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.

307 of 715 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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
    2. 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

    3. 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!
    4. 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.

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

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

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

      less than a cup of tea.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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

    10. 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?
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
  3. 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 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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. ;)

    9. 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.....

    10. 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.
    11. 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!?
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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
    17. Re:Perspective... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

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

    18. 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.

    19. 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!
    20. 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--
    21. 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?
    22. 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.
  4. 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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?

    13. 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."
    14. 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.

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

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

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

    3. 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."

    4. 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.
    5. 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"
    6. 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!"

    7. 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.
    8. Re:*Old Man Rant* by bmwm3nut · · Score: 3, Funny

      is that -40F or -40C :)

    9. 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.
    10. 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!"
    11. 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.

    12. 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!

    13. 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?
    14. 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?
    15. 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

    16. 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.
  6. 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 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?

    2. 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?

    3. 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)

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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).

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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?!?

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

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

      Great idea! Use the monkey for backups!

  8. 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 jayhawk88 · · Score: 2

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

    3. 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? ;-)

    4. 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.

  9. 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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!

    8. 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"

    9. 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
    10. 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?
  10. "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 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

    3. 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.

  11. 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 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.
  12. 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 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!!!!
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. $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 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.

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

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

    3. 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.
    4. 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.....
    7. 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
    8. 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; }
    9. 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/
    10. 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!

    11. 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
    12. 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...
    13. 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.

    14. 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...)

    15. Re:$1/TB? by Cyclone66 · · Score: 2

      And 640k of memory out to be enough for anybody!

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.....
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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!
  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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!

  18. 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 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
    4. 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...
    5. 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
    6. 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? :)

    7. 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.
    8. 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?
    9. 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!
    10. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. 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! :)

  21. 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

  22. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Expands to fill.. by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      You make a good point. Here is my retort.

    5. 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.
    6. 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

    7. 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)
  23. In other news... by krog · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Intel and AMD have finally smashed through that 1GHz barrier. Film at 11.

  24. 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 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.

    2. 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
  25. 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 ..

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

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

  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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!
  31. Re:error by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2

    And just for people who don't know, PB = petabyte, and eb = exabyte.

  32. 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.

  33. 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?

  34. 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
  35. 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 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.
  36. 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!
  37. 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 :)
  38. 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.

  39. 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

  40. 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
  41. 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.;/
  42. 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 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!
    2. 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
    3. 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!
  43. 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
  44. 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"?
  45. 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
  46. 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!!!!
  47. 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.

  48. 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 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... :(

  49. 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)



  50. ... 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. :)

  51. $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.

  52. 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 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!

    2. 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.

  53. To another disk by doc_traig · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Which also costs $1/TB.

    --
    So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
  54. 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!

  55. 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.

  56. 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 ...


  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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
  60. 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.

  61. 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?

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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..

  65. 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...
  66. 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!
  67. 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.
  68. 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

  69. 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
  70. *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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.
  74. 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!

  75. 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 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.

  76. $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."
  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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!

  81. 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?
  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. 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

  85. 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!
  86. 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?
  87. 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"?
  88. 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.

  89. 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.
  90. 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.

  91. 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 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.

    2. 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

  92. 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.

  93. 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.
  94. 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

  95. 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!

  96. 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
  97. 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...

  98. 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."

  99. 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
  100. 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!
  101. 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

  102. 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

  103. 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...

  104. 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.

  105. $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.

  106. Oh, so that was a READ by vudufixit · · Score: 2


    Really
    Expensive
    Array of
    Disks

  107. 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.

  108. 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

  109. 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
  110. 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).

  111. 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
  112. 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 :)

  113. Re: Photo of disk platter... by John+Harrison · · Score: 2

    Cool. That is it. The big black band is the drive crash.

  114. 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.

  115. 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.)

  116. 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?

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

  119. 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.

  120. 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.
  121. $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
  122. 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.