1024 Terabytes on a single hard drive in 5 years?

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Mr.Magnetichead
Posts: 2001
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Mr.Magnetichead »

Dell and their like. A.K.A shitty computers bought by shitty people.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

I some how doubt we will have 1024 terabytes on a single hard drive available by 2011. Look even if we say that already in 2006 1 terabyte is available on a hard drive then according to a simplified version of Moore’s Law (Technology capacity doubles every 18 months) this is what we will have:

18 months – 2 terabytes
36 months – 4 terabytes
54 months – 6 terabytes
72 months – 12 terabytes

Only in 2012 or 6 years we will reach 12 terabytes.

I’m not talking about DELL, I was talking about average hard drive size.
Mr.Magnetichead
Posts: 2001
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Mr.Magnetichead »

Moore's Law isn't accurate any more.
Grudge
Posts: 8587
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Grudge »

That's quite a bastardisation of Moores law.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

Mr.Magnetichead: Moore's Law is still accurate, where are you getting this from? If anything we aren't reaching certain points because productions cost increase, not the other way around.

Grudge: No, it really isn't.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

Also look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk#2000s

1991 - 100 megabytes
1995 - 2 gigabytes
1997 - 10 gigabytes
2002 - 137 gigabytes
2005 - 500 gigabytes
^misantropia^
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm

Post by ^misantropia^ »

BlueGene wrote:Mr.Magnetichead: Moore's Law is still accurate, where are you getting this from? If anything we aren't reaching certain points because productions cost increase, not the other way around.
Not quite. Take CPU speeds for instance, they're not doubling every 18 months anymore because we're hitting the limits of current technology (you can only miniaturize so much before quantum effects kick in).
^misantropia^
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm

Re: 1024 Terabytes on a single hard drive in 5 years?

Post by ^misantropia^ »

riddla wrote:http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7929
That article is the biggest pile of horse manure I've seen in quite a while.
"But now there's a way to rotate or spin the individual electrons that make up, or surround, the molecule," he says.
Bullocks. Electrons swarm in probabilistic clouds around atoms. Yes, you could alter the spin of a single electron but there is no way to pick a specific electron. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, anyone? Anyway, the article's footprint should've given it away:
Thomas is a 30-year pioneer whose projects include a computer with a 3D display, instant response, able to run every available OS and application simultaneously, virtually no power consumption or moving parts and complete security - and whose physical component is about the size of a pack of playing cards.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

You were serious until you were proven wrong.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

^misantropia^ wrote:
BlueGene wrote:Mr.Magnetichead: Moore's Law is still accurate, where are you getting this from? If anything we aren't reaching certain points because productions cost increase, not the other way around.
Not quite. Take CPU speeds for instance, they're not doubling every 18 months anymore because we're hitting the limits of current technology (you can only miniaturize so much before quantum effects kick in).
For the most part it's accurate ofcourse it's not 100% maybe 60% but on a larger scale it's pretty accurate.
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

liposuction
Turbine
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:34 pm

Post by Turbine »

Emoticons
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/Turbinator/knocked_the_fuck_out.gif[/img]
Turbine
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:34 pm

Post by Turbine »

So 5 years from now we will never need to delete a single file from our PC's?

Can you imagine defraging a 1024 Tera HDD?
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/Turbinator/knocked_the_fuck_out.gif[/img]
User avatar
Scourge
Posts: 15559
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Scourge »

Turbine wrote:So 5 years from now we will never need to delete a single file from our PC's?

Can you imagine defraging a 1024 Tera HDD?
The comparative processor and ram speed should keep it similar to what we deal with now. It took roughly the same amount of time for me to defrag my 1.2 gig years ago as it does now for my 160g roughly. Back then I couldn't fathom filling up gigs of space, now it's pretty common. It will all be relative I would imagine.
Chupacabra
Posts: 3783
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:00 am

Post by Chupacabra »

mjrpes wrote:This is why I am holding off on buying a new computer right now.
:olo:
User avatar
Foo
Posts: 13840
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 7:00 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Foo »

I didn;t read the thread, but has anyone covered this being the reason TB isn't going to buy a new hard drive at this time?
BlueGene
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:09 am

Post by BlueGene »

Turbine wrote:So 5 years from now we will never need to delete a single file from our PC's?

Can you imagine defraging a 1024 Tera HDD?
Defragging is only needed for Fat/NTFS file systems, I just read that in Linux it's not required at all and makes little difference. So I think in 5 years it wont be an issue for even Windows.
User avatar
MKJ
Posts: 32582
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:00 am

Post by MKJ »

Foo wrote:I didn;t read the thread, but has anyone covered this being the reason TB isn't going to buy a new hard drive at this time?
leave that to mr herpes
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/Emka+Jee][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Emka+Jee.jpg[/img][/url]
Post Reply