Western Digital launches world's first 2TB Hard Drive

Western Digital haven't officially launched their brand-new WD20EADS 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green HDD, however it is already available for purchase at Australia's Mwave online store. Priced at AU$377.80 (US$250) Western Digital will be the first ever hard drive maker to provide users with a 2TB hard disk drive.


Image Courtesy: Engadget

So far, Seagate's Barracuda 7200.12 packs 500GB per platter, and has the highest areal density of 329 Gigabits per square inch. Western Digital might have reached this areal density with the release of its 2TB hard drive. Further product specifications are not known yet.

Seagate and Samsung offer a maximum drive capacity of 1.5TB and yet another hard drive manufacturer Hitachi offers hard drives of capacity upto 1TB.

Seagate is also expected to release its line of 2TB hard drives sometime this year , but the company has its own problems dealing with the enraged customers who own the Barracuda 1.5TB hard drives. This could be an opportunity for Seagate's competitors - Western Digital, Hitachi and Samsung, to gain a better market position?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Removing your Windows 7 installation, partition

Next Story

Microsoft continues to warn of IE8 lock-in for XP SP3 users

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This article is total BS!!!!

I've owned a 2TB drive for months!! Got it back on 10/15/2008 from newegg.com:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822204072

This article needs to be removed right now, makes neowin look like real dumb asses!!

Notice neither of the pages linked make that stupid statement!!

hahah I knew it would work, wanted some addition and boy did I get it.. Was hoping for some fan boys..

I really wish they would start advertising actual memory size instead of the misleading "standardized" memory sizes.

They are actually advertising the actual storage size; it's the RAM manufacturers that tend to use the SI units "Kilo" (10^3) and "Mega" (10^6) and "Giga" (10^9) incorrectly. Also, some storage space is lost due to the file system after formatting, but they can't make assumptions as for those things, as file systems used vary.

Jugalator said,
They are actually advertising the actual storage size; it's the RAM manufacturers that tend to use the SI units "Kilo" (10^3) and "Mega" (10^6) and "Giga" (10^9) incorrectly. Also, some storage space is lost due to the file system after formatting, but they can't make assumptions as for those things, as file systems used vary.


I think he means the "after" formatting size.. You know, like with CRTs where an inch or so was hidden by the frame and you couldn't use it yet they still advertised it as being that big.

Formatting doesn't reduce the size by much at all. Essentially, a 1000GB hard drive is actually 1000GB, however, windows reports the drive capacity as 931GiB, but labels it as 931GB. So its actually windows and other operating systems that are wrong.

1GB = 1000MB.
1GiB = 1024 MiB.

BigCheese said,
1GB = 1000MB.
1GiB = 1024 MiB.

The whole GiB thing has only been around since 1999 and at that it is just a recommendation by the International Electrotechnical Commission. Computers store information in binary (base 2) thats why binary Gigabyte is the correct method.

Foub said,
like with CRTs where an inch or so was hidden by the frame and you couldn't use it yet they still advertised it as being that big.

That is why on the boxes it always said in smaller print " Viewable size 13.6" for 15''and it'd give you the correct number. This varies with vendors though.

What about Windows Experience Index rating in W7? -2.0? They put much effort into increasing the capacity but the performance of the drives remains almost the same over recent years (SSDs excluded).

Actually, no. When the increase the data density of the drives, the read speed goes up. The new Seagate 7200.12 drives with 500GB platters have a 160MB/s data rate, the older 7200.11 drives with 250GB platters have 105MB/s data rate.

I have two Western Digital 1TB Green Power (simply the 1TB version of the one advertised above) Mirroring each other and another 1TB as extra storage..

Striking a nice balance for my storage at the moment.

I still remember looking through a CompUSA circular and seeing the first 1GB hard drives. My jaw still hurts from hitting the floor so hard. Now we have TB hard drives, and a while back I was reading about the upcoming SDXC flash cards supporting up to 2TB on something the size of a postage stamp. It's crazy.

Just because the SDXC standard supports 2TB cards, its doesn't mean the technology is there yet. It'll be a while before we see 2TB SD cards.

Seagate and Samsung offer a maximum drive capacity of 1.5GB and yet another hard drive manufacturer Hitachi offers hard drives of capacity upto 1GB.

1.5GB? Wow... what an age we live in :p

But seriously, thanks for the news

The only problem with having such big HDDs now is what do you do when you lose one?

I'd really really hate to lose 2TB out of the blue.

GP007 said,
The only problem with having such big HDDs now is what do you do when you lose one?

I'd really really hate to lose 2TB out of the blue.

I have two backup drives (500Gb each) and they stay far away of another.. I will never ever be without an backup.

I plan to buy a 2TB dive or mabe higher in 2010 so I will be able to record HD Tv shows with Media Center. But for sure that I will only do this if I am able to make backups.

The only problem with having such big HDDs now is what do you do when you lose one?

I'd really really hate to lose 2TB out of the blue.


If it's private data, you do as you did with a 500 GB drive -- encrypt it.
If it's valuable data, you still do like you did with other drives -- backup it. (uhm, preferrably to other hard drive(s))

Oh, and RAID is no backup solution; this is an all too common misconception. RAID is there mostly for e.g. server uptime reasons; if a drive would fail, the server would be up until a new replacement drive is added. But if you overwrite data on a RAID-mirrored drive, the mirror will get overwritten as well, and then no RAID system in the world will help you, only actual backups. The same goes if you have your computer stolen, or if there is an unfortunate "catastrophic" failure. JournalSpace.com was one web site that used RAID-1, where the admin thought it was OK for backing it up. Until something went awry on a disk and overwrote/deleted tons of data, which the other RAID drive dutyfully replicated. Mwhahaha.

GP007 said,
The only problem with having such big HDDs now is what do you do when you lose one?

I'd really really hate to lose 2TB out of the blue.

Buy two of them and use RAID.

Jugalator said,
If it's private data, you do as you did with a 500 GB drive -- encrypt it.
If it's valuable data, you still do like you did with other drives -- backup it. (uhm, preferrably to other hard drive(s))

Oh, and RAID is no backup solution; this is an all too common misconception. RAID is there mostly for e.g. server uptime reasons; if a drive would fail, the server would be up until a new replacement drive is added. But if you overwrite data on a RAID-mirrored drive, the mirror will get overwritten as well, and then no RAID system in the world will help you, only actual backups. The same goes if you have your computer stolen, or if there is an unfortunate "catastrophic" failure. JournalSpace.com was one web site that used RAID-1, where the admin thought it was OK for backing it up. Until something went awry on a disk and overwrote/deleted tons of data, which the other RAID drive dutyfully replicated. Mwhahaha. ;)

lol, love how you post all that only for the next poster to suggest,"Buy two of them and use RAID." :P

GP007 said,
The only problem with having such big HDDs now is what do you do when you lose one?

I'd really really hate to lose 2TB out of the blue.

Get two and run them in RAID 1. I'd do nothing less even for a 1TB drive as well. That's just too much data to risk.

I recommend a sync folder application like GoodSync - mirroring your data to a second (usually external) drive. You can schedule it to replicate every 24 hours (or less/more) and so you avoid the immediacy problems inherent in a RAID mentioned above. In other words, you have plenty of time before the backup is corrupted like the master...unlike with a RAID.