It has to do with the RPM of it, though... so it could quite possibly not be any slower at all. And also, it won't apply with some of the newer technology. Speed is one of the reasons they're trying to come up with more ways of doing it.
Printable View
It has to do with the RPM of it, though... so it could quite possibly not be any slower at all. And also, it won't apply with some of the newer technology. Speed is one of the reasons they're trying to come up with more ways of doing it.
man I hope these new drives come out soon, and are available on the site i want to buy my comp from. man, it would be amazing switching from 1.2 gigs to 200 gigs! does anybody know around how much they will cost?
IBM was bought out by Hitachi.Quote:
Originally posted here by xmaddness
wow, 200 GB's! Just imagine how many mp3's i could store with that sucker. I wonder what ever happened with IBM's electron storage drives. Supposedly they were using electrons to store info on drives. Havn't heard much about it since. I also remeber hearing about another drive that stored info holographically. So, instead of just saving info on the surface of the platter, you could save info throughout the entire platter itself. Any one hear about these?
I remember my parents first computer had a 10 MB hard drive (DOS 2.0) and I thought I'd never run out of space. After a year, my father found 2 20 MB drives and put those in instead, and we were in heaven... Now, my main workstations have a minimum of 60-80 GB. The computer I'm using right now has dual 120's.Quote:
Does this make anyone else feel old? I can remember the days when people would have laughed at you if you mentioned giga anything and even mega was big.
Regarding the speed, honestly, my 120s are the fastest drives I have (though that has to do with the amount of cache, 8 MB each). But still, I have plenty of 6-18 GB drives that are slower than my 30s, 60s, and greater. The slower drives are all 5,400 rpm, rather than 7,200, and they're all older as well (which means not only are they slower, but they louder too).Quote:
Has anyone thought about how slow these thing would be. i have a forty cause the sixty's + take longer time to run programs and system function, oh well
Just thought I'd give my feedback. :-)
AJ
Is the cache the buffer as well? I was looking up the specs for the hard drive I was going to buy on the w digital site, and I did not see cache, but I did see buffer.
Khakisrule > Yeah, it should be the same. If you look at the main page (http://www.westerndigital.com/) there's an image labeled "The Secret To Speed: WD'S 8 MB Cache". They may use the term interchangably, but I'm not sure. You'd have to look into it. Most WD's only come with 2 MB, if that helps.
AJ
Count me in :D.Quote:
Originally posted here by str34m3r
Does this make anyone else feel old? I can remember the days when people would have laughed at you if you mentioned giga anything and even mega was big.
I remember my first really big hdd at a size of 20mb. My first "really" big hdd was 420mb.. With the 420mb hdd could I run Dos, OS/2, *Nix and "Win3.x" and I still had some space left over for my BBS system :).
I guess I had enough space with the 420mb drive as with the 40gb's drives I have today, the storage demands have changed during the years as rapidly as the size of the disk's.
~micael
first mass storage 360k FDD, first HDD 5Mb .. I sold 2 comps yesterday for the wholesale cost of the 5Mb drive....
Ok.. now what will this thread be in another 10 years..
"geez.. you mean that when I replace my 30TB drive the smallest I can get is a 750TB..?"
or "I remember when 200G was large......"
Cheers