750-Gigabyte Hard Drives

[Jake_Barnes]

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Seagate Technology LLC is beefing up the capacity of its hard disk drives to a whopping 750 gigabytes, offering consumers of digital media more storage for their computers than ever before.

The drive Seagate will introduce Wednesday, the Barracuda 7200.10, is the first computer desktop disk drive to hit the 750-gigabyte mark and represents a 50 percent increase from the previous industry maximum of 500 gigabytes.

Scotts Valley-based Seagate, the world's largest disk-drive maker, is first releasing the product as an internal drive for PC makers. Next week, it plans to introduce external hard drives - add-ons that consumers can use to supplement their existing computer setups - with a suggested retail price of $559.

Seagate to Unveil 750-Gigabyte Hard Drives
Apr 26, 1:26 AM (ET)
By MAY WONG
Copyright 2006 Associated Press

 

[vulefu]

Big jump that is 8)

 

[mesarectifier]

Hmm, 500gb hard drives have hardly been setting the market alight. It's a great achievement, but until speeds increase and prices drop I don't see it as anything more than that.

 

[vulefu]

There is no need for speed

 

[clue69less]

Hmm, 500gb hard drives have hardly been setting the market alight. It's a great achievement, but until speeds increase and prices drop I don't see it as anything more than that.

It's all a part of the progression. WD will have to have a 750 or 1TB now and before you know it, prices on the 500s will drop just like they have on the 250s through 400s. I think the speed issue is more difficult to tackle and really, I'd rather see more development in HD speed than in other areas of home PC speed. For what I do most, it's a huge bottleneck.

 

[Noggin]

Great News but as Mesa says untill the prices come down they arn't going to sell too well. 300gb Drives are just so cheap Gb per dollar wise that for most people its better to buy multiple 300Gb drives.

Once the big drives get a better Gb per dollar ratio then they will start to sell much better.

 

[mpjesse]

Good shi*t right there. I'd say we're about 12-18 months away from a 1TB drive. Who knows, maybe even less?

 

[mesarectifier]

It hasn't been 12-18 months since the release of 500gb drives, so hopefully much sooner than that.

Hard drives - yet another industry revitalised by P2P filesharing.

 

[mpjesse]

Hard drives - yet another industry revitalised by P2P filesharing.

LOL. Truer words were never spoken...

 

[upec]

Always needs more storage.
Larger hard drive is great news.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The 750's will hit the spot for people who do not have the need for speed but need large capacities. I never thought I'd outgrow my 80 gigabyte hard drive, but now I've got my 200 gigabyte drive half-full with television episodes and will have to either delete some files or purchase more storage.

 

[angry_ducky]

Hard drives - yet another industry revitalised by P2P filesharing.

Porn revitalized the hard drive industry. Porn is the backbone of the internet.

 

[clue69less]

Porn is the backbone of the internet.

No way!!!

Porn is the crotch of the Internet.

 

[HoldenMcGroin]

Hard drives - yet another industry revitalised by P2P filesharing.

Porn revitalized the hard drive industry. Porn is the backbone of the internet.

Don't forget the movie industry. We need large harddrives to store those movies they won't let us rip, especially when blu-ray comes out. What is it, like 50GB for one movie?

I think gaming is the backbone to high-end computers, and porn for the internet.

 

[SuperFly03]

Porn is the backbone of the internet.

No way!!!

Porn is the crotch of the Internet.

Oh goodness here we go.

Personaly I plan on going RAID 5 with a few $100 300GB disks as opposed to 2 500GB ones or what not. RAID 5 provides redundancy and speed. While I am very impressed with 750GB on a disk.... I am not so impressed at the nearly $600 price tag.

Like it was stated above.... address the speed issue then I will be happy. These damn MMORPG's really eat up HDD/CPU speed lol

 

[Codesmith]

now I've got my 200 gigabyte drive half-full with television episodes and will have to either delete some files or purchase more storage.

Why not burn some DVDR's. I got two 320 Caselogic CD Wallets, they cost about $30 each. Ritek 8x DVD+R's 100pks $23 each inc shipping.

Thats 2.5 TB for $207.

---[/quote]

Hard part is keeping your media organized without creating too much work for yourself.

Before I burn I run my .avi files through GSPOT which exports .txt files with the same name as the orriginal .avi file, containing custom formatted statistics about the file.

Each disc gets a number and a folder on my hard drive.

I want to watch see what soprano's episodes I have I just do a search for *sopranos*.txt. If the episode I want to watch is in folder "DivX 203" then I pull disc 203.

---

Of course it takes me about 2 minutes to go to the book shelf and pull a disc and return it when I am done.

I would prefer a 3.2 TB RAID 6 array of 12 WD 400 GB Raid Edition Drives, but that will run me about $3011 not including the cost of a full tower case with a custom buildt hard drive rack and 120mm cooling.

