Slashdot Mirror
100gig HDs Coming
ensor writes wrote in to send us a link to a bit
talking about denser HDs
from Seagate.
16 billion bits of data per square-inch on a HD platter
with 5 platters per disk for a total of about 100 gigs.
Supposedly will be available before the end of the year.
This is pretty cool- I like the idea of having enough MP3s
locally so I can go long stretches of time without reruns.
Long stretches like... March.
Check the patent office IBM actually holds a patent on a denser hard drive technology. They aren't using it because it really is expensive, only corps. need something that big, well until games get bigger.
And only 100 gigs? This thing is either tiny or there's a tyop.
I wonder if those loosers from Music Assosiations will try to ban these drives, justifing it like: What else except pirated stuff these drives mightbe used by normal user???
how the hell people get scores? Any1 can give me URL to read anything about it?
From Seagate... What's the point of 100gig if it's about to fail?
100 GB is about 69 days.
Most likely SCSI and Fibre Channel, I seriously doubt Firewire.
.. I can see it now:
:o)
System Requirements:
Minimum install 4GB HD, 128MB RAM
Full install 18 GB HD, 256MB RAM
I honestly believe 1/2 the reason for the delay
of Win2000 is that there isn't a HD available that
is large enough to do a full install
Nothing like a freshly-bloated OS to stirr new
hardware purchases
the article at maximum pc says they'll be available a couple of years away, not the end of the year. sounds like someone got so excited about having 100g of mp3s (excitement which i understand, appreciate, and emulate) that all of a sudden they lost their ability to read cognitively. remember too that seagate has 50g scsi drives now, so although this is ereet, it's only another double. drive siszes always seem to double every two-three years.
The estimated 100GByte capacity is based on a 3.5 inch size. I wonder if Seagate is going to release this as a 5.25 inch, full height disk? More platters could (would) be added plus there would be an increase in platter size. This could push the capacity up to the 150-200 GByte range.
people will log in accounts automatically get a score of 1. anonymous cowards automatically get 0. then once every few months, moderators come through and randomly raise and lower scores.
IBM and others has only "prior art" on making hard
drives "smaller".
Thus, Microsoft can patent the idea of making hard drives "_even_ smaller".
;)
PLEASE, the next time something like this comes, refrain from mentioning
mp3s, OK? There's a ton of data one could stuff
on such a disk, but you always have to bring up
mp3.
Buy your music on CDs, and save on harddrives.
What, CDs cost too much? Get a job.
Why does the article say it comes out to 22.8 MB per platter? Ain't that a lil' 'spicious?
Hey cool, now instead of just imaging CDs, we can image DVDs :P Ooo gotta have those 3r33t w@r3z :P
:) Lesse...30GB for linux, 30GB for BeOS, and the rest is free area for the aforementioned MP3s etc.
Nah, things like MP3s and *ahem* MP4s will be stored en mas and of course LOTS of OSs on one machine
Based on the following assumptions:
3.5" drive, outer track 3.25" diam., inner track 1.5" diam., 5 platters, 80% effective use: 104.5 GB
5.25" drive, outer track 5" diam., inner track 2" diam., 9 platters, 80% effective use: 475 GB
With all of this money Seagate is dumping into research to come out with higher capacity, you'd think they would have figured out how to make a decent bearing by now.
Way back when even having a hard drive was bleeding edge, I gave one of my kidneys for a 20MB Seagate. Failed relatively quickly from bad bearings. Same thing awhile later with a 40MB drive.
A few years ago I figured they must have that problem licked by now if they were still in business. Bought a 2GB drive when it was considered bleeding edge. It failed within a year from, you guess it, bad bearings.
Meanwhile I still have a Conner 40MB drive in continuous operation, a whole HEAP of old 800MB Western Digital drives, several Maxtors, etc. etc.
In the last few years I have seen clients plagued with drive failures. Same deal. Switched them over to IBM drives, Digital drives, Conner drives, etc. and no problems. Well, okay, one Digital failed after a RAID array had a fan quit and the array overheated taking out one drive. Can't blame Digital for that.
Never never buy Seagate hard drives. And never NEVER buy Dell computers. Both companies deserve a completely new level of Hell to themselves.
The article says these drives are a few years off; not that they'll be available by the end of the year.
