What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
117 Comments
- DiggMasterJ, on 01/27/2009, -4/+80FTA:Though Vista likes to round the numbers down to 1.81TB"
How can you trust a review that is so biased they blame Vista for the lower TB rating, just to avoid saying anything bad about the drive. They could have not said anything, but they are actually making excuses for WD. I think it is already common knowledge that 1 TB is not equal to 1,000,000,000,000 bytes, and hard drive manufacturers misuse the term because it sounds better. hothardware.com staff are clearly tools. - Cararan, on 01/27/2009, -3/+58More storage for HD porn.
- davecachia, on 01/27/2009, -1/+51My 200GB feels like a midget compared to this drive.
- XeroXenith, on 01/27/2009, -3/+37Interesting pattern:
500 GB: 06/2005 http://tinyurl.com/7sryzv
750 GB: 05/2006 http://tinyurl.com/77yhlr
1,000 GB: 07/2007 http://tinyurl.com/m7e57
1,500 GB: 07/2008 http://tinyurl.com/ax7bso
New sizes seem to hit every summer. They were early this year :P - Gizza, on 01/28/2009, -2/+28Ummm, no, the OS treats it perfect right. The problem is that hard drive manufacturers label 1,000,000,000,000 bytes as a TB, which it isn't. 1,099,511,627,776 bytes is a TB. Try it yourself, divide 1,000,000,000,000 by 1024 3 times and you will get the exact reading that Windows gives you. It's been like this since forever. 20GB hardrives were really only 18.6GB. My 320GB hard drive is only 300GB. The problem is the larger the hard drive the more noticeable this dodgy conversion becomes.
- Arkz, on 01/28/2009, -1/+241 thing that annoys me is, all pc's use 1024, so why do they use kilo and mega, terms which means 1000 and 1000000? they should use KibiByte and MebiByte, which really are 1024
- Jericon, on 01/28/2009, -0/+22At the listed price, you couldn't even buy 2 of these for the price of those 5 1 TB Drives.
- inactive, on 01/28/2009, -1/+22its 1.81 because douchebag HDD makers use multiple of 1,000 and not 1024 like the way most computers read them.
- Jericon, on 01/28/2009, -5/+24Wow... $299. I'll stick with the 1.5 TB Seagate Drives that go for $129. The extra 500 GB isn't worth more than double the price. I'd even rather spend $260 and get 2 1.5 TB Drives and throw them into a raid.
- DarkerMaster, on 01/28/2009, -2/+19Damn And i just splurged on 5 Single 1TB disks...DAMMIT
- SteveMax, on 01/28/2009, -0/+16Did you notice that the 1TB "drive" you linked to was actually four 250GB SATA drives in an external 5.25'' case?
Or that the 750GB annoncement you linked to was in September/06, not May? - Aitese, on 01/28/2009, -1/+15Spray paint
- Spudweizer, on 01/28/2009, -0/+11you'd hate to have one of those suckers fail on you
- eric1071, on 01/28/2009, -1/+12Yeah, there's a reason for that... Fail Rate, Bugging Firmware, Incompatible with some MB chipsets, not Green, ***** tech support, data loss, forced to flash your own firmware to "maybe" correct the problem, and last but not least, a Class Action lawsuit in the works... Yeah, sign me up for that...
- yunus, on 01/28/2009, -0/+11Article says "7 Watts under read/write load and 5 Watts at idle."
Anyone know what a non-green HD of a similar size uses for power? - inactive, on 01/28/2009, -0/+10Compared to what? Seagate?
I would trust WD over Seagate any day of the week. I've owned quite a few of both and so far I've had good resuls with WD and terrible results with Seagate. (not that surprising from a company that decided to buy maxtor)
Although some people have the reverse opinion. It seems to be 50/50 actually. I'm not sure why that is though. Maybe just plain dumb luck? But most reviews and customer reviews seem to side with WD, if only slightly. - DeathRay2K, on 01/28/2009, -7/+16If the 2TB drive is a 6' man, your 200GB drive is a 7.2" tall imp.
- Ricochetbiscuit, on 01/27/2009, -1/+10umm hello? The term "green" is used to call out a product that is more environmentally friendly, which this one is. It uses a lot less power than any standard 2TB setup on the market today and for datacenter applications, that's a big, green, deal.
- statik99, on 11/03/2009, -0/+9Mmmm must download pron! Seriously though, I remember the days when 500mb was huge and hard to completely fill up, took forever to format or copy files to en mass. Ahh how the times have changed.
- eric1071, on 01/28/2009, -0/+9**==This is a Cut and Paste from my earlier post above==** **Public Service Announcement**
Yeah, there's a reason for that... Fail Rate, Bugging Firmware, Incompatible with some MB chipsets, not Green, ***** tech support, data loss, forced to flash your own firmware to "maybe" correct the problem, and last but not least, a Class Action lawsuit in the works... Yeah, sign me up for that... - Gizza, on 01/28/2009, -1/+10Uhh, never. Way to fail math. It will always be somewhere around 93% of the labelled size.
- se7en11, on 01/28/2009, -2/+10you're trying to hard
- WaveRunningNakd, on 01/28/2009, -1/+9nothing on newegg yet. buy.com will deliver it for $271.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=21067328 ... - cquinnd, on 01/28/2009, -1/+9Because KibiByte and MebiByte came along later, after the majority of engineers, corporate and especially marketing types had gotten used to the existing terms, and so perpetuate them.
