1.5TB 7200.11 is out $299

[H911]

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10009089&prodlist=froogle

I wonder how many people will go for it right a way.....;)

[Syntax Error]

The time has come....

:D

[Spherific]

Sold out already?

[aardvark sandwich]

Anyone know what 1.5TB translates to, in regards to actual formatted capacity?

[ALL4AMD]

1396.5GB

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/2691/250/0.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&tnum=33&id=2691)

[AngryArtichoke]

Holy mother of god...

(Sadly, you lose about 7 percent though)

[compslckr]

Nice :)

/waits for 1tb prices to plummet....

[Trepidati0n]

Nice :)

/waits for 1tb prices to plummet....

I doubt they will "plummet". They might finally come down to the level of the 500/750's...but definitely probably not much below that. My guess is we might finally see 1TB's for $140....maybe.

[Trepidati0n]

Holy mother of god...

(Sadly, you lose about 7 percent though)

You don't LOSE anything. Nothing is lost...no bytes disappear. You get exactly 1.5 TB of space.

[nitrobass24]

Sold out already?

Havent become available...but have been put into inventory

I doubt they will "plummet". They might finally come down to the level of the 500/750's...but definitely probably not much below that. My guess is we might finally see 1TB's for $140....maybe.

Dell was selling 1tb seagates for $110 just the other day. (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336204)

You don't LOSE anything. Nothing is lost...no bytes disappear. You get exactly 1.5 TB of space.

Well thats not entirely true....

Two different mathematical systems are used to define how much information can be stored on the hard disk drive of your computer: binary or base-2 mathematics and base-10 mathematics.

In the binary or base-2 system used by the operating system, 1 gigabyte (GB) is equal to 1,073,741,824 bytes.
In the base-10 system used by hard disk drive manufacturers, 1 gigabyte (GB) is equal to 1,000,000,000 bytes (rather than the 1,073,741,824 bytes, as listed above).
This discrepancy in reporting drive sizes (base-2 vs. base-10) may lead you to believe that you have a hard disk drive of less than expected capacity if you compare the figure reported by the operating system with the figure reported by your documentation, although the actual hard drive size is identical. Microsoft® Windows® counts the size using base-2 math, therefore if you believe your reported hard drive size is smaller than it should be, refer to the chart below for the corresponding base-10 values.

These two mathematical systems produce 2 different numbers but actually the stored space reported by each of them is the same.
If you have noticed this discrepancy, refer to the table below.


Base10 Base2 Base10 Base2
36GB 34.3GB 160GB 152.6GB
40GB 38.1GB 200GB 190.7GB
73GB 69.6GB 250GB 238.4GB
80GB 76.3GB 300GB 286.1GB
100GB 95.4GB 500GB 476.8GB
120GB 114.4GB 750GB 715.3GB
146GB 139.2GB 1000GB 953.7GB

[LittleMe]

Dell has them as well, over-priced like normal.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A1827902&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27530&lid=627063

[Trepidati0n]

Well thats not entirely true....


Yes it is entirely true. The HDD group had absolutely NO reason to follow the base 2 system because data isn't stored as a nice pretty base 2 array. It is a series of bits stored in concentric circles that slowly change size. Actually how the HDD group lists their data is correct. A MByte is 1,000,000 bytes. The base 2 system used for this argument is technically a violation of the SI system. This is the primary reason for the "i" now added in. Next thing you know you will say Gigabit Ethernet isn't as really as fast as they say it is.

As for the 1TB price from Dell; I agree with some others...it was a fluke. It might be an indication of the future. However, HDD manufacturers just don't dump the costs that fast. There was no real reason for them to go from $0.15 to $0.10 in a single day. My guess is that Dell was doing what they always do...keep inventories at the correct levels. My guess is with the tightening economy they weren't moving the 1TB's as fast as they hoped. So they cut the cost to clear stock and use that money in a better way. I would be really curious to see the build date of those drives. But, I'll be glad to be wrong in this case..if I am.

