Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Announces First 1.5TB Desktop Hard Drive
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."
of pr0n!
more storage for nerds to steal and archive the work I produced. Damn them.
For some reason, I can't stop thinking of this Flash cartoon I saw once about perpendicular hard drive recording, with cartoon dudes singing, "Get perpendicular! (Get perpendicular!)".
...I need a life.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I can't wait to try out ReiserFS on it.
Hard drives are getting bigger? Wow.. what news.. that hardly ever happens.
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..."
When you start ripping your Blue-Ray HD Movies to store on a disk-less HDD share (at about 25GB to 50GB a pop) and then you conveniently convert them into mountable ISO images, you will then know why you bought that 1.5TB HDD.
I have a buddy that does this and he uses a 1TB HDD to store the ripped & converted ISO HD movie images. He then mounts them over his wireless N network on his Multimedia PC attached to his living room's 60" HDTV or he mounts the images on his HD laptop anywhere he feels like round his home. Very cool, and he NEVER scratches or loses one of his Blue-Ray disks... (Thank You SlySoft and Elby)
This could be a factor of my faulty memory, but a quick bit of googling didn't turn up anything useful. Is it just me, or has the rate at which storage capacity increases been slowing in recent years? It seems like we had a very rapid run-up to the 300gig mark (in a 3.5inch drive) then a much slower crawl to a terabyte and beyond.
The question is WHEN do Joe need that much space? Lets talk about this question in a couple of years...
When Windows 7 comes out
Copy the following into your URL bar and press Enter. The code will allow you to compute the real amount.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually, Seagate offers a 5-year warranty on their hard drives. It's a major reason why I usually buy from Seagate instead of going to Western Digital or Samsung, which usually only a offer 3-year warranty. Still, it's always best to keep backups. How nice the company is about replacements says nothing about how likely the drive is to fail.
Ok, so they still have at least 5 years left.
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.
No such thing exists. However, you can hose your browser nicely if you run the following script:
WARNING! Do not run the following script!
(*ahem* I told you not to run it! :-P)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
When you start ripping your Blue-Ray HD Movies to store on a disk-less HDD share (at about 25GB to 50GB a pop) and then you conveniently convert them into mountable ISO images, you will then know why you bought that 1.5TB HDD.
What a waste. If he spent a little more time and remuxed them down to just the movies he could easily shave off half of that space. For example, the "I am Legend" blu-ray contains two complete copies of the movie, one of the theatrical cut and one of the director's cut - no seamless branching, two full copies that are 99% identical. Toss the theatrical cut, and all of the other junk and that disc which was nearly the full 50GB is down to ~18GB.
Another common space-wasting practice on blu-ray is to include multiple uncompressed (lpcm, not even truehd or dts master audio) soundtracks, good for 5-6GB each, all of which can be tossed except the native track and then you can losslessly compress that down to 1-2GB. And then, of course, there is all the supplements which you watch, maybe once, if that. Throw those out the window, if you ever really want to watch them you can still pull the original disk out of storage.
Another benefit to remuxing is that you can easily play the movie in any variety of free and semi-free players. Sometimes that can be extremely difficult with the original iso -- like animated movies where they actually render the scenes differently depending on the language track in order to localize things like signs and to keep the mouth movements in sync, typically seamless branching is used for these things, but the net effect is 30-40 different snippet files for each specific language that are not necessarily in any obvious order.
My math is crummy today. Its 426 minutes which is over 7 hours. But still quite a long time considering.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
So, yeah, people will need that much space.
Consider HD video, photos at ridiculous resolution and tons of music.
from the they-had-to-count-them-all- dept.
So now they know how many bits it takes to fill the Albert Hall?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Yes, obsessive video hoarders will use big hard drives just as you describe. Everybody else will pay Netflix or Comcast $20 a month for hassle free access to 10,000 times the content.
I went with the hard drives. I find the seek times on Netflix to be unacceptable.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Do you have a favorite piece(s) of software for doing all this?
eac3to + various filters (some commercial, it comes with the Free ones) to take it apart and
mkvmerge to put it together as a matroska file (mkvmerge is part of mkvtoolnix)
one caveat is that mkvmerge can not handle dts files more complex than the regular DTS format on dvds, but it can do truehd. I always recompress to flac anyway, tends to be more efficient than either truehd or dts master audio and eac3to can do the recompression automatically.
If you want to keep it in m2ts format than TsRemuxer is pretty good it will allow you to remux to either a single m2ts file or to a bare-bones blu-ray directory format.
All above mentioned tools are easy to find in google.
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.
Haha - that's so true. ~/Pictures/JobSecurity/ is up to 2GB by now, and that's just the mobile phone snaps!
Good Source is Storage Review
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.php
The top 34 drives all do at least 54mb/sec MINIMUM and at least ~80MB/sec maximum. The top 15kRPM cheetah doing 82.7-135MB/sec.
If i were to pull a number out of my ass I would say 78-135MB/sec (min/max) on the new 1.5TB drives.
I would say if you have 750gig seagates and you are only getting 25MB/sec you have a bottleneck. Those drives should do a MINIMUM of at least 40MB/sec...