1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Seagate releases 1TB information

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by Da Dego, 4 Jan 2007.

  1. DougEdey

    DougEdey I pwn all your storage

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    13,933
    Likes Received:
    33
    Cheaper than 2x500GB Drives and 4x250GB drives
     
  2. Mother-Goose

    Mother-Goose 5 o'clock somewhere

    Joined:
    22 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    3,890
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think id rather have 2 x 500gb's though, 1TB is a hell of alot to loose when it all goes pear shaped
     
  3. Snafu-X-

    Snafu-X- New Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2005
    Posts:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll take 4 please. Is there a cap on max HD size in vista or xp currently?
     
  4. IccleD

    IccleD New Member

    Joined:
    11 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I refer to my original post in Hitachi to ship world's first 1TB hard drive?

    Firstly I wrote;
    Then I wrote
    So my points still stand, and I stand by my my points.
     
  5. MrWillyWonka

    MrWillyWonka Chocolate computers galore!

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,892
    Likes Received:
    12
    You have a point about space, but 93 decimal GB is not huge in the grand scheme of things, and a big reason to get a 1TB drive over 3x400....

    space saving...*

    *Think shuttle
     
  6. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gah, dangit. Could either side start making things consistant? Either sell drives in GiB/TiB or change the OS to report the capacity accurately (preferably making the drives look "bigger" than adding in the "i" to correct the unit) - I don't really care. This is so stupid - RAM has been sold in 2^x capacities for as long as I can remember, so your 2GiB sticks are reported by the OS as such.

    Still... pricing isn't too bad. Fairly respectable $/GB, especially considering the current sweet spot, and what the 750GB drives are going for now. I'd be happy to pop one of these in my fileserver :) In a truly happy world, it'd be running Leopard and using ZFS, but OSx86 hates me (or, rather, my NIC, which is the one important thing in a fileserver) and I don't envision Apple releasing a consumer-oriented media server box anytime soon. I was really hoping for one at this year's MWSF but no love (not that there was so much as a hint of a rumor about one)

    Anyways, bigger drives are always a good thing in my book. I'm perpetually out of storage, and I've already got over a terabyte.

    Just a note though, someone's math really sucks above. 1000-931=93? I think not. You lose 69GB, which is almost worth it on principle alone. :hehe: :rock:
     
  7. IccleD

    IccleD New Member

    Joined:
    11 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think not mate.

    1 Terabyte = 1024 Gigabytes.
    Therefore
    1024 Gigabytes - 931 Gigabytes = 93 Gigabytes.

    Your comparing the difference between the the true Binary size, and the listed Decimal size. Just to clear up;
    931 Gigabytes is the true Binary size of a Decimal Terabyte drive.
    1024 Gigabytes is a Binary Terabyte, 1000 (Decimal) Gigabytes is a Decimal Terabyte.
     

Share This Page