[MrGuvernment]

^^ exactly - it IS true.

i have seen some 500G come down in price already

[Syntax Error]

The Dell deal is going to fall through, like any other price mistakes they've had in the past. They have absolutely no regard to honoring orders if it means that they'll lose money on honoring price mistakes like that.

As for the 1.5TBs affecting prices, I don't think we'll see anything immediately until competitors to Seagate such as WD, Hitachi, Samsung, whoever start making their own 1TB+ drives. As it stands right now, the 1.5TB Seagate is a premium product that's just been released, and judging from the price, I don't think that's even remotely in the same price bracket as current 1TBs. It's not encroaching on the prices of 1TBs today, to get that extra 500GB (advertised, of course ;)) capacity in a single 3.5" will set you back about $120-160 depending on whatever 1TB you're comparing it to, and that's just not close enough to 1TBs to set their prices to "plummet", as someone hoped for. :(

So, for the immediate short-run prices, you won't see any price drops that'll make 1TBs considered over, say, the good price-per-gigabyte that 750GBs currently offer, but you'll see that change as 1TBs become more "standard" as other manufacturers make their own 1TB+ disks. :)

[aardvark sandwich]

1396.5GB

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/2691/250/0.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&tnum=33&id=2691)
Thanks :)

[bigdogchris]

I can see hard disk capacity growing at an exponential rate.

[aardvark sandwich]

I'd like to have 5TB on one 3.5 inch drive. Whenever that happens, I'll be set :)

[nitrobass24]

I'd like to have 5TB on one 3.5 inch drive. Whenever that happens, I'll be set :)

Hitachi claims to have 5tb drives out in 2010...i guess well see.

[nitrobass24]

This discrepancy in reporting drive sizes (base-2 vs. base-10) may lead you to believe that you have a hard disk drive of less than expected capacity if you compare the figure reported by the operating system with the figure reported by your documentation, although the actual hard drive size is identical.

Yes it is entirely true. The HDD group had absolutely NO reason to follow the base 2 system because data isn't stored as a nice pretty base 2 array. It is a series of bits stored in concentric circles that slowly change size. Actually how the HDD group lists their data is correct. A MByte is 1,000,000 bytes. The base 2 system used for this argument is technically a violation of the SI system. This is the primary reason for the "i" now added in. Next thing you know you will say Gigabit Ethernet isn't as really as fast as they say it is.


The HDD group had not reason too...so they didnt.
Had you read my entire post you would have seen that I clearly stated that the actual hard drive size is identical. its just reported differently because of the difference in the math used by various vendors.

[DrStrangeBrew]

$300 for 1.5TB ... not really a deal, but definitely a technology boost.

I understand premium pricing on a new product introduction & all, but these won't be mainstream until another $80-120 are shaved off ;)

[H911]

I was in with the Dell 1TB for 109 deal.
Order has been confirmed and should be shipped out on 19th it says.
We'll see if they'll really cancel it or not.
They already charged me 109 plus tax

[truffle00]

I'll upgrade when the 2 TB drives are released to replace 5 750GB drives in RAID 5...should be nice going from 3 TB to 8.

[piako]

made in china? :p doa for you!

[Ockie]

I'll upgrade when the 2 TB drives are released to replace 5 750GB drives in RAID 5...should be nice going from 3 TB to 8.

Same here. 2tb just sounds a whole lot sweeter. It would also double my current density.

[Phimp]

Sweet jesus! This makes my 3x750gb raid5 home server seem so pathetic :( *tear*

Too bad it'll be like 5 months till I can even afford the prices for the 1TB drives to upgrade my 750's and grow the array =[

[Rogue71]

yay... the 1 TB drives will be sub $100.00 not too far down the road like the 500GB drives are now. i can see alot of 750GB drives going on closeout sales too as people will skip them for the larger drives.

