much of a performance hit. On the other hand, 7200rpm drives take more energy then 5400 rpms drives (since they spin faster), and more energy means more heat. Now, considering the price, potential use, and heat issues, the 5400rpm drive might be more effective.

    6. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you really going to store all your pr0n at your grandma's?

      Nah, see .. it's his grandma's porn collection.

    7. Re:"Fast" Hard Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you'd notice the difference.

  21. Prices have dropped - speed almost the same by teutonic_leech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well yes, the prices have dropped immensly indeed - however it might be worth considering that the basic concept of physical storage has not changed a bit. We are able to squeeze more bits into each square millimeter, but access speed has maybe changed by a factor of 50 or so (I'm guessing here, so please correct me). At the same time, processor speeds have aptly doubled in speed every 18 months or so.
    I do appreciate cheap mass storage on my desktop, don't get me wrong, but I really long for things like static memory or holographic storage devices. And the use of spinning copper disks is not exactly power efficient either - so on the laptop front, new storage technologies could make a big difference.

    1. Re:Prices have dropped - speed almost the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Access time has improved by a factor of about 22,500 since the introduction of the Winchester drive. Transfer speed by a factor of about 2,000.

    2. Re:Prices have dropped - speed almost the same by Jordy · · Score: 2

      The original buffered Seagate drive, the ST-412, made in the early 80's had an average seek time of just 85 ms.

      However, you have to realize something. Since the drive was only 10 megabytes, there were only 1,224 tracks and seeking was a whole lot easier.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
  22. 200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 2

    at MicroCenter, for about a month already. Other than that - yes, it is an important milestone. I'm still waiting for another one: Solid State Memory, Compact Flash format (as the least expensive) - 1GB for $100. Any takes when it happens? So far the best price I've been seeing (also at MicroCenter) is 512MB CF card for about $160 (after rebates).

    1. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by shess · · Score: 1

      Right now, you can get a SimpleTech 512MB type-I at Dell for $125 after rebates and coupons.

      What's really going to drive this is the fact that more manufacturers are starting to announce 1Gig cards.

    2. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by afidel · · Score: 1

      better price at Digi4me.com, $139 shipped, no rebate needed.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's my question.. SDRAM is cheap as it gets.

      So why can't I have a couple gigs of that in my system instead of a paging file on the hard drive?

      512 megs of primary system ram (DDR333) and 2 gigs of secondary (PC133/100/66). That'd be a huge performance boost over swapping to that ridiculous spinning piece of magnetic media.

      Stick 2 gigs of it on a PCI card - present it to the system like a secondary IDE controller (like disk-on-chip), just configure OS of choice to use it.

      ?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by karlandtanya · · Score: 2
      You can use chips to emulate a disk to emulate chips.

      Or you can just put 1G of ECC SDRAM in your machine and don't configure a swap partition at all. Been doin that for months. Those apps that really think they need a temp dir just use one. I've never seen my memory usage get anywhere near to full. The cached usage eventually gets full & stays that way, but you want that.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    5. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      But I cant use SDRAM at all. My shiny new P4 rig only has slots/support for DDR. I know some mobos can support both, but even then it's an either/or situation.

      I don't want to give up the performance of my DDR or the cost-effective size of SDRAM. I want the best of both worlds.

      What's the barrier to a setup like I proposed? It's a tiered memory structure anyways, cache-RAM-HDD.. So why not Cache-Faster RAM-Slower (cheaper) RAM-HDD? Or, cache-Fast RAM-Slow RAM Emulating HDD

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    6. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > better price at Digi4me.com, $139 shipped

      I don't see any hard drives offered for sale there.

    7. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by default+luser · · Score: 2, Informative

      SOUNDS like a great idea to have a Flash long-term storage paired with a DRAM Ramdrive. But then, most of you don't know how slowly flash reads and writes compared to standard DRAM, or even a hard disk.

      Typical read speeds for Flash top out at 4MB/s
      Typical write speeds top out at 2.5MB/s

      These numbers are about 10x slower than performance drives of today. Sure, you could have a nice 1GB DRAM drive containing your OS, backed up by a Flash bank. But the damn thing would take 4 minutes to boot, copying the image from the Flash to the DRAM. Set-top devices don't have the overhead of having to run programs, the OS and all applicable pieces are tucked away in 16 or 32MB of Flash, and obviously that doesn't translate well when you have something more complex like a full-featured computer.

      Speculative saves to the Flash would cut down on the power-down time and reduce the chance of information loss, but writing to the Flash thousands of times a day is not good for it. You'd have to be sure to exclude caches from the speculative saves.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    8. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was in response to the parent comment talking about 512MB CF cards for $169

    9. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no barrier, I've seen several PCI cards that do this with SDRAM. Google turned up platypustechnology.com first. The first consumer retailer for it I see is selling up to 8gb cards. I've seen other models in hardcore hardware reviews.

    10. Re:200GB WD drive for $200 after rebates ... by tf23 · · Score: 2

      For anyone intrested in this - it's true. I just went to my local microcenter and bought one.

      But if you are thinking about buying a few of them w/ an ide raid card to make a big, cost-effective raid array, think again.

      According to the rebate:

      "Offer is limited to one rebate per customer/name/address" :(

      I was considering buying 3 of them and creating a raid5 setup with them.

  23. Pricewatch by crow · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure that this is the second time this has happened. The first time it was the 80G drives for under $80. However, that was back when Pricewatch didn't include shipping in the price.

    What's even more interesting is when the best $/byte drive changes to a higher capacity. Currently you pay a big premium for your storage if you go with something larger than 120GB. With the recent addition of 250G drives, it might not be long before 160G drives take over the best price per byte spot.

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

      250 gigs my butt. Maxtor has a drive that holds 300 gigabytes, the MaXLine II. I haven't a clue what they charge, but I'll bet it aint't cheap. By the way, that property you're talking about also applies to CPUs. They have a certain point where the bang-for-buck ratio heads down the toilet as well.

  24. Re:error You idiot by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

    And
    1 TB = 1 GB * 1000
    There's no math like slashdot math.

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
  25. $1/TB? by SuperDuG · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What the? Why on earth would you need that much harddrive spacee to justify $1/TB??

    Attention: Please Stand Up, Power Computer Down and Walk Away. Thank You.

    Even if you ripped DVD's into VOB's ... you'd still need to rip over 100 to justify even 1 TB, and who the hell rips to just vob, that's like ripping to wav with a CD, you just don't do it.

    Even with 4.7 gig DVD Burners, the days of multi terrabyte storage systems for the home is a little further off. Unless someone comes out with more justification for that much space (like a TiVO that can record 100 channels at the same time??)

    Lets face it, the mp3 and other multimedia files has justified multi gig harddrives. Plus games that take up 600 megs a pop aren't exactly hurting the old cause. There's going to need to be justification for multi TB drives if they ever want to sell, well ... duh :-)

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to backup Kazaa network, you'll need a few thousand dollars. 6 Months ago it was around 2000TB.

    2. Re:$1/TB? by MadBurner · · Score: 1

      I store movies on hard drive space and serve them out to the rest of the machines on my network. it's sweet. Gimme more SPACE!

    3. Re:$1/TB? by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Informative


      the days of multi terrabyte storage systems for the home is a little further off. Unless someone comes out with more justification for that much space

      When virtual reality (fully 3d, immersed environments) start to appear and be used in the home, there'll be a need for this kind of storage. Combined with processor advances to do the massive crunches needed for such an interface/game/devetool/whatever... the average home user will finally have the ability to experience it.

      Given the advances in OS engineering, i'd put the initial uses of this (at home) in six years or less.

      I don't think we'll be at $1/TB for a decade though (10 years ago we were at $1000/GB). And I agree, we don't need storage space to be *quite* that low for VR itself to take off.

      IMHO.

    4. Re:$1/TB? by 1984 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're quite right. 640KB should be enough for anybody.

    5. Re:$1/TB? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Any why, oh why, would you EVER need more than 640kb?

      I believe that was the justification for the dos conventional memory limit that haunted me for years...I'm going to tell you right now, if I'm ever haunted by a similar limit regarding hard drive space, I'll blame YOU! :)

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    6. Re:$1/TB? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Hmm, how about HD DVD and Tivo, that's about 20Mb/s or 7.2GB/hour so it's not THAT outrageous. I figure data doubles every year, so while we need ~4TB of storage for just under 200 employees or 20GB/person now in about 6 years we wil need 1TB per person. Sure at some point it will slow down, but with normal people taking up things like PVR's, huge megapixel digital cameras and eventually HD digital camcorders etc the data will expand to fill the storage space.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:$1/TB? by Nemith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the? Why on earth would you need that much harddrive spacee to justify $1/TB??

      I totaly agree, actualy 640K is enough for anybody.

      Lets face it, we will store more and more information in the future. Our divx rips will be higher quality, 6.1 surround. Our mp3/oggs will be 6.1 sound ripped fro sacd's or audio dvds.

      It has been a growing trend that as time progreses so does storage capacities and if this continues we will have multi-TB drives.

      Talk to a man 10 or even 5 years ago about getting a 100-gigabyte drive and they'll think your nuts! Expecially for $1/GB!

      My $.02

    8. Re:$1/TB? by phreaknb · · Score: 1

      "you'd still need to rip over 100 to justify even 1 TB, and who the hell rips to just vob"

      DVD's ripped to VOB are around 6gigs each, not 1gig. I have DivX that are over 1 gig. And I rip to VOB sometimes thank you very much.

    9. Re:$1/TB? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Well... I'll bet my post i redundant, but wth...

      Yeah, and 1985 noone would *never ever* need a 1 GB drive.
      What could you possibly use 1 *GIG* for?
      Even 100MB would be ridiculously large for a home user!

      I'll bet that when you try to rip your superhighresolution movie, Terminator 7, you'll be glad you had those 500GB free on you 10TB drive.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    10. Re:$1/TB? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I remember using similar arguments in 1985 when I decided on the 10 MB Hyperdrive for my Mac, for $1500, instead of the 20 MB model for $2000.


      I have no idea why anyone would ever need a TB drive at home...but if it comes down to betting, I'll bet with history, and bet they will.

    11. Re:$1/TB? by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if you ripped DVD's into VOB's ... you'd still need to rip over 100 to justify even 1 TB

      Did you know that DVDs only have a resolution of 720x400 (16:9 proportions) and that the maximum resolution of HDTV is 1920x1080?

      Thats 7.2 times as many pixels.....and we are still talking compressed data here (VOB is MPEG encoded).

      If in the future we switch to uncompressed data (which would be a good thing) we are definately going to need TB drives.

      And what if the industry decides to move to 60fps instead of the traditional 24fps for film and 30fps for TV? Double the frames, double the data.

      Trust me, we'll need it.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    12. Re:$1/TB? by SuperDuG · · Score: 2
      replying to my own post ... ugh ...

      those who have taken the time to reply without reading, and you're Not AC's so I'm going to take the time to reply here instead of to each of you individually.

      What the? Why on earth would you need that much harddrive spacee to justify $1/TB??

      Infering that for a meere $100 you could have 100 TB's which seems actually quite absurd at this moment in time. I didn't say that it would be impossible to fill a TB, but it would be damn hard to fill 100 TB right now. I'm not quite sure 100 TB's is fillable (is that a word) right now as far as speeds of download and what not. I think even planet mirror only has a few TB's on their entire server.

      Bandwidth, backup media, etc will have to get this high as well. So I meant MULTIPLE TERRABYTE drives, not a couple terrabytes, lots of terrabytes.

      --
      Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    13. Re:$1/TB? by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1
      "Even with 4.7 gig DVD Burners, the days of multi terrabyte storage systems for the home is a little further off. Unless someone comes out with more justification for that much space (like a TiVO that can record 100 channels at the same time??)"

      Or a TiVO that records HDTV, which they just announced as scheduled to be available by the end of this year.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    14. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but your post is ridiculous considering people already use terrabytes worth of data.

      FYI, the government has multi-terrabyte raid arrays. As an example of why, think of intelligence gathering. There is a lot of data being collected.

      Besides the enormous databases used, it is not uncommon to dump entire servers worth of information to a disk. Also think about real-time data collected from simulation equipment.

      No, I'm not being some kinda paranoid freak by saying, "the government."

    15. Re:$1/TB? by Megane · · Score: 2
      I have maybe as much as half a terabyte of anime fansubs that I've accumulated over the past two years, most from Usenet, some from F2F trading. I've got a dual-120G RAID to store the "current" stuff that I can download to (takes about 15 sec. each) and watch on the Winderz box in the living room. That's a quarter of a terabyte, and I usually leave it within a few megs of being full. And it's all stuff that I have another copy of somewhere else so I don't have to make backups of the damn thing.

      For yardstick comparison, one "full season" of anime (26 episodes) in DivX format usually takes up around 3.5-4.5GB on average at the most common resolution and compression level.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    16. Re:$1/TB? by rthille · · Score: 2


      Yeah, and 640GB should be enough for anyone...

      Ripping to VOBs makes more sense than ripping to WAV, since VOBs are already lossyly compressed and decompressing and recompressing even more lossy makes the quality even worse. If I wanted VHS quality, I'd use VHS...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    17. Re:$1/TB? by crow · · Score: 1

      Just a nitpick, but uncompressed data is not a good thing. Using lossless compression may well be, but in many cases a fast CPU can uncompress fast enough to make the data access faster when using compressed storage than uncompressed.

      And even if you're using lossless compression, doubling the frame rate will hardly double the data. Imagine, for example, computing the added frame by interpolating from the prior and next frame, and then only storing the differences. The point is that doubling the frame rate doesn't double the real information, as it reduces the typical difference between frames.

      But your point is valid; 20G/hour for video and sound is not unreasonable. That's 50 hours/TB. A 10TB drive would give you a 500 hour ReplayTV; right at what people at the high end are upgrading to now.

    18. Re:$1/TB? by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      Your post is very short-sighted. First, you talk about ripping to lossless, easy-to-decode formats as if that's a silly thing to do. Hell, if the disk space is cheap enough why not take some load off your CPU and use the disk.

      Second, you talk about a hundred DVDs as if that is a lot. But if you wanted to record all of the television that you watch over the course of a year so you can go back and relive that year's TV in the future, it would take more than 100DVDs worth of space. More to the point, we are moving to a time where we will all just have all of the songs, TV shows and movies of all time on all of our local hard drives. It makes no sense (technically, economics may disagree) to depend on a remote server hundreds of miles away when you could have a local cache of _everything_. I expect some will use their 120TB drives to ensure that every piece of data that crosses my Ethernet cable is cached on the local side so I have my own Internet WayBack machine.

      And then there are the games. Games of the future will probably feature massive amounts of real-time video and incredibly detailed 3D models. The Sims Online is a primitive preview (and takes more than a GB of disk space).

      We will find ways to use more and more disk space. 120TB will seem constraining at some point. Of cours we'll need either higher bandwidth or bigger disks to DISTRIBUTE the data that will fill those drives!

    19. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahem.

      100 times 10(gig) (max size) = 1 TB.

      You're welcome.

    20. Re:$1/TB? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe in 10 years its supposed to be Jaws 17, at least according to Back to the Future II. They better get started on Jaws 4!

    21. Re:$1/TB? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2

      Oh, shut up. I heard this same argument in 1983 and again in 1993, referring to kilobytes and megabytes. There will come a time soon where we don't have to compress things in order to digitize them. As soon as that happens, $1/GB will be expensive.

      Consider. 1 second of video at 720x480x32bitx24fps is 31 megs. A DVD squashes it down, lossy, to less than a meg. I don't know if you've noticed, but DVDs suck. They're better than VHS, but they're still low res for getting zooms and projecting onto big TVs. That's a terrible resolution for still images...my camera is 2058x1800, pushing 3 meg COMPRESSED per photo. Uncompressed they're 17 meg each. A CD's only 640 meg, but an SACD is HUGE. Not to mention all the space it'll require for the complicated logic and relational databases we'll need for adaptive intelligence systems that can actually beat me in UT. Half the time.

      Last I checked, games were stepping in with 2 and 3 gig footprints. Even the SIMS is over 2 gig with all the packages installed. And these games are relatively simple compared to the really interesting, multi-billion texel per object 3d we'd need to accurately model the world we live in.

      The only thing holding us back from REALLY storing life, uncompressed, on our systems, is the prevalence of big fast hard drives. We'll hit $1/TB soon...by my count, around 2013...and you'll be complaining about the $1/Exabyte dream because your PLD crystaline cube grower can store 200 TB XML databases in 13 nanoseconds...

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    22. Re:$1/TB? by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Well, let's see. First, ripping DVD to VOB isn't the same as ripping CD to WAV, since the DVD is compressed to begin with and the CD isn't. From there, I know ever people who have 100 DVDs or more (doesn't have to be illegal, thanks to box sets and directors cuts and the fact that even buying individually, 100 DVDs is only a $1500-$2000 investment). As for games, 600MB is svelte. I don't know games that come on one disk anymore. UT2003 has a 2GB install, and even a 2D RPG like Icewind Dale is 700MB+ Then throw in Windows XP and it's 1GB+ minimum install, and even 1TB is starting to seem small.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    23. Re:$1/TB? by mcg1969 · · Score: 2

      and who the hell rips to just vob, that's like ripping to wav with a CD, you just don't do it.

      What in the world are you talking about? People rip CDs uncompressed, and leave them that way, all the time. You may not have heard of people doing it. And there are darn good reasons for it, too.

      Lossy compression always compromises sound quality. If you want it to be inaudible for most material, then with LAME's --preset settings for MP3 and Ogg's high -q levels, you can get, oh, a 5:1-6:1 compression ratio without a problem.

      But no encoder is perfect. So every once in awhile, a musical passage will fool the psychoacoustic algorithms in the compressor, and suddently you've introduced an audible, undesirable sonic artifact. Personally, I don't want to have to audition every single one of my CDs after I rip them to make sure that hasn't happened. So my only choice is to use even less compression, say 4:1.

      Lossless compression, on the other hand, does not change the sound quality at all, and provides compression ratios of about 2:1. (OK, that is a bit optimistic). This is certainly the safest compression choice, because you can be sure that every CD you rip will be free of compression artifacts.

      So now let's add things up. Let's say I have 100GB of raw, uncompressed music. Here's what I need in each case:
      6:1 -- 17GB
      4:1 -- 25GB
      2:1 -- 50GB
      That's really not that much of a difference if you consider how fast hard drive capacity is increasing. My gosh, for the same price, we can get three times the disk space in, say, about a year. So if you don't have the money for lossless compression now, wait a year and you will. In fact, wait 15 months and you won't even have to bother with compression at all.

      For me, the savings in both CPU time and personal hassle make the idea of waiting for the disk space more than worthwhile, and let me assure you that many people share my reasoning. In fact, some people store a highly compressed MP3/Ogg version of their music alongside an uncompressed version. That way, they can use the compressed version in their favorite portable/car player, while keeping the uncompressed versionl around for home use and/or backups in case they want to re-encode their music with the newest compressor in the future.