I know that the bigger drives suck performance wise when compared to the top of the line 3.5 inch drives. However, for some applications, I need raw disk space to store upwards of 100 to 300 GBytes of data. Most of these data represent raw or intermediate process files that eventually gets removed. Downloading info from tapes is my processing bottleneck, so I'll sacrifice performance for increase storage. Many ppl who process large amounts of data also share this same bottleneck.
If past Seagate drives are any indication, then I would guess that they could come out with at least a 5.25 inch full height with a spindle speed of 5400 rpm; they did this with their 23 GByte drives. I would also surmise that 7200 rpm is currently feasible. Its not 10K rpm but I will still take it.
When I do need higher speed data access from disk, then I put the data on a high performance drive attached to high performance scsi.
hey you don't have to use linux to get an outstanding alternative os, ya know. beos supports 64-bit journaling file systems now!
We keep having to send one of our 23 gig drives back to Seagate to get it fixed, over and over and over again. We've left that particular drive out of our server since. Seagate needs some serious quality-control improvement.
I've actually never had any problems with Seagate, though I always hear people bashing them. I have one thats still alive and well after about 6 years and another thats been going for about 2-3 years..
If I knew how to score I wouldn't be reading this ;-)
Try compiling glibc-2.1. And don't forget to compile egcs-1.1.1 first. Then maybe try wine and gnome.
Imagine:
Microsoft Word - 800meg
Microsoft Excel - 1 gig
Dismal C++ - 2 gig
and PC vendors will still sell machines with only a 1.44 M floppy as a writable removable media
AFAIK, Samba clients are mostly working for BeOS, but will be made obsolete with Be's support of Microsoft networks. I do not know about the Samba server progress. As for multiuser, the foundation for it has been there since the beginning, though it's anyone's guess as so when it will be implemented. It may come with R5 to coincide with the incorporation of networking into the kernel (which would allow it to be one *mutha* of a server OS)
Would you be able to restate these numbers as
percent failed figures? In other words, if you
had a lot more Maxtor drives, more would fail
than if you had a few. This would make for a
better comparison.
Yeah, and play shitty music.
PLEASE, the next time something like this comes, refrain from mentioning porn, OK? There's a ton of data one could stuff
on such a disk, but you always have to bring up
porn.
Buy your nudity on exotic dancers, and save on harddrives.
What, exotic dancers cost too much? Get a job.
Ahh, PC Magazine. It's been months since I've looked inside one of those. But 2.5 years? How do you remember that far back? I can't even keep track of what I did yesterday!
Now I just need a T3 to fill all that with MP3s... bah with that size who cares about MP3? I can use plain wave data and I'd still have a lot of playing time... Just think what you could do with 100 gb... A 5 gigabyte swap partition... Have Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD, OS/2, Windows, Unix, all on the same comp :)
> Buy your music on CDs, and save on harddrives.
CDs are a pain in the ass. I buy most of my music,
mostly on CD (I own 600 or so), and I'm still converting
my entire collection to MP3 so I can listen to it at
work, put parts of it on the laptop, shuffle-play
arbitrary subsets of the songs, download it to Rio,
stuff like that. MP3 != piracy.
IMHO, a HDD on a client machine should
have enough room to store all my fav
videos and mp3s. So 10 Tb is what I want
for a client machine, presuming I care
to store my videos compressed. And hey,
in a couple of years, most people will
feel this way.
Odd, my Seagate 1.2 gig drive is functioning perfectly after ~4 years. Been in use every day of that, too.. (PC's on 24/7, drives always spun up)
Of course, it's not my only drive.. I have two WDs in there, too.
Because as machines get faster, they pack the OS with more crap so it still takes 2 minutes to boot up. Ever install 3.1 on a P333. Now that screams!
But U dont half to pay for MP3. They are free on the internet on many sites.
If you read the ZD & Infoworld articles it said that Microsoft would continue to deliver service packs and OSR releases of Win98, even after Win2000/NT5 has shipped.
There won't be a DOS/Win-based Windows 200x. If you think so, then you really don't understand Microsoft. When they say they're going to do something, they almost always do it (even if they do a really crappy job!)
I work for a technical service outsourcer for a major computer company that uses Maxtor and Quantum. My experience working with people has led me to believe that Quantum has a good reputation, but their newer drives are garbage. Too many miscellaneous drive errors, even after formatting and fdisking. Then we have to use a separate utility to write zeroes to the hdd and then fdisk and format. On top of that, our poor clients have to suffer with Windows and all of its problems like multiple monitors. But I digress.
