Print 67 comment(s) - last by TechGuru.. on Jan 11 at 10:14 PM

We should expect to see 1TB hard disk drive products within 6 months

Seagate Technology has just released information to DailyTech with regard to the company's upcoming highest capacity hard disk drive to date. At 1TB, if no other hard disk drive manufacturer can catch up, Seagate will have the highest capacity hard drive product to market first.

The 1TB hard disk drive will be based on perpendicular recording technology which packs bits tighter onto the magnetic platter by positioning them perpendicular to the platter as opposed to linear recording which positions bits horizontally. The perpendicular recording technology, which has been in use by Seagate and its platter supplier for over a year now, will be put to the test as Seagate states the 1TB product will implement fewer platters and heads to improve the performance of the drive.

In a statement to DailyTech earlier today, the company claimed:
Seagate’s 1TB hard drive will be our second generation 3.5-inch hard drive to feature capacity-boosting perpendicular recording technology, and it will use fewer heads and discs than similar-capacity products we expect to see from our competitors. It is clear that fewer heads and discs, along with our proven perpendicular technology, can increase drive reliability, and also reduce operating temperatures, power consumption, noise, and weight.
It is confirmed now that we should expect a 1TB Barracuda from Seagate Technology to hit the market in full force sometime in the first half of this calendar year.   Seagate was also the first company to announce a 750GB hard drive last year.  No company has since announced a drive with 750GB or greater capacity.

Comments     Threshold

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

Still annoying
By shaw on 1/4/2007 5:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
Depressing only because it's still only like 953GB. I want to install it into my machine and see exactally 1,000GB of usable space!

Second most annoying thing to me next to misleading processor speeds to equate performance.

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/4/2007 6:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is 1000 GBs, Its is 953 (or somthing) GiBs, which windows wrongly reports as GBs. Kilo has been defined as 1000 for hundreds of years(?), (and mega as 1000 000 and so on). That some part of the computer industry used it wrong for a cpuple of decades doesn't change that kilo=1000, it has been for a very long time, and that every other field in the world uses kilo as 1000.

RE: Still annoying
By Omega215D on 1/4/2007 10:37:09 PM , Rating: 3
No, Windows does not report this wrong. Computers are dealing with binaries or powers of 2.

"As of 2006, most consumer hard drives are defined by their gigabyte-range capacities. The true capacity is usually some number above or below the class designation. Although most hard disk manufacturers' definition of GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes (however, computer memory has a natural inclination towards units that are powers of 2), most computer operating systems use the 1,073,741,824 byte definition. This distinction can be a cause of confusion, especially for people from a non-technical background, as a hard disk with a capacity of 40,000,000,000 bytes would have a reported capacity of only 37.4 GB."

The hard drive manufacturers are skewing things a bit.

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/5/2007 4:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, if they need to use powers of two, they shouldn't have used a prefix DEFINED as 1000. If you need to represent the numer 1024, do not take a prefix DEFINED to 1000. You have the KiB-prefix for 1024. The harddisk-makers follow the correct definition used for over a hundred years, and in any other field (and substainsial part of the computer-field also).

RE: Still annoying
By mindless1 on 1/5/2007 6:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Completely false.

You fail to understand that byte cannot be valid in a decimal system. If they use byte, it is manditory that the other prefixes be binary, a number cannot be in both number formats.

If they'd like to reinvent terms, call it a blob not byte.

RE: Still annoying
By Aikouka on 1/5/2007 8:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
If this is your rationalization, then you just destroyed the entire concept of the metric system. Based on this, terms such as "kilometer" are invalid, because a meter isn't a number, it's a predefined length.

Where you're wrong is, kilometer (for example) only means thousands of meters, or when used with a number (i.e. 8 kilometers), it translates to 8 thousand meters. It's a system of abbreviation not translation! If a hard drive was 8 KB, 8 kilobytes means just what it says, 8 thousand bytes. Hence why your hard drive ends up being less than you expect, because the notation is not the same.

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/5/2007 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Kilo means 1000, it is defined as 1000, it makes perfect sense to say 1000 bytes. And if you need a prefix that means 1024, use another prefix than the one already defined as 1000, and used as 1000 in every imaginable field for hundreds of years.

RE: Still annoying
By Serlant on 1/5/2007 9:54:48 AM , Rating: 1
Take it back to basics? 1GiB or 1 gibibyte is 1,073,741,824 bytes(i think), but 1GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes ,so when you buy an 80GB hard drive your a buying a 80GiB hard drive, which actually only has 74.5GB or gigabytes. its the manufacturer specifieing the wrong unit, although its just been accepted. so it you wanted to buy an actual 80GB hard drive it would be specified as 85.8GB by todays incorrect labelling, or 85.8GiB with the correct labelling.

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/5/2007 10:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
When you buy a 80 GB disk you get 80 000 000 000 bytes. I other words you get 80 GB, Which is the same as 74.5 GiB. To get a 80 GiB HD, you must buy one labled as 80 GiB, or 85.8 GB (which is the same).

So you mixed up abit, the HD-manufactureres say you get 80 GB, which you do, people are just upset that they don't get 85.8 GB (80 GiBs).

RE: Still annoying
By Serlant on 1/5/2007 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yup got it a bit mixed up. so its basically the OS' fault for saying that you have an 80GB have drive which you have, but it then also states that you have a 74.5GB hard drive, which you dont, you have a 74.5GiB hard drive. is that right?

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/5/2007 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Correct, the OS states that you have 74.5 GB, when you really have 74.5 Gibs (or 80 GBs if you want)

RE: Still annoying
By PrinceGaz on 1/5/2007 8:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Hard-drive manufacturers (and also optical disk manufacturers since DVD days) are sticking with the decimal prefixes and it would be disadvantageous for any of them to switch to using the binary prefixes, so we'll just have to get used to converting them correctly.

One slight point is that 1TB / 1000GB (decimal) is actually only about 931GB (binary).

It'll be even more fun once drives are large enough for their binary size in Windows and other OSs to be reported as TB rather than GB as there'll be a further discrepancy in sizes. A 2TB drive would actually appear as about 1.82TB (nearly 10% less than the binary size!)

RE: Still annoying
By ATWindsor on 1/5/2007 9:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with binary prefixes, but windows uses the wrong name, it should be 931 GiB, or 1.82 TiB 1000 GB = 931 GiB, 1000 GB is not the same as 932 GB.

RE: Still annoying
By Oregonian2 on 1/5/2007 2:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
There's no particular reason I can think of why a disk drive needs to be described using binary sorts of sizing. Memory yes, because it's accessed using a binary address. But drives aren't addressed in that manner and could just as well be "regular" sorts of kilo/mega/giga.

It's kind of like flash where NOR-flash is necessarily binary-addressed, while NAND-flash (although are still described by binary sorts of sizing) are addressed through file-system sorts of attributes like hard drives (and historically had lots of bad-blocks and the like which is why the actual sizes weren't what was written on them -- and in fact some NAND-flash modules even now say this very thing in the fine print, especially the cheaper brands).

(NAND flash is the kind in digital cameras, iPods, etc. and are file-system devices while NOR-flash act (roughly) as non-volatile RAM memory)

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki