Hitachi 1TB drive is at retail doorsteps

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-032-HI

Old news :p

You can preorder for £200 now thats cheap considering

Sweet!!!

Oh, nice caption for the pic too.

"And now we will show them the power of this fully operational battle station." - Oh, wait...DESK star. Whoops.

LMAO!!! :D

These will be wicked for HTPCs so you can store heaps of content in a single drive instead of having to look at raid arrays and increasing power useage, thermals, acoustics and complexity...

Anyone wanna buy my fileserver? :D

Sooooooo MUCH.... do I even need to finish this sentence? No? Didn't think so.

It's quite insane really, how quick HDDs are expanding in terms of capacity. I could replace my current 8 x 250GB with 2 of these :(

anyone with a knowledge of binary versus regular base ten numbers care to rant about how the capacity as actually less than a true terabyte count?

that said, my fileserver will be seeing an upgrade :D

The noise is my only concern.

Heres hoping it is actually 1TiB, if it isn't then theres gonna be quite a lot of space 'lost'

As I understand it, the current hard drives are measured in thousands of megabytes, which is based on the true value of 1024Kb. If they still make it that way, and a TB is 1000 GB, then we'll be be losing ~50GiB of space. Not loads when you think you're getting 950GiB HDD, but that's still a lot of space.

It's something that really should be taken care of, but the problem is, if one company decides to market their drives at their true value, they'd lose sales

I just checked ( )

and found these:

Originally Posted by DougEdey
931.322GB formatted by my estimate

Originally Posted by hth0923
1000,000,000,000B/1024/1024/1024=931.322GB

Abusolutely Agreed!

and we have our answer. :'(

i dont know how HD manufacturers get away with this

its clearly f£$%ing wrong.

i think it was here where i posted how much storage is lost due to this. I'll find the post.

EDIT: Here

wow i definately need this, i only have about 2tb on my media center, and i need more :-( using 3x500gb, and a external 400gb, replacing one of the 500s with the 1tb or replacing the 400gb external with a 1tb external would be awsome too.

i need more space, i cant fit any more episodes of south park or any of my cool new movies :( :( :(

I used to think space was over rated when I had a single 80gb HD and was like, "Why would anyone ever need so much space." Then I got a 320gb and two 74gb raptors in raid 1 and I now think otherwise. Once you start using your PC as a media center the gig's just fall off. I'm at 72% free on the 320 and 40% free on the two raptors. If only I had $400

Soooo....... realistically we don't have a winner in the 1TB range just yet. Sorry Hitachi, but stop using your marketing tactics to scew the facts. Hard drive manufacturers need to stop using these tactics to mislead consumers. It's practically false advertising. Does anyone else agree with this statement?

incorrect info - deleted

Originally Posted by Technical Specifiactions
1000/750 GB – SATA (GB = 1 billion bytes, accessible capacity may be less)

So since to them, 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, and 1 TB = 1,000 GB, we can math it out as 1,000,000,000,000 bytes

Now when converting to GiB we've got 931.32GiB

I come to my calculations by:

                     B->K   K->M   M->G
1,000,000,000,000 / (1024 * 1024 * 1024 )

B = bytes, K = Kibibytes, M = Mibibytes, G = Gibibytes

You were originally correct Bluephoenix.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Omnituens
i dont know how HD manufacturers get away with this

its clearly f£$%ing wrong.

There was a class action lawsuit about this that came to a resolution. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060630-7174.html

They offereded a refund of $30 in the form of backup software valued at $30. A total cop out which still leaves me uneasy with the whole marketing bumfluff.

Originally Posted by Omnituens
i dont know how HD manufacturers get away with this

its clearly f£$%ing wrong.

i think it was here where i posted how much storage is lost due to this. I'll find the post.

EDIT: Here

You mean OS manufacturers? THEY'RE the party guilty of mislabeling. The OS displays the capacity in GiB, but uses the unit GB next to it. The hard drives are advertised in GB, or TB now, and deliver in GB or TB.

Technically speaking, it's RAM manufacturers that are guilty, but nobody is going to go after them for giving more than advertised (both manufacturer and OS display standard GB units, but both actually use the power-of-two GiB units; as they both do it, there's no noticed discrepancy).

OMG that is like 700 000 floppy disks!!!! i want one of those for my fileserver for the house.

Originally Posted by Lazlow
It's quite insane really, how quick HDDs are expanding in terms of capacity. I could replace my current 8 x 250GB with 2 of these :(

Based on the 3 data points I can think of, HDD capacity growth rate is actually SLOWING DOWN!

2 years ago: 500GB max made its debut
1 year ago: 750GB max made its debut(a 50% increase in about a year)
Now: 1000GB max has just come out (a 33% increase in about a year).

I'm guessing next year will have 1250GB drives...for a 25% increase. Less and less of a percentage increase each year....


On the other hand, the capacity of USB Flash Drives seems to be roughly doubling (or at least dropping in price by a factor of 2) every year....remember when 128MB on a USB drive was huge? Remember when 512 first became available? Now you can get 16GB on a high quality corsair USB flash drive for under $150 from NewEgg.

