What is Digg?48 Comments
- Fett101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16275 GB ipods? I hope batteries can keep up with that level of development
(ya know... without blowing a hole in my pocket) - mbromley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16This just in "Windows 2009 requires 2.1 TB for mininum install"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yes that is the point, video resolutions are getting higher, games are getting bigger, porn is getting more addicted and you dont have to delete them.
- SAOSiN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Or burning a whole in your pocket. :)
- spartan002117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I love those comments you don't do any work and almost aways get paid (dugg)
kinda like our current president all he does is play Command and Conquer RL.
Just joking.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you live in the USA, surely by 2009 you will have to register and get a licence to get a 2.5TB HD.
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5All the drives are the same size, so with 2.5 TB having to be much more compact and dense than, for example, a 120 GB and with the speed of the drive rotating remaining the same, you effectively increase the speed a lot, because you have to read so much more data every time you spin it around. In that sense, RPM speeds could be seen percentually the same speed however big the drive is.
For example, if you have a drive that reads 10 MB in a second and it's full capacity is 100 GB, a 1000 GB drive should effectively read 100 MB in a second. Ofcourse the speed of the drive could be bottlenecked with the transfer speed between drive and memory (which is why they introduced SATA, I think)
This is how I understood it, I hope it helped :) - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5spartan002117 -
First, partitions do nothing to improve disk speed (this has been proven multiple times), all they do is organise your information into chunks that can be treated as seperate HDs in many instances. Second, having a higher data desnity makes things faster not slower - the head is parsing over the same disk area every second, but that area contains more information for it to read. - LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@twtmc
Its already there for video size. 1hr of 720p30 HDV video is 23Gb. Thats about 8Gb an hour. - codyfrisch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thats for HDV, which is 25mb/s like DV. So if my calculations are right it should only be 11.25GB for 1 hour, the same as DV.
Professionals use codecs like DVCPro HD, which have far more color information and less compression. DVCPro HD is 100mb/s so that is around 43GB/hr. So say a 6 hour shoot means about 1 hour of footage per angle, say two or three angles and you can use up a 200GB hard drive in a day or so just with raw footage.
By the time you edit and output you need about twice that if you use compressed. Though now days when we output for compositing work in after effects etc. we're using uncompressed (if we didn't shoot in uncompressed to start with which is upwards of 166MB/s for HD content).
So yeah 2.5TB is going to be the norm for us, already is if we work uncompressed. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I doubt it. I really do. Be it bloated code, huge amounts of content partially because of that code or just a whole ***** of ultra-HD images, there'll never be quite enough room.
- MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5it's an arms race with ourselves
- CJz44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zeldafan
I bought a 200gb drive about a month ago and I have 18gb free. It's a hard life not wanting to delete anything... - zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I thought more or less the same thing, I had two 40 gig harddrives, one for my OS and one for my files and installed programs.
I kept having to delete stuff to make room for the new so I bought a 200 gig drive thinking it would be more than enough. This was about 3-4 months ago and I have 47 gigs left.
Then what? I know I want a TB, and the sooner the better. - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yep. that's what my Media Center DVR-MS files look like for my recorded HD. I'm trying to switch to MythTV which automatically transcodes without DRM.
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And you're probably still going to buy two of them to save in a mirrored raid for the actual editing. Plus one more as an offline backup, unless optical technology makes leaps to catch up in the interim.
- PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Definitely there will be a time, in the not so distant future where disk space will be a thing of the past. There'll be so much space in a computer that it won't even be thought of in terms of capacity - capacity itself will, in effect, be nonexistant in that regard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3this is beautiful, a girl insterested in hard drive technology
- bbarker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm going to have to agree and disagree. The speed does go up with increases in density, but not linearly. When areal density goes up, it means there are more tracks as well as more data per track. The net result is that speed goes up by the square root of the size increase. So a 10x increase in size gets you about a 3.16x increase in speed.
- Madh2orat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7-Insert obligitory porn comment here-
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually hard drive capacities and technology has been pretty steady in developing over the past few years. But people don't always understand the delay between announcing a new technology, and actually making it work reliably enough to sell in millions of drives per year.
- davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah yes, more space, but *how fast*? 7,200RPM still?
We need *faster* drives. And I mean drives twice if not three times as fast as they've essentially been for the past 6/7 years. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"We could save gigabytes if people just vectorized their textures. It can't be that hard, can it?"
