main
Report a problem

Cram 4TB on Desktop Drives by 2009, Hitachi Says

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 15 October 2007 - 11:36 · 33 comments & 13033 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies plans to announce Monday it has developed technology that will quadruple the storage capacity of desktop hard drives within the next two years. The new reading-head technology will allow the company to cram more data on hard drives. Desktop computers could attain a capacity of 4TB of storage while laptop storage could reach 1TB, according to Hitachi.

Hard drives are currently doubling in capacity every two years, said John Best, chief technologist at Hitachi Global Storage Technologies. The new reading-head technology will allow an even greater capacity boost while shrinking the size of disk drives, Best said.

View: The full story
News source: PCWorld

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 33 additional comments
(7 replies) #1 Fubar on 15 Oct 2007 - 12:05
no thanks 1tb is too much to put on one disk , specially if it fails , 4tb would just be a nightmare when it fails , and it will since its mechanical they should be finding away to store data without any moving parts heh
#1.1 Beastage on 15 Oct 2007 - 12:11
Quote - (Fubar said @ #1)
no thanks 1tb is too much to put on one disk , specially if it fails , 4tb would just be a nightmare when it fails , and it will since its mechanical they should be finding away to store data without any moving parts heh


So? just get 3 more and raid them for backup... sure only 8TB will be left... but woh! fast and secure... unless house burns down or something.
#1.2 Fubar on 15 Oct 2007 - 12:15
Quote - (Beastage said @ #1.1)
Quote - (Fubar said @ #1)
no thanks 1tb is too much to put on one disk , specially if it fails , 4tb would just be a nightmare when it fails , and it will since its mechanical they should be finding away to store data without any moving parts heh


So? just get 3 more and raid them for backup... sure only 8TB will be left... but woh! fast and secure... unless house burns down or something.


that still doesn't solve the problem that its mechanical and parts will fail , like i said they should be moving into researching and developing new methods of storage one that doesn't use mechanical parts specially at that size of storage they want to do , and besides buying two 4tb drives would cost a fortune lol
#1.3 XerXis on 15 Oct 2007 - 15:16
i'm sure people also said then when going from 4 mb to 8 mb drives. hd video will need large amounts of disk space if you want to store it.

Besides, non mechanical memory not researched? what do you call flash?
#1.4 shroom on 15 Oct 2007 - 15:55
Heh, I've seen flash drives fail just as often as hard drives...
#1.5 Fubar on 15 Oct 2007 - 17:15
Quote - (XerXis said @ #1.3)
i'm sure people also said then when going from 4 mb to 8 mb drives. hd video will need large amounts of disk space if you want to store it.

Besides, non mechanical memory not researched? what do you call flash?



i didn't say it wasn't researched , and i wasn't talking about flash maybe its just me thinking out side of the box
#1.6 PureLegend on 15 Oct 2007 - 19:44
Quote - (Fubar said @ #1.5)
i didn't say it wasn't researched , and i wasn't talking about flash maybe its just me thinking out side of the box

What's wrong with Flash or SSDs? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
#1.7 myrhymeandreason on 16 Oct 2007 - 03:41
Quote - (shroom said @ #1.4)
Heh, I've seen flash drives fail just as often as hard drives...

O RLY?
I have had several hard drives fail, but only 1 of 5 flash drives, all different brands and sizes.
#2 Mystnight on 15 Oct 2007 - 12:37
Bring it on, I have 2 1TB drives in my system, and Im running out of room.....
#3 DJ-Light on 15 Oct 2007 - 12:39
Flash Drive also fail.
#4 +Dave MB on 15 Oct 2007 - 14:05
Solid State storage is still way too expensive though, although I agree we should be moving away from mechanical parts .
(2 replies) #5 C++ on 15 Oct 2007 - 15:01
Usually I'd wave this kind of "technology" off as just another concept, but seeing as how it's Hitachi I fully expect it becoming mainstream! Hitachi did introduce the perpendicular hard drive technology, after all. That, and they've been the first to break every storage milestone (both desktop and laptop) in recent memory.
#5.1 PureLegend on 15 Oct 2007 - 19:46
You sure you're not thinking about Seagate?
#5.2 jbrunt1990 on 16 Oct 2007 - 16:40
Quote - (PureLegend said @ #5.1)
You sure you're not thinking about Seagate?


No it was hitachi, they even made a video about it!
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/rec...rAnimation.html
(1 reply) #6 david13lt on 15 Oct 2007 - 15:07
TB is not very much, it could only hold 10-20 HD-DVD/Blu-Ray rips.
#6.1 Izlude on 15 Oct 2007 - 16:08
oooh so that's what people store that's so huge. i've always wondered about that
(1 reply) #7 Kushan on 15 Oct 2007 - 15:15
How come this article says 2009 and this article says 2011?
#7.1 PsykX on 15 Oct 2007 - 20:45
Many articles say 2011. 2009 is nearly impossible to realize.
#8 +warwagon on 15 Oct 2007 - 16:40
they have to figure out a better way to store it because as it is going now, you get alot of errors when the drive density is that cramed. Though i'm sure the purpindicular drive helps, because you know what they say

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/rec...rAnimation.html

Last edited by warwagon on 15 Oct 2007 - 17:25
#9 Sazz181 on 15 Oct 2007 - 17:07
Let's not forget that this is only Hitachi saying that at the moment. And anyway, with the introduction of HD-DVD and Bluray, people are going to need much bigger disks, for games and movies. And other companies are working on new technology - Samsung has released numerous Solid State Drives that can cut boot times in half (though very expensive - £400/$800 for 60Gb). However, I doubt that we will have both performance AND capacity drives by 2009 - and any 4TB SSD Hard Drive will undoubtedly cost a hell of a lot. That's my 2 cents anyway.
#10 Shadrack on 15 Oct 2007 - 18:59
I thought we'd already have 4TB by now tbh...
(1 reply) #11 +Frazell Thomas on 15 Oct 2007 - 20:57
Am I the only one who thinks the speed of HDs need to be increased more so than the space? I find it insane that a HD in 2007 performs (in direct platter to bus transfers speeds not cache (burst) speeds) roughly the same as a drive from 1999... I'd be happy if we stayed at 1TB if the transfer speeds topped 150MB/s or something... being in the 60MB/s-70MB/s range is just disgusting...

