Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seagate Announces First 1.5TB Desktop Hard Drive

Posted by timothy on from the they-had-to-count-them-all- dept.

MojoKid writes "Seagate announced three new consumer-level hard drives today, which it claims are the 'industry's first 1.5-terabyte desktop and half-terabyte notebook hard drives.' The company claims that it is able to greatly increase the areal density of its drive substrates by utilizing perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR) technology that is capable of delivering more than triple the storage density of traditional longitudinal recording. Seagate's latest desktop-class hard drive, the Barracuda 7200.11, will be available in a 1.5TB capacity starting in August. The 3.5-inch drive is made up of four 375GB platters and has a 7,200-rpm rotational speed."

8 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. yawn by bravecanadian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hard drives are getting bigger? Wow.. what news.. that hardly ever happens.

  2. What I really want... by Chordonblue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about a drive that advertises longevity instead of storage density. Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.

    Losing an 80 GB HD nearly broke my heart, I can't imagine what losing 1.5 TB would do...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:What I really want... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Losing an 80 GB HD nearly broke my heart, I can't imagine what losing 1.5 TB would do...

      /.: the only place where one gets a broken heart from a hard drive instead of the opposite sex.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:What I really want... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.

      How does more assurance of your data integrity obviate the need for backups? In other words, how does your behavior change even with those assurances?

      Losing an 80 GB HD nearly broke my heart, I can't imagine what losing 1.5 TB would do...

      Yeah, it'd be nice not to have hard drive failures, but don't blame the drive manufacturers for your lack of backups. There is no data solution so good that it doesn't need redundancy in some manner.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:What I really want... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      get yourself some RAID and that won't be an issue.

      RAID is not a substitute for backups!

      All hard disks, no matter how well-made they are, will fuck up one day. All of them. Every single one.

      Crucial corollaries:

      1) All file systems, no matter how well-made they are, will fuck up one day. All of them. Every single one. And that fuck up will be propagated to your RAID array.

      AND: 2) All RAID controllers, no matter how well-made they are, will fuck up one day. All of them. Every single one. And that fuck up will hose your RAID array.

      And let's not get into fires, theft, lightning / voltage spikes ...

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. Re:Obligatory... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure. I got a 1 gig drive in 1995 that I thought would be all the digital storage I would ever need. Funny how that didn't work out the way I intended. Digital storage needs have been expanding rapidly for a long time. I don't see a slowdown anytime soon.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  4. Re:Obligatory... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My wife just filled up 10GB in one day just by emptying some sd-cards for her camera after a couple of parties.. Stills, not video.

    So, yeah, people will need that much space.

    Consider HD video, photos at ridiculous resolution and tons of music.

  5. Re:Obligatory... by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I always thought this was true as well, but in practice it is not. If I'm out taking photos of landscapes or whatnot, then yes, I get rid of all of the photos except the really good ones. When it comes to photos taken at parties and such, I find I usually hang on to most of them. Not because they are necessarily all that good, but because they capture a moment or an action (or blackmail content...) that I don't want to lose in spite of the imperfections. I find I really only delete the ones that are completely out of focus, blurred, or otherwise trashed beyond use.

    I don't take a whole lot of photos, but I do have probably 90-100 gigs of photos from the last two or three years.