4TB- WHEN!?

Don't the 3TB drives already use 1TB platters? Whats so damn hard about putting in another platter? They've had 4 (and 5!) platter drives before.
That prototype was from march.
 
4 platter drives are louder, hotter, generate more vibrations and are less reliable than 3 platter drives. I've had 4 platter drives before and I will not buy such drives again.
 
omniscence said:
4 platter drives are louder, hotter, generate more vibrations and are less reliable than 3 platter drives. I've had 4 platter drives before and I will not buy such drives again.
Click to expand...

That might be true in some 7200RPM models. But I have several 3TB 5400RPM 4 platter & even 5 platter drives and they are smooth, very cool running, and quiet. To the contrary I've had single platter 7200RPM Samsung drives that vibrated a fair good amount, and these don't at all.
 
Worst thing as that as drive capacities grow, so to does the loss of space due to the 1000 v 1024 descriptive capacities. So your brand new 4TB will really only be 3.7TB...Thats a loss of 276GB
 
Worst thing as that as drive capacities grow, so to does the loss of space due to the 1000 v 1024 descriptive capacities. So your brand new 4TB will really only be 3.7TB...Thats a loss of 276GB
Click to expand...

No a 4TB drive is still 4TB or 3.7 TiB. Windows chooses to use the wrong term in all of the drive space calculations to not confuse users who do not understand the difference. I mean it displays its units in TiB but reports as TB. Other operating systems properly display drive space in TiB or TB and use the correct calculation for either.
 
I understand that, was just pointing it out that its "seen" as a loss. There's even a sticky here to explain it for those who dont. ;)
 
howamidifferent said:
Worst thing as that as drive capacities grow, so to does the loss of space due to the 1000 v 1024 descriptive capacities. So your brand new 4TB will really only be 3.7TB...Thats a loss of 276GB
Click to expand...

Yeah pisses me off how they missmarket them. They are using the metric system as if it were any other measurements, but in computers, the metric system is based on 1024 not 1000, so yeah you lose space because of their bad numbering. I don't get why they can't make them true TB even if they'd be 10% more expensive. At least you'd see a nicer rounded number in the OS. :D My raid 5 with 5 1TB drives comes up to 3.7TB... crazy that two drives in raid 1 could equivalent that!
 
Red Squirrel said:
but in computers, the metric system is based on 1024 not 1000, so yeah you lose space because of their bad numbering. I don't get why they can't make them true TB even if they'd be 10% more expensive.
Click to expand...

A bit pedantic perhaps, but the metric (SI) system isn't "Different" in computers - it always has been based on powers of 10, and using it any other way is - by definition - wrong.

IEC has defined binary prefixes - which are what you are wanting, and (as was already pointed out) - they have different prefixes. Tebi (T), Gebi (Gi), etc.

While I don't doubt that the motivation to display values "correctly" came because it was cheaper (lower capacity) it nevertheless is correct. 4TB is 4TB. It may be 3.7TiB, but that's just a units game.
 
I see that, problem is, in the operating system world TB really means TiB. Whether you are in Linux or in Windows, 1KB = 1024 bytes, not 1000. Though I have seen some apps use TiB, and then calculate TB in powers of 10 but it seems inconsistent.
 
In linux cli (which I use the most to do file operations) most of the utilities I use give you the option of using KiB or KB ... and have them defined correctly. I have not paid much attention to the disk space reporting of kde 4.7 or gnome 3 so I can't comment on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top