backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Crassus.. on Jun 6 at 2:29 PM

Seagate says it will target enterprise customers with its first SSD

Seagate doesn’t currently have any drives in the SSD market. Seagate currently is one of the largest makers of traditional hard drives and while it foresees a time when the solid state drive (SSD) is a better value than traditional HDDs; that time is not now.

Seagate announced that next year it will double its highest capacity traditional HDD to 2TB and will introduce its first SSD. CEO Bill Watkins says Seagate will first target enterprise customers with its SSDs where the benefits of lower power consumption and faster data access will be most welcome. The enterprise environment will also be willing to pay the premium SSDs will still demand whereas the majority of the consumer market is not willing to pay the premium at this time says Seagate.

PC World quotes Watkins saying, “SSDs are not price-competitive yet.” The cost per gigabyte for SSDs isn’t expected to come down for several years. Watkins believes that SSDs will become a focus for Seagate when the cost per gigabyte of SSD storage is around $0.10.

Currently, the cost per gigabyte for the average SSD is about $3.58 per gigabyte according to Krishna Chander, an analyst at iSuppli. There are problems with SSDs to be tackled over the next few years other than price. The typical SSD still has a storage capacity too low for most users and the SSD lifespan is short compared to a traditional HDD.

The answer to the problem of durability may lie in using the SSD for data reading and fast access to commonly used files and having less frequently used stuff moved off to a HDD for more permanent storage according to some. Despite the fact that Seagate doesn’t currently sell SSDs, it does own several patents that cover technology currently used in many SSDs on the market.

In April 2008 Seagate announced it was going to begin filing patent infringement suits against SSD makers who were using its patented technology in their products with the first suit filed against STEC.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cost per GB
By Alexstarfire on 5/30/2008 3:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the cost per GB of a HDD hasn't gotten below $.20 without some kind of sale I think it's going to be a long time till Seagate starts making SSDs if they are truly going to wait till the cost for GB to come down to $.10 for it. I'd almost guarantee that they are going to have SSDs on the market before the cost per GB gets that low though.




RE: Cost per GB
By ksherman on 5/30/2008 3:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was just noticing the same thing! That is quite an outrageous statement.


RE: Cost per GB
By rudy on 5/30/2008 3:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
No it's not if you extrapolate the price per GB of a hard drive at say 30 cents now to what it will be per GB in several years it makes sense that it should be around 10 cents by that time a gigabyte wont be much data.


RE: Cost per GB
By dragonbif on 5/30/2008 8:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
I don’t know, I just went to newegg and looked at WD 640GB HD and it was $99.99 (.25/G) and it was not on sale. It is one of the high performing HD in the 500-750GB range. It is true that when you get into the 1TB range it gets to .20/GB but that will change when the 1.5+TB drives start coming out. New stuff just costs more.


RE: Cost per GB
By dragonbif on 5/30/2008 8:30:27 PM , Rating: 3
ACK sorry the .25/G should be .15/GB.


RE: Cost per GB
By winterspan on 5/31/2008 4:15:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. waiting till $0.10/GB to focus on SSDs is such crap.

Evan at $1-1.50 per GB for a fast 2.5" SSD would be incredible for premium laptops, considering the largest 2.5" 7200RPM drive you can get is 300GB. You could get a 256GB SSD for $250. Better yet, high-end/enthusiast users would readily add $400-500 on to the price of a mobile workstation/gaming machine for a 512GB SSD. For god sakes, people are paying almost $1,000 for the 64GB SSD upgrade in the Macbook Air, and $700 for the 64GB upgrade in Dell XPS laptops. If you could get 4x the size of that for 1/4 the price, people would be all over that --- even 1-2 years down the road.


RE: Cost per GB
By stryfe on 5/30/2008 3:14:09 PM , Rating: 5
They didn't say they wouldn't have SSDs on the market before the cost per GB was $0.10, they said that was the point at which SSDs would become a focus for the company.


RE: Cost per GB
By Icelight on 5/30/2008 3:48:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Considering that the cost per GB of a HDD hasn't gotten below $.20 without some kind of sale


Yes, but a business typically does not sell a product for the same amount it costs to manufacture it.