This only makes a difference with extremely high resolution textures (higher than even used at 1080p), otherwise the vectors will have to be so detailed that they'll use significantly more space. It also takes much longer to draw a vector than rastar image, and with no vector rendering built into graphics cards you'd need to wait for atleast the next generation, and then you'd be severing compatability with those that didn't have them. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5With 2 weeks per hard drive defrag.
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I'm not the first person to make this observation, but why not build some sort of
backup / redundancy into these huge drives?"
Because the parts of those drives that are most likely to not work after a catastropic failure (drive controller, firmware, or spindle motor) are exactly the ones that you would depend on to maintain redundancy. - gregmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone else get a hankerin' for the "Get Perpendicular" flash?
- ryan4477, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow and i though my flashy new 250GB SATA drive was big....
- nathan8225, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*sob* I'm stuck with a 20GB hard drive in my four year old Mac. Its actualy not that bad.
Especially since I will be getter a bigger hard drive from a friend! YES! - shitthisfook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1twtmc, you can *never* have enough space in the computing world. Never. As soon as we get these 2.5TB drives, people will be begging for more.
What may seem like excess to you, is measly to another. - ryan4477, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you call 8 gigs big?
- Madh2orat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just a little jealous because i beat you.
Just joking.... - TheWeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll be purchasing 4 of these babies upon release and no I am not joking. I'll use a simple 200GB drive for my main OS and installation files, applications and have the others for games..etc - one of those drives would be set aside for post production work which would require a large sized hard drive.
- Psquared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow! I posted this two days ago and got 8 Diggs. DUPE!!!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2016538,00.asp
now digg me down for whining...... - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bah, 2 years away, let me know when these are imminent for release, then I will get excited.
But honestly, I would prefer a 20gb fast solid-state drive over 2tb these days. I want faster HD access. I can always store data on large slow drives, but I want my OS and applications to run on a fast solid state drive.
Reading a movie or music off a slow drive is alright, but trying to run Windows off a slow drive is murder. Or even Linux for that matter. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Imagine all the downloading one could do without buying a new hard drive...
- shannonkay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is beautiful. As a girl with many hard drives that are constantly running out of space for my media storage and backups, I am very excited to see new hard drive possibilities for the next couple of years. For a while it seemed like not much was happening with hard drive capacities.
- jemnery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree with PAJK. Imagine huge amounts of disk space, combined with seamless, background archiving of old files to some secure online storage. That's effectively unlimited capacity.
I'm not the first person to make this observation, but why not build some sort of backup / redundancy into these huge drives? Instead of a 2.5 TB HDD, why not have 2 x 1.25, much like RAID in a single drive? If a sector was bad or a file corrupted, the drive controller would fetch a second copy from the other platter without the user ever knowing.
Or how about some sort of automatic file versioning? I guess this would be done at the filesystem level, but with huge drives maybe it becomes possible to have a revision control system for every word document, source code file and text document (etc) on the system...? - LADIESCREVICE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I have been perfectly fine with a 75 gig drive for about a year. But whatever, push it to the max.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The storage industry is going BERSERK.
- twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4How good are graphics going to get where I will need 2.5 TB? I can understand upwards of 1 TB, but 2.5 just seems like it will only exist for bragging rights in most cases unless the video codecs get so high res that it will be nearly 1 gb for a 20 minuit recording. I guess I will eventually be able to see exactly which of Stephen Colbert's pores are slightly blocked.
- spartan002117, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Just make sure to run this thing as a secondary drive. Imagine having it be your main drive running your OS and filling it up it would take 3 years for windows to locate system resources. well i guess there's partitions but average Joe's don't know that kinda thing.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I envision world peace for 2010.
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Lame. It's a dupe of my story from years ago:
Breaking News: Hard Drives Will Be Bigger In The Future - anticult, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Yeah, last I checked ipods dont use desktop hard drives.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1We could save gigabytes if people just vectorized their textures. It can't be that hard, can it?
- anticult, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1^^^Sorry this article was confusing. 275gb ipods* your right, im the tard!
- twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5By then the batteries will have a new high for endurance. They will last up to 1 hours total.
- anticult, on 10/12/2007, -9/+02.5TB ipods? Please learn to read. You are retarded!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is