Maxtors are garbage too. I hear nothing but bad things about Seagate also.
WD and Conner are great. We should have a forum about just this kind of topic.
Just cause I don't make six figures doesn't mean I shouldn't have access to the music I wan't to listen to. $18 for a CD on an obscure label?--FUCK-YOU! The artists don't even get the money anyway. We need a Wal-Mart for digital distribution of the media. FUCK-YOU AGAIN!
You like waiting 15 seconds between songs when you stick your CD changer on random? You like being limited a selection of 5 discs playing at one time before getting up or do you like having to use one of those pain in the ass 200 disc changers? (I happen to be in the process of converting all of my CD's to mp3s so I don't have to deal with this...or hunt through stacks of CD's to find the one song I have the urge to listen to at 2am)
You like to sit by two cd players swapping disks all night while throwing a party? (mp3's = the ultimate DJ -- make a 6 hour playlist and have fun at your party)
Sheesh. Not everyone out there is a bunch of pirates...
I will put my money in Maxtors for now.
IIRC, around 3 years ago, several music associations of Australia (Australian Performaner's Rights Association [APRA] and the Australian Record Industry Association [ARIA]?) wanted the Australian government to tax hard drives because, as they claimed it, they were being used to pirate their music. Thankfully our constitution prohibits such "special case" taxes, so their pleas were rejected.
I'll put this 100 meg drive into my comp when I have a hd dvd ram drive. There's no way I'm going to copy stuff from even cd. Let alone 1.44 meg disks.
22.5megabytes/platter! Amazing, I could hold a
whole 0.1 gigs of data on it!
Seagate bought Conner, now some of their drives suck too :-(
Get your hands on 70 000 000 stiffies - it'll give you something to do while waiting for NT to reboot.
Currently my drive maker of choice is IBM. I've had way too many seagate drives die over the years. Although, their old SCSI drives ran forever. I had a 350Mb 5.25" FH SCSI seagate, that finally died last fall. I'd had it running for around 5 years at the point, and I was given it used by a friend who'd used it for a while, then upgraded... They don't build them like that anymore... (Good thing too... the room's alot quieter and cooler, and the UPS runs alot longer now with the replacement 4Gb...)
You could play them for ~2 - 3 months...
;-)
But then again, if you ever repeated songs, you could extend that to even longer
I really shouldn't be laughing at this... think about that for a second
DLT IV can do 35GB (70 compressed)
Just as an FYI, the "compressed" number is a total WAG. It, like the 2.5/5GB tape drives, all base their estimates on some rediculous, mythical 2:1 compression ratio. If you back up fluffy things like Oracle databases you can get >100GB of disk data onto a DLT 4000, much less DLT 7000 (the IV part really means CompacTape IV, which is the tape format that DLT 4000 and 7000 drives use). OTOH, if you back up stuff that's already gziped, even if you use the hw compression you won't get nearly the 2:1 they imply. All you can be sure of if that you'll get at least as much as the uncompressed data size.
Some simple maths shows that a 3600 rpm drive with twice the density of a 7200 rpm drive will have the same transfer rates.
Probaby cost the same as hard disks always have.
They'll come out around $3000. A couple years later,
they'll be $900 and you'll buy one for your home machine.
Then six months later you'll see an ad selling them for
$350 and you'll cry.
> THere are of course only 4380 housr in a year
Try double that. You don't have 12 hour days, do you?
Hey - I've never had a Quantum fail on me - ever...
Come to think of it, I've never had any hard drive fail on me, ever. I've dropped them, duct taped them to the inside of cases, run them on bad power, run them continously with heavy use for long periods of time, left them on for years, powered them on and off all the time, I've never had any drive die on me.
What do you people do to get drives to fail on you? Hammer them into place? Nail them to the motherboard?
of...err....something...on our 18 Gigs of drive space....
Uuuh.... these aren't targeted at end users, dude. And 5.25 full height disks don't fit well in arrays. Nope, you'll want to plug fourteen of these into a Sun Storage Array with Fibre going to your enterprise server. 2 storage units x 4 arrays x 14 drives x 100GB under an Enterprise Server x000 == 44.8 TB of data. Actually it'd be less than that, because you'd want to do RAID-5. So you get 3 or 4 of them for companies with somewhat-large storage needs. I think we'd of needed two or three to house the data where I used to work...