RE: Cost per GB
By Oregonian2 on 5/30/2008 7:07:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think you've cost and price equated. They're not the same.


RE: Cost per GB
By HexiumVII on 5/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cost per GB
By Pryde on 5/30/2008 9:13:38 PM , Rating: 4
Even if the cost of SSD are 3x the price of HDD in the Next few years they are going to get much faster, more reliable and in much higher density than HDD. Not to mention the low access time makes them great for a RAID array.


RE: Cost per GB
By ChefJoe on 5/31/2008 8:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Call me when I can get a 15-20 Gig SSD for about $100 . I'd love to keep that as my boot drive and have a standard spinning platter HD for real storage duty.

You hear that Seagate... no $500 32 gig SSD drives, give me a small, cheap one.


RE: Cost per GB
By Silver2k7 on 6/2/2008 5:51:52 AM , Rating: 1
15-20Gb thats a bit risky.. my vista is 15Gb, and i prefer to have installed programs on the boot disc.. they need to be reinstalled if you format it anyway so why not have it on the same disc.

Im using about 170Gb on C: right now.. and using a 500Gb hdd just to be on the safe side.. its good to have some free space on the OS drive too.. the minimum I would consider is probably 300Gb.


RE: Cost per GB
By larson0699 on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cost per GB
By Regs on 6/2/2008 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hard Drives have been the slowest items in our computers since the invention of the CDROM. It's about time they cought up.


RE: Cost per GB
By rippleyaliens on 5/30/2008 9:55:38 PM , Rating: 3
You yonger folks with this 20c per get..
10 years ago, a 1,6 gb WD drive was $300
8MB dimms were $250
8x cd rom was the craze..
IE a p150 system , with 15mb vram cards, 1.6 GB drive, 8mb ram, cost $2500- and were selling like hot plates.
AAND that system, sill didnt run win95 as fast as what people wanted... a CDR- form hp, 1x/2s was $999
CDR mdia was $8 ea.

Same $2500 today buys something completely different.

Just like everything, time, will drop the prices substantially. Newer stuff hits all the time, and prirces drop accordingly. Just takes time to ripple down to people who arent willing to pay for performance.. gotta pay to play


RE: Cost per GB
By Alexstarfire on 5/31/2008 7:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think you mean 15 years ago. 10 years ago was 1998 and they had 52x CD burners by then.


RE: Cost per GB
By Zirconium on 5/31/2008 8:39:36 AM , Rating: 5
Shh... don't argue with grampa. He's senile. Otherwise he'll tell you about his childhood.


RE: Cost per GB
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 11:04:16 AM , Rating: 5
in my day we watched the space shuttle explode on TV... I remember glass soda/beer bottles that needed a metal thing to take the lid off... I remember when you had to answer the phone to find out who is calling, and if you were not home then they just tried calling you later... I remember having to rewind for a minute or two if you wanted to hear the song again... I remember Johnny Carson and seeing Jay Leno without grey hair... I remember popcorn on the stove... I remember "Where's the Beef?", "I'd walk a mile for a Camel", or "de plane, Boss, de plane."... I remember Styrofoam at McDonalds... I remember worrying about Jaws when I went swimming in the local lakes (in South Dakota)... I remember having to actually work for my first car, buy it myself and keep a job to maintain payments and insurance all while I was still going to high school all day from 7AM until 4PM then usually worked until 10 or 11PM... I remember the black and white Gameboy... I remember Colecovision...

wait what was I saying???


RE: Cost per GB
By arturus on 6/2/2008 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
I remember software that stated,

Hard Drive recommended

Now that's old.

For those too young to have witnessed this, software loaded from a floppy disk.


RE: Cost per GB
By Crassus on 6/6/2008 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the command to format a floppy on a C64. I remember installing Windows 3.0 and DOS 5.0 and even Windows 95 from floppies. I remember upgrading RAM from 1 MB to 2MB so color print jobs would take less than 45 min to spool. I remember 8bit ISA cards. And I still have my old SoundBlaster Pro somewhere.


