>500GB Drives

LunarMist

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
When will there be larger 2.5" drives? I could use somewhat more capacity. :)
 
Can they do that for the price of a new HD in the market, i.e. <$200, then decreasing to ~$100 in less than a year?
 
Something that is so much less complex (at least mechanically) and therefore cheaper to manufacture will beat out spinning disks at some point. The only question is when.
 
Sure, everyone has been saying that for years. Yet one would expect larger drives in H2 of this year. There is room for at least one more round of larger magnetic drives at a substantially lower cost that SSD, IMO.
 
This forum requires that you wait 5 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

:roflmao:

<edit>well at least it prevented me from the dreaded dbl. post, seems I need to restart the old mem fraged computer again :) </edit>
 
LunarMist said:
Yet one would expect larger drives in H2 of this year.
Click to expand...

Y would 1 expect? Recession would tend to make 1 think H1 '10 @earliest.

There is room for at least one more round of larger magnetic drives at a substantially lower cost that SSD, IMO.
Click to expand...
@least 1 more? I'd say plenty, over the next 5yrs.

Y don't you just buy a laptop that can hold 2 drives and do raid? Raid 512GB SDD's in H2?
 
ddrueding said:
I'm quite confident that SSDs will beat platter-based drives to 750GB, and that 1TB 2.5" spinning disks will not even be a mainstream consideration.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that these are not coming from the same people. SSDs and spinning disks aren't just competing technologies, they're coming from different companies -- many of which weren't previously competitors.

If we can get past the form-factor change from 3.5 to 2.5, then SSDs should easily get mainstream acceptance, and your prediction will prove to be correct.
 
Sure I'd rather have a 750GB drive. Yet every GB is worth another ~32 RAW files to me, so that extra 140GB will store ~4480 more files, i.e., 20,480 vs. 16,000. Combined with 164GB of fast cards, >25,000 is enough on a 2-week vacation to shift from orange to yellow zone or from yellow to green zone. In this particular instance it may make the difference between needing a notebook and two external drives vs. a notebook and five external drives.

ST
 
LunarMist said:
Sure I'd rather have a 750GB drive. Yet every GB is worth another ~32 RAW files to me, so that extra 140GB will store ~4480 more files, i.e., 20,480 vs. 16,000. Combined with 164GB of fast cards, >25,000 is enough on a 2-week vacation to shift from orange to yellow zone or from yellow to green zone. In this particular instance it may make the difference between needing a notebook and two external drives vs. a notebook and five external drives.

ST
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a lower power 2TB 3.5in like the WD green, would take up less room than those multiple 2.5in externals, even a 2-drive 2.5in external RAID. You should have enough power on the USB port to run a single 3.5in 2TB energy efficient drive. USB3.0 should be a reality by years end.(fingers crossed)

>25k files to sort, make head or tails of, uggh, recipe for a headache :p
 
udaman said:
You should have enough power on the USB port to run a single 3.5in 2TB energy efficient drive.
Click to expand...
Another open mouth insert foot moment by udaman. :bstd:

Perhaps you can show us where the +12V needed for 3.5" drives is found in the USB connector. :skepo:
 
LunarMist said:
Sure I'd rather have a 750GB drive. Yet every GB is worth another ~32 RAW files to me, so that extra 140GB will store ~4480 more files, i.e., 20,480 vs. 16,000. Combined with 164GB of fast cards, >25,000 is enough on a 2-week vacation to shift from orange to yellow zone or from yellow to green zone. In this particular instance it may make the difference between needing a notebook and two external drives vs. a notebook and five external drives.

ST
Click to expand...
You must be shooting pictures like a madman on vacation. Assuming you're only taking pictures 16 hours a day (allowing 8hrs for sleep, meals, and personal hygene), two weeks is only 13440 minutes. That means you're shooting almost 2 pictures a minute 16 hours a day for 2 week straight? :skepo:

How many times have you had the shutters in your cameras replaced? :bomb:
 
Stereodude said:
You must be shooting pictures like a madman on vacation. Assuming you're only taking pictures 16 hours a day (allowing 8hrs for sleep, meals, and personal hygene), two weeks is only 13440 minutes. That means you're shooting almost 2 pictures a minute 16 hours a day for 2 week straight? :skepo:

How many times have you had the shutters in your cameras replaced? :bomb:
Click to expand...

There are around 3-8 hours of opportunity per day. I looked up one subject from last year and there were 1050 frames in 53 minutes. 1000-1200 frames per day is more typical.
 
Tourists usually have lower-end gear and are shooting jpegs. You don't see as many people wandering around with 1Ds MK III or D3X bodies. 5D MK II has become fairly popular, but I've only seen a few so far.
 
Walked out to where my wife and I got married yesterday (Capitola Beach). There was a guy sitting there with his dogs and a 1DsIII with 70-200/2.8. No camera bag, just out for a walk. I'm really not a jealous person, really ;)
 
ddrueding said:
There was a guy sitting there with his dogs and a 1DsIII with 70-200/2.8. No camera bag, just out for a walk. I'm really not a jealous person, really ;)
Click to expand...
Well of course he was sitting there. With that combo he won't be walking very far due to the anchor like weight of that combo around his neck. :o
 
The subject in the event mentioned above is too specific to describe in a public forum.
 
ddrueding said:
Walked out to where my wife and I got married yesterday (Capitola Beach). There was a guy sitting there with his dogs and a 1DsIII with 70-200/2.8. No camera bag, just out for a walk. I'm really not a jealous person, really ;)
Click to expand...

Heh, you should see all my stuff. :)
 
Oh great. I already sliced my finger on the packaging. Who designs these awful 4-layer blister things?

The drive is identified as being made in China. :pale:
 
Yet the ST9640322AS is faster in a different enclosure. Weird. This Seagate is the noisiest seeking and spinning 5400RPM 2.5" drive I've used in years:(, and I have quite a few. Here's to hoping that WD will step up to the plate with an alternative.
 
ddrueding said:
I'm quite confident that SSDs will beat platter-based drives to 750GB, and that 1TB 2.5" spinning disks will not even be a mainstream consideration.
Click to expand...

I forgot about this post. Only 6 weeks later. Now which will be to market first?
 
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/08/07/tdk_head_update/

The roadmap shows a jump to 320GB/platter 2.5-inch drive read heads with such heads in qualification with HDD suppliers now, mass production starting this month and full mass production by December this year. That means we should see HDD suppliers announcing 640GB 2-platter SFF drive products by the end of the year - Seagate already has with its 640GB Free Agent Go - and, if they wish, 960GB 3-platter products, darn near a terabyte. Initial products may rotate at 5400rpm with later ones increasing their spin speed to 7200rpm as the head and media technologies get better and permit the faster rotation.


Turning to desktop drives, TDK is making heads for 500GB/platter drives now and has 640GB/platter heads currently in qualification by its OEMs. It sees a slightly later but faster ramp to mass production, starting in November this year and complete by the end of January, 2010.
The implication is that HDD manufacturers could announce 2.5TB, 4-platter, 3.5-inch capacity drives, SATA interface ones probably, as early as February next year, with possible 3.2TB, 5-platter models as well if they want to hit the 3TB drive mark.
Click to expand...
 
:joker::owneddnce::alien::geek::queen::confused:

Wha...did I forget to add some text to my post above? I thought it was ok *not* to be overly <140 char Twitteriffic™.

Doesn't it answer the OP, with absolute minimal text (ie. no text other than link and CnP of relevant info) no additional words needed???

Are you feeling cheated out of one or two word replies? Well, I never! Phmmmpft, see if I do that again!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top