What is Digg?149 Comments
- insinuate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41Talk about a BITCH of a defrag
- ravan46, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Hey, this uses perpendicular recording.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xPvD0Z9kz8 - skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Meh... solid state memory now plz.
- MScrip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Still scared? It was forever ago in computer times. And from another company too. Do you really thing they are making these terabyte drives using the same parts from the year 2000?
- adude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Actually, his "bitching" is completely fair. It doesn't matter *why* it happens, what matters is that for the majority of people (even computer nerds), it's tantamount to false advertising when your 1000 GB drive has only 921. While there is a technical explanation for it, this practice has gone too far. The hard drive manufacturers need to either put 921 GB on the front of the box or somehow otherwise indicate that it's not truly 1000 GB of space (by for example, adopting the tebibyte unit as mentioned in the article). I'm surprised that there haven't been lawsuits since a "reasonable person" wouldn't think to convert between binary and decimal.
- aurrea, on 10/10/2007, -8/+25Train your computer to count by 1000 and not 1024 then...
Crybaby. - zipkilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Good comparative exploration of recent high-capacity drives, with the Caviar SE16 (750GB) mostly coming up roses.
- theinept, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Am I the only one who'll be forever afraid of Deathstars? A lot of people would have to "test" these drives out for me over extended periods of time before I even remotely consider buying one again.
- pecel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17So little time for so many pron :)
- Skurt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I just bought four 500GB drives from FRYS.COM for $99 each and when I was done formatting them for WinXP Pro they each came out to be 479GB due to the crackhead way they decide to measure space.
These drives should be labeled 480GB drives or even 475GB and then we would get an extra 4GB free, now that's marketing!
in the past Monitor manufactures had to revise the way they advertised they way they claimed monitor size, where you used to have a monitor stated size as 19" all of a sudden had to be called 17.6" or 17.1" or the 20" monitors that now are 18.1" because they were fudging the size by claiming the "TUBE" was 20" but the VIEWABLE size was 18.1"
The hard drive manufactures should be held to the same standards.
I don't care about 1000^4 or 1000^1024 or 1024^1000 or any other sort of crap! What I want to see is when I buy a 500 GB drive, when Windows or OS X or any other system shows me my drive and it says 479 instead of 500, I was robbed! I paid to have my PC's My Computer window show four 500's not four 479's - StillAnonymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11US dry gallon, US liquid gallon, or Imperial gallon?
Guess that was a bad example. - totalnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I will wait for Seagate to comes out with their version. Why, because the Seagate drive will have a 5 years of warranty. This has only 3 year warranty.
- bartolommeff, on 10/10/2007, -13/+23I want 1TB when I pay for 1TB... not 921GB ... it's theft... applies to all other HDs as well
- weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Dayum! I'm buying a "Caviar SE16 (750GB)". It's at the top of every benchmark...
- acedeuce12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Petabyte
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Bigger -> Faster. Areal density. RTFA.
- dobermaniac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8double the speed and double to chance of data loss. great idea!
- JarekB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Little cartoon "bit" characters singing "Get perpendicular" in deep Isaac Hayes voice.
- spiffytech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7As odd as that video was, I now understand what perpendicular storage is.
- bartolommeff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10i'm just saying if i buy a gallon of milk, i get a gallon... wish it was like that with HDs too... no need for hostility
- Athens101, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Defrag? Oh Ohhhhhhhhhhh NTFS. (looks over at NAS *huggz*) Yeah Ext3, Reiser, XFS not so much :)
- Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Pretty sure he means RAID 0, which obviously isn't RAID at all. Never understood THAT naming convention. :p
- emorgoch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Read the damn review. It DOES NOT. The WD 750GB drive offers better performance in a large portion of the benchmarks, offers better acoustics and power consumptions, and has a better $/GB ratio. And it still doesn't match the performance of the Raptors in multi-tasking I/O performance. Long story short, it's only good if you need 1TB of space. Otherwise, there's far better options.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6FTA: "I've highlighted the 7K1000 in bright yellow and its high-capacity competitors—the Barracuda 7200.10 and ES, and the Caviar SE16 750GB—in pale yellow to set them apart from the others."