      Ripping DVDs can follow the same logic, but it's even more clear to me. First of all, DVDs are already heavily compressed; yes, you can do better with MPEG4, but not that much better if your purpose is to avoid any visual quality reduction. Secondly, in truth the best way to save space is to rip out the portions of the material that you'll never use: the alternate audio tracks (foreign languages, commentaries, etc.), maybe the special features, etc. But that's a manpower-intensive task! Think about how easy it is to just rip a DVD to the VOBs, or even easier just rip an ISO of it, and be done with it.

      Again, because disk space per dollar is dropping so fast, it doesn't take long for it to make economical sense, if you value your time and effort, not to bother with significant compression or reduction.

    24. Re:$1/TB? by bokmann · · Score: 2

      I bet between the video tapes, CD's, DVD, and hell, even vinyl albums I own (I AM 33, after all), I bet I have several terabytes of data if it were all digital instead of this rotting analog stuff I have. If I still had every paper I had ever written for school, the games I used to play, etc, I bet it would be huge. (I actually DO have some old high school papers, but I don't have any way to read 5 1/4 inch Apple ][ appleworks data anymore... but open file formats like OpenOffice has probably solved that problem for me...)

    25. Re:$1/TB? by plaxion · · Score: 1

      In a word... pr0n!!!! ;)

    26. Re:$1/TB? by p4 · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to totally attack your argument. I agree that terabyte drives would be a great thing, and I hope to seem them in a couple years. However, your examples are pretty flawed.

      If in the future we switch to uncompressed data (which would be a good thing) we are definately going to need TB drives.
      In nearly all cases, data compression is a good thing. Over the past few years, data compression has only gotten better, with MPEG, MP3, and OGG formats. Unless you're producing video, there's no reason to go with uncompressed formats.

      And what if the industry decides to move to 60fps instead of the traditional 24fps for film and 30fps for TV? Double the frames, double the data.
      The human eye can only see around 10-15 images a second. There's really no reason to go with a higher frame rate than what is currently used. I believe the reason TVs use 30fps (NTSC) and 25fps (PAL) is simply an easy rate to generate given the 60Hz/50Hz alternating current that's standard in most countries. There's really no reason anyone would ever want to use a higher frame rate.

    27. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work with radar data. We can digitise 8-bit samples at 2ns. Currently we have a digital signal averager to get the data down to a managable size, but there are some trade offs. We'd like to be able to store all the samples. That would be 1.8TB an hour.

    28. Re:$1/TB? by Cyclone66 · · Score: 2

      And 640k of memory out to be enough for anybody!

    29. Re:$1/TB? by LookSharp · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why anyone would ever need a TB drive at home...

      I save almost everything I collect. Most of it is archive, but I currently have 8 Maxtor 120GB IDE drives in a RAID5 array, at 60% utilization.

      This includes spidered caches of many websites, every email that I have received since the tragic formatting of my 230 meg hard drive in 1994, high-resolution copies of every digital photo I have ever taken or scanned, the usual downloads and media archives.

      At my current rate of consumption, I expect to be using "online media" capacity of over 2TB in 3 years.

      And I am a home user who can't really afford drives, even at a buck a gig.

      Granted, my offline backups of "urgent" data only includes about 10 gigs, but I am really quite attached to my data. It's almost like a sickness.

    30. Re:$1/TB? by jaysones · · Score: 1

      Be careful saying things like this. You might get quoted on /. in the future. "Nobody will ever need more than 640 Kb RAM."

    31. Re:$1/TB? by Kiwi · · Score: 2
      we will all just have all of the songs, TV shows and movies of all time on all of our local hard drives

      My question is this: How will people get paid to make songs, TV shows and movies?

      I will give you this much: With current technology, we can feasibly have talented musicians come up with business models which allow them to give their music away; multitracking and samplers allows one talented musician to record all of the parts of a song; computer technology makes a good multitrack studio cost about $1000 these days, as opposed to the approximate $10,000 cost ten years ago, and the $100,000 cost 25 years ago [1]. So, for people who enjoy the kind of music a single musician working hard can record in their basement, there will probably be enough such musicians giving away their music to make enjoying music for free feasible.

      In fact, I have found a lot of really good music on mp3.com. The main problem is separating the wheat from the chaff; then again, I don't like most music the radios play.

      This does not address the issue of making TV Shows and Movies. To make a TV show or movie, one needs actors, sets, filimg crews, and sound crews. It may be possible, in the future, to have programs which use a computer to simulate acors, sets, etc. via computer models. It will only be possible to make affoordible video content when we have this kind of technological leap.

      What a lot of people on Slashdot seem to be incapable of understanding is that it costs real money to make compelling audio-video content. They think that movies magically appear out of thin air, and at zero cost. In the viewpoint, the MPAA exists only to make something expensive something which should be, by all rights, free. I wish such people were right; unfortunatly, currentl technology does not allow such content to be made for free.

      Anyway, enough of my anti-piracy rant. There are a lot of things which are legitimate content which such a huge hard disk creates. A mirror of all of the music at mp3.com and any other musician giving away their music is a start. And, of course, a mirror of all free software ever made.

      - Sam

      [1] A "good multitrack studio" is defined as 16 or more tracks. The first revolution was the Fostex B-16, which came out in 1983 or 1984, and allowed 16-track recording to cost under $20,000 for the full studio (multitrack, mixer, microphones, instruments, outboard FX). The second revolution was the Alesis ADAT, from 1992, which allowed a 16-track studio which wasn't hissy as all get out to be available for under $15,000 or so. The third revolution is affordable computer-based multitracking; one can, these days, get a 16-track stand-along unit (which is a full studio, just add mics and instruments) for about $1000, or get multitracking software a good good sound card for a similiar price point.

      --

      The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    32. Re:$1/TB? by anonymous+loser · · Score: 2

      Many businesses generate terabytes of data every day. It's just that a lot of that data isn't stored permanently for future reference. Of course, there are some businesses who store massive amounts of data even now. A.C. Nielson, a market research company, basically stores EVERY transaction on EVERY point-of-sale system in their network, for products that they are tracking (which they track easily over 10,000 products). This comes out to rougly 10GB of data per product, or over 100TB of data.

    33. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you didn't get a Jasmine.

    34. Re:$1/TB? by phreaknb · · Score: 1

      wow dont i feel stupid. no wonder math is my worst class

    35. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can the get the file over to a modern computer, then you can make use of the emulation scene to modernize your Apple ][-era AppleWorks data.

    36. Re:$1/TB? by mehrar · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why anyone would ever need a TB drive at home...but if it comes down to betting, I'll bet with history, and bet they will.

      Easy. Digital video.

      1TB = 500 hours of MPEG2 video.
      1TB = 100 hours of HiDef video.
      Avg TV viewing in UK approx 3hr/day/per-person = 90 hrs/month

      Even with improved CODECs (H.264/MPEG4(part 10)) will improve the compressions by a factor of 2 to 3 for the same quality. It's deminishing returns after that for newer CODECs -- so far it usually been cheaper just to add a bigger disk.

      Dish Networks demo'ed a dual tuner HiDef integrated PVR at CES which has 250GB of disk and that's targeted for this year...

      I can see myself watching all my TV through a PVR and keeping favorite film/series on tap on a big disk.

      --- Rahul.

    37. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why don't you calculate the bitrate of uncompressed 1080i HDTV [video only] at 24 bits of color /NTSC?
      1920H x 1080V x 3bits/pixel x 29.97frames/sec = 186MB/second
      Your MASSIVE 200GB drive will get used up in a little under TWO MINUTES. And to store two hours of it will take around 1.4TB.

      So I definitely see a need for these larger and faster HDs!

    38. Re:$1/TB? by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      if there's no reason to not use higher frame rates, than why do monitors run at 60+ Hz? Personally, I notice enough monitor flicker at anything less than 72Hz that it becomes annoying.

      And yes, I do produce video...untill final output production I typically use a sequence of TIFF or Targa files, one file per frame.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    39. Re:$1/TB? by CaseyB · · Score: 2
      and who the hell rips to just vob, that's like ripping to wav with a CD, you just don't do it.

      Bad analogy. VOBs are already compressed, and compressing any more degrades the quality significantly. You can compress CDs to high-bitrate MP3s without losing much, but the jump down to Divx is pretty nasty. Once people have the space for VOBs, they will use them instead.

    40. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the not-too-distant future, Next Sunday AD...

      Hard drives will store an exabyte. Don't even bother thinking of what that stores... But I can give you an example. 1080p uncompressed 16bits per channel video and six channels of uncompressed 24/96 audio... And this amount of storage will yield two million hours of such video. Uncompressed. Just think about it. The operational life of a human being rarely exceeds 1 million hours (That's 114 years). The oldest person ever known to live died after 122 years.

      Based on my not-worth-a-grain of salt analysis, this will happen somewhere between 2026 and 2030.

      I think the future will have high resolution video cameras (2-4 megapixel, sort of like the rig George Lucas used for the second Star Wars film) - CHEAP - with more than enough hard drive space to store a few dozen vacations. You'll just attach the camera to the computer with some high-speed serial cable like USB or FireWire and editing will be crisp and smooth. (Now if only they could get the autofocus to stop malfunctioning...)

      The other big thing is going to be backups. They'll be more important than ever. I'm certain someone will figure out some good way to automate backups that's no longer inconvenient to the user.

    41. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and a little addendum about the near future:

      The end of THIS YEAR shows the promise of a 750 gigabyte hard drive. My poor analysis shows a relatively consistent pattern of a tenfold increase in hard disk space every four years:

      Dec 1983: 21 megabytes
      May 1988: 250 megabytes
      Jan 1995: 3 gigabytes (Seagate)
      Nov 1997: 17 gigabytes (IBM)
      Nov 11 1998: 25 gigabytes (IBM)
      Oct 18 1999: 75 gigabytes (IBM 72ZX)
      Jul 17 2000: 80 gigabytes (Maxtor DiamondMax 80)
      Nov 14 2001: 180 gigabytes (Seagate Barracuda)
      Sep 13 2002: 200 gigabytes (WDC "Drivezilla")
      Nov 18 2002: 250 gigabytes (Maxtor 250gb retail kit - $399.99)
      Dec 29 2002: 300 gigabytes (Maxtor Maxline II 5A300J0)

      So it almost seems likely that we'll have:
      Dec 2003: 750 gigabyte drives
      Dec 2004: 800 gigabyte drives
      Dec 2005: 1.8terrabyte drives
      Dec 2006: 3 terabyte drives
      Dec 2010: 30 terabyte drives
      Dec 2014: 300 terabyte drives
      Dec 2018: 3 petabyte drives
      Dec 2022: 30 petabytes
      Dec 2026: 300 petabytes
      Dec 2030: 3 exabytes

      Yes, inherently flawed analysis, but it would follow with history.

    42. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, speaking of Jasmine, do you think it's a good name for a skinny black cat with a little bit of white? My wife doesn't really like it but I do. Please advise.

    43. Re:$1/TB? by Airconditioning · · Score: 1

      Virtual Reality? LG can't even sell an Internet Refridgerator, what use can a twenty kilo VR headset be?

    44. Re:$1/TB? by Tarindel · · Score: 1

      When virtual reality (fully 3d, immersed environments) start to appear and be used in the home, there'll be a need for this kind of storage. Combined with processor advances to do the massive crunches needed for such an interface/game/devetool/whatever... the average home user will finally have the ability to experience it.


      And if we're lucky, the porn industry will STILL be the ones pushing the envelope in figuring out how to make new technology marketable. :)
    45. Re:$1/TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, apps needing this kind of storage are going to also need faster I/O by huge leaps and bounds.

      A backup of my old 2.5GB HD used to take about 1 hour. A full backup of my new 80GB HD takes about 8 hours. Just how long do you think it'll take to backup a 100TB HD whose data interface remains the same as our hard drives today?

    46. Re:$1/TB? by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      My question is this: How will people get paid to make songs, TV shows and movies?

      In the 1940s I couldn't have predicted the business models that became viable in the 1950s. Do you really think that if modern technology had existed then the television business would never have been invented? I tend to disagree. I think that the business was built by particular technology and will adapt to whatever technologies come along. I could list a variety of different strategies, including:

      • Pay-to-watch: you have all of the data on your hard drive but you need a decryption key from a remote service.
      • Street-performer's protocol.
      • Delayed release: live broadcasts cost money...delayed ones don't. Watching live broadcasts becomes a social event.
      • Television shows become promos for movies shown in fancy movie houses at $20.00 a pop.
      • Product placements.
      • Comedians (e.g. Seinfeld, Romano) make television shows as promos for their tours -- and pay the cast out of their tour profits.
      • Taxes
      • Bandwidth levies
      • Tips

      I'm not arguing for or against any one of those. I'm making the point that there are a variety of options probably including some that haven't been thought of yet. Have faith in capitalism and ingenuity. We live in a very frightening world if the production of art and entertainment depends upon the largess of jackbooted Senator thugs and a vigilant police force.

    47. Re:$1/TB? by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      you actually can see up to 62.7ish redraws a second, but the real issue with frame rates is synchronization with your eyes.

    48. Re:$1/TB? by colmore · · Score: 2

      Now... wait a minute.

      Just because VR is 3d doesn't mean it will require more memory than a 2d film. A gig or two is a *lot* of coordinates and textures with which to make up a VR environment. Even in the most high-detail modern games, level information only takes up a few megs. To get to the terrabyte sized files you are expecting, the amount of detail *programmed into* these worlds is going to have to increase by a factor of 1 million. This is unlikely since, while computers can improve efficiency, virtual worlds continue to be sculpted largely "by hand" by human artists.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    49. Re:$1/TB? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Maybe YOU can see up to 62.7ish redraws a second, and maybe I can see a little more, don't you think ?

      By the way, I went to one of these experimental theatres where they were having a movie that was 60fps, and I can tell you, you don't feel the difference, you can SEE it!!

    50. Re:$1/TB? by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      Where does this nonsence with only 15 fps/second come from?
      I for one do NOT have any problem with seeing the difference between 25 and 50 frames. I can't be the only one who think that movies look jerky.

      And an other importent thing to remember is that the framerate really SHOULD be equal to(or at least a multiplum of) the refresh rate. For exampel running 35 fps on a 80 Hz display is NOT a good thing, because some frames will be displayed longer then other frames resulting in something really ugly.

      As an analogy:
      There are people who can't tell the difference between a 128bit Mp3 and a cd, but THAT does not mean that Mp3 is cd quality audio. And to make that extream there are people who complain that cd quality is not good enough because they can hear the difference between a cd(16 bit, 44 Khz) and a 24bit 96Khz sample.

      Martin Tilsted

  26. Size doesn't matter by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More and more we are seeing that dependability, reliability, and faster access times are paramount to overall storage capacity of hard disk drives.

    Is a 100GB hard drive even worth $100.00 if it suddently stops spinning or the disk access arm breaks off after two years of use?

    I do appreciate the storage capacities going higher as time progresses, but I do not appreciate the craftsmanship decreasing at such a rapid rate that warranties are now down to a year for your typical drive rather than 10 years as it should be.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:Size doesn't matter by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

      there are very very few items with moving parts that have 10 year warranties. regardless of industry.

    2. Re:Size doesn't matter by Beowulf+Smith · · Score: 1

      Korean cars do ;-P

      --

      The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - Gen George S Patton
    3. Re:Size doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heheh... which "hard drive" are you talking about?

  27. At that price... by core+plexus · · Score: 2
    ...I can afford to replace them yearly, as that is all the warranty you get anymore. There is no excuse for backing up, however.

    Now, what to do with all my 120K to 60 gig hd's?

    Personal Strap-On Aircraft for Auction on eBay Strap on?

    1. Re:At that price... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is no excuse for backing up, however.

      Good point. In fact, wouldn't you have to spend at least *another* $120 just to be able to back that up?

      Almost makes having several, smaller drives seem more practical and reliable.

  28. This is news? by PeterChenoweth · · Score: 1

    Four months ago I bought a 80GB 7200 RPM UDMA Western Digital drive at Best Buy. It was $109 purchase price, but came with a $10 instant rebate and a $25 mail in rebate. I received the rebate check about a month later, bringing the purchase price to $74 plus tax. I have seen similar deals (though not quite as good) since then.

  29. 10 x $100 = TB by boatboy · · Score: 1

    Has anybody out there strapped 10 together for home pc use? A $1000 terabyte isn't too bad. I'm just curious about performance, feasibility, etc.

    1. Re:10 x $100 = TB by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are enough IRQs to do that. Unless use are using Serial ATA or a ATA RAID card.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    2. Re:10 x $100 = TB by linuxkrn · · Score: 1

      SCSI man, SCSI.

      Get 8 per controller, minus one for the controller itself. So get a dual card and have 16 devices (14 usable)

      I've had machines with 24 CDROMs as server. Most I've ever done with SCSI is 12...but then again it's perfect for RAID.

    3. Re:10 x $100 = TB by GiMP · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except you don't find $1/GB on SCSI.. especially not SCA if you plan to hot-swap. I suspect it would be much cheaper to obtain Firewire->IDE adapters which would allow you to hot-swap.

      Of course, Firewire1 isn't fast enough.. you would have to go with Firewire2 for any reasonable ammount of speed. 400Mbps

      120GB * 9 = 1080GB (120GB drives are cheapest)
      $170 * 9 = $1530 ($170 for a 120GB drive and firewire2 enclosure)

      Each Firewire2 bus can do 800Mbps, which is 100MBps.. you would want each drive doing at least 50Mbps, requiring 5 Firewire2 controllers (and associated costs) in your machine... assuming you can FIND Firewire2 controllers (I haven't been able to, other than what is builtin to the new Apple machines). You could go with slower speeds for less money, your choice.

      Of course, as the original poster said.. you can just use IDE.

    4. Re:10 x $100 = TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/ammount of speed\. 400Mbps/amount of speed\./;
      s/50Mbps/50MBps/;

    5. Re:10 x $100 = TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCSI I was 7 devices per channel
      SCSI II and up can do 14 devices per channel....

      And most SCSI drives are II and up... so you only need one channel to do the 14 devices, with 2 channels you can put 28 drives. But make sure you spin them up sequentially or you may blow a few fuses :-)

  30. HDs replaced by women sooner than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    New Scientist just ran an article talking about how bacterial cells can carry a message encoded in DNA, and how this message can survive multiple generations without being changed.

    Apply this technique to human cells ... your woman could be your hard drive! Make love to her, and then insert the FireWire cable to watch your movies!

  31. First Hard Drive by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The first hard drive I bought cost me $500.

    It was a 10 MByte (yes, that's mega) Seagate. Full height 5 1/4 (hint, a CD drive is half height).

    I partitioned it into 4 drives:
    C: 1M - DOS (V 2.0 !)
    D: 4M - Applications
    E: 4M - Data
    F: 1M - Testing

    Mind you after struggling with two 5 1/4 floppy drives, this was heaven.

    I still have it, after all, where could I possibly sell it?

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    1. Re:First Hard Drive by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2

      I remember trying to format one a hard disk, and having to do it in debug. The hard disk had the format program on the drive in one of the sectors, and the idea was that you just loaded up that sector in debug and ran it. It was apparently very common, just I'd never tried or done it before.