RE: Cost per GB
By SteelyKen on 6/1/2008 6:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Since 12x burners were the hot item in the first half of 2000,
I highly doubt any 52x burners were around in 98.
Grandpa is more wise here than you, my son.


RE: Cost per GB
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, I recall it was about the middle of 2000 that CD burners finally dropped down to the $100 price point, and were 24X at that time and price.


RE: Cost per GB
By Quiescent on 6/3/2008 4:18:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hahaha, the old gateway my mother got in 1998 had a CD burner in it. I think after 2001 and a nice lightning storm, it died. She never used it anyways. There wasn't much use for a CD burner at the time. It sounded like a race car when you tried using it, and it couldn't read nor write!

Besides, why use CD-R when you could use a nice 100mb zip drive floppy! (I'm sure not many know of this technology, it wasn't exactly popular, and I remember newegg still selling these back in 2004)

I like to collect old hardware/computers/software. My first computer was a $40 computer with the monitor attached to the desktop, and it could only run Windows 3.11. I had all the floppy disks too. I wish I would of saved that. I got this in 2000. Sure I was dragged behind in technology with computers, but to experience the older technology is just fantastic!

I may be 18, but old technology is very exciting for me, to be honest. It's no longer like it used to be, I'd suppose. Now, the new "thing" comes out and I guess you would just take it for granted.

I have this one Soundblaster soundcard with two SIMM slots on it. I also had an 8bit ISA parallel and serial controller. (I'm pretty sure that's what it was!) Now I want the harddrives with their controllers as expansion slot devices!


RE: Cost per GB
By teldar on 6/1/2008 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
That does sound suspiciously more like 15 years ago. 8 years ago I bought an 18GB WD SCSI 10k rpm hard drive for $300, two 128MB pc-133 ram for $100 each, a brand new GeForce for $300, a scsi CD bruner for $300.

Expensive, but not what was stated for 10 years ago.

T


RE: Cost per GB
By Silver2k7 on 6/2/2008 5:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
I remember my first CD-Burner Yamaha 4X SCSI ;) paied maybe $500 for it.. the US-dollar was higher back then i think :P

A friend of mines dad had a 1x burner when they cost $5000 or something like this.


RE: Cost per GB
By Nyago123 on 6/1/2008 9:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Seagate's own statement just a little oversimplified anyway? I mean, what if SSDs are .10/GB but at the same time HD storage is, say, .50/TB by that time, and bandwidth and other factors are such that typical media storage requirements have us buying those 500TB drives?

I'm just theorizing here, of course... maybe physics just won't let us build 500TB drives in a reasonable form factor (just like we can't get 20GHz processors so we've had to go multi-core), but my point is that .10/GB SSDs may be so far off that the whole picture may have changed by then. Maybe what we need is some new technology...


RE: Cost per GB
By elgueroloco on 6/2/2008 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
We already have new technology. It's called a memristor (you can read about it in another DT article). Eventually it will replace both RAM and hard drives, and there will only be one storage medium in the computer. It will fill the function of both RAM and a solid state drive, according to the article, and make computers go way faster.

Also, everyone is missing something major. He didn't say Seagate won't make SSD's until $0.10/GB, he said they won't be the focus of Seagate until then, i.e. the majority of their production will still be HDD's. If you read the article, they will be offering SSD's next year.


RE: Cost per GB
By elgueroloco on 6/2/2008 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
We already have new technology. It's called a memristor (you can read about it in another DT article). Eventually it will replace both RAM and hard drives, and there will only be one storage medium in the computer. It will fill the function of both RAM and a solid state drive, according to the article, and make computers go way faster.

Also, everyone is missing something major. He didn't say Seagate won't make SSD's until $0.10/GB, he said they won't be the focus of Seagate until then, i.e. the majority of their production will still be HDD's. If you read the article, they will be offering SSD's next year.


HOOORAY!!!!!
By Bender 123 on 5/30/2008 2:52:55 PM , Rating: 5
More space for porn and crap I buy!!!!!




RE: HOOORAY!!!!!
By MeTaedet on 5/30/2008 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 4
Hmmm... Somehow I read that as "space porn". Here I thought that I had found a fellow connoisseur of space porn, a cohort and comrade who should make me feel I weren't such a creepy perv after all for making space porn a diurnal delectation and whom I should recompense with the same service. Alas!