I was excited until I saw the rest of the drives were in BRIGHT ORANGE. That sure made things easier to read. - vwgtiturbo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You mean 'pennies' and 'HHD'? Jesus christ, Digg lets any illiterate ***** on the site anymore...
- shibz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5hmmm i'm wondering why they didn't compare Seagate's 7200.11 1TB drive...
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Read the review. There's one obvious takeaway. Western Digital 7500AAKS (SE16) ftw.
It's the fastest much of the time, it's the quietest (>500GB), it runs the coolest. It's very cheap.
I'm glad for Hitachi, but the smart money is on the W-D right now. - gregm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Pedophile
- redxii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's nice for loading games faster, but it won't help with gaming performance.
- brasso, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8A few IBM Deskstar models had problems many, many years ago. Hitachis Deskstar drives however is in the top.
- shibz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5they did come out with one... google for the 7200.11 drives
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Are we seeing the same benchmarks? It doesn't.
- xmodem2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you don't count the cost of controllers, etc, it'd still be cheaper to use 3x 500GB drives in RAID5. Then you'd get both 1TB AND redundancy.
- wvannus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Car horsepower is rated at the flywheel, not the power going to the ground. Up to a fifth of that horsepower can be lost in some modern automatics. The Scion xB was a good example, sold as 104 bhp, dynoed in the low 80s.
There's always going to be discrepancy between scientific accuracy and marketing. - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There have been lawsuits. The HD manufacturers won, since they actually used the right prefix.
(At least) one of two things need to happen: either OS manufacturers need to start using the right prefix when they report sizes, or, as you suggest, HD manufacturers need to include both values. I'd prefer the former, since the latter still won't solve the actual problem (OSes reporting incorrect sizes). - stgeorge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's cheaper to buy 2 750's and RAID them. And at least it'll be a "true" terabyte (and then some).
- gregm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Its quite what? Quite quiet?
- jordn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3actually, it was the IBM Deskstars that were imfamous for dying young.
7 years later, new company.
Deathstar? Not likely. anybody that has sense would only use these drives in a RAID configuration (NOT RAID 0) if they were storing precious/valuable data. - Genma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3how is it they can say hitachi has "highest areal density of any drive on the market" at 200 gb/platter when seagate has had a 250 gb single platter drive for months?
- xmodem2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if your prepared to trust the onboard raid on a motherboard that cost less than $200, you're a much braver man than me.
- shibz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11look up a Terabyte on wikipedia... its 1000^4 bytes... a Tebibyte on the other hand is what you are referring to... 1024^4 bytes... get your facts straight before you bitch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte - theghost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34 caviar 750's in Raid 0+1 Secure and Fast if you can afford it.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"I don't care about 1000^4 or 1000^1024 or 1024^1000 or any other sort of crap!"
If you don't care about the explanation to your (supposed) problem, why do you bother bringing it up? - crapmatic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Well, look at it this way... Hitachi will have the market cornered on 921 GB drives.
- rocket777, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Who cares about the number of bytes as long as everyone knows the scoring system.
Maybe we should loby MS to list the number of gigabytes in both 1024 and 1000 base. Then the problem would go away. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To be fair, I understand the frustration.
Back when I was into the car audio world, many head units were marketed by their combined peak wattage. For example, a Sony head unit was marketed, advertised, and packaged with 100 watt all over it.
In reality it was 25 watts peak per channel (4 of them).
New standards were adopted, and now the same head unit will be identified by the real wattage...13 watts RMS X 4.
A company that decided to go this route could set a great example. This drive would be a great one to do it, since it's on the top end of capacity. They could push the marketing as "921 Real World Gigs" or some other slogan and still remain on top for a while. - joe361, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have one and it's very quite.
- OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2ext3 doesn't need defrag as often because users don't make lots of big temp files simultaneously and delete them. As Linux gets used more for desktop and therefor more heavily used for warez and video pirating you'll probably notice fragmentation.
I guess most Linux users not needing defrag just shows that Linux users aren't pirates to the same degree as Windows users? Just a guess :) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2With all the free software Linux users have access to, there's a tiny bit less need to pirate...at least in regards to software.
- weiran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its nowhere near double the speed.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is