    2. Re:First Hard Drive by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      10MB? Heck, my first IBM computer didn't even have a HDD. I farted around with a 286/6 with dual 3.5" floppies.

      I didn't even own a mouse or run a GUI. I ran DOS3.3 and used Telix habitually.

      The 1st HDD I ever purchased was when I "jumped up" to a 486/33 - a WD 1.2GB that cost me $240. I still have the 1.6GB WD sent me when the 1.2GB died 8 months later.

      I also still have the $300 Diamond Viper Riva 16MB AGP video card I bought.

      I still have my old Cyrix P166+. The WD 1.6GB is in my son's computer as the OS drive. It, alas, is about to die -- I can hear the drive power down while the PC is on.

      Overall, that drive has lasted about 9 years. Too bad none of the drives on the market today will last that long..

      I don't know why I still have all this old crap lying around...

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    3. Re:First Hard Drive by Incorrigible · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow.

      [insert My First Computer Was Pathetic And Not As Powerful As Your First Computer comment here]

    4. Re:First Hard Drive by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2

      The first microcomputer hard drive I ever used was 5 megs, and it was on a CP/M 80 system. It was in four partitions as well. No subdirectories, just a "user" nibble to classify the files.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    5. Re:First Hard Drive by be-fan · · Score: 2

      I still have the 210MB WD that came with my Tandy 486 SX/33 which I bought in 1990. I was actually using it as a swap drive (with a 1.2GB WD as the main drive) in the same Tandy (now running as a firewall) until about a year ago. The damn thing (HD, computer and all) is still kicking after 13 years, even though it's spent a significant amount of time sitting unprotected in my garage.!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    6. Re:First Hard Drive by RogerWilco · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are talking about the low level format you could do on MFM and RLL drives, to get the interleave right. This was done by invoking the format program stored in the BIOS of your harddisk controller,
      most of the time it would the code would be at adress C0000 or C8000,
      C0000 = 784kb, thus well above the 640kb DOS used.
      with debug you could start running code at any memory address.
      After IDE and the 286 came along this was no longer necessairy, as the 286 was fast enough to work without interleave, and the harddisk BIOS was no longer a separate BIOS, but you could do your Harddisk settings in the normal BIOS, thus all HD's now ship with an interleave of 1, and you can no longer do a low level format on a drive.

      Adriaan.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    7. Re:First Hard Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      F: 1M - Testing

      ahem.. Testing = pr0n?

    8. Re:First Hard Drive by Creepy · · Score: 2

      > I still have it, after all, where could I possibly sell it?

      OOOOH oooh! - I know! - eBay! There's always a sucker buying junk there!

      oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? :)

    9. Re:First Hard Drive by PW2 · · Score: 1

      They had 486s in 1990?

    10. Re:First Hard Drive by slittle · · Score: 1

      486's were released in '89

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    11. Re:First Hard Drive by RetroGeek · · Score: 2

      you can no longer do a low level format on a drive.

      You can on SCSI drives. Through the SCSI controller BIOS.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    12. Re:First Hard Drive by Reziac · · Score: 2

      [laughing] I went from a word blender with 25k of *linear* memory and a 50 character LED display, to a 2-floppy XT with a 10" Herc mono screen. Man, was that heaven!!

      Linear memory (some sort of NVRAM) was a bitch. As data was typed in, it moved whatever was in memory downhill -- and as memory got fuller, it got slower since there was more to move. By the time it hit 20k or so, you could watch it moving data one character at a time.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:First Hard Drive by colmore · · Score: 2

      I've found that harddrive manufacturers typically distribute low-level format utilities. At least Maxtor does, and it's gotten me out of a serious bind.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    14. Re:First Hard Drive by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      Sort of like a 300 baud MODEM.

      Read the words as it came over the line.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    15. Re:First Hard Drive by Reziac · · Score: 2

      That's about the speed it was when memory was full, yeah... (having experienced 300 baud :) The advantages being the word blender could store up to 6 pages plus 5 templates for up to a month even if powered off, and that I could typo-check and spell-check *before* printing it.

      Still, even a floppy drive seemed blazing-fast by comparsion :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  32. $1 per gigabyte? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if you include the ratio of hard-drive failures into the equasion, wouldn't the cost be about $1.15 per gigabyte?

  33. Not that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With fatwallet I was able to get a 40x lite-on cdrw and a maxtor 80 gig hard drive for $41 after all my rebates came back.

    1. Re:Not that great by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Props to FW, but try finding a screaming deal now. I gotta wait 'til next week to score a 200G @ $1. Sad to say, but the best "hard work" scenereos right now only net about $.80/G after tax, and generally not in the size I want. I agree that any deal greater than $1/gig just hasn't been worth it for the last 2-3 months. Just the same, being able to say "I want this size, I want it now, I don't wanna fool with any stinkin' rebates, coupons or YMMV PMs," and being able to get it _is_ a milestone of sorts.

      Nonetheless, my dream of a DVD server for the 200+ discs I have is still a small dot on my financial horizon. :-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  34. What about regular retail stores? by nolife · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Retail stores are a very good place for HD's. You will often find BestBuy/CompUSA/Staples/CircuitCity/OfficeMax etc will have lower prices on HD's then what is at pricewatch, local computer stores, and even regional computer expos. More then likely you get a retail drive in a box with full warranty (mainly 1 year now) and maybe even a UDMA cable and 5.25 adapters. Most mail ordered I've seen are OEM and 30 days at best. CDRW's are the same way.

    Sometimes you may have to deal with a rebate to get the good deal but at least one of the above retailers has one good deal a week. Not sure if SalesCircular covers all areas of the US but it is a good place to scope out retailers sale prices for a week.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    1. Re:What about regular retail stores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are full of crap.

    2. Re:What about regular retail stores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to mod this comment as Funny, but I'm not sure the meta-mods will understand that.

  35. think $500 for 10 megs was expensive? by weave · · Score: 2
    In 1982, the place I worked bought a 50 meg hard drive (40 megs fixed, 10 meg removable platter) for $30,000 to hook up to a CP/M based network.

    In 1986 I bought an "HD 20 SC" for my Mac Plus for $1,195.

    God you young kids don't know how lucky you are to avoid the dark ages! :)

  36. Soon... by layingMantis · · Score: 1

    every man and woman can travel.........by horseless carriage!!

  37. Re:error by crow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bzzzt.

    You're right that TB is TereByte. However, a TB is the next step up from GB, not the other way around.

    GB=2^30 or 10^9 if you're a lying drive manufacturer
    TB=2^40 or 10^12
    PB=2^50 or 10^15
    EB=2^60 or 10^18

  38. Expands to fill.. by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB.

    Yeah, but by then, Super Windows XP Pro Ultimate Championship Edition will be out, will have backwards compatibility to all prior 8-, 16-, 32-, 64-, and 128-bit architectures, take 8 solar days to load, require 800 terabytes to install, and the neuro-holographic interface will crash regularly, wiping out more data than a human being can process in a lifetime, and throwing people into neural shock. You'll die, but it will be illegal to have any negative feelings towards the occasion, because of the Digital Oblivion Mind-Control Act.

    Linux, of course, will still be around and install fine, but no one will care, because they get an extra 7 updates per second playing the Windows version of Quake 82, so it will still be considered a 'toy' OS.

    Sometimes I scare myself...

    --Dan

    1. Re:Expands to fill.. by Torqued · · Score: 1

      "Super Windows XP Pro Ultimate Championship Edition will be out, will have backwards compatibility to all prior 8-, 16-, 32-, 64-, and 128-bit architectures, take 8 solar days to load, require 800 terabytes to install..."

      Wish I had some mod points.. I got a good laugh out of that one! :D

    2. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Windows is getting better in performance, not worse. As for bloat, run Mozilla.

    3. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was *n?x that encouraged backwards compatability (by the way, even C will no longer work on any system with less than 512 KiB of memory (according to the rationale)).

      Oh, and to answer another post: MB now means 10^6 bytes; we are supposed to say MiB for 2^20 bytes (and similarly for KB/KiB, GB/GiB, TB/TiB, PB/PiB, EB/EiB and the GNU extensions ZB/ZiB and YB/YiB).

      Incidentally, what is a "byte"? For POSIX, a byte means precisely an octet (eight bits); for C a byte means what can be represented as a "char" (even if it is 36 bits wide). It is certainly not true that all machines use an eight-bit byte (some use six, a few use four, seven, nine, ten or twelve and one or two might use stranger sizes). Perhaps disk manufacturers should label disks with either the capacity in bits (eg 960 Gb) or should state the size of the "byte" (eg 120 thousand million octets, or 120 Go where we define "o" to be the symbol for "octet").

    4. Re:Expands to fill.. by peterpi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you measure in dollars-spent-on-space instead of space itself, Windows gets smaller and smaller with every release.

      But you didn't want to hear that.

    5. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you measure in dollars-spent-on-space instead of space itself..."

      And if I measure my weight in seconds instead of pounds I'm really not a fat-ass after all.

    6. Re:Expands to fill.. by BlueMonk · · Score: 1
      Linux, of course, will still be around and install fine, but no one will care, because they get an extra 7 updates per second playing the Windows version of Quake 82, so it will still be considered a 'toy' OS.


      Not to mention as many Kernel updates per second due to the neuro-enhanced kernel developers and the massive neuro-integrated source code control system networking the brains of 2^13 Slashdot geeks directly to the kernel.
    7. Re:Expands to fill.. by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      But the apparent improvements in speed are not happening as rapidly as hardware improvements. Run Windows XP on the old Pentium 2 that you ran Windows 98SE on. Yes, it's slower. Run Windows 98SE on that 2GHz P4 that you put your stolen copy of XP on. It runs faster than hell and rarely crashes. Windows depends heavily on improving hardware, and the newest version of Windows always brings its contemporary hardware to a crawl.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience is different. When buying hardware I always look for the best deals. Here are Vancouver BC's "street prices" for harddrives, and Windows two years ago, compared to my recent upgrades late in 2002.

      The day Windows ME was released I bought a new harddrive and a shiny new copy of windows. Costs then were:

      Year 2000
      Windows ME $110 CAD
      20Gb 5400 120 CAD

      Year2002
      Win XP Home $240 CAD
      40Gb 7200 120 CAD

      While the cost of an entry level hard drive is about the same it's capacity has doubled. Cost of an entry level windows system has doubled while it's increased functionality is questionable.

      So if you would like to argue that Microsoft's bang for the buck is improving I will disagree based on personal experience.

      However there are some things that you can only do with a Microsoft System in which case you need to spend the extra bucks.

    9. Re:Expands to fill.. by tempfile · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if petrol prices were falling rapidly, I'd still be worried if every new car I buy consumed more petrol than the previous one. But that is exactly what would happen if that morale of development was applied to cars.

      It's mainly a matter of principle, in my opinion, not to let everything be manufactured sloppily and without regard to effectivity just because the ungodly amount of available resources can balance that out in terms of money spent. But that's perhaps just idealistic me.

    10. Re:Expands to fill.. by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Super Windows XP Pro Ultimate Championship Edition will be out, will have backwards compatibility to all prior 8-, 16-, 32-, 64-, and 128-bit architectures, take 8 solar days to load, require 800 terabytes to install

      Yeah, but when Windows2008 comes out a year later it's going to take 8 LUNAR days to load.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day Windows ME was released I bought a new harddrive and a shiny new copy of windows. Costs then were:

      So, not only did you buy Windows, you bought Windows ME.
      Ya know, I think that that disqualifies you from...well...most everything.
      Everyone hates a sucker.

    12. Re:Expands to fill.. by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      You make a good point. Here is my retort.

    13. Re:Expands to fill.. by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      Yeah, but by then, Super Windows XP Pro Ultimate Championship Edition will be out...
      You can ride the wave even if someone else is pushing it.

      I am glad that Super Windows XP Pro Ultimate Championship Edition is coming out, because I'm not going to use it, I'm just going to benefit from the economy of scale created by everyone else's needs.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:Expands to fill.. by isorox · · Score: 2

      But you didn't want to hear that.

      Damn right, this is slashdot. If you arent against MS, you're with them, and that means you're Bill's nancy boy! I direct your attention to The Posting effectivly on Slashdot FAQ. Come back after you read the gospel of St Linus

    15. Re:Expands to fill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Bill! Nice to see you trolling again. I thought all that money shrank your balls to singularity size!

      Sincerely,
      Based In Reality

      (I so severely wish that /. could filter posters so delusional folks exploded upon on hitting "Submit".)

    16. Re:Expands to fill.. by peterpi · · Score: 1
      Interesting comparison. I shall assume you're American (forgive me if you're not! ;). Your cars are huge and amazingly inefficient compared to what's on the market in Europe.

      The reason? petrol costs you guys a lot less than us (it's taxed beyond belief over here). I pay £0.79/litre ~ $4.78/gallon in the UK.

      So, you should be worried.

    17. Re:Expands to fill.. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2

      If he was american i doubt he'd be caling it petrol (instead of gasoline or gas)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    18. Re:Expands to fill.. by tempfile · · Score: 1

      I'm German, but I'll forgive you :o)

      I pay 1.10 /litre for petrol, that's a bit less than what you pay, but still above £0.70. Because my car only burns about 5 litres per 100 km, no, I'm not worried. :)

  39. In other news... by krog · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Intel and AMD have finally smashed through that 1GHz barrier. Film at 11.

  40. Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by mustangdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's great and all that they have disk space down to $1/GB, but what about some performance?

    This is like saying you can buy a new car for less than $10k ... but what are you going to get for that money ... probably a four banger ...

    Now when they get SCSI drives into that lower price range, that will be something to celebrate!

    Besides, who is really going to run a database that requires that much disk space (120 GB) on an IDE drive??? yes, I know you could use IDE RAID ... but lets get real. If you have THAT much data, you're going to use the REAL thing.


    Sorry to be the party pooper, but I think the "celebration" is a bit premature ...


    Just my $0.02



    1. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Database? =)
      Who'd want to run a database on such drive, indeed?
      I want *four* of them to put in a raid5 for my Anime! I've allready filled 320 GB... Need more space!
      I don't need the small performance edge of scsi vs ide. I don't even need 7600rpm drives! I just need it to be able to read 8 - 9 MB/s so that I can saturate my 100Mbit network at home.

      But they're still too expensive. :-/
      I want my whole raid setup to cost about 2 - 300 Euro.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    2. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your .sig: /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)

      My response: I didn't know they made 7600rpm drives. Are they any faster than 7200rpm drives?

      I'm a cunning linguist.

    3. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by Aggrazel · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine has one of these. Plenty fast enough, but you won't being paying $120 either. Newegg is selling for $160.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    5. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by cudaboy_71 · · Score: 1

      actually, your 2 gets you 20MB...you've got a bit more typing to do before we get our money's worth ;)

      --
      if it ain't broke, break it.
    6. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      I expect that the next major improvement in low-cost desktop hard drives will NOT be storage space, but faster spindle speeds, larger on-drive memory caches and lower temperatures.

      I wouldn't be surprised if we see within 18 months 200 GB Serial ATA drives that spin at 10,000 rpm but gives off much less heat than today's 7200 rpm drives. The on-drive memory cache will be substantially larger, probably in the 32 MB range.

    7. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Now when they get SCSI drives into that lower price range, that will be something to celebrate!

      I just bought a 9.1GB, 7200RPM Seagate hard drive for $22. (I'd tell you where, but I'm a pretty unhappy customer, so I wouldn't want to send any extra business their way.)
      So, incredible performance (1x5400RPM IDE Drive V. 13x7200RPM SCSI Drives... Excuse me while I drool) for less than 3x as much... And larger SCSI drives should be even better deals, as the price due to shear volume of material is lower as the density goes up. If SCSI makers were interested in the "value" market, I have no doubt that they could come very close to matching IDE drive's prices in Price/GB alone (eg. not taking superior performance into account).
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Where's the beef ... er .. speed? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Hihi...
      Sorry. My bad. =)
      Well... I failed my last math exam, that's probably the reason. ;)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  41. Computer hardware depreciation? by Torqued · · Score: 1

    I was cleaning out some storage boxes over the holidays and found a Micropolis 1.6 GB drive that I paid $1600 for back in 1989 or so. About all it's good for now is a doorstop. :[ Is there anything that depreciates in "value" ($-wise, that is) more than computer hardware?

    1. Re:Computer hardware depreciation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anything that depreciates in "value" ($-wise, that is) more than computer hardware?

      Hookers.

  42. Everybody Beat me too it! by Ask-A-Nerd · · Score: 1

    I was just going to comment on your $500.00 price tag for a 10 Meg hard drive of the days of old... but someone else beat me to it but on a Big Hardware platform. When you actually talk about the PC business..when I started back in the Osbourne and Kaypro PC days when the first 10 Meg hard drive came out it was $5995. I still have the old magazines with these old ads. And us DSDD Floppy people thought that there was no way we could ever use 10 Megs.. Now look at us!!

  43. I want cheap drives not low cost drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather spend my money in
    $30 dollar increment. $120 is too
    hard for me to come up with and I don't
    really need the 120 GB. 10 GB would
    be fine.

  44. Solid State Memory by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1

    Now that's the way to go! Get rid of the rapidly spinning disk of alluminum. Get rid of the microscopic magnetic domains on some ferric material that softens with old age. Solid state memory worries me a bit. Now you are at the point that a sub-atomic particle can make a 0 into a 1. Think of storage on silicon like the QC steps in the manufacturing of LCD displays. A few bad bits don't make a bad chip. Just map them out as unusable and move along. A memory storage device the size of a wafer would have gigabytes of capacity (be a little pricey at first). You could embed the controller on the wafer, cover the thing over with some buckeyball carbon to make it harder than snot.

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  45. Storage Space by imadork · · Score: 4, Funny
    Buried in my in-laws' basement is a primitive custom-built computer (i believe it was 8086-vintage, could have been 286) from the 80's timeframe. Inside the computer chassis were two huge full-height 20MB hard disks.

    Attached was a note from the person who built the computer for them, saying something to the effect of "This is more storage space than you will ever need."

    I imagine that at the time, 40 MB of storage was friggin' huge.

    1. Re:Storage Space by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Buried in my in-laws' basement is a primitive custom-built computer... two huge full-height 20MB hard disks.
      Attached was a note from the person who built the computer for them, saying something to the effect of "This is more storage space than you will ever need."


      My uncle's best friend's hairdresser knows someone who bought a colonial era home with 2 kerosene lamps inside. Attached was a note saying this was more light than they'd ever need.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Storage Space by hbackert · · Score: 1

      Come to think about it, the note is true if you add a line like "...on this computer".

      Even nowadays, if you happen to have a CP/M computer, a 10MB hard disk would be fine. (Actually a 1.4MB floppy would be fine.) If you'd put more disk space in it, no one could use it (in a sensible way IMHO). You need much more space to use audio and video, but on such a computer with 8-bit CPU, no audio hardware and a text based screen, who would like this (servers don't count).

  46. Mirror those puppies. by RatBastard · · Score: 2

    That's why the two 120GB drives in my server are mirrored. Nothing sucks more than having your main data drive fail.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  47. Speed not capacity by charnov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I now have 10x the HD capacity that I can afford to back up (DLTs are still insanely expensive) and the access and transfer speeds haven't changed in years.