[Ockie]

Sweet jesus! This makes my 3x750gb raid5 home server seem so pathetic :( *tear*

Too bad it'll be like 5 months till I can even afford the prices for the 1TB drives to upgrade my 750's and grow the array =[

5 months or so and the 2tb drives are out ;)

[Syntax Error]

Always in the need for moar data, I'm afraid. :D

I'm not sure whether I'll just expand the server past 750GB drives to 1TB when they become ~$100 or so, or wait for the 1.5TBs to drop in price.

Just so uncertain. :)

[[LYL]Homer]

With that 1tb Seagate down to $140 here's some math:

1tb = $0.14/gb
1.5tb = $0.20/gb

or in other words that extra 500gb costs $160, or $0.32/gb. Yikes.

Something like $0.17/gb seems reasonable for the largest drive out - $255 for the 1.5tb drive.

[Sabrewulf165]

Can anyone spot the shill in this thread? :p

Not that it matters. I'm sure MS will eventually change the way Windows reports space to base 10 instead of base 2. Same thing that happened with system memory reporting in Vista SP1. God forbid people should be saved from being misled.

And shill, nobody here really believes that they're "losing" anything, we all just resent the intentional "fuzzy math" employed by HDD vendors. Every measure of space that the average user encounters when using a computer on a daily basis is base 2. To sell HDDs with a base 10 capacity is misleading, and I don't doubt it's deliberate. I'm pretty sure there was a major class action lawsuit over this a few years ago, but as you can see, nothing came of it except for a tiny disclaimer on retail boxes. I'm too lazy to look, but I'm guessing that the suit probably claimed "false advertising" which isn't strictly true. And we all know it only takes one loophole.

Still doesn't make it right, though.

[yang88she]

wow nice, but I'll wait for 1TB's to drop down sub 100's =D

[Ockie]

Can anyone spot the shill in this thread? :p

Not that it matters. I'm sure MS will eventually change the way Windows reports space to base 10 instead of base 2. Same thing that happened with system memory reporting in Vista SP1. God forbid people should be saved from being misled.

And shill, nobody here really believes that they're "losing" anything, we all just resent the intentional "fuzzy math" employed by HDD vendors. Every measure of space that the average user encounters when using a computer on a daily basis is base 2. To sell HDDs with a base 10 capacity is misleading, and I don't doubt it's deliberate. I'm pretty sure there was a major class action lawsuit over this a few years ago, but as you can see, nothing came of it except for a tiny disclaimer on retail boxes. I'm too lazy to look, but I'm guessing that the suit probably claimed "false advertising" which isn't strictly true. And we all know it only takes one loophole.

Still doesn't make it right, though.


I just accept it for what it is and move along. As long as all vendors employ the same tactic it's fine by me, now if they each varied, that would be weak IMO.

[Sabrewulf165]

I just accept it for what it is and move along. As long as all vendors employ the same tactic it's fine by me, now if they each varied, that would be weak IMO.

Well sure, I've long since accepted it as well, but that doesn't mean I don't still think it's "wrong" in principle. And you're right about consistency across vendors, which is why I think MS will eventually switch the way Windows represents space to match the vendor method.

[Dew]

Sweet, now the 2TB drives need to come out and be under $250 by February so I can buy 8 of them. Mmmm, 12.7TB R5.

[unhappy_mage]

Still too expensive by far, but it'll change. You can buy two 1TB drives for $300, 1.5TB for that price isn't particularly enticing unless you really need the density.

[Volkum]

Homer;1032915631']With that 1tb Seagate down to $140 here's some math:

1tb = $0.14/gb
1.5tb = $0.20/gb

or in other words that extra 500gb costs $160, or $0.32/gb. Yikes.

Something like $0.17/gb seems reasonable for the largest drive out - $255 for the 1.5tb drive.

$0.20/gb for a brand new large capacity drive is very good. Anybody remember how much the Hitachi 1tb drives were when they hit the market? Yep...