Increasing HD speeds would make computers immensely faster since the HD is the sole weakest link... Maybe this new head technology will help in that area? Since the higher the density the more the head can "grab" at once, but there was no mention of it so it is just idle speculation on my part. Ether way, I vote for faster disks more so than more spacious disks...
#11.1 Samboini on 16 Oct 2007 - 10:46
I agree completely. Bring on quicker speeds, or slash SSD prices!
#12 hardgiant on 15 Oct 2007 - 22:26
I'd rather have a 500GiB super fast hard drive.
#13 jmmycrackcorn on 15 Oct 2007 - 23:05
I'm still using a pair of 300 GB drives in RAID 0. Time to upgrade, I guess.
(3 replies) #14 hentaiboy on 15 Oct 2007 - 23:28
What ****es me off with these HD (and CPU) manufacturers is that they develop new technologies to double/triple/quadruple the size or speed of their products and then roll them out incrementally over several years, taking us on a never-ending 'upgrade' path.

If they have the technology to build 4TB drives then why don't they release them TOMORROW???
#14.1 +Frazell Thomas on 15 Oct 2007 - 23:36
Gives them the chance to recoup the costs assosiated with developing the technology and it keeps the cost of technology down. If you're not an "early adopter" then the costs to upgrade stays rather constant with constant technology advances.

So, basically, the do it to keep costs down and to recoup R&D costs... This isn't unique to technology companies... It is done in almost every industry that produces products that gets improvements. Cars is an example that comes to mind. They make an advancement in car technology and release a new car on that technology and then they refresh the model with minor updates each year until the next major advancement.
#14.2 hentaiboy on 15 Oct 2007 - 23:54
Quote - (Frazell Thomas said @ #14.1)
Cars is an example that comes to mind. They make an advancement in car technology and release a new car on that technology and then they refresh the model with minor updates each year until the next major advancement.


Wouldn't call cars a good example. They are a very mature (one could argue outdated) technology with very few 'major' advancements. The upgrade path is basically done on looks (this years model makes last years model look old) and incremental size increase (this years model has 1 cm more leg room etc).

Surely if Hitachi offered a 4TB HD tomorrow at the same price as the oppositions' 500GB drives then they would corner the market and recoup their 'development costs' back rather quickly.

I blame Industry collusion...
#14.3 +Frazell Thomas on 16 Oct 2007 - 01:23
Quote - (hentaiboy said @ #14.2)
Quote - (Frazell Thomas said @ #14.1)
Cars is an example that comes to mind. They make an advancement in car technology and release a new car on that technology and then they refresh the model with minor updates each year until the next major advancement.


Wouldn't call cars a good example. They are a very mature (one could argue outdated) technology with very few 'major' advancements. The upgrade path is basically done on looks (this years model makes last years model look old) and incremental size increase (this years model has 1 cm more leg room etc).

Surely if Hitachi offered a 4TB HD tomorrow at the same price as the oppositions' 500GB drives then they would corner the market and recoup their 'development costs' back rather quickly.

I blame Industry collusion...


There are advancements in car technology with each new model (not the yearly increments, I mean actual models). You can argue that those advancements are not significant or that they are, but they are considered advacements by the companies investing billions in them and the consumers looking at spending billions to acquire it.

The same is usable in technology... Do we NEED 4TB HDs today? Probably not... And, as I argued above, since the speeds of HDs are pretty much stagnant does is it really any different than an "incremental size increase" (to quote you)?

The fact is there are people who see the additions to the car as beneficial just as there are people who see 4TB as beneficial. There is a cost to developing that technology and those costs have to be recouped...

Also, Hitachi would not benefit by dumping 4TB HDs today at the price of a 500GB HD. They would only hurt themselves (as they wouldn't be able to produce enough of them to meet world demand as they would essentially be making the only HD in demand) by being unable to deliver their orders on time. The market would also bounce the price back into check. Since the HD would be in super high demand and the supply would be so low retailers would adjust the price accordingly to reduce demand. So the retailer would get super high markups at the expense of Hitachi who needs to recover R&D costs on the technology...

It is a nice dream that they could just drop it all out at once, but the reality is much different. The HD business is extremely competitive so these companies drop out their best as soon as they can to get some kind of competitive edge over the next company.
#15 Tikitiki on 16 Oct 2007 - 01:36
So wait, is the platter going to be an inch thicker now?

#16 tele-fragd on 16 Oct 2007 - 06:24
I'd rather they develop consistently faster drives than ultra high capacity drives.
(1 reply) #17 Budious on 16 Oct 2007 - 06:33
My dream of caching the entire web's porn content on my local drive can someday soon be true!!! Seriously, I don't even know wtf to do with 1TB at the moment
#17.1 Samboini on 16 Oct 2007 - 10:47
HD porn..!

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)