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I think a journalling file system is on the wish list for 2.3.
:) An hour-long fsck once a year when you accidentally trip over the power cord doesn't seem too bad, considering what you'd get in return.
Anyway, the time it takes to fsck the thing shouldn't be a problem. I mean, having to do a fsck implies that your file system may have gotten corrupt, and the most likely cause for that is that your system may have crashed. And, as we all know, Linux boxes don't crash.
Is that an IDE hardware limitation, or a kernel IDE support limitation?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Interesting
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the holodeck to be invented. Unfortunately, it'll probably cost even more than the holographic storage.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What about EIDE?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Charles Bronson:
how much will it cost?
Your soul, perhaps?
Posted by Mr. Assembly:
This hard drive will not be big enough for Windows 2000 when it is released in 2004. I suspect that I will only have room on this drive for a couple of apps, maybe a wordprocessor and a game.
Posted by Asa Durkee:
For sale: Mac SE, 1MB RAM, 100GB HD...
:-)
either that or they really meant 5000 platters.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
My back of the envelope calculation runs as such:
110GB
* 1024 (get MB)
- 1024 (allow a GB for the OS (excessive, but it's a nice, round number))
/ 2 (rule of thumb is 1MB/min. I'll assume 2MB/min for 256 bit MP3s)
/ 60 (get number of hours)
/ 24 (still a big number; let's see how many days)
= 38 days (that's continuous playing. subtract 8 hours a day for sleep, and you get 51 days, or almost two months. Encoding at 128 bits gives you about three and a half months of continuous, non-repeating music during your waking hours.)
--Phil (I hope you have something powerful enough to encode all that, though.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Pity the poor 'doze user, trying to defrag one of those monsters. :)
No, it doesn't. At least its not based on NT. (Read the press release!) Except you mean the thing that they say comes out '01 or '02...
Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
You got the wrong SCSI if you want speed. The Ultra-2 has many drives past 9 gigs at 7200 RPM, and the throughput is 80mb/s.
Not unless you use SysV init and you shut down daily. It fscks when a maximal boot count is reached even if it hasn't crashed.
Could definately make a poll question. I'd probably vote IBM, though my experience is limited.
--Lenny
This new drive will be on the min requirements list for Win2K + Office + IE. Now if they just start selling RAM by the GIG MS can start selling their new OS :)
I have to return some videotapes...
im only using 48% of my 3.5gig Fireball drive. And my Linux IPMasq gateway server only has a 80Meg drive. Its nice not having a OS that dosnt bloat :)
I have to return some videotapes...
I have a 420Meg Seagate that has been going strong for years. Then there are the ST-225's(20Meg MFM). I have a pair of them that used to run my BBS 24/7. They still work fine and they are 12+ years old.
I have to return some videotapes...
If by "scoring with women", it means getting them to agree with your plan to shoot the wad on a 100G HD instead of on them....
And how can you ever backup something like that
- ------------------
Ok, in parts...
Am I the first commenter?
-------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
-------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
Most drives today are built to be 'interface agnostic': you can pretty much bolt an identity onto the drive hardware.
Though I bet Ultra2-LVD and FCAL are definite, and when IBM's storage division catches up, I bet you'll see an SSA flavor.
Are there any limitations in EIDE for this size? I'm only familiar with SCSI, and I use IDE because it's necessary in some applications (laptops, mostly)..
backing up 100GB? Easy.. Just snag a 20-tape 2+ drive DLT robot.. Or even one of those fun IBM 349x mega-libraries which store hundreds of terabytes in cabinets 10-meters long..
;)
I said easy, not cheap..
Besides, anyone interested in these drives is probably interested in running them in RAID configurations, and I can see a nice 12-drive setup with mirrored 5-disk RAID5 and a hot spare for each mirrorset.. 400GB and if you put them in separate cabinets you're close to fault tolerant..
Sweet!
(If you haven't already guessed, one of the main differences between Sun fans and IBM fans is Sun fans like high-speed and price performance, while uptime and high-availability give IBMers chills..)
Buy another identical disk to back up onto!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Your post reads like a zippy cartoon. Are we having fun yet?