    How about an 80 Gig drive that lasts 5 years and can transfer at about 1 Gig per second that costs $200. THAT I would buy.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  48. 1$/gig by phreaknb · · Score: 1

    I was looking at 80gig hard drives a couple of months ago, and I noticed that they were around 80$.

  49. Do you know what this means?!? by 1.Nc3 · · Score: 1

    If I've done my math right, M$ stands to gain $103,079,215,104USD in royalties every time someone buys one... according to this.

  50. Low, lower, lowest :) by MsWillow · · Score: 2

    Yes, it's great, isn't it? Even a cheapskate like me can afford a huge drive now. I vividly recall back when I was able to find a Miniscribe 3650, 40mb, for $400. Wow! Nowadays, anything less than 40gb isn't worth looking at.

    We stuffed that 3650 in Igloo, running Microport Unix., and went to town :) Goddess, the fun of shopping for a controller card that could support a 1:1 interleave, and fine-tuning the system's skew factor to really max out performance. Even better, grab an RLL controller, and turn the 40mb into 60! Way cool :)

    Ahh, the fun times back then :)

    --

    Lemon curry?
    1. Re:Low, lower, lowest :) by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      Nowadays, anything less than 40gb isn't worth looking at.

      I'll gladly take those 40GB drives off your hands. I've got a fileserver (for the house) that I sure could use them for.

      Since they're "not worth looking at" I'll assume you'll simply want to throw them away. Allow me to dispose of those for you.

      Thanks.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  51. Storage? by ihtagik · · Score: 1

    Who needs storage?

    Somebody wake me up when Memory is $1/Gig. now there's something to cause a hooplah over.

    **rolls over and falls asleep again**

  52. rebates are obnoxious but useful by crow · · Score: 1

    Rebates are obnoxious. You have to process extra paperwork. You have to wait to get your money back. You have to pay sales tax on the full price.

    On the other hand, you can use rebates along with price matching policies to get some great deals. I keep hearing of stories of people who see a drive advertised by, say, Microcenter with no rebate, and get Best Buy to match the price while still being able to claim the store rebate.

    1. Re:rebates are obnoxious but useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rebates are great if you buy stuff for your company and then get reimbursed. Include the original purchase price on your expense report, then pocket the rebate money! A lot of stores/manufacturers know this goes on, which is another incentive for them to offer rebates rather than sale prices. The biggest incentive, of course, being that many people forget or just don't bother to send in the rebate form.

    2. Re:rebates are obnoxious but useful by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Sure, people have those stories - but it seems to be the result of ignorant store employees who don't understand the rules/policies of the store.

      I know Office Depot, Best Buy, and most other chain stores are supposed to only price-match prices offered by other retail outlets. Internet-based advertisements and mail order deals don't count.

      (I've tried several times, and never met with any success.)

  53. Using Debug to install your hardrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to own a computer store in downtown L.A. (1986) and we were selling 20mb Seagates with controller for 349.00 and I think we were making about 50.00 or so in profit. Debug was the tool that we used. g=c800:5 I think that was the code that was used on the old Western Digital controllers actually.

  54. Re:error by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2

    And just for people who don't know, PB = petabyte, and eb = exabyte.

  55. This would truly be great by ACNeal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This would be even better news if it related to the smaller hard drives. I would love to be able to spend $10 for a 10 gig drive, or $40 for a 40 gig drive.

    I have no use for super huge drives, but super cheap drives would always come in handy.

    1. Re:This would truly be great by kindbud · · Score: 2

      Stop thinking of them as huge drives, and start thinking of them as high density drives. The more information you store in a linear millimeter, the faster you can read it off the platter for a given RPM. It doesn't make any sense to create a high density 10Gb drive that'd have a tiny platter, or a normal sized platter with only a tiny portion of the surface utilized. What a waste.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:This would truly be great by Alsee · · Score: 2

      I would love to be able to spend $10 for a 10 gig drive

      How about a nickle for a 50meg drive? :)
      Just imagine, AOL would stop sending CD's and just slap stamps on the drives.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:This would truly be great by subsolar2 · · Score: 2

      I've started considering using 32-128MB compact flash carts for drives on DOS systems. The IDE compact flash adapters are cheap, and for old DOS systems is more than enough storage.

  56. So what about CPUs? by linuxkrn · · Score: 1

    So when do the CPUs come out at a $1/GHz? :)
    Guess we can be glad they are not $1/Mhz. But I remember working on 8MHz machines too so maybe then it would have been ok.

  57. 1024 by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    1 terabyte = 1024 megabyte

    Did you know?

    bit - nibble - byte - kilobit - kilobyte - megabit - megabyte - gigabyte - terabyte - petabyte - exabyte - zettabyte - yottabyte

    (I googled this up)

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    1. Re:1024 by Tribbin · · Score: 2, Funny

      ofcourse I meant to say that 1 terabyte = 1024 GIGABYTE yottabyte = 1 yottabyte = 1024 zettabytes = 1048576 exabytes = 1073741824 petabytes = 1099511627776 terabytes = 1125899906842624 gigabytes = 1152921504606846976 megabytes = 9223372036854775808 Megabits = 1180591620717411303424 kilobytes = 9444732965739290427392 Kilobits = 1208925819614629174706176 bytes = 2417851639229258349412352 nibbles = 9671406556917033397649408 bits me dumbass

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:1024 by linuxkrn · · Score: 1

      Actually, bit 4 bits = nibble 2 nibbles = byte 1024 Bytes = kilobyte 1024 kilobytes = Megabyte 1024 MBytes = 1 Gigbyte 1024 Gigbytes = 1 Terabyte etc.

    3. Re:1024 by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I remember reading a stat somewhere where scientists estimated that the sum of data in a human brain could be packed into X amount of space...

      Does anyone remember the amount of space?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  58. 5400? by RoC+MasterMind · · Score: 1

    Wait a couple years. Do you really want a huge drive with only 5400 RPMs?

    1. Re:5400? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2

      Might not be as big a problem as you think. The RPM of the drive isn't much of a problem. I'd wager what a 120GB drive at 5400 is faster than a 20GB drive at 10k

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:5400? by ihtagik · · Score: 1

      RPMs are not the be-all and end-all of hard drive performance. I think hard drive's pedigree (which family it comes from) has a much greater bearing. With recent advances in technology, hard drive manufacturers have been able to pack more data per hard drive platter that than they could before. This has resulted in the increasing hard drive capacities that we are seeing (320GB etc). Now, 320GB on four platters is 80GB/platter. This usually remains that same across a pedigree.

      This means that the read/write head of a a 5400rpm drive (from a pedigree) that packs 80GB/platter will theoretically be able to transfer more data than a 7200rpm drive that packs 40GB/platter. This is because for each rotation, the former (5400/80) flys over more data than the latter (7200/40).

    3. Re:5400? by GlassUser · · Score: 2

      Locate an IDE RAID controller. Slap for of them in (on separate channels), and load the controller with, say, 128 MB of cache. Enjoy.

  59. My first hard drive by jlower · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since everyone else is giving away their age by telling how big their first drive was and how much it cost, so will I. I'll never forget it...

    10MB Techmar with a serial interface - $2000. This was ~1984 and I was damn glad to have it!

    1. Re:My first hard drive by Green+Light · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but as a former TecMartian (1987 - 1994) I have to correct you - it was "Tecmar".

      --
      "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
    2. Re:My first hard drive by kauff · · Score: 1
      10MB Techmar with a serial interface - $2000. This was ~1984

      I now understand all this anti-1984 activism

      --

      - Does it have a MIDI Interface?
      - What's MIDI in your face?

  60. The funny part.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..is that you just bought it last year.

  61. However, by Lysol · · Score: 2

    there are no cheap 120GB backup systems yet. I asked our IT guy at work what he said, "well, just buy another hard drive and back it up with that."

    I dunno, I feel much better with tape. So, this begs a bigger issue: with the cost and corner cutting going into todays hard drives, how safe are your gobs of music and video files? And what do u do to keep that info safe?

    1. Re:However, by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It's called RAID-1, but I guess "u" never heard of that on IRC.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    2. Re:However, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 120GB ATA hard drives: $240
      1 Promise ATA/100 RAID controller: $50
      "RAID for Dummies" book: $17.95
      The look on some smug geek's face when that cheap POS Promise card dies and takes both drives with it: priceless!

    3. Re:However, by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      You buy two, or more, drives and put them in a raid.
      I'll double the cost for you storage, but loosing 160GB in one shot is *damn* painful, even if most of it can be found again on your audio-cd's and the internet.
      Think about how much time you spent getting all that data and I think you'll start thinking the extra $/MB is worth it. :)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    4. Re:However, by RatBastard · · Score: 2

      I handle it thusly: I have my data drive in a mirrored RAID configuration. I also backup to a removable hard drive. The backup drive is isolated from the server (this is a home LAN and I don't have anything so vital that I need off-site storage) and is not powered on when not in use. I spin the drive often enough to avoid stiction issues, moslty by backing up to it again.

      Between the redundancy of the mirrored drives and the backup I haven't lost anything in a while. I can't say the same thing about tape. I've had way too many tapes fail. And tapes are lagging so far behind hard drives that it just isn't funny at all.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    5. Re:However, by flux · · Score: 1

      Raid is not a replacement for backups.

      What happens, when a software bug corrups the filesystem or some script goes berserk and rm'rfs recursively beginning from the root? Or perhaps you accidently do that rm -rf foo / &|..

      Using hw-assisted hotswap with raid1, you could just insert a 120G disk in, have the raid sync the backup for you, then just pull it out and put it to your desk drawer :).

      I personally am not in so safe waters either. I backup some stuff to a 30GB logical volume which I umount between backups, but the most important stuff is backed up offsite over the Internet.

    6. Re:However, by kcurrie · · Score: 1

      Get an additional drive and put it in another PC, maybe and old P133 or something, and have it do nightly rsync's. RAID doesn't protect against user error, so if you accidentally delete a critical file, it's gone from BOTH disks. That sucks.

      --
      -- I speak only for myself.
    7. Re:However, by sfritzd · · Score: 1

      You can use my favorite backup method. Burn everything of importance to a CD. Let said CD sit on your desk with no label or case to keep it from becoming scratched like a mofo. When CD is unreadable, its time for another backup. Sure, it might take a few CD's to backup 120GB, but that's what that 40x burner is for.

      In sincerity, I think NTI makes a backup program for Windows that'll burn a whole bunch of data across multiple CDs in a compressed format. Check it out if you're into that Windows thing. Even supports DVD burners.

  62. April Fools by hansroy · · Score: 1

    Why the hell does the subject change from "re: yeah great" to April Fools right before my eyes?!?

    Anyway.....Recent hard drives have had a few bad runs. The IBM DeskStars, the Fujitsu recall. In one 24 month period, I went through 6 drives myself. I think 3 or 4 were IBM, one was a Seagate. I got bit by the Deskstar bug ferociously.

    1. Re:April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      April Fools!!!!!!!

  63. 30 Gig for $29 at Staples by adrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    On black Friday I bought a 30GB Maxtor for $29 (!) after rebate.

    It wasn't all that long ago (early 90's) that hard drives were a still a dollar a megabyte.

  64. Re:Netcraft now confirms: by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 0, Troll

    MOD PARENT UP +1 MORE WORTH READING THAN THE CRAPPY ARTICLE.
    lameness filter encountered, please append random crap to the bottem of your post.

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  65. i dunno about overall stats, but heres mine by clarkc3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have a bunch of computers running in my basement running random things and testing out network stuff - so I've had quite a few to test with Here's my take on it:

    Drives I own made from 1992-1997: 6
    Number of those that went bad: 2

    Drives I own made from 1998-2002: 4 Number of those that went bad: 2*

    * - a 3rd developed a chunk of bad sectors but still works fine

    1. Re:i dunno about overall stats, but heres mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take a course in statistics... minimum sample size needed is 30. so stfu.

    2. Re:i dunno about overall stats, but heres mine by CityZen · · Score: 1

      > take a course in statistics... minimum sample size needed is 30 [...]

      There's also a difference between statistics and data points. The previous poster didn't make any statistical comments; he was just providing his data points.

    3. Re:i dunno about overall stats, but heres mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So go find these statistics yourself, fuckwit. Oh yeah, and lose some weight.

  66. /. bragging by hansroy · · Score: 0, Troll

    My dick is older than your dick. I remember the days before I had pubic hair!

  67. 62 cents per Gig by ChopsMIDI · · Score: 2, Informative

    The day after thanksgiving, A buncha friends and I stood in line for 3 hours at 4AM to each get an 80 Gigger for $50 (and they threw in an extra 256MB stick).

    Best Buy Rules.

    --

    How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
    1. Re:62 cents per Gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day you'll look back on that experience and want those three hours back that you wasted. But you can't have them.

  68. INCORRECT. 80GB drives went $1 long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They came back up but the point is, the event
    long since came and went.

  69. Hmm by loraksus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have to say that single hdd for cheap is cool, but not as impressive in the price drop on arrays, etc.
    I recently got a 10KRPM [10 drives] 40GB Rack mount ultra wide scsi 2 array with hot swap and a 32mb cache for $40. I thought this was an insane deal, this thing cost thousands new, but then I looked at ebay and it is more or less in the same price range as other similar systems - that, imho is the most impressive [except perhaps for the 0 frames dropped while recording video :) ]

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  70. My first hard drive - Amiga 500 by sboyko · · Score: 1

    I ordered a huge 80MB hard drive back in 1988 with SCSI interface and 4MB RAM. It plugged into my Amiga 500's expansion slot and was a mere $1000 US. I could not fill that puppy up no matter how much stuff I downloaded with my 9600bps modem. Ah, those were the days.

    The system would make a great doorstop today!

    --
    SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
  71. Always about $200.00 by moankey · · Score: 1

    Well at a user group that I frequent the running joke is about $175-200.00 for a internal HD. Doesnt matter when in time or size of drives get it always $175-200.00, starting from the mid-1990's.
    As prices of everything else falls one thing is certain is HD prices will remain constant.

  72. And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by sh0rtie · · Score: 2, Offtopic



    I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB.

    and how do you propose backing up reliably 1 terrabyte of data ?, hard drives fail all the time, could you even contemplate losing your entire life's music collection or entire video collection cos the drive failed ? what about in years to come when you might have generations of your families data on disk .

    plus with all this reliance on magnetic based media is just an accident waiting to happen, you do realise that if one EMR pulse from the sun (or even a EMP weapon) ever reaches Earth were back to square 1, sure us as humans can survive the magnetic dose of energy but all our data/research is gone forever all cos we chose to store our knowledge on a magnet.

    the saying "never put all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind

    we really need to focus on developing a cheap non-magnetic based reliable storage medium instead of storing such massive amounts of data/work on such a fragile medium as a block of mechanically controlled magnetic iron.

    paper at times has a lot going for it even today , do you think your hard drive or data will still be usable or around in 1000 years or even 50 for that matter ?

    1. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Quill_28 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      what are you talking about?

      your rant has nothing to do with the $1/TB statement.

      leave now

    2. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by moankey · · Score: 1

      If your only worried about failure then backing up a TeraByte should not be an issue since RAID's will also probably be the standard.

      I have never had a hard drive fail causing all my data to be lost, now data corruption, virus, and OS failure is another story.

    3. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by dr3vil · · Score: 1

      As far as reliable storage goes, check out this story from New Scientist. DNA-ROM. No cost mentioned, but give it a few years and I'm sure it'll be reasonable. Maybe they can combine it with cloning or IVF, so that your descendents will have all your data in every one of their cells.

    4. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 2

      Wow.. talk about Troll Alert! But I'll bite, since I'm bored. First of all, if you have one drive with terabytes of data, for twice the cost (aka, linear cost) you can have another drive as a mirror. Boom, instant cheap backups. Secondly, it would take more than the sun or an EMP weapon to bring the human race "back to square 1" since hard drives are well shielded. Not to mention the fact that all scientific data is backed up in paper, anyways (have you ever heard of books?). Magnetic storage is very reliable. :) It will be good (and readable) in 1,000 years, don't worry :)

      --

      Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    5. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      plus with all this reliance on magnetic based media is just an accident waiting to happen, you do realise that if one EMR pulse from the sun (or even a EMP weapon) ever reaches Earth were back to square 1, sure us as humans can survive the magnetic dose of energy but all our data/research is gone forever all cos we chose to store our knowledge on a magnet.

      Someone's been watching a bit too much Dark Angel, don't you think? For anyone (most of you most likely) who hasn't seen the show, the entire premise is based around the fact that someone in fact did this very thing and the world is now in disarray because of it.

    6. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummh, let me think. If drives cost $1/TB and I need to back one up I could use a) papertape, b) punched cards or maybe, just maybe, c) another (1 or 2 or 3) $1/TB drives.

    7. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by glwtta · · Score: 2
      but all our data/research is gone forever all cos we chose to store our knowledge on a magnet

      There's this new crazy idea, not sure if you've heard about it - optical storage?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    8. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      Wasn't Dark Angel cancelled last year?

      Unless I'm thinking of a different show -- It was on Fox, had this chick who was some genetically engineered soldier working as a bike messenger.

      All I remember about the show was her b00bies..

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    9. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's all that mattered.

    10. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      optical media also comes to mind. But then again, you probably need some of that magnetic stuff to read the optical stuff.

    11. Re:And im gonna backup 1tb how ? by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Dark Angel was cancelled. And it was definitely about boobies. But some subplot not related to the aforementioned mammaries had the scenario mentioend in the parent post about an electromagnetic pulse wiping out all data on Earth.

  73. Time for RAID-10, and real OSes by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At $1/Gig, you can have 240 GB of speedy (45 MB/sec), death-resistant (mirrored) storage for $500. That should make any pr0n user, scientist, or geek happy.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Time for RAID-10, and real OSes by glwtta · · Score: 2

      RAID-10 is unecessary for pr0n, RAID 5 does just fine, and gives you 600GB for $720.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  74. Unless you shop at.. by sirgoran · · Score: 2

    Computer Renaissance.

    They offered an 8GB drive for $60 while Best Buy offered an 80GB drive for $79.95.

    Renaissance my ass. More like the dark ages!

    -Goran

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
    1. Re:Unless you shop at.. by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2

      If the 8GB drive is a 10,000 or 15,000 rpm SCSI and the 80GB drive is a 5400 rpm IDE or even a 7200 rpm IDE drive, that probably explains the price difference.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    2. Re:Unless you shop at.. by sirgoran · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      Both were IDE. As the clerk put it, "That's the price. Either buy it or don't, I don't care."

      He went on to expain that the cost was due to the difficulty in finding "smaller storage drives."

      I'm guessing it was more of a case of "My store is failing and we need the money."

      -Goran

      --
      Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
    3. Re:Unless you shop at.. by Tassach · · Score: 2

      I have no clue what the people at CompRen are smoking, but I want some. Where else can you find obsolete, second-hand hardware that costs more than brand new hardware that's more powerful? More to the point, tell me where to find people who'll actually buy that crap; I have a couple bridges to unload.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  75. yep, I noticed by glwtta · · Score: 2

    I just recently bought myself a 6 120GB drive array, for $123 apiece. That's two months of divx :)

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  76. Re:*Old Man Rant*-Sticks and stones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ferro-magnetic and paper? You all had it easy. We did our data storage with sticks and stones. Laid one after the other. Error checking was a pain, and heaven help you if you had to defrag the whole mess.

