|
|
|
Western Digital introduces the first 2TB hard drive
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 27 January, 2009
Western Digital has just announced a new SATA II hard drive with a whopping 2TB (2 trillion Byte) capacity. The company says not only is it bigger than other hard drives on the market, but it also uses less power.
"With the launch of the new WD Caviar Green 2 TB hard drive, customers receive the additional capacities needed to operate today's highly advanced programs and high-resolution ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
cmcjk
Newbie
|
28. January 2009 @ 11:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
"Actually, 1024 is pretty universal among most operating systems"
I thought it was universal with all OS's. 1024 comes from the fact that they are based on binary and not a decimal system. 10 to the power of 3 = 1000, 2 to the power of 10 = 1024. Using 2TB = 2,000,000,000,000 bytes is just a way to push the numbers up for the ignorant.
FYI 2,000,000,000,000 is 1 "billion" in the long number system and 1 "trillion" in the short system. Most people now use the short system.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. January 2009 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
IDK, I haven't checked them all, so I didn't want to say that, but suffice it to say that most computers use binary units as opposed to decimal ones. :-D
Interesting tidbit about the long vs. short numbering, too. Now that you mention it, I seem to remember hearing about that at some point, but it's since slipped my mind.
|
|
wdtv
Newbie
|
30. January 2009 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
I got a 1.5 TB Seagate External Hard drive. It's not bad, a little slow though. Paid $155 for it online. Great for my Wdtv.
Oh but what really gets me ticked is you have 1.5 tb, and then look at the properties, you only really have 1.3 tb.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. January 2009 @ 10:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. January 2009 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by wdtv:
I got a 1.5 TB Seagate External Hard drive. It's not bad, a little slow though. Paid $155 for it online. Great for my Wdtv.
Oh but what really gets me ticked is you have 1.5 tb, and then look at the properties, you only really have 1.3 tb.
You paid to much,seagate sucks and 1.5 HD has issues........
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
9. February 2009 @ 13:07 |
Link to this message
|
seagate 1.5 TB is not as bad as some people are saying (mostly without having it, just after reading reviews). i have two since blackfriday, both are working w/o trouble.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. February 2009 @ 13:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mukhis:
seagate 1.5 TB is not as bad as some people are saying (mostly without having it, just after reading reviews). i have two since blackfriday, both are working w/o trouble.
Still would not trust or pay much for the SG brand its just not what it use to be.
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
9. February 2009 @ 13:17 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Still would not trust or pay much for the SG brand its just not what it use to be.
i paid $103 ea (after live cashback, shipping and tax), not bad i think, after all, 5 yr warranty for peace of mind. right now, all good HDDs are almost equally priced, so no complaints from my part.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. February 2009 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Still would not trust or pay much for the SG brand its just not what it use to be.
i paid $103 ea (after live cashback, shipping and tax), not bad i think, after all, 5 yr warranty for peace of mind. right now, all good HDDs are almost equally priced, so no complaints from my part.
I could get a 1.5TB for 120 for 3 or 4 months now I chose to get a 89$ WD 1TB because I'd rather not get a SG drive.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
9. February 2009 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. February 2009 @ 13:58
|
|