It's similar to the failure in the US to switch to the Metric system, for much the same reasons. - cquinnd, on 01/28/2009, -0/+7Early? Depends on when it actually hits retail availability. Drive makers have a tendency to announce a new drive to have a boost in recognition over the competition, but still take months to actually deliver product in large quantities.
- mrBitch, on 01/28/2009, -0/+7And your point is ?
- DeathRay2K, on 01/28/2009, -2/+9Why am I getting dugg down? Just do the math!
- sej7278, on 01/28/2009, -0/+7you just back it up to the two 1tb drives you just bought for half the price.
- Ramble, on 01/28/2009, -5/+11You're wrong. A TB is a trillion bytes and it always will be, T is an SI prefix. In this respect the OS is wrong.
A TiB is 1,099,511,627,776 bytes - look at a hard drive in Linux and it'll show as TiB. Windows has it wrong. - fabio1, on 01/28/2009, -2/+8the only problem is that the seagate 1.5tb has problems when used in a raid, thus rendering your comment null
- se7en11, on 01/28/2009, -2/+8You raise an interesting point. I would rather see drives that say they will not fail in 20 years rather than increasing in size.
- techpr, on 01/28/2009, -0/+5His point is already down.
- louiebaur, on 01/27/2009, -1/+6Damn I am running behind the times I am just about to make the 1 Terrorybe hard drive purchase maybe I should rethink that!
- RutgerB, on 01/28/2009, -1/+61.5TB drive from seagate is an inexpesive purchase
- Reziarfg, on 01/28/2009, -4/+9But but but, then it wouldn't be green!!
- cecilpl, on 01/27/2009, -0/+5I'll be buying one of these asap.
- DeathRay2K, on 01/28/2009, -2/+6Nice capacity, but I'll wait for one that can meet the performance of my 1TB Caviar Black drives.
Or at least a review that offers a more comparison of drives, rather than simply comparing it to a random assortment of other drives... - magamiako, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4Looks like they made an edit to that afterwards, since I don't see that in the article now. It says "Though our test system and the OS sees the drive as 1.81TB..."
- nybble41, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4No, "shuffer" is correct. The ratio is given as (1000/1024)^n, where n corresponds to the prefix (kilo=1, mega=2, giga=3, tera=4, ...). For gigabytes the ratio is ~93%, but for terabytes it's only ~90.9%. It'll pass the 50% point at n=30 (10^90 bytes vs. 2.037*10^90 bytes), assuming we ever develop digital storage to such a ridiculous scale.
- duewydo, on 01/28/2009, -1/+5noahgelman. It is not about saving the environment and saving a tree on a per person level. Think in terms of scales. From an engineering standpoint, if you have a large data store and you can eliminate 100s of old power hungry heat generating hard drives with a couple lightweight drives you can cut down your power consumption immensely. Not only because of fewer, lower power drives but also because the system is producing fewer BTUs which means the A/C works a lot less. Think in the scale of Google data center. The power savings there alone could potentially offset a large amount of Co2 emissions as well as save google millions over the years. Think scale, the big picture not me me me.
- dandonia, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4Most by a long shot 99.9% of all computers in the world. Some thing really should be done about hardware manafacturers false advertising through technicalities. If I made a computer tomorrow and got it to report 1KB as 10TB could I sell it as a 10TB drive?
- sej7278, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4but by the sounds of it you can't trust your data to a seagate 1.5tb and even seagate can't seem to get the firmware fix right.
- truthseeker69, on 01/28/2009, -1/+5I kinda agree for ease of use...but the engineer in me says 1 Kb = 2^10 bytes...
Originally, 1024 bytes was close enough for government work to 1000, a kilo prefix was added to byte...I'm pretty sure it started out as a matter of convenience (I know many folks at the time never even dreamt we would have 2 TB drives already, if ever).
The Kibi-, Mebi- is a standard for Binary representation (IEC) where Kilobyte, MegaByte, Terabyte, etc is a more contrived, yet industry accepted standard...I wish they would use 1024 = 1 KibiByte as well...as 1000 != 1024...or just use 1000 Bytes = 1 KiloByte...regardless of the 1970's contrivance/accepted standard approximation. The SI says 1000 = Kilo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte - Phil13, on 01/28/2009, -1/+5It has nothing to do with tree hugging. These drives run quiet, put out less heat and consume less power. Do you not see the advantages in certain system setups for this?
- dandonia, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3Bring on the 10TB SSD's at affordable prices. Hopefully in the next 5-10 years.
- nybble41, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3Kilo- and mega- only mean 1000 and 1000000 in the context of SI units. The byte isn't an SI unit, so there's no reason to assume that the prefixes in "kilobyte" or "megabyte" correspond to the SI definitions. If there were an SI unit for information it would be the bit, not a non-power-of-10 derived unit like "byte", and bits are already measured using power-of-10 prefixes (1 kilobit = 1000 bits).
Also, "kibibyte" just sounds utterly ridiculous. - tc811, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3CptSullenberger: replace the word 'porn' in your sentence with 'sex'.
Wait, this is digg so it probably isn't applicable... - ThantiK, on 01/28/2009, -2/+5Some of you have to understand as a reviewer your not really "bought off" by the company your reviewing in a traditional sense.
Think of it this way:
Company A gives you tons of free stuff every year to review.
You give a good review - They keep sending you stuff - Your website keeps going.
You give a bad review - They STOP sending you stuff - Your website ceases to exist.
So yeah - What would you do if you were getting 2tb disks for free before they even were available to market? - I'd sure give them a good review! - XeroXenith, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3...oops. Well spotted :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is