When are the 1TB drives coming out?
- Thread starter ernysmuntz
- Start date
Soldato
Cyber-Mav said:
exactly!
Always split it up and save to more than 1 source!
Soldato
clv101 said:
Already got a LianLi v2000
Cyber-Mav said:
The 1Tb drive would be acting as a backup drive anyway, so my data should hopefully be safe enough.
Soldato
Oh yeah need some 1TB drives Ive often thought get a nice Raptor for Vista/Games and then 1TB hdd for backup/downloads.
Theres some cheap imoga 500gig portables about for £115 apparantly... so was considering that option also.
Ive often thought get a nice Raptor for Vista/Games and then 1TB hdd for backup/downloads.Theres some cheap imoga 500gig portables about for £115 apparantly... so was considering that option also.
RichDuffy said:
Windows doesn't identify drive capacities correctly. A one terabyte drive will be able to store 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of data, but Windows has yet to conform to a standard counting system that has been defined for 7 years.
Photoshop said:
That's 2x500GB drives in an external package. Not an internal, single 3.5" format drive.
Standard counting system? I thought the standard counting system was base-2 (which windows does perfectly) and it's dodgy, misleading, HDD marketing speak that calls 1,000,000,000,000 bytes a TB. 'cos it certainly isn't a TB in my book!mosfet said:
Soldato
mosfet said:
its one drive isnt it not 2x500gb ?
What you call "a standard counting system that has been defined for 7 years", I call "a pathetic way of trying to force us to redefine what has always been a KB, MB, GB, TB etc (for as long as such things have existed) as something else with a stupid name (gibibyte indeed!!) just so that manufacturers can claim drives are bigger than they really are".mosfet said:
mosfet said:
I know a few other people have replied stating your complete misunderstanding of how storage capacities work.
Plus you forget that Windows uses a file system that requires space for allocation tables etc.. Which means you 'loose' space. I remember having an Amiga and my HD 3.5" floppies held nealry 1.7mb because of the Amiga FS. A standard PC floppy can only hold 1.44mb. I believe the Mac's at the time could hold nearly 2mb which was amazing!
So you see it isn't as simple as Windows being pants. Switch to another OS which uses a different file system if claiming that extra space back is so important.
More info on NTFS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS
Last edited:
RLBUHT said:
So how would you describe him in order for other people to figure out who the presenter is?
I have multiple gay friends and not a single one would bat an eyelid if I called them queer.
Generally - except with people like you of course - you can call people whatever you want to and they not be offended... what causes offence is the manner in which you say it and he did not say anything offensive.
Anyway - back to topic... yay for terrabyte drives! lol Even though I just bought an external 2x500 thingy.
Man of Honour
photoshop said:
No, it's two physical 500Gb devices attached to a RAID controller, by having the two drives in a RAID0 array the storage appears to the OS on the PC as a single device with an approximate capacity of 1Tb.
This is a common method of generating large capacity storage, my e: drive is 1700Gb. If you take the side off my case you won't find a 1700Gb disk, rather 8 250Gb disks in a RAID5 array.
Soldato
1TB drives will not hit the shelves till next year now. Seagate have dropped the price a fair amount on the 750GB's since being released but I can't see them coming down again for a little while as Seagate are the only ones with such a high capacity drive without needing RAID like most of the current 1TB external drives use.
Hitachi & Seagate will be first and I reckon £350+VAT will be the very minimum but more likely £400+.
Hitachi & Seagate will be first and I reckon £350+VAT will be the very minimum but more likely £400+.
Associate
photoshop said:
thats made up of two 500GB drives striped for raid 0
there a great solution but still two drives
Soldato
ahh right i thought it was 1
clv101 said:
RichDuffy said:
tonyyeb said:
You're all welcome to come and sit in on my signals and communication systems lectures if you wish. Don't assume you're right just because the majority of people don't understand the SI system.
The greek prefixes have been used for decades, and they're no different in computing. Kilo = 10^3, Mega = 10^6 and so forth. Tera = 10^12.