I know that right now Flash-based hard drives are small in capacity and expensive in price compared to hard drives...but based on how the technology of USB Flash Drives has been moving, I think flash is on a path to overtake hard-drives in both capacity and cheapness in less than 10 years. Also keep in mind that the current 32GB flash drives (ie: the ones I think Dell is using) are 1.8" drives -- smaller than a 'standard' 2.5" notebook drive, and much smaller than a 3.5" desktop drive -- and using a bigger physical drive means either more capacity, or larger/older/cheaper technology, or some combination of the two. Give it a few years, and they'll be cramming close to a terabyte of flash into a desktop drive for under $1000. A few years after that, and things will be very competitive with hard drives.

Harddrive companies should more focus on faster hdd's then larger hdd's. Try look at the evolution of the speed of ram, cpu, gfx and hdd, and try see the diffrence. The 3 first parts are almost "following" each other up in speed, but hdd's a lacking behind in speed, and instead upgraded in capacity. There's almost a capacity race between harddrive companies. it should more be a speed race, so load times are cut down to minimal. :(

Originally Posted by TTmodder
Harddrive companies should more focus on faster hdd's then larger hdd's. Try look at the evolution of the speed of ram, cpu, gfx and hdd, and try see the diffrence. The 3 first parts are almost "following" each other up in speed, but hdd's a lacking behind in speed, and instead upgraded in capacity. There's almost a capacity race between harddrive companies. it should more be a speed race, so load times are cut down to minimal. :(

You haven't seen much from this drive then. This drive is being called (and I certainly agree with them) the FASTEST 7200RPM hard drive to date.

http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2974

Have a look, and tell me it's not fast. :)

I think what he means is that we need HDDs that can utilize the full 3gbps that SATA II (I know that designation is inaccurate, but it works) is capable of.

Not only are these massive in size, but since it's using perpendicular technology, they're pretty fast. Faster then my 2x 200gb raid 0. If only I had the money....if only. :'(

Originally Posted by Firehed
You mean OS manufacturers? THEY'RE the party guilty of mislabeling. The OS displays the capacity in GiB, but uses the unit GB next to it. The hard drives are advertised in GB, or TB now, and deliver in GB or TB.

Bear in mind this daft MiB/GiB/TiB labelling system has only existed since 1998. Hard drive manufacturers are the only ones who still use the base-10 system instead of the base-2 that the rest of the world uses, so I'd suggest it's probably them who're wrong...

0_0

i want one...........

price is right, and storage is wicked... performance is also GOOD.

i got 2x80Gb RAID-0 for a total of 300+mb/s for my Vista installation and program files...

then i got 2x250+2x320... and i got a full 6-drives on my silverstone TJ06.... imagine replacingthe 2x250 with 2 of these babies lol.... storage x2!

Hard drive companies have't done anything wrong, it's old hat to measure the capacity of CDs and HDDs in powers to the ten (10¹⁰). OS companies are doing it all wrong, they should be using GiB if they want to continue measuring in the way they're doing it.
of course it gets confusing when other devices like RAM use powers to the 2 (2¹⁰).

i think many of us would prefer the capacity's to be in base-2 rather than base-10. as you said Ramble, other devices like RAM use base-2
correct me if i'm wrong, but would the increase of speed of this drive be largely due to its 32MB cache? iirc most hdds only have 16MB

I can't wait to see cheaper SSD on the market, this 1TB is a big step up for the HDD market place

I see 32mb cashe as the BEST bit! Make a small partition and it should fly with HDD intensive apps (football manager, databases etc)

I'm just saying that the prefixes of kilo, mega, giga, and tera have always referred to the power-of-ten version. It's not their fault for using the correct notation. Unlike stuff like RAM where a power-of-two designation makes the most sense just by nature of its design, hard drives are much more flexible so doing so makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Firehed
I'm just saying that the prefixes of kilo, mega, giga, and tera have always referred to the power-of-ten version. It's not their fault for using the correct notation. Unlike stuff like RAM where a power-of-two designation makes the most sense just by nature of its design, hard drives are much more flexible so doing so makes little sense.

the problem is that OS's use the base-2 meanings which makes things confusing. my 300GB maxtor is correct in its base-10 meaning, but in base-2 its only 279GB. both parties really need to decide on a single standard for everyone and then stick with it

In fairness, I saw a laptop hard drive the other day which said "40GB" on the label, and you actually, honestly got 40.0GB when formatted.

Which was nice. [/fast show]

I think that they should show the actual data capacity on base 2, because then you really know how much data you can store.

and if the trend keeps up when we hit petabytes (mega, giga, tera, peta, exa) you'll actually only get 909.49 terabytes of storage, which is a pretty disgusting disparity.

Damn I'd hate to loose 1 TB of data at one blow. That's really the only thing this bit of news brings to my mind. And if you go raid or just have another drive where to back up the most important stuff, it's more expensive and maybe less practical.

I wouldn't buy one. For a while atleast ;)

12 of these in RAID-10 would be nice :)

w00t.

My 1TB drive arrived today along with the Icy Box external caddy.
Formatting now.
Can confirm that XP is formatting as a 931.50GB partition... :/

Still, means I can sell my fileserver without losing any data or taking up too much room in the mrs' flat... :)