I think id rather have 2 x 500gb's though, 1TB is a hell of alot to loose when it all goes pear shaped
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.
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
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.
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.
