Seagate Confirms 1TB Hard Drive

Thanks to several members including slimy for writing in about this one.

Seagate has confirmed to the folks over at DailyTech, that they plan to launch a 1TB (Terabyte) hard drive sometime in the first half of 2007. The monster drive will make use of Seagate's perpendicular recording technology, made popular by their 7200.10 series desktop drives. More information over at DailyTech.

"Seagate's 1TB hard drive will be our second generation 3.5-inch hard drive to feature capacity-boosting perpendicular recording technology, and it will use fewer heads and discs than similar-capacity products we expect to see from our competitors. It is clear that fewer heads and discs, along with our proven perpendicular technology, can increase drive reliability, and also reduce operating temperatures, power consumption, noise, and weight."

View: Perpendicular Recording
View: DailyTech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Novell: We're a 'mixed-source' company

Next Story

Brazil Court Orders YouTube to Shut Down

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Has anyone looked at the Wikipedia article referenced in this post for perpendicular recording? At the end it says that Hitachi released a 1TB drive in January 2007?

For people that genuinely need that much space for daily use i'm sure this is a god send.

I'll take 250GB @ 10,000RPM over this any day though.

Bah, I would still need 4 to backup my entire DVD collection and have a nice little media center! Can't wait for the 4TB one! :redface:
But probably by then I will have a huge HD-DVD collection and still not know how to go about it...

That drive will be a bitch for its first format. I'm formating a Seagate 320gig as we speak and got another to do in a min, and its taking a good hour and half. Also I must agree that they should now start using a true TB now that they have beat the TB barrier, it would just be nice to open my computer and see capacity 1.00TB and not 931.32. Oh well, i think i need a few of them for my new pc :P

Call me an idiot, but honestly... :redface: I want it if not just for numeric reasons.
I need a new computer in "early 2007" anyway, and wouldn't it be nice to have one drive at 1 TB.

I will need to raid a few of these drives when/if I get them. Having 1Tb on a drive without redundancy is just asking for trouble. I've learned my lesson before . . Redundancy is key.

Hopefully the 750's drop in price so I can pick up a few more of those.

Okay, if you are a MB, GB and TB guy, then you should also understand that a 80 minute CD is 734.0032 MB, your RAM is probably 1073.741824 MB, happy now?

~*McoreD*~ said,
Okay, if you are a MB, GB and TB guy, then you should also understand that a 80 minute CD is 734.0032 MB, your RAM is probably 1073.741824 MB, happy now?
1GB = 1024MB

No one uses MiB/GiB. No computer class tought in the USA teaches it like that. No professional in the industry writes it like that. Technically correct - yes, but for 2 decades were using MB/KB/GB and thats the industry standard.

This is GREAT news. This means that hopefully 750 GB HDD price will come down.

Sadly however this new HDD is actually a 931.322574615479 GiB HDD. I wonder when the first 1 TiB HDD comes out.

it's true.. recording artists (bands, and such) use up to 10TB of storage on a single CD of recordings and playbacks..

no normal user could use 1TB of storage even if they have all windows running with the same programs on each..

Normal? In the not-to-distant future (now even, for quite a few people) recording HDTV using BeyondTV or Media Center will be "normal"; at 9mbps, that stuff takes up a whole lot of disk space. 250GB isn't nearly enough for me for just 6mbps analog TV (3GB/hour), and I don't even record/watch much! With new games often being in the multiple gigabytes (my old UT2K4 installation is 10! ) and large MP cameras (5+GB photos here) all that really starts adding up...

The above is true

With more people getting into downloading movies and things like music and digtial photos and games using more and more disk space, this is not something that only the movie or music industry people will use.

I for one would love to have a 1TB drive

Wouldn't it be much nicer to have one single 1TB drive instead of four 250gb drives or 2 500gb drives?

lylesback2 said,
it's true.. recording artists (bands, and such) use up to 10TB of storage on a single CD of recordings and playbacks..

no normal user could use 1TB of storage even if they have all windows running with the same programs on each..

I must say I do real time recording of radio spectrum data that's 40GB+ a day. 1TB drives would be a god send for us to use :-)

Rather than the warm and noisy raid arrays we are forced to use now! And yes I am a regular user + it is nice to see Vista have a very very small blue bar under a local drive thats huge!

Oh and it is useful for the odd MP3 or two.

Regards,

Defiant

billyea said,
Only to ever be used by serious downloaders/people in the movie industry.

My first PC had a 40MB drive, and I still remember hearing about the first drives to break 1GB and thinking I'd never need that much space.

Heck, I had a BBC micro with 100KB floppy drives, and only needed a handful of those to store pretty much all my stuff.

"Wouldn't it be much nicer to have one single 1TB drive instead of four 250gb drives or 2 500gb drives?"

Yes, if not only for more space in the computer and an easier time cooling them all. However, it *is* more eggs in one basket so to speak. If one of a 4x250 array would fail, it would "just" be about 250 GB. On the other hand, just two of these and you'd at least be able to run a basic RAID setup for at least some extra safety against catastrophic failures, although RAID doesn't help much against "logical" failures in the file system, as that's often mirrored too.

they said the same thing about 1GB hard drives. My first HDD was 540MB and I never thought I'd be able to fill it.

I've not got a 120GB, 250GB and a 60GB, and most of it is full. 1TB is not only nice, but will be necessary for any HD media center worth its salt.

NightmarE D said,
The above is true
Wouldn't it be much nicer to have one single 1TB drive instead of four 250gb drives or 2 500gb drives?

Actually, four 250gb drives or 2 500gb drives would be a much better option.

One main reason is you always have a "spare" drive incase the main one fails you. You could keep the os, software, temp and other disposable data on the first drive and more important/permanent data on other drives.

The second reason is performance. If you run the two or more drives in a RAID array, you'd get double or more speed (Read and Write) depending on how many drives are there in the array . Plus, if you spare a drive or two for a mirror set, so you even have your backup part covered. (Raid 1+0)