Space porn... that's some good stuff. I recommend it. I've been hearing good things about water bondage porn, too. You might look into that also.


RE: HOOORAY!!!!!
By PhoenixKnight on 5/31/2008 2:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here's something else you might find interesting: http://xkcd.com/305/


RE: HOOORAY!!!!!
By TomZ on 5/31/2008 8:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
That was a perfect reply. :o)


RE: HOOORAY!!!!!
By mendocinosummit on 5/30/2008 9:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Brazilian fart fetish.


RE: HOOORAY!!!!!
By JoshRoss on 5/31/2008 9:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of this interview with Bill Watkins... http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/...


Porn and Piracy
By cubby1223 on 5/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Porn and Piracy
By BikeDude on 5/31/2008 5:44:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm just saying the "legal backups" line is BS.


I have a small two-room apartment in the middle of a relatively expensive city (I can't afford a bigger place at the moment and to give you some idea about 'expensive', I just purchased a car that easily costs twice as much here as it would in the States). In my apartment are no less than three DVD bookcases, plus a couple of shelves on the wall, all filled with DVDs (and a bunch of blu-ray and HD-DVDs).

I would absolutely *love* to file them all away on a huge drive, pack up the lot of them and put them in storage somewhere so that I can reclaim much needed space in my living room.

What is it about this particular situation that strikes you as weird or offensive?

(Legal) Online streaming could be a nice alternative in the future, but we're not quite there yet. Meanwhile I do enjoy collecting movies, I just don't like the part where I have to keep the physical media spread all over my living room. Eventually it will be difficult to find the DVD I am looking for and it just isn't very practical. This, combined with unwanted ads and unskippable content, has put a severe brake on my buying activities. I am definitively not buying as much as I used to. I would if it was practical.


RE: Porn and Piracy
By oab on 6/1/2008 7:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
DVD-Fab HD Decrypter (horrible name I know) has the ability to skip the FBI warnings, forced advertisements, etc. when you rip a movie with it.

2TB / 8.5GB = 235, therefore you can put 235 of your movies onto one two TB hdd (losslessly stored regular plain-old DVD's). Raid 5 of those together in some NAS box and that's likely enough storage for most of your DVD collection. And there are freeware utilities that help you organize media collections on such devices.

It's not perfect, but you could probably backup some of that collection ... perhaps even most of it?


RE: Porn and Piracy
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
You are ignorant of other people's storage uses. I have over a TB only counting stuff I've recorded off TV!


Stop the litigation!
By mikefarinha on 5/30/2008 3:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In April 2008 Seagate announced it was going to begin filing patent infringement suits against SSD makers who were using its patented technology in their products with the first suit filed against STEC.


Personally I prefer Seagate drives in my builds so I am partial to them. However it is crap like this that can turn astute customers off to their product rather quickly.

Seagate, I love you but I hope you loose in court!




RE: Stop the litigation!
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why pick on Seagate? They have as much right to uphold their patents as anybody else.

You can't fairly criticize them and not every other product you own that has patents. It would seem you are against the current implementation of the patent system. Me too, there is a reasonable limit to how much it fosters innovation, after which it stiffles it. People who file patents generally want to take everything feely without paying royalties on the forerunner's work then demand a royalty for their like contributions.


RE: Stop the litigation!
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 2:37:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why pick on Seagate?
Seagate are the [only] ones litigating on an entirely false motive. They're not doing it to be recognized. They're just the resident dog not taking kindly to his new company. Sounds like stifling innovation to me.

Oh, and what? Now they give in and make SSDs! Nice.


Any idea when next year for the 2T drive?
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 4
Are we looking Q1 or Q4? I figure Seagate has to be using 4x500GB platters for 2TB, I would be surprised if platter densities doubled (from 330GB/pl to 660GB/pl) in one generation. I figured 350->500->660->833->1000 would be the platter density steps...