Storage manufacturers have *always* used this system, because it's the most relevant counting system in communications, which by its very nature is time based. Time is a quantity measured to base-10, so it makes sense to this system for data. Storage and communication are intrinsically linked.
The use of base-10 prefixes for base-2 measures meant a difference of less than a 1% in the pioneering days of computing, where storage rarely broke the 1MB mark, so there was no need for another system. Today the difference can be up to 10%, so it's necessary to have 2 system.
Please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, Tony, I've been studying in this field for years, I did not "forget that windows uses a file system", file systems are not relevant to this discussion. The inefficient use of space by a file system designer is nothing to do with a storage manufacturer. It is not their responsibility to specify the useful disc size for each file system, it is their responsibility to define the absolutes. In this case, a TB disc is capable of storing 1 trillion bits of data, what you do with it is up to you.
It's an oversight by Microsoft and Apple, and in other operating systems the capacities are reported correctly.
mosfet said:
Sorry if you thought i was talking to you like an idiot. Obviously someone with your background in the field knows what he is talking about.
My point was that Windows reports usable space not the capacity of the drive. Why would it? "Do you know that your 1TB drive only has 910gb of space to use from new - thats how inefficient my FS is!"
And quite frankly i dont care. If you want 1TB of space from your 1TB drive - it aint going to happen because of file systems that need space for quotas, efs info, permissions etc...
A point I feel worth mentioning - I'm not one of those who doesn't understand the SI system. Having studied chemistry at university, I have been using SI prefixes for many years. I just assumed that when the same people I'd learned the SI units from also taught me that in computing, each prefix is a power of 1024 instead of 1000, they were right. If they're not, and MS/Apple are the ones not reporting it correctly, then this is indeed a different matter.mosfet said:
By 'communication', do I take it you are referring to the human element, and the fact that we 'think' in base 10? This makes sense I suppose, since if I look at a drive capacity and see "65,222,742,016 bytes", I am going to have difficulty in mentally converting that to GB (60.7 as I've always understood it, but I'd instinctively think 65.2 on reading it)
I can see the logic in that - with each increase in magnitude, the discrepancy between the number we see and the 'actual' number (according to MS/Apple) grows considerably larger. But surely the solution is not to introduce a silly-sounding term like 'gibibyte', but rather to pressure the offending companies to display these values in a base 10 fashion, so that everyone reports them the same way.
Not that I'm being argumentative, but could you provide some examples? I'm actually interested in knowing this, not being awkward.
In the end though, rightly or wrongly, my obsessive side will still hold out for larger drives, as a terabyte just doesn't feel like a terabyte unless it's reported as such.
tonyyeb said:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you're getting confused between the 'lost' space in converting from base-10 to base-2 and the 'lost' space due to file system inefficiencies.
Once you get into the range of Terabytes, almost 10% of the disk space is 'lost' (the 90GB in this case) due to converting between two different counting systems. The file system itself is nowhere near as inefficient. In addition to this, Windows I believe reports volumes as absolutes (hence the two figures it gives, "size" and "size on disc" for files) so when you look up the capacity of a disc in My Computer it gives the figure without file system overheads.
As for your example; your 1TB disc has 910GiB of space, without taking into account the file system.
Richard, I was also taught the 1024 system for prefixes, but a need grew to change this, and in 1999 it did. The take up hasn't been great, since consumers still misunderstand it as a way of 'scamming them out of gigabytes'. Since the introduction of the binary system by the IEEE the SI prefixes are equal across all fields.
As for communications, it's more a case of the systems that handle the data and how we specify them. A serial transmission medium (be it a radio transmitter, serial bus or other) has no inherent division, unlike a parallel bus in a CPU - rates are measured in bits per second, and seconds are measured to a base-10 system. It therefore makes perfect sense to use this as our measure of the performance of a system.
Storage devices are no different - they are simply transmitting data through time rather than space.
The example I'm talking about (the oversight) is the basis of this thread - a drive is reported as 0.9TB when the manufacturer claims it is 1TB. This is down to Apple and Microsoft (amongst others) using base-2 measures with base-10 prefixes.
Maybe "oversight" is a poor way to express it, but I didn't want to say 'error', since they were, for many years, correct.