  77. Actually, they are faster now than before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how people can say that performance hasn't increased with larger capacities. Sequential transfer rate inherently increases with increased areal density, and access times haven't increased. All this adds up to a faster drive.
    That said, I'll be passing up on this great value for a 73gig Seagate Cheetah 15k.3 for a whopping $700. I've had enough of the crashes and waiting with IDE that I have decided to go SCSI, even though it does cost about 10x as much.

  78. Give it time by nick_davison · · Score: 2

    I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB

    Moore's law: Doubles every 18 months.
    MB to TB = 1024 times = 2^10
    10x18 months = 15 years.

    Of course you've got inflation to factor in... What's $100 today will probably be closer to $200-$300 then (though it will still feel like $100 does now). So that probably adds another 18 months or so.

    So, $1/TB - should be on shelves just before 2020. Time to file that /. article now so you can claim FIRST!

    Yes, I know Moore's law is technically about silicon. Yes, I know the predictions of doom. Equally, it seems to hold largely true for most aspects of computing and, for all a given tech hits its limits, a replacement tech always seems to turn up.

    1. Re:Give it time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Moore's Law" is technically nonexistent, so why don't you shut the fuck up already?

  79. Scan some Photos by purduephotog · · Score: 2

    Actually, scan all of em. say at 50 megs each (thats what I do. That's 20 photos per gig, or 200 per 10 gig, or 2000 per 100 gig.....

    Oh, btw, I took 3600 photographs in 1 month while working.

    Thats Why. And thats not even talking redundant storage.

    1. Re:Scan some Photos by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Ok, but that's taking a bit strange way to handle your photo's. Low compression can save you lots of space and will not significantly hit the quality of your pictures. Obviously there are lots of usages for 1 TB drives and even for 100 TB drives. Take my ISP's news server. It's largish at 2.5 TB for binaries and 600 GB for text. And they had to ban the VCD's and DIVx newsgroups due to storage capacity. For my most people storing their text documents and digital pictures the current state of the art is overkill, but I can think of a hundred reasons for such storage capabilities easily (pay me and I will do it :). All my MSX games easily fit in a few MB's but I had years of fun with them btw. Maarten

    2. Re:Scan some Photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Actually, scan all of em. say at 50 megs each (thats what I do. That's 20 photos per gig, or 200 per 10 gig, or 2000 per 100 gig.....

      Oh, btw, I took 3600 photographs in 1 month while working.

      Thats Why. And thats not even talking redundant storage."
      I have two words for you:

      "DIGITAL CAMERA"
    3. Re:Scan some Photos by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      compression is for viewing/hearing.. the loss you experience from compressed data (especially data that gets new artifacts everytime you edit it) makes it very sloppy to use compressed format for professional applications, unless its losless. try encoding a file to mp3, editing it in something like soundforge (apply a couple simple filters too it) save it in mp3 format, load it up again, undo the last 2 filters you did to it (by reversing the operation, not undo) then encoding it again. it will sound like crap.

    4. Re:Scan some Photos by purduephotog · · Score: 2

      I don't want them compressed. I want the actual data back, exactly what was there before. So J2K with it's supported lossless compression is all thats available... and that'll get me to 50% at best.

      So sorry, no 12:1 like jpg... :(

  80. HDs replaced by women sooner than you think-PMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...Make love to her, and then insert the FireWire cable to watch your movies!"

    Not when that "time of the month" comes, you wont!

  81. Smaller quantities available .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
    Does anyone know where I can get _1_ gig for _1_ dollar? I don't want 100 gigs for 100 dollars. I just want 1, like the advertisement says. Anyone?



    It is simple ....

    1) Get 120 people together (I'd say 120 friends ... but there aren't too many people that have 120 friends that need disk space)

    2) Cut the drive platters into one gig portions

    3) Take home 1 gig for a buck ... just like the ad says you can!


    (I'm being silly too)



    1. Re:Smaller quantities available .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Disk Quota's man

  82. Missed the story - flash memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flash memory will be much much better when it gets down to ~$100 for 1gb.

    So for ~$200 you have enough space for 1 full length SVCD format movie on a matchbox sized card.

    1. Re:Missed the story - flash memory by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Flash memory is very slow. Much slower than hard drives, but faster than EEPROM. Magnetic ram, due to appear in '06 or so, will be nonvolatile and at least as fast as dram.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    2. Re:Missed the story - flash memory by Mitreya · · Score: 2
      Magnetic ram, due to appear in '06 or so, will be nonvolatile and at least as fast as dram.

      The thing is, I doubt anyone needs non-volatile memory that much :) I reboot to fix things more often than to change the OS (more so in Windows, but in Linux as well).

  83. ... or mis-priced items by BigJimSlade · · Score: 2

    With discounts, the price has been that low for a little while.

    Best Buy had 7200 RPM 120 gig Maxtor drives for ~$100 just last month. Of course it was mis-priced, but I still got one while they were out there. :)

  84. $1/TB by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    ..and of course by then the warranty will be one month too.

    Probably less tongue in cheek than I'd like that prediction to be.

  85. Back in the old days of personal computing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first hard drive was a 20MB drive for my Amiga. It came with a controller. I picked it up at an auction for around $160.

    Then in my PC days I remember going ohh and ahh when prices hit $1/MB.

    The thing that gets me is all the $$ I forked out for this stuff back in the day. If I had just used that money to buy shares in Microsoft I could be buying terabyte hard drives by now.

  86. Of course, it would be nice... by uradu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if you could pick up a 40GB drive for $40, or a 20GB for $20, without having to fool with rebates. As it is, the cost of hard drives seems to be staying at around $100, almost regardless of capacity, limiting you in just how cheap a system you can build. Right now the most expensive item in a bottom feeder system is the HD. On Newegg you can build a minimal Duron system for:

    20GB HD: $69
    All-in-one mobo: $51
    CPU: $31
    Case: $28
    128MB SDRAM: $22
    CD-ROM: $19
    Floppy: $8

    Total: $228

    If that 20GB drive were $20 instead, that would be only $179. Of course, there are reasons why the drive isn't $20, I'm just lamenting.

    1. Re:Of course, it would be nice... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Why don't you just get togehter with six other people and buy a $120 120G disk? You each pay $20, and each get 20G each.

      Hurry, before the world blows up. (Hey, between Osama, George, and North Korea, I'm sure they can work something out.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Of course, it would be nice... by ParallelJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The day after Thanksgiving I went to Best Buy at 5:45 am to pick up a $40 DVD player as a Christmas present for my mother. (as an aside, when she opened it I discovered it was also a Karoke machine!) While I was there I noticed they had a 75G 7200 hard drive for $50. And it included a 256 PC133 stick fo memory. I grabbed it. MS Keyboard $5. MS optical mouse $5. Read/Write CD drive $9.99. 150 CDRs - free. All after rebate of course but jeeze. I wasn't even looking to build a computer. I had 8 already! So I got home went to pricewatch and found a barebones with case, floppy , a 256M PC133 stick, Athlon 1.33 and integrated 32M video for $145. Do you know what the kicker is? This new box was now the fastest one in the house. So who gets it? The kids (6 & 7 yrs) of course!

    3. Re:Of course, it would be nice... by uradu · · Score: 2

      > This new box was now the fastest one in the house

      The thing is that this year's cheapo bottom scraper systems are faster than last year's mid-range or higher systems. I recently built my wife a new machine to replace her old K6-400, and got her a Biostar M7VKQ and a 950MHz Duron. Slapped in the old SDRAM and HD, and for under $100 she had a brand new machine that screams with her usage (tons of Word and IE sessions). The integrated video is so decent for desktop use that only serious gamers would care to upgrade. I'm definitely cheap when it comes to spending on computer equipment, and it's amazing how much power you can buy for very little nowadays. Except for 3D games it seems the demand for more processing power will slowly level out.

    4. Re:Of course, it would be nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For everything else there is Mastercard.

  87. Close... by MamasGun · · Score: 1

    Working there is its own punishment. :P

    --
    "But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
    -- Jack Valenti
  88. To another disk by doc_traig · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Which also costs $1/TB.

    --
    So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
  89. Re:GB/buck predicted in 1980 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In this paper, dates were predicted for a megabyte per buck, a gigabyte per buck, and a terabyte per buck. I recall that this 1980 paper predicted a gigabyte per buck in 1999; pretty close!

    Jonathan V. Post, "Quintillabit: Parameters of a Hyperlarge Database", Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Very Large Databases,
    Montreal, Canada, 1-3 October 1980

    By the way, Post named in this article the "Shannon" = 1 mole of bits = 6.02 x 10^23 bits.

    Now THAT's a big memory!

  90. First HDD I owned was 40MB by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 2
    Damn, and the first hard drive I owned was 40MB - got it for my IBM XT. Was so bloody happy to have it too, since I didn't have to disk swap to run WordPerfect anymore and could store tons of info and games. *sigh* the good old days.

    Before that it was floppies, before that I used a reliable old tape drive carefully marking the counters where each program started.

  91. I' m gonna backup 1tb with .... by mustangdavis · · Score: 2



    Lots of DVDRs!!!!!!

    If your data means that much to you, BURN IT onto disk!!!!

    My $0.02 cents ...


  92. Pricewatch Isn't A Good Indicator by ispel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many venders with lowest prices on PriceWatch, provide either bad or fraudulent service. Choose a reputable site with credentials (newegg.com) or your local retailer to get your prices and merchandise. The best place to check out a online business is various consumer review sites by typing in the company's name into Google (sample link to review of vender w/the $120 price on the HD). Pay particular attention to the most recent comments when reviewing a company.

    1. Re:Pricewatch Isn't A Good Indicator by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

      Even though I've had good luck with the thousands of dollars of stuff i've purchased from Newegg, they aren't perfect. I tried to get a KT7A-RAID MB from them a while ago, they had one refurbished, with a certian version number. The lunkheads coudln't get the v1.3 board to me, only a 1.1, or a 1.0. Tried several times, no good. The 1.3 board supported the Athlon XP's while the older ones didn't. Obviously some people there are too stupid/stubborn/ignorant/illiterate.

      Ohwell, overall good as long as u stick with the free shipping items. I also recommend: tcwo.com, nexfan.com, bestbyte.net, FROZEN CPU!, and ocsystem.com.

      C ya!

  93. tvarchive.google.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless someone comes out with more justification for that much space (like a TiVO that can record 100 channels at the same time??)
    What if you could go online and look up every TV show ever broadcast?

  94. Re:Now if only they were as reliable... - maxtor by op51n · · Score: 1

    Yup, I try to use nothing but Maxtor hard drives. Everone I've seen running Seagate and other high end drives have all had great problems with them. But I've never had a Maxtor hard drive die. I still have my old 100mb Maxtor from ooooh, years back, and it works fine. Fair enough it's not in my machine but it works all the same! I currently have a Western Digital 30gb in along with my Maxtor 20gb, and the WD seems to have survived so far, but it's not actually my drive, i'm just using it til i go out and buy a Maxtor 120gb. So as far as personal experience goes, i do recommend Maxtor.

  95. My HD nostalgia story... by BigJimSlade · · Score: 2

    ... happened not too long ago. I sold some old gear to my inlaws, who had been using my wife's computer from college (from just 2 years earlier). I had to swap out the hard drive from their old computer, a computer that was built in '97, so they could keep their old data. The strangest thing about it was that it had a 5 1/4"-wide hard drive! I thought the industry had standardized on 3 1/2" drives by that point (all the ones I bought during that time frame were 3 1/2".

    To this day, that 5 1/4", 10 gig hard drive is still churning away, happily running Windows 98.

    1. Re:My HD nostalgia story... by shoppa · · Score: 2

      Quantum Bigfoots were 5.25" IDE drives made in
      the mid-to-late-mid-90's. They had an old plant
      (bought as part of their buyout of DEC's storage
      division) that only made 5.25" platters and they put them into their large-capacity-but-slow-speed IDE drives.

  96. 40GB? That's *still* too much.. Gimme 10GB! by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

    Seriously, I have a 30GB drive now, and I have NEVER gone over 10GB with WinXP and all the greatest and latest games installed. What need do I have for a 120GB drive? I dont, I would love to buy another drive for a simple Linux install, but no way am I going to use 120GB.. 10GB is far more than enough for it.. Where can I get a 10GB drive for 5 bux?

    1. Re:40GB? That's *still* too much.. Gimme 10GB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have NEVER gone over 10GB with WinXP.

      A truly sad statement.

      I do have to admit that the biggest drive in my house (160GB) is in my ReplayTV.

    2. Re:40GB? That's *still* too much.. Gimme 10GB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I have NEVER gone over 10GB with WinXP.

      A truly sad statement."

      As is your willingness to remove the second half of his sentence. You are a perfect example of a Slashdotter.

    3. Re:40GB? That's *still* too much.. Gimme 10GB! by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      I'd believe you if stuff like Neverwinter Nights, Unreal Tournament 2003, Jedi Knight 2, Civ 3, Mechwarrior 4, Warcraft 3 didn't take ~1-3 gigs each....

      You cannot tell me you're fitting "all the greatest and latest" games and WinXP AND any other programs AND possibly some music into 10 gigs or less.

  97. Uhhhhhh ..... by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
    And just for people who don't know, PB = petabyte, and eb = exabyte



    Does anybody know of anyone that actually needs these abr.'s???

    If so, please post the link to their FTP site ... I'm sure they've got some good shit!


    1. Re:Uhhhhhh ..... by SeanAhern · · Score: 2

      Does anybody know of anyone that actually needs these abr.'s???

      As an employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, I can honestly answer "yes." You hear it all the time when people talk about the I/O requirements of various simulations. For example, check out this web page about scalable I/O.

      As for ftp, be my guest. Dunno if there's anything you'd find interesting there, though.

  98. Young Wippersnappers by monopole · · Score: 1

    I can remember $1/MB drives...I feel old...

    1. Re:Young Wippersnappers by falzer · · Score: 1

      You must not be very old, then.

  99. Feeing Old by Mouth+of+Sauron · · Score: 1

    I remember when mass storaging dipping below $1 per megabyte was a Big Deal

  100. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get 120G drive 5400 RPM for under $80

  101. How about the little guys? by cnmill · · Score: 1

    OK. Buck a gig. I only need 4-6 GB for my clunker no-X web/mail server. Woo has a HDD for $5? The best I can get on ebay is 10GB for $30.

    --
    How sleepless is the egg, knowing that which throws the stone forsees the bone.
    1. Re:How about the little guys? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      Does your city have a Goodwill computer center?

      Mine does. A literal plethora of outdated and cheap junk.

      I've never looked at the drive prices, but imagine they're pennies on the dollar.

      Check here to get a listing of Goodwill stores (not specifically computer stores) in your zipcode.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:How about the little guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the extra space for file serving...
      C'mon... 30 bucks ain't nothin.

    3. Re:How about the little guys? by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1
      In these parts, they take donations of fine machines, say, 386SX or 486 with 4MB, Windows 3.1, and a 250 MB hard drive, hook up a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and display them at $150.

      The good news is that I have a price reference for a nice deduction to use if I ever donate a junk PC.

    4. Re:How about the little guys? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2

      Where I'm at, they'd get laughed at for asking that much for such a dinosaur of a computer.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  102. Step back with me Sherman... by goingincirclez · · Score: 1

    ...to, oh lessay 1994-95...

    "Who would ever need storage at $1/GB? Heck, even if you copy Wolfenstein 3d and DOOM, you've STILL got space to spare. And with CD burners on the horizon, well that's over half/gig of space right there. You can already fit the whole flipping World Book onto just _one_!"

    History doth repeat itself...

    Not tyrin to mock ya or anything. Just pointing out, in 10 years (prolly less) you'll look back on the question and laaaaaugh....

    --
    ~~~
    "The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
  103. KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, PiB, EiB? by drf5n · · Score: 1
    Aren't they all supposed to include the 'i' for the 2^10 bit meaning instead of the 10^3 decimal things that the whole SI system is defined on?


    http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

    :)

  104. Cheap backup solution! by cheesyfru · · Score: 2

    It wasn't long ago that blank CDs cost that much, and many alternate backup mediums still cost a lot more than that. If you have a lot of data to backup, get yourself a swappable drive bay and a stack of drives. You've got a dirt cheap (and space-efficient!) terabyte of backups.

    Neat.

  105. Backup... by mlknowle · · Score: 2

    ...that's great - until you need to backup!

    Why is it that storage seems to be so outpacing backup technology at the moment? Why, it seems that the cheapest reliable, efficiant backup at the momen is simply to duplicate the drive - buy two (or more!) of them..

  106. When I were a lad... by metamatic · · Score: 1

    ...we only 'ad one register. And that were t'program counter.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  107. Solid State Drives by Eric+Savage · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a guess when we will see high-transfer-rate solid state drives in the $1000/GB range?

    --

    This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
  108. IBM's take a lick'n and keep on tick'n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All drives eventually fail.
    Cheap drives crash suddenly and cant be recovered.
    I want a drive that will keep trying even when developing read errors.
    IBM's are great. The media and heads last even with damage. The firmware doesn't give-up if it can't come-ready on the first try. Last week I sector copied a 46gb IBM... it was clicking and retrying for a solid week. But it kept going and I got 90% of the customers data.
    You can put a new set of heads in an IBM and usually it will come ready. The others - forget it.
    Those IBM's take a lick'n and keep on tick'n

  109. Maxtor 300GB drives by dazdaz · · Score: 1

    Wow, Maxtor make 300GB drives, when did that happen.
    What is the end size projection of hard disks for the end of the year?

  110. You're a bit late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You're a bit late, unless you're soley going by mail-order drives / only on pricewatch.

    Three months ago I purchased a 100GB drive for $95 at Fry's. (It's happily installed in my SPARC Blade at the moment.)

  111. I second that- It's been $1 a gig for a WHILE by mekkab · · Score: 2

    But you WILL be dealing with a mail-in rebate; in fact its quite likely that it will be a multiple mail-in rebate.

    Also, you won't get as much buffering space for the ones that are on super sale.

    But if you are diligent in sending out those rebate offers CompUsa can be a great place!
    (and a thousand times better than those crappy OEM resellers like a-z computers! BLECH!)

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  112. My how the decades fly by... by saskboy · · Score: 2

    I remember buying a 10MB 2 bay high MFM hard drive which cost $10 [Canadian], exactly 10 years ago. I got it to replace a 170MB drive that had just died, but my Dad later repaired.

    I wonder if I can get 20 one GB drives for $20US. I'd buy those now. One drive that large though, just doesn't make sense to me. Why not just buy a DVD burner?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:My how the decades fly by... by BCoates · · Score: 2

      Why not just buy a DVD burner?

      Cuz I don't want to shuffle ~100 DVD-Rs by hand...

