Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hitachi Announces 400GB Hard Drive

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the never-delete-a-file-again dept.

jkcity writes "Hitachi Global Storage Technologies has announced their new 400GB 3.5-inch ATA hard drive, which they claim makes them the new capacity king. Specs on the drive are also available."

6 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. They should sell them in pairs by frs_rbl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At these sizes, a HD is becoming the only way of backing up another HD

    --
    This is not my opinion. Actually, it's not even an opinion. And I'm nowhere to be seen near it
  2. Fabulous! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This aught to push the 320GB drives into the sub-$200 category within a few weeks. About time, too, the prices have lingered between $250 and $300 for months now.

    Nothing like a bigger-better-faster-harder product to make the rest nice and cheap. ;-)

  3. Re:Good for RAIDs by fake_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...except that the disks aren't independent. The whole point of RAID is that the disks are closly dependednt on each other.

    Hooray for marketing!

  4. Specs out of whack by adrian_hon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The person writing the specs is either incompetent or insane. For 400GB of storage, they quote:

    "45 hours of HDTV broadcast, or
    4,000 high-resolution x-rays, or
    40,000 typical library books, or
    10,000 high-quality, 4 minute MP3 recordings"

    Wow... I never knew that a typical library book took up 10MB (more like 100k). What are they doing, scanning all the pages in? And what kind of bitrate are they using for a 4 minute MP3 recording to take up 40MB?

  5. Re:deskstar by phrasebook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh boo hoo. I got hit by a bad IBM drive (75GXP) 'deathstar' but I don't think I'd mind getting a new Hitatchi, even if it is still an IBM design. Got a 'travelstar' in my laptop that's been going fine for ages. So there was a bad lot a while back, get over it.

  6. Re:Good for RAIDs by NNKK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, "Independant" is just plain wrong, as is FOLDOC, and I'm sick of having to point it out just because some people can't stand to be corrected.

    First of all, "Inexpensive" still applies and then some. It's much, much cheaper to assemble an array of disks adding up to more than a few hundred GB than to try building a single drive.

    Secondly, there is nothing "independant" about the disks in a RAID. The closest you come is in straight mirroring configurations (which are highly unusual for an array of any significant size), and they still don't operate independantly.