WD to launch 2TB drives, lose data

Mercutio said:
It appears that Windows 7 is going to use the same harebrained layout of SKUs that Vista did; there's an Ultimate and a Starter and a Basic, at least.
Click to expand...
Garbage.

We just need Windows/386 and Windows/286... er, I mean x64 and 32-bit.
 
Why not multiple versions? Different markets have different feature needs and will pay accordingly. There are an extra couple of versions not really needed, but 7 is probably intended to replace the Vista versions, one for one.
 
One nice thing about the Windows 7 SKUs: Higher versions have all the included features of lower versions. This means that Windows 7 Professional will have the DVD making and media center features found in Home Premium.
 
Looks like good potential. Is it 7200RPM? I would buy that drive if it performs well enough.
 
Bummer. I haven't been following that line of drives. I guess they must have their place if people keep buying them.
 
That WD 2TB drive is back in stock. For some reason I did not buy one. :(
 
That is a partial answer, but also I'd rather have a retail drive. Another reason is that the 5400RPM drives are good for backups, yet there are no 7200RPM 2TB drives to back up.
 
That does not increase capacity as much, not to mention the economics of a RAID controller. :o Alternatively one could split the 2TB drive.

I also noticed the WD15EADS (1.5TB) drive listed this weekend at a more reasonable cost/GB ratio.
 
I tried Samsung once and the warranty was rejected. I assumed that was due to it being an OEM drive, but I did not follow up.
 
Regardless, they're all out to lunch. Seagate 7200RPM 1.5's have dipped as low as ~$100. Paying ~$150 for a 5400RPM 1.5TB drive is just stupid.
 
Heh, you probably don't think it was wise to buy the 32GB X25-E last year for $650 either. :mrgrn:
 
Last edited:
LunarMist said:
Heh, you probably don't think it was wise to buy the 32GB X25-E last year for $650 either. :mrgrn:
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have spent the money, but it's quite a bit different from buying a 1.5TB 5400RPM drive for $150-$160 when you can get a 1.5TB 7200RPM drive for $~100-120. In the case of your Intel SSD, you can't get a higher performing SSD for 2/3rds the price (that I'm aware of).
 
I almost ordered the 1.5TB WD drive from the rotten egg. Fortunately, I waited and now see that they are up to the old trick of misrepresenting an OEM product as a retail one.

It is probably best to wait a few months and see what develops in large HD land.
 
LunarMist said:
they are up to the old trick of misrepresenting an OEM product as a retail one.
Click to expand...

Who cares? OEM drives are sold without a data cable, a disc with some worthless software on it and no pretty box. They have the same warranty and are otherwise the same product as the retail units.

The only times "OEM" are an issue are CPUs, where OEM means no HSF and no warranty, and for products marked for a specific OEM such as Dell or Compaq.
 
Merc,

I'm only concerned about the packaging/shipping risk. Are you reselling some of those drives or is there a PB HD array in your home?
 
I bought one in the store today for much less than the Egg. Computer is not seeing it for some reason.
 
The drive is fine. Transfer rates are good, starting at 101MB/sec. and decaying to about 50 (average is about 80 MB/sec.). That is more than my old Hitachi 1TB drives. Of course access time is high, typical for the 5400 RPM drive that it must be. It is fast enough for large data files and especially backups. These should be popular in building ever larger HTPCs etc.
 
100+MB/s from a 5400RPM...who woulda thought.

Very basic and not entirely related question:

Lots of small files, copied in bulk, are copied sequentially, correct? As such, their transfer rate is closer to STR rather than seek limited, correct?
 
Copy speed slows down with small files, but that happens with all drives. It is about half full and the speed is still very good, similar to the Seagate. I'm sure that perfomance will suffer when the drive is more full and when fragmentation sets in. I always use 32K clusters. The drive sure smells odd.
 
ddrueding said:
100+MB/s from a 5400RPM...who woulda thought.

Very basic and not entirely related question:

Lots of small files, copied in bulk, are copied sequentially, correct? As such, their transfer rate is closer to STR rather than seek limited, correct?
Click to expand...

If stored sequentially then bulk copies will be done sequentially. However, if not stored sequential then bulk copies will not be done sequentially. Even a defragmented drive does not mean file1, file2, file3, file4 won't be stored on the HD as file3, file1, file4, file2 and in that case there will be seeks and everything will be seek limited..
 
If jyst a few files does the command squering kcik in? Sure, it does not help fo r a bunch of small files endlessly folwing.
 
ddrueding said:
Lots of small files, copied in bulk, are copied sequentially, correct? As such, their transfer rate is closer to STR rather than seek limited, correct?
Click to expand...
Actually, I would think the opposite, especially if you're using a journaling file system. The more files that you copy, the more file system overhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top