[Ockie]

$0.20/gb for a brand new large capacity drive is very good. Anybody remember how much the Hitachi 1tb drives were when they hit the market? Yep...

I remember, because I bought them the day it came out, they were close to 600 bucks. I remembered also the 500s when they frist came out, they were around 500 bucks.

[Volkum]

I remember, because I bought them the day it came out, they were close to 600 bucks. I remembered also the 500s when they frist came out, they were around 500 bucks.

Ockie, has anybody ever told you that you have a problem? ;)

[LittleMe]

Ockie, has anybody ever told you that you have a problem? ;)

These are the [H]ardForums, you can never have a problem with [H]ardware here!

[GeorgeHR]

While many people divide the price of a drive by the capacity of the drive to determine the cost per GB, that is often not the right way to do things.

If you have to buy a case for an external drive, the cost of the case needs to be added before the division.

If you need to buy a controller card, the cost of the card needs to be figured in (usually it is enough to divide the cost of the controller by the number of ports and add that cost to the cost of the drive before dividing.

For RAID you need to adjust for the reduced capacity due to redundancy and error correction.

God forbid that you need to buy a bigger case and motherboard with more slots for more controller cards.

[Ockie]

Ockie, has anybody ever told you that you have a problem? ;)

People keep telling me that, but I'm in denial. :D

While many people divide the price of a drive by the capacity of the drive to determine the cost per GB, that is often not the right way to do things.

If you have to buy a case for an external drive, the cost of the case needs to be added before the division.

If you need to buy a controller card, the cost of the card needs to be figured in (usually it is enough to divide the cost of the controller by the number of ports and add that cost to the cost of the drive before dividing.

For RAID you need to adjust for the reduced capacity due to redundancy and error correction.

God forbid that you need to buy a bigger case and motherboard with more slots for more controller cards.

Yes, this is the part that most people forget, what people also don't realize is that the increase in next size up components nearly doubles each time 8 to 16 port controller 16 to 24 port, regular case to server, server to rack, rack to array, etc

My calculation a long time ago was an average of $120 cost ontop of a drive to accomodate the drive. Which was the main reason why I dumped my small drives and went big.

[Damodred]

Im really impressed by the price. The normal exchangerate for dollars to sek is, when it comes to hardware, usually x10 (going rate at a bank for example is x6,4 but Sweden got some extreme taxes on hardware). The price of $299 usually equals to 3000SEK but stores here are selling it for as low as 1500SEK, which normally would be $150. Im definitely changing my "small" 500gb for these!

[spazoid]

In which swedish store have you seen it priced at 1500 SEK? I live in Denmark, so purchasing from a swedish store would not be a problem for me, but I have yet to see any of these in a danish store. :(

[Phimp]

This whole hard drive density stuff is complete bullsh*t. lol
By the time a particular capacity drive has regulated to a good cost/GB, the new drive that's double the size is out and calling your name to come and buy it :(

When are we getting holographic storage units that sit in 3x5.25" bays at 7 inches deep?
I wanna see the theoretical limitation of 30.9 PetaBytes in that unit!
In 2006, InPhase Technologies published a white paper stating they've achieved 500 Gb/in
So even when thinking in more realistic terms instead of theoretical limits, that could be almost 100 TeraBytes! I want one! =D

[spazoid]

So even when thinking in more realistic terms instead of theoretical limits, that could be almost 100 TeraBytes! I want one! =D

And wheres the realism in that request?

[Phimp]

And wheres the realism in that request?Because 500 GB in a single cubic inch has been accomplished with holographic storage.
So it will be quite a few years until it's available to the public.
But expressing my hope for a holographic storage unit that has a capacity of what has already been obtained, is much more realistic than wishing for the absolute theoretical maximum, and that is where the realism of the request lies.

