Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 19 May 2010.
Shame it will be pricey, but the introduction of a higher capacity should drive lower cap's down in price. Always wondered why it took so long from 2-3TB when 500gb to 1tb was such a quick jump in time!
so this is why storage has been stuck at 2TB for the last one and half year (about)
Another caveat is that these drives will not work as boot drives, just as secondary drives.
Well I guess you can never have enough storage.
I have to admit that every time I upgrade my hard drive I just get tempted to fill it up faster.
I have to say that when you start having all that data on one drive you should really be looking at having a raid setup for redundancy or a backup solution in place (or both), so it does start to get very expensive when you consider all those things.
most likely by the time the tech is sorted out the market will get slapped with 3Tb and above in a short time span after launch.
Not wholly true. They will work as boot drives, but only if you have a GUID Partition Table, currently limited to UEFI capable motherboards, which is basically none of them AFAIK apart from those in Intel powered Macs.
Anyway, you'd be mental to use a 3TB boot drive. Do the right thing and get a SSD for OS and apps, then use the big spinning platters for mass data storage either in your machine (and don't forget to backup!) or, preferably, in a storage server with RAID or a similar redundancy technology (ZFS RAID-Z2 would be my choice).
i still see some uses for XP, but honestly, if you have the resources to get that much hard drive space, you should be on Windows 7,lol
3TB drives are good - it means that 2TB drives drop in price!
I see this as a non issue as there seems to be a shift towards using a small SSD as a boot drive - once Win 7 is installed (and I assume Linux/Unix etc.) it can handle large volumes fine.
Fixed. Dude... they're Segate drives. Ewww.
Impressive. But it is gonna be a bit hard explaining to some people why they can't just fling it inside their machine same as always.
I'm interested in high capacities, but in external drives rather than internal ones.
In a PC I can simply add another drive if I need more space, but I don't want to have to carry several external drives with me if I need more space when I'm on the move. When are we going to see 2GB+ on external drives that can be powered by the USB cable?
Won't that scupper Windows 8? I'm sure it will need more than 3Tb installation space...
I suspect it'll be about a decade before I want to boot off a 3TB disk.
My main concern is how nicely these are going to play with WHS - gut reaction is not at all.
If you can afford a 3TB drive, you've likely got a SSD anyway for the boot drive. I always have separate system and data drives anyway, and I imagine almost everyone here does too.
need them even bigger.. too bad file system limit is 2tb
Not actually True. All current versions of Windows support GPT partitions / disks. This means the Max Windows partition size is 256 TB but the max supported GPT size (In theory) is 18 Exabytes. Not sure if you can boot from them but you can have a bigger than 2TB partition using RAID (I've done it with 300GB SCSI Disks)
Yes agreed that you would be mental to have a 3TB boot drive, as said SSD for OS and progs with the 3TB for DATA, or even better option get a NAS enclusure and chick it in there.
I'm interested to know why in the name of "Mahoosive data storage" the manufacturers haven't recreated 5.25" drives, sure they'll be slower to access and will have to go in a somewhat vulnerable area of a computer case but the attraction of 14 higher density platters is surely huge! That's 7TB if we assume 500GB a platter (and the number will be far higher than that) or 9TB for 640GB platters.
The drives should be quieter or much faster than current ones to boot. Looking at some calculations on platter areas we'd have total drive capacities of closer to 14 or 20TB. Would someone mind explaining why the blazes this was deemed a bad idea?!
Separate names with a comma.