>500GB Drives
- Thread starter LunarMist
- Start date
How confident are you now?
ddrueding
Fixture
I have a 1TB SSD 
I have a 1TB SSD
Maybe so, but it is not the 2.5" x 9.5 mm FF.
ddrueding
Fixture
True enough. Draw a new prediction at something just over 1TB?
750 GB @ 9.5 mm is here now. Unfortunately the advanced format is useless to me if I understand correctly.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
^not if you get a Mac
Come on LM, keep up with the program...already posted here:
http://www.storageforum.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8094
Best 640GB 2.5" drive?
Probably, but I suspect that four 1TB SSDs will be $6-8K compared to $450-500 for four 1TB HDs. One could buy about 1TB of fast CF cards for the same price by that time.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
LM, if the drive will be in an external case, the advanced format will not be an issue. If you're going to use it internally and re using XP, you can run an align utility to fix the issue.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
So it is formatted as FAT32 or NTFS?
The drive itself is backwards compatible, in a transparent manner.
Of course you can check this when you verify that you can in fact restore successfully. Always best to check out how things work in practice before they are needed in times of crisis.
The drive itself is backwards compatible, in a transparent manner.
Of course you can check this when you verify that you can in fact restore successfully. Always best to check out how things work in practice before they are needed in times of crisis.
I'm so confused. The advancing format 750GB drive seems to work (boots normally) without any special alignment in XP32. Is it only a performance issue?
The WD alignment runs from an ISO, but of course the notebook now has two HDs and no opticals. I'll have to dig up an old USB 5.25" enclosure.
The WD alignment runs from an ISO, but of course the notebook now has two HDs and no opticals. I'll have to dig up an old USB 5.25" enclosure.
sdbardwick
Storage is cool
Only a performance issue; extra read/writes when clusters bridge 4K sectors. Essentially the same issue as unaligned SSDs.
Ultimately I used the Pargon software to realign the partitions as used this notebook. It was also necessary to replace the True Image with the 2010 version. I'm not sure if it is faster, the same, or slower, but I am finished with this nonsense.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
So...did you like DiCaprio's latest movie? (your link is broken)
$100 today with free shipping. :flower: I could swear it was $110 yesterday.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Your link points to http://inception , which is the title of Leonardo DiCaprio's most recent movie. Next time I make a joke to you, I'll include pictures.
ddrueding
Fixture
Not just you, it happens to me all the time.
What is the difference between the two 750GB drives? Is one designed for heavier service or something else?
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
The "K"'s platters rotate at 5200rpm versus 5400rpm for the "B"'s. That's not a typo on Newegg's web site as it is confirmed on Western Digital's web site. Apart from that, I don't see any difference. Maybe the "K" has a different platter number and areal density per platter, but I don't see the information anywhere.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Sieving the available info, this is my theory:
The WD7500KPVT is a cut-down WD10TPVT terabyte drive, i.e. three platters and a thickness of 12.5mm. Whether it's short-stroked or lower density, I can't tell - WD quotes a single transfer rate regardless of capacity or model.
WD's nomenclature appears to be "B" for binary platters, as in WD7500BPVT (9.5mm), and "T" for ternary platters, as in WD10TPVT. My guess was that "K" lies half way between B and T in the alphabet, and that proves to be the case exactly.
No idea how much - if any - of this is true, but that's life when you're dealing with WDC.
The WD7500KPVT is a cut-down WD10TPVT terabyte drive, i.e. three platters and a thickness of 12.5mm. Whether it's short-stroked or lower density, I can't tell - WD quotes a single transfer rate regardless of capacity or model.
WD's nomenclature appears to be "B" for binary platters, as in WD7500BPVT (9.5mm), and "T" for ternary platters, as in WD10TPVT. My guess was that "K" lies half way between B and T in the alphabet, and that proves to be the case exactly.
No idea how much - if any - of this is true, but that's life when you're dealing with WDC.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
CougTek;July 27 said:
So, a year later, the largest SSD in 2.5" form factor from NewEgg is 512GB and costs $1400. A 500GB 2.5" spinning-platter drive costs $60.
:smile:
ddrueding
Fixture
Indeed. I suspect some market manipulation is going on so they can milk this thing.
ddrueding
Fixture
Of course...
Hands in the air and back away from the keyboard slowly...
Is it that hard to believe?