Whatever, that's not what this thread is about anyways.
A friend of mine is seriously wanting to pick up this 1.5TB drive and I'm trying to convince him to steer away and go a cheaper route, especially since he doesn't need max storage density.

[PolygonGTC]

Here's my question.

Would you be willing to trust data on one of these as a backup drive, NOT in a RAID array? I don't know if I do or if I want to go with some smaller drives until I have the time and money to make good RAID 5 NAS.

[maddude0025]

What makes you think smaller disks are more reliable then bigger discs?


I have my server set up with 8 500 gig hd's in a raid 5. This gives me the uptime I need. I then have 3 1tb drives that I use to back up the data, in a separate location. I don't fear having all that data on 1tb drives, so why should a 1.5tb drive be any different. And the REALLY important stuff is also on dvd's. Lost my data once before, never again.

[PolygonGTC]

I don't know. Perhaps it's a misnomer in the industry. It's not something I think, but something I am unsure about. Right now I'm running out of space on two drives. I have a 80, 320, and 400. I also have a 750 backup drive. I was thinking of bumping them all down and retire the 80 or use it as a scratch drive for PS and for virtual memory. Then the idea was to get a 1.2 or larger for the backup drive so I can could get at least an actual terabyte out of it.

Then there's always the option of going all out and building a NAS.

[novadude]

1- raid alone isn't a backup solution
2- bigger drives are perfectly fine, it's just if one dies it takes more data with it than smaller drives. Having more smaller drives will increase your chances of having a disk failure, in addition to higher power consumption.

[Phimp]

... Lost my data once before, never again.
Haha! Quoted For Truth!

[Elvis]

Nice :)

/waits for 1tb prices to plummet....

...............:D

[PolygonGTC]

1- raid alone isn't a backup solution
2- bigger drives are perfectly fine, it's just if one dies it takes more data with it than smaller drives. Having more smaller drives will increase your chances of having a disk failure, in addition to higher power consumption.

You know, you have a great point. I agree, I wouldn't call RAID a great backup solution as you can only lose 1 drive. You can always go with RAID 6, but I wouldn't really like losing another drive to parity.

I guess, I'll just go with my original plan and go with a 1.5TB drive so I can have about 1.3TB. We'll see how long that lasts me.

[Asgard_Thor]

holy crap

[Dew]

PC Connection has them for $205 each. They're OOS, but if you were looking to buy these, it might be worth a shot. I have no idea how good of a retailer they are, but the reviews seem to be good.

http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=8868390&oext=1038A&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=8868390

[Syntax Error]

Quick thread bump...has anyone run these drives on Adaptec controllers with no issues? I'm contemplating upgrading my array from 750GBs to 1.5TBs for greater density. :)

[aardvark sandwich]

PC Connection has them for $205 each. They're OOS, but if you were looking to buy these, it might be worth a shot. I have no idea how good of a retailer they are, but the reviews seem to be good.

http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=8868390&oext=1038A&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=8868390

$179 (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10009089)
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10009089

[RandysWay]

Hitachi claims to have 5tb drives out in 2010...i guess well see.

That's a hell of a lot of data to lose if the drive fails.


-R

[unhappy_mage]

That's a hell of a lot of data to lose if the drive fails.

So is a gigabyte, when you think about it. My collection of school work from the past two years stacks up to eleven megabytes.

[aardvark sandwich]

That's a hell of a lot of data to lose if the drive fails.


-R

thats why you get four of them and store two offsite :)

[Elvis]

Nice :)

/waits for 1tb prices to plummet....

It has.................:eek:

[nitrobass24]

Elvis Seriously?

you brought back a 4 month old thread for absolutely no reason.

What a nub.

[Syntax Error]

It is interesting to see how events turned out with this drive's firmware issues and such...oh how times have changed.

[owkia]

It is interesting how the WD 2TB drive is hitting the market at the same price point that this Seagate drive has. So, how long until the WD is at the current 1.5TB prices?