      Unless there's an economical way of automating disks for computers out there, in which case I'd like to know about it, *D-R media appears to be consistently much cheaper than hard drives.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

  113. MTBF of 1 year was common in late 80s by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Yeah, I remember those days too. We generally figured about 1 failure per year per drive. Of course, our most common drive type for a few years was removable-pack RM05s, which made nice pretty wall decorations after having a head crash.

    There's a bit of a price difference, as well :-) In about 1984, we'd paid about $35000 for four RM05 drives, which gave us 1GB of total drive capacity, and removable 250MB disk packs were about $1100. So that was $4/MB for the media, and $35/MB for the drives. I forget what tape drives cost, but 6250bpi 9-track tapes cost about $25 and held about 160MB of data, so they were the obvious backup medium.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  114. Formula for predicting hd size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sometimes wonder if there's a correlation between p2p and hard drive technology.

  115. *Older Man Rant* by raygundan · · Score: 2

    Corn-fed middle-agers pretending they're old!!! Back in my day, we used mercury delay lines, and we LIKED it. Sure, the younger engineers and their tension-coiled torsional-wave nickel-wire delay lines, and their kids with their fancy ferro-magnetic cores and whirly, multiheaded drum memories stored more, but give me a long, vibrating trough full of toxic liquid metal any day.

  116. Most Desktop Users by asv108 · · Score: 2
    Don't even come close to filling up small hard drives by today's standards. I've built about ten systems for friends and family over the past few years looking for a good deal. Most of them have 20 or 40 GB drives, with less than 25% usage after a few years and a bloated windows install. Even my "normal friends" with Kazaa and a broadband connection never really fill their drives.

    Not to say it isn't a great leap for the /. crowd, I have about 90% utilization with 500 GB of storage at home. SHN and DIVX take up the bulk of my storage capacity. I know it sounds like "640k is enough for anybody," but the average desktop user does not need a 100 GB hard drive, even the casual P2P and multimedia user will not fill that up. Obviously 100GB will become a necessity with the 50GB minimum install of windows 2007.

  117. Re:wow man- $.20 a gigabyte is future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when 10 megs was $ 25,000 and
    the future using holographic storage will
    be $.20 (20 cents) a gigabyte !

  118. Re:error by LordKronos · · Score: 2

    GB=2^30 or 10^9 if you're a lying drive manufacturer

    You know, it's been quite a while since I actually thought about this difference. Drives were much smaller then, so it wasn't so much. But now with the size drives we have today it really adds up. The difference between 2^30 and 10^9 is slightly more than 70MB. On a 200GB drive, you are talking about a 14GB difference. Thats as much space as I have in my current system (go ahead, laugh at me).

    If manufacturers continue with this scheme, by the time we get to TB drives you will be getting almost 10% less than the stated capacity.

  119. 7200rpm, buddy. by mekkab · · Score: 2

    Good enough for digital audio workstations. mind you, your cache isn't going to be 8 megs like on the nicer drives.

    But I'm talking about the CompUsa double mail-in rebate special. I know, cuz I got one and its serving on my home lan quite nicely. (actually, mine was 100gig, but it beat the $1 gig ratio)

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  120. True.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..but remember, even RAID isn't a replacement for backups. RAID or no RAID, a virus or a misplaced rm command can still wipe your valuable data.

  121. Back in my day.. by Quill_28 · · Score: 2

    I am getting a kick out of all these..

    Back in my day i pay $1,000 for a 100MB hard drive

    Oh yeah that's nothing my company paid $15,000 for two 20MB hard drives the size of a dishwasher.

    That's nothing, I paid....

    I guess it the next generations version of:

    I walked 10 miles in the snow to school, both ways. And I was happy dang it!

  122. depends... by rootrider · · Score: 1

    I still can't buy a 20gb for $20 or a 40gb for $40.

    The only reason the 120gb is so cheap per gig right now is because it's the sweet spot. That's the size of hard-drive most enthusiasts/geeks are looking to get right now.

    The 80gb drives are bottoming out in price, and the 20 - 60gb's are almost the exact same in price, having changed very little in the past half a year or so.

  123. Disagree by gmplague · · Score: 1

    CD-RW's and CD-R's have been below a dollar per gigabyte for several years. Also, I've seen DVD-R's and DVD-RW's under a dollar a gigabyte.

    --
    __________________________________________
    Take comfort in your ignorance.
    Grandmaster Plague
  124. In all seriousness... by pmz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What percentage of personal computer users use more than 10GB of hard drive space? Seriously.

    If a person isn't determined to use their computer for a PVR, a digital video workstation, or an international citizen tracking database, it might be better to spend the money for a top-notch SCSI hard drive of about 30 to 40 GB.

    $250 buys a 36GB 10,000RPM Ultra 320 hard drive with a 1,200,000 hour MTBF and a five-year warranty. The extra price buys: faster seek times, less latency, higher bandwidth, longer drive life, a manufacturer that stands behind their product...and better peace of mind.

    Why should a person jump through technically-complex hoops, such as IDE RAID, just to be comfortable with cheap and unreliable hard drives? A single high-performance hard drive coupled with a recovery plan in the slight chance it breaks could be a better plan. My idea of a recovery plan is: a known configuration that can be remade from OEM CD-ROMs plus personal data backups (e.g., CD-RW).

    Computer components are so damn cheap anymore, that the money we would have spent on just the basics years ago can now go towards quality and reliability.

    1. Re:In all seriousness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap is better! IDE RAID just like real RAID. Kill the dissenter!

    2. Re:In all seriousness... by pmz · · Score: 1

      Cheap is better! IDE RAID just like real RAID. Kill the dissenter!

      (dodges thrown chair, peeks up to talk to AC) Thanks! (ducks just in time to avoid rack-mount JBOD, whispers to self) Damn PeeCee owners...

    3. Re:In all seriousness... by Cyno · · Score: 2

      What percentage of personal computer users use more than 10GB of hard drive space? Seriously.

      What percentage of personal computer users will need more than 640k of RAM? Seriously.

      A single DVD takes up 4GB of harddrive space. A Movie collection most likely will take up a LOT more.

    4. Re:In all seriousness... by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      640k of RAM This limitation was built into the hardware. The reason people joke about 640K of RAM is that the manufacturers were shortshighted by making the maximum RAM fixed to some quickly exhausted number. SCSI hard drives are a different matter. They don't suffer from the repeated capacity limits found in IDE disks (analygous to the shortsighted 640K RAM limit), which makes choosing SCSI even smarter. Seagate even sells a 36BG hard drive that will fit nicely into workstations built in 1992 (10 MB/s SCSI-2) with no problems. The parent post's argument about smaller but higher quality hard drives still stands. If the user really has a genuine need to store a whole bunch of DVDs on their hard drive, then they can make a different choice about what hard drive to buy. However, for many many people, 10GB is still a pretty generous capacity. That's why money otherwise spent on a rediculously-sized IDE drive might be better spent on a top-notch but smaller SCSI drive.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
  125. Even cheaper this weekend by JojoLinkyBob · · Score: 1

    According to techbargains.com, this weekend:
    CompUSA - WD 100 GB 7200 RPM $79.99AR

    --
    -jc
  126. $500 for 10MB?!?!!?? by ldopa1 · · Score: 2

    Back when I had a DecMate II, I spent a fortune ($1120) for a whopping 4MB hard disk!!! I was convinced that that was all I WOULD EVERY NEED. 4 MILLION BYTES?!? That's like 32 MILLION ones and zeros! Who would every fill up THAT MUCH SPACE? It's INCONCIEVABLE!

    Two years earlier, I was using a DecMate, which only had two 8" floppy drives (RX02, for you DECies out there). I remember being completely amazed that the operating system required the use of both drives. Then I sprung for an analog coupler to call into the mainframe. At 180 bps, I was travelling faster than God himself could go.

    God am I old or what? Does anyone but me remember playing Moria on a VAX?

    --
    The Dopester
    "Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
  127. Rebates suck by mapmaker · · Score: 1
    I can't stand that rebate crap at BestBuy/CompUSA/Staples/CircuitCity/OfficeMax.

    Three separate mail-in rebates on a pack of CD-Rs??!?! WTF?

    What these companies are doing is requiring you to give them 2-3 month loans, interest free, in return for a good price on their merchandise.

    1. Re:Rebates suck by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

      Rebates mostly suck, but not always.

      Example: I just bought some software for $200 at staples. There was a $50 off $200 coupon, so I only spent $150. I have 2 rebates totaling $190. So in the 8-10 weeks when I get the rebates, I will profit $40 on my initial $150. Thats a 26% return on the money in 2.5 months, plus I get the software to boot.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:Rebates suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Devsdeals.com always has a bunch of deals where you can get that kind of stuff for free, or even get paid to get it, after a rebate.

      Its a small price to pay to get a bunch of stuff for free. I've gotten thousands of dollars worth of stuff for free or better in the last year, and have never had a problem with the rebate. Rebates are my friend.

  128. Time machine anyone? by deepvoid · · Score: 1

    What I wouldn't give for a time machine. Just the idea of packing a couple of crates of today's hardware off to the past nakes me yearn for a way to leverage it. But then again, I would just go all the way back to Newton and show him Einstein's equations and try to bootstrap this century even further.

    --
    Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
  129. $500 for 10mb by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    big deal I sold 10mb Micropolis and CDC drives for real profit! 1500.00+ and 5mb fixed with 5mb cartridge drives for even more!!!

    Heck, I just found out the 2 Ampex (?) 50mb washing machines I turned into welding carts are worth a couple of grand a piece.

    Waaaaaaaa.....

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  130. A lot of power for not much money. by NortWind · · Score: 2

    This is a great deal of storage, so much that it is hard to comprehend. To put it into perspective, let's say that somebody wanted to keep a 1K byte file on every US citizen. You could store that online for under $500 at these rates.

  131. So? by aikido_kit · · Score: 1
    "I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB."

    But by then, the operating system will take 100 TB.

  132. Re:Stop modding this post incorrectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How about meta moderating properly and fixing the moderator problem?

  133. Re:error by jridley · · Score: 2

    I used to think it was lying to say a GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, but then I realized that Giga was 10^9 long before digital computers existed. The computer industry (incorrectly) used the prefix Giga to mean 2^30. Giga properly and historically does mean 10^9 though. When Doc Smith was gaping about 1.21 Gigawatts, he wasn't talking 1.21 * 2^30, he meant 1,210,000,000 watts.

  134. Now: Maxtor 60 GB 7200 rpm at CompUsa for 69.99 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    -*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*-

    On sale now. Maxtor 60 GB 7200 rpm at CompUsa for 69.99

    -*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*-

  135. Another view on newegg by mcgroarty · · Score: 2
    Not a fan of newegg.com at all.

    I placed an order and they required me to fax a photocopy of my driver's license and credit card over because I was shipping to my work address with my personal credit card.

    Two days later, they informed me that they lost that and asked me to fax again, then acknowledged that they had the fax.

    A week and a half later, when I inquired about the order, they said that they suspected me of fraud for shipping to an address other than the billing one. After getting that all straightened out yet again, nothing happened for a week. I checked in again, and the order had been cancelled.

    Since the order was closed according to their Yahoo shopping record, I purchased elsewhere, only to have the newegg.com order show up a week later. When I turned it around for a refund, they then tried to charge me a restocking fee!

  136. Do we really WANT that extra reliability? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
    ... if you bought quality up front you would have fewer problems and save money in the long run?

    It has certainly occurred to me. The problem is, where do I find drives (or parts in general) which cost twice as much, but last three times longer? Or 50% more, but last 75% longer?

    The manufacturers seem compete ONLY on price, until you get into the unix workstation price range. It seems we have the choice of kmart specials or gold-plated and priced to match.

    Since I can still back up each single project on a single CD (actually, all of my projects, and /etc, and my ~/.files on a single CD), is it really worth my while to spend anything extra to increase the odds of that HD lasting that long from 90% to 99.9%? Maybe not. Maybe that's why the manufacturers compete only on price: quality suffices for most use, and RAID covers the few folks who need better quality on a PC.

    A another thought is that I'll be wanting to replace my 30GB hard drive in another two years or so. It will have lasted about 4 to 5 years when it's replaced, and odds are that it will last that long.

    My data and what-have-you seems to expand fast enough that I don't really need hard drives or computer hardware in general to last a full decade. I do still have a 10 year old laptop, but it's a toy today. It doesn't have an ethernet port, nor a modern modem, and no way to add either, so I can't even use it as a cheap router or xterm.

    I suspect that if there was money to be made by making PC hardware that was significantly more reliable than the current standard, we'd see soemone filling that niche. The fact that none of the intensely competitive hard drive manufacturers are trying to fill that niche by selling specially inspected versions of their drives with extra warrenties suggests to me that we just don't want extra reliability enough to pay for it.

    Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the hard drive manufacturers ARE making those specially inspected, high-reliability, long warrenty versions. They put SCSI interfaces on them to mark them as better than consumer grade, and sell them for the 50% to 100% extra that the extra quality control costs. That matches up pretty well with the stories I hear about the relative quality and price of SCSI versus IDE.

  137. Yes! by Hydro-X · · Score: 2

    I've met a guy on IRC who did this about a year and a half ago with SCSI RAID. An interesting side note: he recorded the noise it makes it on startup and just those disks spinning up makes it sound like a jet engine.

  138. Old HDDs and TB backup by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

    I'm not as old as many of you (19) but I remember my first computer was an 80386 with a 250MB HDD. I have no clue what it cost (I was 7) but I never thought I would ever fill that thing up. Then, when I was about 12, I bought my first hard drive on my own. A 2.1GB Seagate (when 30GB drives were $20,000) for $220. That was heaven. Now, I have a 30GB internal and 45GB external on my laptop and I backup stuff on DVD's.

    And what is all this, "How am I going to back up a TB?" Didn't you all read the post (I think it was on slashdot) about the 1.5TB DVDs coming out in 2010? Man, you have to pay attention more!

    --
    -SaNo
  139. i bought one for less than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought a new 100 gig harddrive for $80 retail. Not a bad price at all.

  140. just a comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a 120 gig hd for sale a few weeks ago at bestbuy for $60 after rebate.

  141. finally, NO freaking MAIL-IN-REABATES by linuxlover · · Score: 2

    The drives have been $1/gig with mail-in-rebates for some time now. (big stores, BestBuy / Frys ..etc).

    But I loath MIRs!

    May it is just me, but I could never get any rebates. It is some sort of 'missing proof of purchase'. Even though I stuffed every thing from the store receipt to those damn stickers in one envelope and mailed it.

    So I felt like I was ripped-off and never tried mail-in-rebates since then. I always thought they were some sort of scam. They rely on you
    - not mailing in the rebates (how many geeks do?)
    - or able to refuse rebate because a sticker is slightly damaged!

    Finally it is good news, that you can get a $1/gig without those MIRs..

    nice.

    LinuxLover

  142. You raise an interesting point... by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    ... and one that has been on my mind lately. [here we go, OT, but I gotta ask...]

    Does anyone out there actually run a RAID array as their main drive? I've only recently become aware of the software RAID capabilities in OS X, and wondered what kind of a speed boost you could get by simply buying 2-3 cheap (price-wise) drives and striping them. Or is this path fraught with peril?

    Last time I striped anything RAID was back in 97, with big-assed AVID setups.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:You raise an interesting point... by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      I just had a hard disk crash on my linux box. Because I'm lazy and never did any backups, I lost a lost of information because of this. I decided to buy 2 disks to replace the one and when I did my reinstall I selected the option to use RAID 1 (or mirroring). It seems to be a lot faster, but I don't actually have any benchmarks to prove it.

      General theories:
      * RAID 0, striping will give faster read and write times, but no redundancy.
      * RAID 1, mirroring will give faster read times, put write will probably be slower.
      * RAID 4 gives good performace and some redundancy, but IIRC there is still a single point of failure (the parity disk)
      * RAID 5 gives moderate, if any, performance increase but solves RAID 4's problem by spreading parity over all disks in the array.

      Special consideritions if you're using IDE:
      If you are setting RAID 0 or 1 (or both combined, yes that is possible) using IDE disks and your goal is performace increases, both disks must be on seperate IDE buses (eg, primary and secondary). If they are on the same bus as a master and a slave, then they share the same controller (the master's) and there is no performace increase (there's still redundancy if you're using RAID 1, but no performance gain). It's also advisable to not have anything be a slave on that bus (esp. slow stuff like CDROM's) otherwise it's usage will slow the hard disk down.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  143. Re:error by Sabotage · · Score: 1
    When Doc Smith was gaping about 1.21 Gigawatts, he wasn't talking 1.21 * 2^30, he meant 1,210,000,000 watts.

    The doc in Back to the Future was a pretty famous Emmitt, but not Emmitt Smith. Different guy entirely :)

    Dr. Emmitt Brown is the name you're looking for.

  144. Bizarro world computing by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2

    Wait, the OS that *can't* play Quake 82 will be considered the "toy OS"? Huh?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  145. Unreliable floppy disks by borgquite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *Risks the wrath of the moderators by going off topic to release a bee from a bonnet*

    Finally! Someone else notices the problem!

    I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but I'm sure floppy disks aren't as reliable as they used to be. I can remember carting 3.5" disks around the place for *ages* before they died out... now it seems that if you drop one of the things then it will become unusable.

    So, who is behind it? Is it the manufacturers of the floppy drives, or the manufacturers of the floppy disks? Have Iomega secretly bought out every single one of the floppy disk manufacturers?

    Oh well, it gives an opportunity for even young people to state 'They don't make them like they used to' :)

    --
    ' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
    - found on a park bench
    1. Re:Unreliable floppy disks by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Funny
      I can remember carting 3.5" disks around the place for *ages* before they died out.
      At the risk of turning this into a dick-measuring contest, I had a 5.25" that I folded clear in half by accident in sixth grade or so. Creased and everything, and man was I pissed.

      Encyclopedia to the rescue! I put it inside one volume and then stacked a half dozen more over top of it, and left it for a couple days. Worked fine, not even a bad sector - I have no idea why not. I guess I lucked out and nothing shifted while it was bent, so nothing scraped.
    2. Re:Unreliable floppy disks by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but I'm sure floppy disks aren't as reliable as they used to be. I can remember carting 3.5" disks around the place for *ages* before they died out... now it seems that if you drop one of the things then it will become unusable."

      True. If you look at older discs (1990s era) the two halves of plastic are glued all the way around. The 'new' floppies are only glued in the corners so lint, grease, etc can get in and wreck them more easily.

    3. Re:Unreliable floppy disks by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I've also noticed this. I think the problem may well be that most of the floppy disks being sold are not actually newly-manufactured, but have been in storage for YEARS. (I've also noticed that the multicoloured TDK floppies at Costco look suspiciously like the multicoloured Verbatim disks of a previous era.)

      The reason I think this, is that a couple years ago I noticed that my 1.44mb floppies (which were mostly Sony, best you could get, and bought new) were failing at once, whether just a few bad sectors or death by bad track 0. And I'm seeing approx. the same failure rate on brand new disks as I am on those middle-aged Sony disks, as well as somewhat older disks. It's as if they all sorta aged out at once. That's why I really wonder if the "new" disks in stores today are actually from warehouse stashes that are several years old. Even cheapshit low-end floppies from way back when didn't have the high fail rate when new that current disks do.

