How big is 1TB?

Tony Williams · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:16

I always thought a 1TB drive was 3.5 inches?

Kreeeee · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:16

mattbrown91 said:
1024Gb

Would that not be 1024 gigabits, which is incorrect. It's 1024GB.

gord · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:17

Tony Williams said:
I always thought a 1TB drive was 3.5 inches?

It can be any size they make it.. wont be much good if its not 3.5 inches though as thats the standard for desktop harddrives..

Heliospherez · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:28

Considering Seagate can produce recording (Areal) densities of 421 Gbit/in² in the Lab (the maximum by any company) - I don't think it will be too long before they can churn out 1" drives like this one, here with 1TB of storage.

Mana · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:29

i reckon i could fill that up no problem!

semi-pro waster · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:31

Kreeeee said:
Would that not be 1024 gigabits, which is incorrect. It's 1024GB.

It depends how pedantic anyone is feeling on the day, technically you are correct but I frequently use 80gb (say) instead of the capitalisation for 80GB, am I now incorrect or does the fact that it is in the same case mean that it is in bytes rather than bits? The next point comes when asking if it really matters in most circumstances.

basmic · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:34

I thought 1TB was 1024GB. :eek:

Anim · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:34

how much actual storage space you'd have wont be 1gb anyway, take indexing in to account.. the larger the disk the more space you need to record?

Angus-Higgins · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:35

Kreeeee said:
Would that not be 1024 gigabits, which is incorrect. It's 1024GB.

Isn't it actually GiB?

Angus Higgins

paradigm · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:36

Angus-Higgins said:
Isn't it actually GiB?

Angus Higgins

No.

Angus Higgins

alexakasloth · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:36

Phil99 said:
Just a minor point but 1024Gb is 8x less than 1024GB

Gb = gigabit and GB = gigabyte?

Blackvault · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:37

I read the title wrong and thought someone was asking for the measurements of Thunderbird 1 :confused:

Blackvault

Trifid · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:39

Chronos-X said:
No one uses that *ibi/*ebi crap and no one ever will.

Well considering it is quite important with Hard drives we do need to use it in this thread, especially when you are talking about 'losing' 99GB.

Vanilla · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:40

Should work out at around 930GB once formatted.

Simian · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:41

And it'll probly be cheaper to buy 2x 500Gb drives and cheaper still to buy 4x 250Gb drives (or 5x 250Gb if you want a RAID5

)

Phil99 · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:44

$loth said:
Gb = gigabit and GB = gigabyte?

Yup

PhilthyPhil · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:51

Simian said:
And it'll probly be cheaper to buy 2x 500Gb drives and cheaper still to buy 4x 250Gb drives (or 5x 250Gb if you want a RAID5 )

It's not cheaper when you consider the extra controller channels, physical space, power requirements and heat generated. At least its certainly not at the enterprise level, these may not be such big issues for SOHO users.

manoz · 7 Jan 2007 at 17:52

Simian said:
And it'll probly be cheaper to buy 2x 500Gb drives and cheaper still to buy 4x 250Gb drives (or 5x 250Gb if you want a RAID5 )

Actually I've read somewhere that the Hitachi 1TB will be cheaper then the current Seagate 750 GB.

ooh read here, found link http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11548

SiD the Turtle · 7 Jan 2007 at 18:06

The annoying 1000 vs 1024 thing plus formatting overhead means it won't read as 1TB in Windows- so I'll be waiting for one that's just big enough to top the 1TB barrier.

Regarding 1GB vs 1Gb they're not the same but unless you're being a pedant there's no harm. If I say I've got a 100Gb hard drive you all know I mean 100gigabytes, whereas if I say I have a 1GB connection you know I mean 1gigabit.

Heliospherez · 7 Jan 2007 at 18:07

And to confuse matters even more,

Seagate never call it 'A Hard Disk' - Its always a 'A Hard Disc' when they refer to it