(I would use two 6 drive raid 6 arrays to keep the drive size under 2TB, I prefer raid 6 with two redunant drives vs raid 5 with a hot spare)

But then if I was going to put that kind of money into home entertainment I would stick with the two DVD Wallets and buy a nice 60" DLP TV.

 

[clue69less]

Why not burn some DVDR's. I got two 320 Caselogic CD Wallets, they cost about $30 each. Ritek 8x DVD+R's 100pks $23 each inc shipping.

Thats 2.5 TB for $207.

I do plenty of that. The real cost is in doing the burning and management of the media. Big job.

 

[taz-nz]

Cool, but is it 750 Gigabytes, or 750 ~Gigabtyes in size, like every other hard drive.

Let do the math on this:

750,000,000,000 Bytes - The total volume the drive label will likely state.
/1024

732,421,875 Kilobytes
/1024

715255.74 Megabytes
/1024

698.49 Gigabytes

I can't wait for someone to ask where there other 50+ Gigabytes of hard drive space went. It's get harder and harder for hard drive manufactures to get away with the dirty little lies about the real size of their hard drives. You can't just say it's the boot sector, the partition table,& the FAT table, people will believe that for a couple of missing Gigabytes, but not fifty Gig.

I'll be interested to see what the real world usable storage space of this drive is, I'm willing to bet it will be more like 695GB partitioned and formatted, when viewed in Windows.

 

[mesarectifier]

That just goes with the territory. You don't get AMD buyers asking "Where did my extra 2 Ghz go on my 4800+??"

 

[taz-nz]

That just goes with the territory. You don't get AMD buyers asking "Where did my extra 2 Ghz go on my 4800+??"

You can't comparing the AMD CPU model numbering system & HDD size claims.

If AMD called the 4800+ an Athlon X2 4.8GHz then it would be the same thing, but because their numbering system doesn't state a unit of measurement, it can only be said that it implies that the processor may run at 4.8Ghz, but at no point are they claiming that it does. This may course confusion for some, but it is not an outwrite lie about the specifications of the processor.

As where hard drive manufacturers, market their drives as being say 750GB, which states the unit of measurement as being GB i.e. Gigabytes, thus the product should have an unformatted capacity of 750 Gigabyte of data, i.e 805,306,368,000 Bytes total storage space, not 750,000,000,000 Bytes as they choose to interrupt it.

It like you asking me for 5 Meters of rope and me giving you 5 Yards instead because that close enough for me, this on course would leave you almost a half Meter short of the length of rope for asked for.

The hard drive manufactories have been getting away with this for far to long, and now flash memory manufactures are getting in on the game too. Think about what would happen if all the gas companies started short changing everyone by 7% on every fill up at the pump, how long do you think it would take before they were all in court ?

A Gigabyte is 1073741824 Bytes no less no more, anything else is self serving B.S.

 

[mesarectifier]

I realise it's not a direct comparison, but my point is that people who buy AMD processors know that a 4800 isn't a 4.8ghz processor - and people who buy hard drives know about formatted capacity and 'actual' size reducing the size.

Would you be more excited about the headline 'SEAGATE RELEASES WORLD'S FIRST 698.49GB CAPACITY HARD DRIVE'? It's pedantry, Jim.

 

[taz-nz]

Would you be more excited about the headline 'SEAGATE RELEASES WORLD'S FIRST 698.49GB CAPACITY HARD DRIVE'? It's pedantry, Jim.

I'd be more than happy for them to call it a 700GB hard drive, which is basically is. Rounding up by a couple a Gig is forgivable, 50GB is a total misrepresentation of the product.

I see ware your coming from with your comparison now, and see your point, but I sell computer for a living, and it's probably 12months since someone last went off at me about there AMD only being 2Ghz and they purchased a 3000+, so most people do understand that a AMD 4800+ is not a 4.8ghz as you say. But at the same time it's less than a week since the last person went off about there HDD missing X number of Gigabytes, and it happens more and more as the average HDD size gets bigger, it up to about once every two week for me now. This tell me most people don't know there getting ripped off my the hard drive manufactures.

When I go to buy my first 1TB hard drive I want to get 1024 real Gigabytes of storage space not 930 odd Gigabytes.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

 

[mesarectifier]

Yes but to call it a 700gb drive would be a lie - there are only two ways to measure the size of a drive. The choice is either 698.49gb (not exactly marketable) or 750gb. Any other capacity would be a lie.

 

[taz-nz]

I'm sure if they tried they could squeeze another 1.5GB out the platters, to get a nice round 700GB HDD, which they could easily market and not have to lie in the process.

 

[Ycon]

I hate Seagate anyway PERIOD

However, I dont need 750GB HDDs. What I need are fast ~60GB notebook HDDs