RE: Any idea when next year for the 2T drive?
By Pryde on 5/30/08, Rating: -1
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 11:58:10 PM , Rating: 4
If you couldn't tell by the title of the message and the title of this article, I was talking about the 2TB Hard Drive (not SSD).

Hooked on phonics, you should check it out.


2TB?
By chmilz on 5/30/2008 2:53:32 PM , Rating: 5
My gosh, that's a lot of porn. I'm gonna have to pick up a new fetish or two.




RE: 2TB?
By jadeskye on 5/30/2008 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 1
try water bondage.


Problems with size?
By ATWindsor on 5/30/2008 3:24:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There are problems with SSDs to be tackled over the next few years other than price. The typical SSD still has a storage capacity too low for most users and the SSD lifespan is short compared to a traditional HDD.


Is the lifespan really short? Any studies on this?

Furthermore, is storage capacity really a problem? Does a given volume of SSD give less space than the same volume of HDD? (given maximum storage density technically posslible) Isn't the reason for the small sizes just the prices? Not any inherit technical obstacle?




RE: Problems with size?
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:36:51 AM , Rating: 2
No the lifespan isn't really short, you just find muppetheads repeating that every time they hear the word flash, nevermind if they didn't bother to do any research about how many writes their use has and how long it would take to wear out even the first cell with any reasonable wear leveling.

Capacity is a problem to the extent that Vista is a precursor of things to come, mammoth sized OS, and the average selling price of a computer would've otherwise declined further through more integration and fewer and fewer people needing higher end performance from any given era. It's just not reasonable to the average person to spend half the computer budget on their hard drive.

One reason for the small size is definitely price. Another is that they aren't making enough flash chips currently for SSD to fully replace mechanical drives, there are more and more devices today that use flash with capacity growing as fast as flash density rises if not moreso.

We've just gotten really spoiled about price:GB with today's mechanical drives, and flash tech lagged behind ever increasing video storage demands even moreso now that HD video and higher res monitors hit the scene.

If only we could've had flash tech to the point where you could get 4GB for $15 after a rebate back in the Win98 days (4GB mechanical being the budget choice when Win98 first came out), that would've been something. We're just too anxious though, it's kinda amazing that in only a decade we have drives over 100X the size, but no matter what gains we make we'll always want more.


SSD RAID
By Segerstein on 5/30/2008 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
The primary focus for the the HDD makers should be to combine the two technologies.

SSD are first going to replace the hard drives in mobile devices, then servers. The former need low noise and low consumption, while the later need high performance. But there is a problem with reliability and a kind of RAID SSD field should be devised. Because of high seek speeds there could also be different SSD drives in the field.

Capacity wise, HDDs will still need to be used. HD video downloads over FTTH...




RE: SSD RAID
By krwhite on 5/31/2008 10:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
FusionIO, my friend. Funny how many people haven't mentioned them. Basically, they make the fastest drive on the planet in SSD. It uses many SSD's in parallel I believe, or something of the sort. They're expensive as hell, but apparently they're coming down sometime for the rest of us. Check out their benchmarks on the ioDrive. The reliability is apparently there as well. As the drive ages, it gets 'smaller' in size, instead of corrupting. It uses some memory table to keep track of the bad sectors.


" Muhahahhaa I'm Seagate !!! "
By Reclaimer77 on 5/30/2008 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Muhahahha !! I'll sue smaller companies trying to offer affordable SSD's into oblivion ! So we can launch our own SSD's way too late and only offer them to " Enterprise " class customers !!!

*sigh*




RE: " Muhahahhaa I'm Seagate !!! "
By SunAngel on 5/30/2008 9:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
what's wrong with that? you can't sue the chinese underworld!


Instead of engineering...
By wvh on 5/31/2008 6:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of engineering, they decide to use patents as a profitable business plan. I know some disagree, but I think that's kind of sad. They sue the companies that try to develop the technology.

They are probably right about SSD not being worth the effort for mainstream markets just yet, though.




RE: Instead of engineering...
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
What are you babbling about? Their patents ARE engineered, are the fruits of the engineering, some of which implemented in the products they already sell and others money and time spent investing towards tomorrow's tech - just like any other large company does.