Enough Said,
Cimarron Taylor
I suspect the "obsession" with platters is because it works, the technology is understood very well, they have manufacturing plants already set up to make them in high volume, and the limits haven't been reached yet.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Of course, backups would be a bitch.
By my calculations you should be able to get about 1800 to 1900 housr of music one one of these. THere are of course only 4380 housr in a year. Subtract sleeping time and you could go all year and never have to hear the same song twice. Of course it would take a while to accumulate that much music.
It is in the neighborhood of 25 full length films in mpeg2 format.
Of couse with that much space you might as well stor ethe music in aiff and not lose the dynamic range.
Large hard disks have always come out in SCSI
first, with some IDE flavour a bit later.
SCSI still utterly dominates the large server
market.
Large hard disks have always come out in SCSI first, with some IDE flavour a bit later. SCSI still utterly dominates the large server market.
The average windows user won't have to worry about having 100 gigs to deal with it, because by the time they come down to their price range, the next version of Windows will fill most of it up anyway.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
MP3 is the way a lot of us store our music. As for CDs they're cheap, its the CD-R drives that are too damn expensive.
0 1 - just my two bits
I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, but am I the only one who finds the ever-larger client disk drive to be much more of a curse that a blessing?
it's gotten to the point nowdays that I can't buy a machine without at minimum a 4GB disk in them. For most of my compute servers, they need little more than a 1GB boot disk, so the other 3GB goes to waste. WTF am I supposed to do when it comes with a 100GB drive?
On a much more practical note, increasing client HD sizes are a royal pain for data integrity. backing up that kind of distributed data is totally impossible, even if you had a fully GigaBit Ethernet network. Backup technology is far behind, and I really wish that storage vendors would spend alot more time working on making better archive/backup media.
As a previous post on NASA's data migration problems stated, the general solution for long-term data storage these days is simply keep it all online, spinning, since disk price/space keeps sinking. However, that doesn't obviate the need for nightly backups and disaster-recovery plans.
I second the guy above who wanted better performance, not more space. Sustained throughput on drives is really only inching up (maybe 18MB/s now). This is a killer. If you double the space on a drive, that means twice as many people are trying to access the data on that drive. Yet, throughput is up maybe 10%. This sucks. RAID helps, but the general problem persists. Given that memory bandwidth is up to 800MB/s now (in a PC), and expecting to go to 1.1GB/s with Rambus RSN, having a disk subsystem that putzes along at under 100MB/s is pathetic. If the vendors can't get the throughput up NOW, we need to start investigating other technologies to help. Like maybe massive NVRAM cache disks (on the order of a 50-100MB) to help I/O.
And, for all you folks, a nice reminder: when was the last time you did a backup of your machine? I know DVD-RAM/-RW will help this, but still, backup costs are out of control. A good-sized (10GB raw) consumer-grade (eg Travan TR5) drive runs $350, and the tapes are $30 each, and well, lets be honest here, they're good for using a couple of times a month if you don't want them to break soon. DSS-3 DATs are $700+, tapes $20+, and the big DLTs (required for serious backup) start at $3k, with tapes approaching $100 each.
We don't need bigger drives, WE NEED BETTER BACKUP!!!!!!
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
so its 2 Gb/in^2. Makes it 50 in^2. 10 in^2 per platter. Double sided makes it 5 in^2 per side. and since A=pi r^2, r is roughly 1.26 in. roughly a 3 inch diameter... sounds right to me... perhaps you just forgot how to read and do trivial math for 2 minutes? Or perhaps you are used to the big 1.5 ft diameter drum drives?
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Hell, at the 40 hours I've got in my playlist currently on a normal basis I still don't hear a repeat for days on end (depending on how much I'm listening). That much HD room would make it so I would forget the song lyrics by the time I get back around to them.. :^).
Hmm I still haven't been able to fill up my 1 gig drive! :)
The average Windows user would format the whole disk as one "drive" if given the chance. The average Linux user would not partition the whole drive as one filesystem.
How about a movement to notify Todd, the webmaster for the site, that he is not using standards compliant HTML?
