160GB drives are already about and there is a 200GB drive here now or very close. IBM is bringing through a few technologies that will allow major increases in HD storage densities over the next 2 - 3 years. By and large all the HD world is waiting for is the release of Serial ATA, which is about a month or 2 away.
Meanwhile does this have anything to do with OS X and where on earth did you pluck an arbitrary number like 500GB from? I seriously doubt average people are even coming close to filling 80GB HDs right now let alone the larger ones.
<strong>160GB drives are already about and there is a 200GB drive here now or very close. IBM is bringing through a few technologies that will allow major increases in HD storage densities over the next 2 - 3 years. By and large all the HD world is waiting for is the release of Serial ATA, which is about a month or 2 away.
Meanwhile does this have anything to do with OS X and where on earth did you pluck an arbitrary number like 500GB from? I seriously doubt average people are even coming close to filling 80GB HDs right now let alone the larger ones.
Average people, no. But people that are into DV editing and high res images, yes. Me? I can will 120gigs in a couple of months. Anime is notorious for filling HDs. I have an 80Gb NTFS formated drive that I can barely keep not full. It's 69%+ fragmented btw....and they said NTFS won't fragment. Ha! It's 69% fragmented AFTER running windows built-in defrag. Bill Gates needs to take some examples from Ext2 or Ext3 and make a better FS. But I'm going way off topic here.
Blu-ray dvds are gonna make current storage measurments a joke within a year or two. 27 gigs on one side, one layer, standard size disk thats 2 hours HD television or 13 hours standard analog.
Tell me about it. This is what DVD burners are for though </strong><hr></blockquote>
well...when I first got my DVR-104 the day after Pioneer officially launched it, DVD-R media was still like $2.0 for 1x...and coasters were too expensive, but since OS 9 crashed so much....Finally managed to make 90+ DVDs, which contains 'bout half of my collection (Anyone seen/got fansubbed Noir and FMP before they got licensed? 2 of the best anime we'll be expecting in the near future)
some actual rocket scientist at NASA have had >2 Tb tape drive technology for years, but IIRC the tape speed over the heads approached 2kph and would shred desks if it snapped
the SRTM mission used VHS tapes to pack <a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/statistics.html"; target="_blank"> 11 days >12 Tb</a> of digital doppler info... 2 more _years_ to unpack and decode than capture
and i'd mention the human brain, but conan doyle's sherlock holmes once said "the brain is an attic with finite space... if one wants to add things, one first may need to throw things out"
Comments
Meanwhile does this have anything to do with OS X and where on earth did you pluck an arbitrary number like 500GB from? I seriously doubt average people are even coming close to filling 80GB HDs right now let alone the larger ones.
[ 08-10-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<strong>I seriously doubt average people are even coming close to filling 80GB HDs right now let alone the larger ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll be amazed if you give a packrat a chance. I filled 2 of them up and am working on a third.
ATA is going to be nice from a useability standpoint. I hate ribbon cables. What's the max drive size for SATA?
Moving to Current Hardware...
<strong>160GB drives are already about and there is a 200GB drive here now or very close. IBM is bringing through a few technologies that will allow major increases in HD storage densities over the next 2 - 3 years. By and large all the HD world is waiting for is the release of Serial ATA, which is about a month or 2 away.
Meanwhile does this have anything to do with OS X and where on earth did you pluck an arbitrary number like 500GB from? I seriously doubt average people are even coming close to filling 80GB HDs right now let alone the larger ones.
[ 08-10-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Average people, no. But people that are into DV editing and high res images, yes. Me? I can will 120gigs in a couple of months. Anime is notorious for filling HDs. I have an 80Gb NTFS formated drive that I can barely keep not full. It's 69%+ fragmented btw....and they said NTFS won't fragment. Ha! It's 69% fragmented AFTER running windows built-in defrag. Bill Gates needs to take some examples from Ext2 or Ext3 and make a better FS. But I'm going way off topic here.
<strong>
Anime is notorious for filling HDs. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me about it. This is what DVD burners are for though
<strong>What's the max drive size for SATA?</strong><hr></blockquote>
144 petabytes--that's 144 million gigabytes, or 144,000 terabytes of data.
It's worth mentioning a 32-bit OS can't deal with those amounts anyway.
<strong>
Tell me about it. This is what DVD burners are for though
well...when I first got my DVR-104 the day after Pioneer officially launched it, DVD-R media was still like $2.0 for 1x...and coasters were too expensive, but since OS 9 crashed so much....Finally managed to make 90+ DVDs, which contains 'bout half of my collection
* fast random access an unspoken criteria?
* headbending limits of quantum physics?
* pure bytes/box and bang/buck?
bearing in mind this is current hardware
since it seems we're vectoring from magnetic to optical platters and a variety of alternatives to "pure" HD (a solo drive, of unstated form factor)
- RAID: <a href="http://www.ciprico.com/"; target="_blank">ciprico</a> *u* mount 15,000 rpm drivepacks >1 Tb
- Tape:
- MagneticRam:
- holographic:
- quantum:
- not counting the net itself for storage
and i'd mention the human brain, but conan doyle's sherlock holmes once said "the brain is an attic with finite space... if one wants to add things, one first may need to throw things out"(not the only maker... but ibm gets linkage below)
Terabyte tape drives from <a href="http://www.storage.ibm.com/press/announce/20020513.html"; target="_blank"> IBM</a>
some actual rocket scientist at NASA have had >2 Tb tape drive technology for years, but IIRC the tape speed over the heads approached 2kph and would shred desks if it snapped
the SRTM mission used VHS tapes to pack <a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/statistics.html"; target="_blank"> 11 days >12 Tb</a> of digital doppler info... 2 more _years_ to unpack and decode than capture
<a href="http://www.almaden.ibm.com/st/projects/magneto/mram/"; target="_blank">10 angstroms... 4 atom layers</a>
1Mb/page (2001 data) from <a href="http://www.inphase-technologies.com/technology/"; target="_blank">InPhase</a>
and my favourite feynman spin off
info better than a <a href="http://www.almaden.ibm.com/st/projects/quantum/intro/"; target="_blank">magic 8-ball</a>
helpful or just hmmm?