If you're really thinking it's somehow their fault they don't have SSDs yet, it's not their core business and has been difficult to compete with others who have better access to large volumes of flash chips. How far do you plunge into the emerging competitive storage alternative when you're still making money on the present mechanical drive lines?

They'll make the switch when it seems most financially adventageous to them just like everyone else and will have already engineered a lot of tech towards that beforehand, and of course patented it.


Cost versus Price
By NauticalStrong on 5/30/2008 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Seagate's .10 cost is not the same as the selling price at retail. Both Seagate and the distribution channel also get their share of markup. Perhap's this is Seagate's way of letting us know what their current cost is?




Patent dispute
By Anosh on 5/30/2008 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite the fact that Seagate doesn’t currently sell SSDs, it does own several patents that cover technology currently used in many SSDs on the market.


I thought it hadn't been decided whether Seagate patents are valid.




SSD cost per GB
By Saosin on 6/2/2008 4:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Currently, the cost per gigabyte for the average SSD is about $3.58 per gigabyte according to Krishna Chander, an analyst at iSuppli.
$3.58 * 32GB = ~$115. Please tell me where I can find a SSD this cheap :)




Thanks Seagate...
By AnnihilatorX on 6/5/2008 9:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
for allowing more porn to be fit into our PC :)




Who cares
By phatboye on 5/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares
By Crusty on 5/30/2008 3:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
Tell that to anyone that use Windows Media Center. A typical Vista install is almost 20GB. On top of that, any new DX10 games will be taking up a LOT of space. A new install of Age of Conan sits around the 24GB mark. My steam folder is almost 60GB and I have < 10 games installed there. I'm not doing anything different then a good chunk of the regular population and I could never fit my stuff in a 100GB hard drive.


RE: Who cares
By PAPutzback on 5/30/2008 4:18:49 PM , Rating: 3
I have close to 2TB of space used now by DVDs and BD rips, not to mention about 100 gig of lossless ripped music.

I could fill a 2tb drive about every 2-3 months if I upped my BD collection seeing as each movie is 15 to 45 gig. And I don't even record HD TV yet. I used the cable box for that. But someday I will once I can get a media center that will have a standard that will last more than 2 years. I might record OTA ATSC though. But I am low on space.


RE: Who cares
By FaceMaster on 5/30/2008 5:13:56 PM , Rating: 5
lol somebody loves piratebay


RE: Who cares
By CloudFire on 5/31/2008 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
don't we all love piratebay? :)


RE: Who cares
By FaceMaster on 6/1/2008 5:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
'They' are hunting you down right now.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/30/2008 7:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
to all those who replied to my post and even rated my post down to -1 should re-read what I wrote.

quote:
as majority of home and even business users won't need more than 100GB for some time.


I hardly think that anyone who posts om dailytech about having over 1TB of data on their HD is representative of a typical (see majority) computer users. Of course there will be people like yourselves here on dailytech who need to store large amounts of data but as you can see my post wasn't directed toward you. Honestly what percentage of users have 6 or 7 OSes installed or who have hundreds of backed-up movies installed on their computer taking up +1TB of data? Sure their are a lot of these people floating around dailytech but if you put that in perspective and compare that number to the general population you will see that percentage wise people who need +1TB of data ATM are few and far between.


RE: Who cares
By kyleb2112 on 5/31/2008 12:22:12 AM , Rating: 3
Well the title of your post is "Who cares", and you got your answer. The fact that you or the Average Joe don't need the capacity doesn't mean there's no need for it.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/31/2008 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 1
OK "Who cares" is a bad title I will admit that, I should have made a better title.

Also again I never said their is no need for super high capacity hard drives. What I said was there is a greater need for faster hard drives then super high capacity hard drives. Hard drives are the greatest bottleneck on many modern day computers and we have been stuck using 7200RPM drives for a long time now. It's time for these hard drives manufactures to start focusing in consumer level higher speed (ie 10k/15k RPM) SATA hard drives.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/31/2008 1:25:25 PM , Rating: 1
..and yes I do know that as data density is increased HD read/write speed is increased.