      I'd previously observed mass-failure in a very short timeframe for 720k disks, followed by 1.2mb disks. 1.44mb have always been more reliable than 720k, but their time apparently came in due course. 360k disks are now going bad right and left, so apparently their time has also arrived.

      [odd thought] 2000ish was a heavy sunspot year. Wonder if that was a factor?? It's apparently enough to stimulate one type of skin fungus seen in some animals (since it follows sunspot cycles), so one has to wonder about stray solar particles impacting magnetic media that's as poorly protected from radiation as a floppy.

      I'm rambling, but you get the point... being that I just don't believe most "new" floppies in stores today are of *recent* manufacture.

      HDs, being metal-shelled, are likely somewhat better-protected from any such solar conspiracies.

      Omighod, I'm near the topic again! I'll never live this down. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Unreliable floppy disks by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Actually, I've seen just as many cheaply-made OLD crispies that are not glued all the way around, and just as many tightly-made ones that have lately gone bad. Yeah, cheaply-made disks often had poorer media, but they were crap when they were new. Even the good ones are going bad now, and the only consistent factor I've noticed is AGE.

      And remember that 360k disks have a gaping hole where the media is exposed to fingerprints, dirt, scratching, and whatever else passes by, plus the 5" floppy head rides the disk harder, yet 360k disks are unquestionably the most durable of the lot. They took some 15 years to get to the stage of aging out en masse.

      Couple years ago I gave away a pile of CP/M disks (360k type) from ca. 1982 that were still mostly good, and they'd been stored outdoors!! So I don't think dust etc. is really that much of a factor.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Unreliable floppy disks by deppe · · Score: 1

      Floppies have always been this bad. The 5 1/4" disks were somewhat better IMO. But ten years ago people accepted it in another way.

      I have a list in my head of stuff that almost never works, and I try to shy away from them:

      1) Floppies, in particular pre-formatted
      2) Modems.
      3) Printers of suspicous brands.
      4) Windows 9?.
      5) your entry here :-)

  146. Good for Redundancy; Bad for Reliability by p4 · · Score: 1

    I assume you're talking about software RAID since you're building RAIDs from cheap IDE drives. Software RAID is a cheap and easy way to protect your data, but if you're looking for availability, pricier SCSI RAID cards and such are the only way to go.

    I use Linux Software RAID on my web server, and had a hard drive crash just last week. All the data was protected on the good drive; however, when the IDE drive failed, the entire system crashed with it. And since the BIOS was set to boot from the bad disk, simply rebooting it didn't fix the problem. I had to manually go into the BIOS to get it to boot from the good disk.

    I still plan to use IDE RAID, because it's a great way to cheaply back up my data. However, if you're looking for uptime and reliability, stay away from cheap IDE drives.

  147. Late 1970s by istartedi · · Score: 2

    When I was a kid, one day my father took me by the office on Saturday because he had to do something. I don't know how much data was in the hard drive, but it was the size of a refrigerator. You had to wait a few minutes after turning it on so the disk could "spin up" and you were supposed to watch it after you turned it off to make sure it "spun down" properly. Either there was a lot of angular momentim in there, or the motor was really weak. All the computer equipment was Wang. They used to joke about "playing with the Wang". Ahhh... the days before sexual harassment suits.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  148. Re:error by isorox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Doc Smith was gaping about 1.21 Gigawatts, he wasn't talking 1.21 * 2^30, he meant 1,210,000,000 watts.

    Actually he said "Jiggawatts", quite funny now that we use giga all the time, but back in the mid 80's I guess giga- was used as much as exa- is now.

    Hmm, cable connecter was about 1 foot long. At 88mph, total maximum contact time (Assuming the car didnt vanish half way through the connection - if it did less power was needed) was less then 1/100th of a second. Total power used by the car was therefore 1.21*10^9/10^2 - 12.1MJ. (1 watt is a measure of power, not energy - 1 joule per second)

    With a massive capacitor you could charge the delorian off five ten-millionths of a gram of antimatter (combined with an equal ammount of matter). More importantly you could charge the delorian in a UK power socket (13A, 240V, or just over 3.1KJ/s) in less then 7 minutes.

    The delorian must have needed the power all at once (understandable), and didnt have any way of storing that much charge (doubtful).

    BTW 1.21GW is a lot of power to continuosly put out.

    Marty was back in 1955 for a week. Even a trickle charge of 60W (1 light bulb) for the entire week would have provided 36MJ, enought to power the delorian for 1/30th of a second - 3 times longer than needed.

    Incidently, in 1999, the U.S.A produced over 13 million TerraJoules in electricty - enough to power the delorian for over 300 years.

  149. Re:INCORRECT. 80GB drives went $1 long ago by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    Moreover, there's only one drive (a Samsung 120G) that's at this $1/G price point. Every drive with a larger or smaller capacity is more than $1/G.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  150. It was more than that by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2
    This is truly an amazing milestone for those of us who once spent $500 for the fantastically large 10MB models.

    When Radio Shack first released the Model 16 (one of the first 'mass-market' Unix (Zenix) boxes), their 8MB hard disk (with a 10" platter) cost something like $6000. That's why I got hired by one person who wanted to know if I could get a usable system to boot with two 1M (8") floppy disks instead of a hard disk.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  151. It's a mixed blessing though... by Da_Big_G · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Falling prices is always a nice thing for consumers, but look out - quality is suffering, and companies like Maxtor have been accused of "stuffing the channel" to move more product.

    These low prices are a result of cut-throat competition akin to that in the "0% financing" car industry -- the manufacturers aren't profiting, so there won't be very good support down the line. Look at IBM - they sold their (previously crappy) hard drive line to Hitachi. Additionally, virtually all of the IDE/ATA drive manufacturers have cut their warranties to 1 year OR LESS!

    I personally had an 80 GB IBM deskstar die in December (3 months after manufacture). It cost just over $3,000 to get the thing recovered by a data recovery shop (the thing wouldn't power up, so no, Norton Utilities was not an option).

    HOWEVER - now that big drives are so cheap, look for (and implement if you can afford it) IDE RAID-1 configurations (mirroring) to save money and increase reliability.

    1. Re:It's a mixed blessing though... by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No disrespect intended, but if your shop had data worth paying $3,000 on a consumer hard drive with no backup, there's more than hard drive manufacturing defects wrong there.

  152. Tape drives are still to expensive. by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet tape drives are still around $30/GB! Who cares about big monster drives if you can't backup the data.

    Hard drives still fail, you know.

    -ted

    1. Re:Tape drives are still to expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude. dvd+r. Rima.com has 100 packs for $165.00. Even if say, 10 of those go coaster, you're still paying 42 and a half cents/gB(that assumes a $15 shipping charge, btw.. not sure if that's right).

      You can argue that that's no good for the enterprise since tapes can be automated with robots, but it means that smart home users should be covered nicely.

    2. Re:Tape drives are still to expensive. by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      You back up your data to other harddrives.

      Every 3 years buy two new harddrives whose capacity is each twice the sum of all drives you have ever bought previously, and copy everything to it, and set the old ones aside on the shelf to be accessed in should both of the new ones fail.

    3. Re:Tape drives are still to expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup thats same problem I came across. I have a 20GB tape drive, but no chance I'm gonna be switching tapes every week to backup all my data - I want it automated. Rather than get a expensive tape drive, I just turned my second "test machine" (server) into a mirror of my first, and setup replication between the servers. Although I'm sure theres a chance both HDs could die at the same time, its very unlikely. Not the best solution but it works great and learning some new stuff.

    4. Re:Tape drives are still to expensive. by bruthasj · · Score: 2

      Tapes suck and are so slow. Get 30 Hard drives and mirror what you've got before you go to tape. It's such a worthless technology now--I loathe when my superiors tell me I have to make tape backups of stuff. Get CD-RW or DVD+RW, whatever.

      All: Do NOT support tape technology anymore. Let's put it to rest.

    5. Re:Tape drives are still to expensive. by zerofoo · · Score: 2

      That's all fine and good, but i've got to backup 40 GB of data. Having two weeks worth of tapes is nice. When some student accedentally deletes his home directory, I just pull out a tape and restore his directory.

      40GB tapes also alow me to do a backup on one tape. DVD won't let me do that, and i'm not comming in at 3am when our backups run, to switch DVDs.

      -ted

  153. Earth Magnets! by wholecake · · Score: 1

    Well, one of my passions is to remove the earth magnets from old SCSI disks, they have soo many uses! :-)

  154. Resellerratings by RyanFenton · · Score: 2


    Pricewatch is nice, but next to useless without or similar methods of checking out resellers.

    Always remember to check out anyone offering the "best" prices, especially their history with returns. :^)

    Ryan Fenton

  155. Re:error by jridley · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I think I was thinking of Lost in Space, which is about where I am today.

    The pain, the pain!

  156. And yet everything will be slower..... by juancn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Let me drift on this subject...

    You know that sorting algorithms won't get better than O(NlgN) and searching algorithms won't get any better than O(lgN).

    And access times of HDs haven't improved much in the last 10 years (bulk transfer has, though).

    I know CPU's are now much faster... but also software developers became sloppier (think of the first C compiler running in a 4Kbyte RAM machine).

    So... what all this means?

    Probably we'll just have to wait longer...

    I know... maybe I'm worring too much...

  157. My first was a Quantum Fireball 80MB by CmdrTHAC0 · · Score: 1

    We agonized over whether to go for a 40 or 80 MB disk for about a week, then finally went with the 80 in case we ordered lots of Fred Fish disks. We didn't, so in the 10 years that Amiga 500 was in service, we managed to fill about 30 MB of it, with DeluxePaintIII animations, hundreds of assembly programs, Unicalc spreadsheets, and even a few BASIC programs. We had the disk in a Dataflyer IDE controller, which also held our huge upgrade of 2 MB of fast RAM, on 80-pin 1x8 SIMMs.

    We modified an Amdek Color-I monitor and built a custom cable to drive it with the digital RGB output of the Amiga. The computer is gone, but the monitor lives on, with a PSOne[1] connected to its analog input. We still play games with mono sound.

    [1] Who would name a product something that looks like it should be pronounced "piss on"?

    --
    __CmdrTHAC0__
    In Soviet Russia, Spanish Inquisition doesn't expect YOU!!
  158. price differences at CompRenn by timothy · · Score: 1

    You're right that things other than raw capacity affect hard drive prices, but my experiences so far with Computer Rennaisance have always left me amazed at how high their prices are, and closer to the 10X price difference the parent post to yours mentioned.

    Once in a while, there's been something I wanted, and I let convenience win (I'm there in the store, and CompUSA doesn't seem to carry laptop-sized hard drives, and I need it RIGHT NOW TODAY), but usually, I've been disgusted by the prices and politely left. Prices on their used stuff, (sometimes quite beat-up seeming) are often no better (especially counting discounts) than the new, much-better counterpart products you might get at any large computer retailer or office store of the CompUSA / Best Buy / OfficeMax etc variety. In addition, I've found the sales guys there, while some of them are nice enough, are often ignorant of the stuff they're selling, and will happily deny that their prices are in any way odd. Also, the CR stores (three in total) where I've ever been for any reason have been badly organized; two of them could not tell me over the phone whether they had what I needed, and said I'd have to come in; it turns out that the first of them *did* have what I wanted (a laptop drive), but "misspoke" when telling me the price; after driving 1/2 hour, the price had jumped $50. Did I buy it? Yes (had to replace a crashed drive), but not happily.

    (Note that I've only been in a few of these places, in Maryland and Tennesee -- maybe some CR locations are much better. I hope so -- it seems like they brand the *name*, and individual stores are themselves responsible for how good / mediocre they actually are. It *should* surprise everyone that the individual store's websites are so spotty.)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  159. Too little and too late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that beowulf clusters are commonplace, heck even my 8-year old kid sister has a sweet little 50000-noder in her bedroom, isn't this just too little and too late?

    For instance, a billion XTs sporting a 720kB floppy each can roundly trounce these 120GB hard disks and can be had for a lot less than $120!!

    It's a little know fact that the average American household throws away over a thousand PC XTs every week! This resource can surely be leveraged for the good of our fine country. God bless America!

  160. Serial ATA RAID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know IDE RAID doesn't work all that well, but will serial ATA RAID be a viable alternative to SCSI RAID?

  161. Older man rant by cirby · · Score: 2

    When I started high school, they got the first student-usable computer in Texas. It was three feet tall, two feet wide and deep, had 256 BYTES of volatile memory, and had a paper-tape storage device.

    Yes, paper. Inch-wide paper tape, in folds, with a punch write head and an optical reader. You programmed the machine with eight switches and a push button (up, down, up, up, down, down, up, up, ENTER).

    Just six years later, a friend of mine had an Apple II with 64K of RAM (the "language card"), color display, and *two* 5 1/4 floppy drives. Other Comp Sci students used to come over just to see this monster machine, which was being used to write some silly little computer game called "Ultima."

  162. So where is my 50 cent 1/2 gigger? by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously though, the reliability of these cheap high capacity drives suck.

    The recent reduction in warranty length should have proven that to most anyone.

    Where are the smaller, and more reliable ones, being sold for these costs?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:So where is my 50 cent 1/2 gigger? by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Searching for smaller, reliable drives? Throw the word SCSI in your next search and you can't miss them.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  163. full data retention possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I'm not entirely wrong, this should make full data retention of the communications data of everyone possible -- except, perhaps, the storage room problem.

    --
    How much output did you produce today?

  164. Does it matter by aipotsid · · Score: 0

    Operating systems and applications seem to scale to the size of the hard drives, so does it really matter....

  165. Right Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WD1200JB or if you reall need space WD2000JBz
    http://www.wdc.com/products/products.as p?DriveID=3 8

  166. What to do with all that CHEAP space? by cheno · · Score: 1

    Besides the obvious - video/pictures/music
    Surely this should open up some new opportunities for someone who can figure out what to do with all that space.
    Any ideas?

  167. Ok fine, so when can I get a hard drive for $25? by codexnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't need a 120G drive, 20G is plenty-- so when can I buy one for $20?... -- Kazoo

  168. Try 200G for $199 (almost) by Grumpman · · Score: 2, Informative
    Right now Micro-Center has the WD 200Gb drives for $199, (after 20% off, in store rebate and a $65 mail in rebate). I just got one and it'sa vera nice!

    Got a Micro-Center near you? Check here

  169. Re: Photo of disk platter... by kinko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... I took a photo of this when I visited California:

    http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~jrm21/images/platter- lowres.jpg

    I put a US one dollar bill on the display case for size comparison ;) There is also a clipping from a newspaper of the time saying how Stanford was suing over warranty issues (such has high unavailability) but it doesn't say what the outcome was...

  170. Oh yeah? Back when I was in the Marine Corps by Snardly+Dinkerton · · Score: 1

    we didn't have none of those fancy shmancy disk drives, we were issued a slab of granite and a chisel each day and we damn well liked it!

    If we made a mistake, we had our trusty all-weather c-ment and a Mark14-Delta GI Putty Knife to cover it up before the beatings and lashing and tears and the screaming!

  171. Bad sectors by yerricde · · Score: 1

    how do you setup logs to tell you if a hard-disk is about to fail?

    ATA and SCSI hard disk drives use error correction coding to estimate how long each sector has to live; once it reaches a threshold, it will automatically remap the dying sector somewhere on a nearby track reserved for remapped sectors. Once the mechanism begins to remap an increasing number of bad sectors, you know your drive's going downhill. Good drives should let you query this statistic.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  172. Maxtor vs Western Digital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've actually had very good luck with Maxtor and very bad luck with Western Digital. I had a 80MB Maxtor hard drive that lasted 10 years and I've had a 12GB one for about 3 years now thats still going strong. On the other hand, every hard drive I've ever had crash (be it mine or a friends') has been a western digital. I think they have gotten better in recent years though. It seemed that a particular 1GB WD model was especially notorious for crashing.

    1. Re:Maxtor vs Western Digital by MikeFM · · Score: 2

      I have several IDE WD's ranging from 20Gb to 100Gb and all undergo nasty stress (constant reading and writing.. and they are FULL) and they have so far held up very well. I've had a couple crap out on me but they were all 5-10 years old. The worst drive I ever bought was a cheap IBM drive and it and every replacement they sent just blackholed within a day or so but they recalled that line so maybe it was just one of those things. I've had a couple Maxtor and Samsung drives over the years and they were okay but didn't take the abuse the WD's did but for these prices I'm willing to give em another go. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  173. Home video, maybe? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While a DVD may only be on the order of gigabytes, the raw video used to make that DVD is going to be on the order of hundreds of gigabytes, and what with Apple's push for iLife (iMovie3, iDVD3), I don't think there's any problems at all with sucking up 200gb in making a home movie masterpiece.

    Now imagine when Apple releases the home consumer version of Shake (for compositing and SFX) or Logic Audio (for home music composing), and it's easy to imagine the need for more storage. The movies you make, the raw footage, the intermediate files, etc.

    1. Re:Home video, maybe? by Duds · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is that home production may drive it?

      True, I'm wondering for the normal people though.

      For Jimmy and Phil, it's Mp3s still. Home Divxing is rare although P2P is giving it a fairly major kick. Do we think they'll get involved in that?

      Maybe future hard drive growth for normal users will simply be driven by the size of their pipe.

  174. $500 for a 10MB drive was CHEAP! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Redundant
    This is truly an amazing milestone for those of us who once spent $500 for the fantastically large 10MB models.
    I dreamed of being able to get 10MB for only $500. My first hard drive was 5MB, and cost $1100 for the drive, $350 for the controller, and $200 for the host adapater. That was only 22 years ago; people were paying over $7000 for a 30MB drive (8-inch or 14-inch) around 1980.

    And no, I'm not going to regale you with tales of having to walk to school 22 miles in the snow, uphill both ways. I only had to walk about 1.5 miles, and it was fairly flat, though there was in fact snow.

    1. Re:$500 for a 10MB drive was CHEAP! by jmcnally · · Score: 1

      What was the average seek time in those old winchesters? 50ms? Track to track times of a 5mS or so? It's amazing how far things have come.

  175. J and K have something to say about that by yerricde · · Score: 1

    "MiB" is a trademark for a film, toys based on the film, and video game programs based on the film.

    "GiB" is what comes out after you've FrAgGeD somebody.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  176. Mod Parent Up by WaKall · · Score: 1

    He's got a great point. Not about backing up 1TB (just double your cost and buy another disk for RAID mirroring), but about the possible widespread loss of information from EMP sources. We'd literally be in the stone age.

    The only reason nobody is addressing the problem is that if you make sure that you personally have non-magnetic versions of your data, it won't matter unless the rest of the fricking world doesn't lose theirs and grind to a halt/panic/start looting the planet.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well actually.... he dosen't. ever heard of a faraday cage?
      perhaps you should think things out before making such wide reaching statements. i mean really, do you think that the whole world would be that short sighted!?! (y2k yes yes i know, but did anything actually happen?)

  177. Yes, time to pay Bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll get the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to print a 10**100 dollar bill and give it to Bill Gates. Except he won't be able to spend it because the rest of the money supply won't be large enough to make change for it.