I want FAST. So hard drive size seems to be growing exponentially. So what? I personally don't need that much space. That's not to say that I never will, of course. But I'm much, much more interested in speed than size. So you've got a dual Xeon P3 450 system. Or a Quad. You've still got a bottleneck on your harddrive. Any time you do anything disk intensive (say, compiling the latest kernel), away all your clockcycles go. People always seem to be so worried about memory accesses and small, slow caches bottlenecking processors. But those type of memory accesses are still way faster than harddrive access. 30 megs/sec is about what the fastest drives throughput. I really wish we could get something faster. That's why I spent $200 on a 7200 RPM UW SCSI drive (4.3) gig, instead of the same amount on a 10 GB UDMA 5400 RPM IDE drive. I want SPEED!!!!!!
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
I remember about two and a half years go, in a PC Magazine I read about holographic storage techonology. It used a laser mirors, and essencially stored data on light.
Obviously, its not consumer grade yet, and the price is bound to be phenominal but the storage capacity will be well in to the TeraBytes
-Michael J. Lu
-Michael J. Lu
"The little secret that haunts Corporate America...a techonology that won't go away."
Can't wait to sell a kidney for one of those... I'll need a 20 terabyte drive in a year or 2 though :/
When is the 50G laptop drive going to come out so I can plug it into the EMPEG that I also will never have?
Maxtors don't fail much. They're not that wonderful, tho the 17.2giggers are cheap.
...and just yesterday, I added 20gb to my system, for a total of 30gb, and now they go talking about the 100gb'rs!!! Where does it end?!
I don't know about the rest of you people out in computer land but I don't think think i could ever
use a full 10 gigs even with two gigs of mp3's, 2 gig of mp3's is about 48hours worth and if you don't keep every file you have ever got I don't think that there is much use for 10 gigs other than keeping lots of games and movies on your hard drive.
yes I'm well aware of the irony
I use to live with one of the lead R&D folks over at IBM's HD group. They've already achieved 552 Gigs in a 3.5" form factor. Basicly they are slowly feeding us bigger storage as to propetuate the market share. It's not that worth getting excited over (the new 100G drives), because quite frankly, in another year, as per allways, it'll just be the same goddamn thing happening over again (ie: "Oh crap, you have a 2TB drive? all i have is this pathetic 100gig")..
:)
Can we say... Johnny Mneumonic?
So what's current MBs per platter record?
If these drives had, say, roughly 5 times as many MBs per platter, that's 5 times as much data loss when they start making the famous "Seagate Sound"(TM). (i.e. clang, clang, clang)
I agree, Seagates are at the bottom of the heap. Then again, I know many people who swear by them. (and can't stand the drives that I use.) Maybe it's just personal experience.
At least you can fix many Seagates by banging on them with a hammer.
I dunno - EVERY maxtor I have owned has kicked the bucket. - an 80 meg, an 814, and a 270.
I've also had 4 out of 4 wd's go bad (although one was caused by abuse - the owner unplugged the power and then plugged it back in w/o turning off the computer).
I had 2 out of 5 Seagates go bad (one was dropped)
I have an ancient Quantum and a Conner that still run great, though.
I currently have an IBM 6.4 - awesome drive.
IMHO, I would only buy an IBM. Maybe a Quantum, though not likely.
The only HDD's that I've had luck out of are:
WDC (IDEs, only 2 died, they were 120's. Both were 2nd hand. one came from a highschool, another from someone else.)
Seagates (before they bought out conner, only had 1, and it's a 210, still going too)
Quantums (SCSI, only had 1 tho)
Fugitsu, but I've only used 1
and Micropolis (I have 8 at work, mostly 2gb's scsi's and still working. Had 9, but one was bad when I started)
As far as seagates, I've had 4 (1.2 and 1.7gb) go out with in about 2 months. My workplace ordered 36 computers (all with 2.1gb seagates). We had to ship back 4 of those drives, another one I'm feeling will go out.
I've had problems out of *EVERYTHING* that conner has put out. Used to have a conner 250mb drive, and lost 5mb of my drive when it crashed. Used to have a 170mb conner, 6months went by and bad sectors. Had a 60mb conner, sold it and next day, 512k of bad sectors. Someone I know used to have a 420, about 3mb of bad sectors. I saw a 540mb conner, to my surprise, it looked exactly like a seagate drive... Hmmm
I'm not trying to flame, this is just personal experiences.
If I was to recommend a hard drive, I'd say either a quantum or a wdc (also personal experience, scsi's work better than ide's)
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
What is the interface for these monstors, SCSI, IDE... What??