RE: Who cares
By Nik00117 on 6/1/2008 3:52:09 PM , Rating: 1
If you add up all the space that I use it currently is around 842 GIGs, i'm not typical of the average user.

None of my friends have as many movies as I do (all my movies are 700 to 1.3 gig packages) I have a huge ammount of docus, and TV shows along with music, now what kills me is the way games are sizing up. 6-8 gigs for a game is typical. I mean the avg size of a game for me nowadays are 8 gigs, in fact if I installed off my video games I could easily have 150-200 gigs of legal games, esp if i'd install guild wars (which I believe sucks BTW) and age of conan I heard was hugee.

I honsetly believe the days of 120 gig, and 250 gigs are out the door to be honset. Even a moddest gamer with some itunes and vista can easily fill up 250 gigs.

O BTW I just recently cleaned up a huge ammount of RAW AVI files which are fucking huge from a 1 1/2 hour movie project I did, the file itself was like 18 gigs, now imagine all of the little clips and your easily talking 36 gigs, on top of this I had a lot of minor mistakes and fixed so you can go ahead and add another 30 gigs, if you include pictures, audio, and other sources of videos which I used. Boom one video project 66 gigs, and i'm not even strecthing the limits.


RE: Who cares
By Silver2k7 on 6/2/2008 6:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
nah GW was really cool for a while, havn't tried the expansions thought.


RE: Who cares
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 2:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
60 gigs in Steam. Nuff said.

(happy with 120 gigs)


RE: Who cares
By elpresidente2075 on 5/30/2008 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have 4 HDs ranging from 40GB-300GB none of which are more than 1/4th full


And I have 2 320's and a 250 that are all 75-90% full, plus an 80 that's nearly 50% (between 3 computers), and a project that I'm working on will fill that last bit of space in mere moments.

The raw performance of these drives is less important than their sheer capaciousness, as one is a media center and another is my main desktop, both of which would suffer severly from an EXTREMELY loud 10k-15k drive. Besides, many of the new 300-500 GB drives with 16-32MB of cache are just as fast or faster than the Raptors (not VelociRaptor - that's a whole other story) without all the noise and much better power/heat characteristics plus much better longevity than any consumer-level 15k drive would be able to achieve.

Personally, I'd like to see an SSD for my laptop for every reason ever mentioned to buy an SSD. But, like every other normal person, they're WAY too expensive to even be considered. The most I'll pay/GB on an SSD will be $1, as that'll make a 60GB $60, and be a direct replacement for my current setup within a decent price envelope. Unfortunately that probably won't be until '10 or '11, so I'll have a whole new lappy by then, and my GB req's will be much higher by that time.


RE: Who cares
By AndreasM on 5/30/2008 3:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Bigger hard disks = higher data density = faster hard disks

10k and 15k RPM drives sounds like a recipe for much lower MTBF


RE: Who cares
By Locutus465 on 5/30/2008 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have a "bad" habbit of holding on to old files and such, and now with zune video content... Well I've got ~700GB total storage and I'm thinking switching out one of my drives with a 1TB drive might be in order soon enough.


RE: Who cares
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
I want to rip all my DVDs to a hard drive so I can play them back on my 360 (and hopefully soon, TiVo HD) without having to get up and rummage through my collection. So a 2TB is a very welcome option, even if they are priced high initially ($325).

At 2GB per movie in H.264, a 2TB HDD would store about 900 movies (after that whole 1000/1024 conversion).


RE: Who cares
By Locutus465 on 5/30/2008 5:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Does the series III allow streaming? I'd love to switch over to that if it wasn't for the expense.


RE: Who cares
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 11:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Streaming to what?

I can put the TiVo software on my PC, pull over the shows (or do this automatically with TiVo.NET software I think) and then stream them back to the TiVo to watch.

You can also pull the videos off, take out the commercials, encode it to H.264 and watch it on a 360, PS3, and even back to the TiVo itself after they ship their H.264 upgrade later this year.