  178. Oh, so that was a READ by vudufixit · · Score: 2


    Really
    Expensive
    Array of
    Disks

  179. who modded this redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a joke, right?

    1. Re:who modded this redundant? by LookSharp · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Glad someone else noticed the irony of a (non-redundant) post about redundancy that got modded as... Redundant. :)

  180. Re: Photo of disk platter... by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

    Are you sure that isn't the back plane to H. G. Well's time machine? The edges look pretty in that picture somehow.

  181. RAID 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the parity disk's content can be reconstructed from the content of all other drives.

  182. Milestone by Junky191 · · Score: 2

    OK, there's some debate as to when this point actually was, but whatever- close enough. I submitted this story because I just wanted it acknowledged that it has actually happened- I don't think it matters much if its off by a few weeks.

    $1/GB. Wow.

  183. But is the quality still there? by unconfused1 · · Score: 1

    Yeah....hard disks are really cheap now...but is the quality still up to par?

    Watching warranties for disks is depressing as a lot of companies drop their previous 3 year warranties and replace them with 1 year and even 90 day warranties for hard disks.

    For example, I have a Maxtor 80GB drive that has been replaced 3 times in the past 2 years. The only thing saving me is that, at least up until now, they have been resetting my 1 year warranty on that drive with each replacement. But I don't expect that to continue either.

    And I have heard a lot of bad stories concerning 120 GB drives failing often also. I've talked to people that won't buy one without a good backup solution.

    Also, hasn't the physical limits of space on the platters coming close to their theoretical maximum? There is going to come a time when reliability and actual physical space come crashing down...and they'll need to move to a new technology.

  184. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't give a fuck about space. I have an 80GB HD and it holds my entire music and photo collection as well as 2 full dev environments, MS Office, and every program I would conceivably use. And I still have 60GB free.

    Could these HD makers start concentrating on SPEED please? How about upping that cache to 64MB, reducing seek times to 1ms avg, and throughput rates of 1GB/s? How much would it suck if all video card makers did was increase the amount of video memory year after year without improving performance?

    Give us a 20GB HD that can boot XP in 5 seconds, not a 2TB HD that still takes 5 minutes to boot.

  185. Re:Stop modding this post incorrectly by Mitreya · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    How giving metamoderation privileges to latecomers? :) at least the ones with non-negative carma??
    It seems that it is going to be a long while till I am eligible... it's been more than a few months since I opened my account.

  186. Home Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have > 200GB of home DV. DV takes 12 - 17 GB per hour.

    With a 2 year old, and all family living out of the area - we use lots of video.

    And the sad thing is in the 200GB there is probably about 15 minutes of *good* footage. ;) Now I just need the time to use FinalCutExpress to make the award winning 15 minutes of home video...

  187. HD prices going up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Germany, we've been very near 1 / GB last spring.. now drives are more expensive again with 60 GB drives going for around 100 .
    I hope they come down in price again eventually, including the big drives (200+ GB)...

  188. Like I have said before... by angelkey · · Score: 0

    Slashdot. Yesterday's news...today! The ONLY reason I still come here is because the trolls and 'In Soviet Russia'. Gold. Solid gold that Soviet Russia joke is.

    --
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984
    1. Re:Like I have said before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know why the goatse.cx image has changed?

    2. Re:Like I have said before... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1
      Eeeeeww... WTF did you go and LOOK for??

      ~:-/

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  189. Magic Marker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The edges look pretty in that picture somehow.

    That's just where they had to color with the magic marker so as to bust the digital rights management.

  190. $500 for 10MB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall the first 10mb hard disk for the Mac, it was 1985 and the drive was a Paradise 10mb. If it was $500 i would have bought 10. However, it was $5,000 dollars - not $500.

  191. Harrrumph! Well, back in MY days... by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 4, Funny

    You kids these days don't understand how easy you have it. Why, back in MY days...

    ... obligatory comments about walking barefoot through the snow uphill both ways snipped...

    I remember my first computer job at a Radio Shack computer center. Some guy had been begging his wife for months to let him buy a hard drive, and she finally let him. I think it was Christmas or something. It was $2,800 (US) and was the size of a mini-tower case laid down flat. I can't remember whether it was a 5 MB or a 10 MB drive.

    This would have been... let me think... must 'a been the winter of '84/85... yep, them were the good old days, when floppies were 5 1/4 inches and women were grateful, or something like that.

    And when we connected with a modem, we had to flip a switch on the modem with our bare hands! 300 bits per second, BOTH WAYS, by thunder!

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  192. Remember the BSA by Nanite · · Score: 1

    No more swapping floppies when you want to run a program *and* save something, or when you want to copy a file from one floppy to another.

    Remember the BSA: "Don't copy that floppy"

    That had to be the worst motto ever.

    --
    God is real unless declared integer.
  193. The problem is... by Hugonz · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting until I see some storage device under 50 or so. We're getting larger and larger drives, but it's basically the same price, around 100 bucks. What I want is a 20GB drive for 20 USD, so that I can put a web kiosk for a decent price (or a jukebox). And I say it again: flash wont do....it's too expensive now.

  194. Normal People? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    You mean the folks with camcorders and kids and scrapbooks and home movies and DVD players?

    The ones who will film the baby's first step, or the violin recitals, or the choir performance on Christmas?

    Who will make videos out of trips to the Bahamas, when they go skiing in Colorado, and visit the temples of Japan?

    Who will then make 10 DVD-Rs of each of these events and spread them, like spam, to their next of kin?

    And then put up accompanying photo albums online, with short writeups, and then send them via email, like spam, to their co-workers, best friends, and family?

    Apple is betting on this market, at least :)

  195. Re: Photo of disk platter... by John+Harrison · · Score: 2

    Cool. That is it. The big black band is the drive crash.

  196. nuh uh, TB stands for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TB does not stand for Terrabyte, it stands
    for Taco Bell!

  197. Having no swap is DANGEROUS by r6144 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Maybe you have more memory than you ever need. But in case memory run a little tight, if there were no swap, the OS just have to drop the read-only pages (like most executable code) while leaving many rarely-used r/w (like data) pages in RAM. So there will definitely be MORE thrashing if RAM happen to be a little scarce (when you mistakenly started something twice, etc.).

    I once used KDE1 on a 32MB system, and it run quite smoothly. One day I did some configuration and forgot to turn on swap. After typing startx, the system nearly thrashed to death, and it took me three minutes to exit KDE normally.

  198. Everything Gets Cheaper Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this is the headline of the year of course. The rapid advance of technology also leads to rapid commoditization of slightly older equipment. This means that as long as Moore's Law holds true, or at least holds up with slight modifications (already ammended once remember). Everything (at least everything technology related) will get cheaper forever.

    By the, plasma TV's are down to $150, look here:
    http://www.ezexpo.com/index.htm

  199. Wow by kingOFgEEEks · · Score: 1

    I really will have to change my thinking soon. When i see '06, i think .30-06, which was designed in 1906. Now i have to deal with '06 being 3 years in the future... damn.

    --
    mechanicos ergo cogito
    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when I see .30-06 I think venison

    2. Re:Wow by kingOFgEEEks · · Score: 1

      same here

      --
      mechanicos ergo cogito
  200. Re:Harrrumph! Well, back in MY days... by isorox · · Score: 2

    And when we connected with a modem, we had to flip a switch on the modem with our bare hands! 300 bits per second, BOTH WAYS, by thunder!

    Was that before or after you clipped it onto the phone and manually dialed the number?

  201. About time that happened in NZ by microsost · · Score: 1

    I'll be impressed when NZ gets $1/gb.. our 120gb drives cost $NZ353.. So NZ $120 would be a nice decrease (NZ$120~US$50)

  202. Re:error by mrjah · · Score: 1

    Hmm, cable connecter was about 1 foot long. At 88mph, total maximum contact time (Assuming the car didnt vanish half way through the connection - if it did less power was needed) was less then 1/100th of a second. Total power used by the car was therefore 1.21*10^9/10^2 - 12.1MJ. (1 watt is a measure of power, not energy - 1 joule per second)

    Don't forget about arcing, which would effectively have made the "contact" time longer. There was definitely a small but visible arc, so the total energy needs might have been somewhat higher, though probably within the same order of magnitude.

    But I suspect the total energy angle on this whole thing is inaccurate. Doc Emmitt L. Brown, ever the perfectionist, only claimed that there was a power requirement, not a total energy requirement. It may be that the total amount of time over which the power is applied (and therefore the total energy necessary) is irrelevant, so long as the flux capacitor's apparently-very-short time constant is covered. There may be only a localized power threshold relevant to the flux dispersal process, beyond which space-time warping and attendant temporal displacement are initiated instantaneously.

    Thus, one could supply a tiny amount of energy in an incredibly short amount of time to achieve temporal displacement, allowing Marty to return home to 1985 using a fairly small capacitor cleverly engineered by Doc to discharge in one ten-billionth of a second. This would have made for a somewhat less interesting movie.

    "One point twenty-one gigawatts!?! It can't be done! Can it? Oh, wait, gimme the battery from your digital watch. Okay, we're all set. You'll be home by lunch. Oh, and, uh, I'll take care of your parents."

  203. $1 / TB? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1, Troll

    Can't wait 'till things are a buck for a terabyte, eh? When that day comes to pass, inflation will have made a dollar worth three cents, so a reasonably priced hard drive will run you about $40,000 dollars, the average weekly wage, and will be the size of a dime. We'll all be using the Itanium 6 and 512 GB of RAM, and our monitor's resolution will be 65536x49152, with 64 bit color. Windows will take up a mere 75 terabytes of hard disk space and will take about 45 minutes to start up, and will crash no less than once every six hours (that's over 518,400,000,000,000 instructions executed, a record for Windows!)...

  204. Mid-Late1980s by lsdino · · Score: 1

    This made me thing of when I went to my dad's office :) but it was the mid 80-late 80s, so stuff was different then. By this time the drive was about 1/2 the size of a refrigerator. But they had these blue cylinders (~1 1/2 ft diameter, ~1/2 high) that you would put in to the drive (I guess it was removable media). He would have to put in some new blue thing in and then my brother and I could play games on the Wang terminals.

  205. You just proved my point. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    Under their "Worst Models Ever" I found a list of drives, almost all of which are old and long out of production. So, while drive failures still plague us, it doesn not appear to me that today's drives are less failure-prone than older drives.

    1. Re:You just proved my point. by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "Under their "Worst Models Ever" I found a list of drives, almost all of which are old and long out of production. So, while drive failures still plague us, it doesn not appear to me that today's drives are less failure-prone than older drives."

      I suggest you find the recent slashdot story about (under ask slashdot) about the death of newer Fujitsu drives across Europe and North America. And what about IBM's GXP drives? They're being sued over the 75 GB version due to excessive failures.

      And about "worst models ever." It is impossible for a modern drive to appear in that list because it is still in use. Only after it has been obsoleted would you be able to tell if it was one of the worst ever.

    2. Re:You just proved my point. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2
      I suggest you find the recent slashdot story about (under ask slashdot) about the death of newer Fujitsu drives across Europe and North America. And what about IBM's GXP drives? They're being sued over the 75 GB version due to excessive failures.

      Don't tell me about drives with known defects. Show me numbers for typical drives. As I said in another post, it's like citing Firestone Wilderness AT tires (as used on Ford Explorers) as proof that today's tires are less reliable than those of the 60's. How can you cite failures of Cirrus Logic chips (due to a change in resin chemistry) as proof that hard drives are less reliable? Come on! Fujitsu designed a perfectly good drive and Cirrus Logic shipped them a batch of chips that were defective. That kind of thing happens in every industry and has been happening in the hard drive industry for over 20 years.

      And about "worst models ever." It is impossible for a modern drive to appear in that list because it is still in use. Only after it has been obsoleted would you be able to tell if it was one of the worst ever.

      Untrue. They list Samsung drives of any type or vintage on that list. They also explain:

      Many very old drives were not included in this list, as these are mostly out of use now, but you will find several that are mostly out of use.

      So they made an effort to not include very old drives that are "mostly out of use", yet the list is still largely populated with older drives, often from defunct manufacturers.

  206. Statistics 101 by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    I am the statistic.

    Sorry for being blunt, but I don't think you really understand statistics.

    I used to work in a data center doing sys admin work and we had about 30 IMB hard drives ranging from 30-60 GBs.{snip} but in the end about 75% failed.

    (I assume that you mean IBM.) So you had 30 drives from one manufacturer with a high failure rate and you feel that this is evidence that hard drives throughout the industry are less reliable than they used to be? Both IBM and Fujitsu have produced drive lines with defective components that have caused high failure rates. It's a product defect, not an industry trend. That's like citing Firestone tires on Ford Explorers as proof that tires are less reliable than they were back in the sixties.

    1. Re:Statistics 101 by Regul8or · · Score: 1

      "That's like citing Firestone tires on Ford Explorers as proof that tires are less reliable than they were back in the sixties."

      Speaking of which. This whole Firestone thing problem started because of Ford's inability to troubleshoot a real problem with their vehicles. Explorer customers were coming in with complaints about their SUVs riding with a vibration. The technicians at the dealers were unable to determine the cause of the problem so they'd call up the Ford Tech Line and ask the techs if they've heard of any such problems and if so how could it be repaired. Unfortunately Ford was unable to come up with a solution to the vibration and insted opted to take a band-aid fix to the problem. Techs were instructed to lower the tire pressure on the Explorers to make the ride smoother. A quick lesson on tires... when you lower the tire pressure the tire generates more heat from the increased rolling resistance. Just about every case of Firestone tires blowing up on Explorers can be traced to insufficient tire pressure. Ford, go figure.

  207. audio, video are getting bigger by g4dget · · Score: 2
    Sound files are not getting much bigger per minute. Totally uncompressed audio is no more than 5MB/min tops in a format like shn.

    That's two-channel audio. You are going to get many more channels (in fact, DVD audio already does, I believe).

    Video isn't going to get a heck of a lot bigger than DVD-Video sizes.

    Sure it is: DVD resolution is really low. You are first going to see HDTV-resolution DVDs, and later probably 3-6 MPixel video. Beyond that, there will be many simultaneous video streams: half a dozen camera angles from a live event, etc.

  208. as a matter of fact... by Blingin'+AMD · · Score: 1

    I used to work in my father's law office, writing docs and stuff... (keep in mind this was about 1999-2000) ON AN OLD COMPUTER!! (when I say "old, I mean an amberchrome screen, no mouse, 5.25 floppy, Wordperfect 4.2..) Yeah, that sucker had a 20 meg HD in it and it still works.. we use it to retrieve old docs... However, we have a few steps of tech in the office.. we have to write the files to 5.25, then put the 5.25 in a machine that takes both 5.25 and 3.5 (pentium 1 133 with '95) and then take the 3.5 and toss it in the '98 machine and get the files. And I thought I was l33t when I was doing that.. now I'm a EE major.

    --
    Now watch this drive.
  209. Re:Harrrumph! Well, back in MY days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    me remembers spending that much on a stack of punch cards...

  210. Re:Harrrumph! Well, back in MY days... by RichardX · · Score: 1

    "And when we connected with a modem, we had to flip a switch on the modem with our bare hands! 300 bits per second, BOTH WAYS, by thunder!"

    Luxury! pure luxury! you younguns had it easy!

    Back in my day there were no modems! you had to dial up on your phone, and use your voice to do the outgoing data (took me years to learn whalesong that well, it did), and your ears for incoming

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  211. Not exciting.. by d2003xx · · Score: 1

    should be "RAM Down To A Dollar A Gigabyte"

  212. SCSI 7X to 8X Costlier by ralphieboy · · Score: 1

    Wish the $1/GB was true of SCSI drives. I'm in the market for new SCSI drives and am looking at Ultra320 that cost between $7.27 and $8.08 per GB.

    --ralphieboy

  213. Bad system design can't be fixed with hardware by mulp · · Score: 1

    "That way I seem to avoid the semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild ritual." Back in the days when disk drives cost $1 a kilobyte, drives were less reliable, but expectation was that data be more protected. So the systems were designed so that data could be protected by the design of the hardware, software, and operating procedures. That you have to deal with a drive failure by doing a rebuild is merely an indication that you don't use software that allows for easy backup and recovery of ALL the data on your system. I figure that if you can't recover in an hour from the building, containing your system that has all the data, burning down completely, then you view the data as disposable. And the cost should be no higher than the cost of an identical disk drive. But I'm an industry dinasaur who kept dozens of "hard drives" in his office and at home.

  214. $1/GB misleading. by Decimal · · Score: 2

    I just can't wait for the days when things are $1/TB.

    Yes, but will I be able to purchase a hard drive for $1? What ticks me off about hearing that hard drives are "down to" 1$/GB is that I can't just go to the store and spend $20 + tax to get a 20GB hard drive. Right now I'm running on 6GB and just about any hard drive over that amount is out of my price range.

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  215. Spank the $ppid ?? (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no text

  216. I think I'm off-topic now... by lucasw · · Score: 1

    Sound files are not getting much bigger per minute. Totally uncompressed audio is no more than 5MB/min tops in a format like shn.

    What about multitrack audio- and not just for surround sound like another poster mention, but for every track of audio prior to being mixed together into the finished song. Plus a makefile that will explain to the music compiler how to generate the finished song from the multitrack source. That'll take a little more space, especially for the very complex and multi-layered music some people like.

    I'm sure the many eyeballs effect would keep backwards devil messages out of the music distributed in this fashion, in addition to benefiting the musical types who would want to remix music and so on.

    1. Re:I think I'm off-topic now... by Duds · · Score: 2

      I don't think they want us having the freedom that would offer, so commercial audio is unikely in that form.

      For hobby, occasional "Ministry" package then yeah, damn good idea.

  217. 1977: Only $1,000 per megabyte! by (ok.whatever) · · Score: 1

    I sold Data General MicroNova and Nova 3 computers that year. A 10MB rack-mountable hard drive contained a drawer of two 5MB 15-inch platters, one fixed and one removable. Two people were required to lift the 70-pound subsystems into the racks. At just $9,995.00 for that drive, we were able to offer a "breakthrough price" of "only" $1,000 per megabyte.

  218. Anecdotal evidence... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    3 "new" disks dead in 4 years at my home. IN spite of having backups it is an absolute pain. Yes, I know, RAID. But Raid in multiOS machines is not yet perfected (unfortunately Linux does not support the cheap IDE hardware RAID cards out there in the wild).

    Older disks (a 5 year old 1 GB disk in an old Pentium 166 used as firewall, 2 GB one in a Toshiba Libretto) keep working fine.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  219. Make sure your IT guy is executed. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Make it painful.

    If your data is not valuable or completely forgettable, then yes, get some more reliance mirroring or copying to another disk.

    Otherwise you'll have to pay for backups (which should be duplicated, stored in different physical locations and tested regularly with a "dont use after..." label attached to each tape).

    For the home users the only alternative is to buy the most inexpensive medium (CDRs, or a cheap tape technology) and be extremely selective. Backup your important, irreplaceable data with incremental schemes (i.e. don't backup the same file you need but never change too often) to ensure you don't back up more then what is needed.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.