RE: Who cares
By Screwballl on 5/30/2008 4:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm I have a 500GB backup SATA drive that is around 75% full.
I have a 320GB SATA drive in my main system that is around 50% (was more until I got the backup drive). Also have a 120GB SATA drive that is used for my OS installs and software testing, so usually 30GB for the OS stuff and the rest of the 90GB is almost full as well. Then another 160GB PATA drive in my older system that has stayed around 60-70% full for the past 5 years.
Then the home servers (yes multiple home type servers for different purposes) each with 80GB drives (1x SATA, several others with PATA) and they tend to stay around 50-60% full.
Oh and then my older laptop (Celeron M, 2.4GHz) with its new 60GB ATA hard drive is already 40% full with normal OS stuff and security programs and such (of course it is dual boot with Ubuntu 8.04 and XP Home)...

Thats around 1.5TB of space with around 1TB of OS and "stuff".

One key thing that sets me apart is that there is ZERO porn on anything here.


RE: Who cares
By cubby1223 on 5/31/2008 12:22:30 AM , Rating: 3
When you look at the numbers you give, minus the backup, you're still sitting at an average of less than 100gb per computer. That would actually be in support of the original comment...


RE: Who cares
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 11:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
but how would I be able to maintain the 400+GB worth of data if all I had were 100GB drives? Would be a nightmare trying to find specific files needed or backup a single computer...
Take out the server setups and the laptop, and it is closer to 200GB per.

Now if you want, add in the HTPC (build in progress) that has 2x 1TB hard drives and see his post go to crap.

My post was merely stating that sure, some computers can get by with 100GB or less but for the rest of us gamers and HTPCs and file backups is looking at minimum 500GB nowadays.


RE: Who cares
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
The natural evolution of our storage tends towards having a large central store and clients with only what they need for performance reasons. Thus there is a need for the fewest, largest drives possible with one exception that some want a bit of RAID redundancy.


RE: Who cares
By Staples on 5/30/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad that I am not the only one who does not care. My biggest drive is 250GB. Drives these big are impossible to back up so I like smaller drives for the simple fact that they I don't need a ton of DVDs to back up their contents.

But the guy on the bottom bringing up Media Center has a point. My TIVO broke a year ago and I use Media Center as my DVR. HD broadcast can take up 12GB an hour so if you record a lot, your space will be eaten up very fast. Luckily, I just record things, watch them once and then erase them. I do not archeive things or keep them sitting months before I watch them so I get by just fine with what I have.


RE: Who cares
By bigboxes on 5/30/2008 6:32:08 PM , Rating: 3
You back up one drive with an identical sized drive. If one drive starts to faulter you stop using your drives and purchase another one and then back up the healthy drive.


RE: Who cares
By phil126 on 5/31/2008 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly I am even more anal than that. I have two drives mirrored and then a larger drive that I store a ghost image of the drive on. And before anyone wonders why I do not just do a RAID5... I need to keep incremental back ups not just the mirror of what is currently running. Once I got into video editting (kids) I can never seem to have enough space. It is easy to eat through a TB with out even doing that much.


RE: Who cares
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing anal about that, it's the beginning of a sane strategy that combines both constant uptime of a RAID redundant set along with the security of an offline backup copy. That's assuming you unplug that larger drive so it's not subject to corruption, malware, or power surges.

Anal might be someone who takes that larger drive and puts it in a safe deposit box somewhere if it doesn't have thousands of dollars worth of data on it, and yet anyone who has a few hundred hours worth of work (or data that would take as long to reproduce for whatever reason) does have a few thousand dollars worth of data.


RE: Who cares
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 2:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Big-ass Lian Li case, 12 1TB drives, and a RAID 60.

Four stripes (one on each RAID 6, which in itself is double parity, giving you 33% storage efficiency, but for the anal...) under one big stripe.

Solved.

So worried about losing something.. build a network.


RE: Who cares
By jeromekwok on 6/1/2008 4:36:34 AM , Rating: 1
I have four hard drives 2TB in total 90% full. It is really nice to have 2TB in one drive.

I have some recorded TV shows, video podcasts and also data backups.

If bigger drives are available I might record TV shows in Hidef. I will also get a 10MPixel camera to fill up with pictures and videos.

I would like to see consumer 10krpm drives. But it does not make sense to have a 300GB 10k drive for 2TB 7.2k of money for most people.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki