Check it out: A 1.6 Tb external hard drive.

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10129

On the screensavers yoshi made a 2 terrabyte pc.

Jee.

Zuhs.

With like 15 hard drives, iirc.

So... Anyone here wanna get me one for Christmas?

Common... It's only a grand.

So, is that a bunch of hard drives in one enclosure or one, big, non-standard disk drive? With like platters the size of CDs?

I think Windows would probably explode at that.

Windows can only hold so much space...what is it, like 4 terabytes? Something similar?

I know it can only handle 4 gigs of memory in 32-bit, 8 gigs (theoretically) in 64-bit

Damn, who the hell would need to use all that?

I don't even see how people can use hard drives over 160 GB. I mean, what all do you people have!?!?

Video editing, game editing, even massive amounts of photo editing.

I do all of that except photo editing, and its pretty hard to fill my 160 up.

What kind of video editing do you do?

I know people who export clips that are in the gigs, raw. They compress down to hundreds of megs, compressed.

Well for an example in film editing, when they were restoring the trilogy for DVD release all three films took up 478TB. So I can see cases where that space is needed. But for the average computer user? No way in hell.


Imagine the day when games require 1TB of disk space to install.

Actually, the theoretical memory limit for 64-bit is 16 exabytes (18446744073709551616 bytes)... It's exponential, not multiplicative...

wow. I can see how professionals could use it but why would anyone else need one?

Video editing would be the main reason for getting this. Even not that high of quality video (for stuff like student films) take up A LOT of space when using pretty much any video editor.

Damn, that's a ripoff. My friend has almost a terrabyte of space on his computer. I think he has 4 or 5 hard drives, but the cost of those combined is nowhere near a grand.

I've got a 3 Terabyte mega-computer at work, and that thing even has trouble holding all of the weddings, videos, skate videos, and even randomly recorded movies we've got on it. Video takes up an extreme ammount of room, that is, unless you're not too worried about quality.

JediKirby

This is, in fact, 4 hard drives.

warez anyone?... come on you know you all have it on your comps.... not me though

I'd see how long it takes to fill it with pr0n

Wrong.


according to them.

So it's only 1,600,000,000,000 bytes, which is only 1.46Tb.

Computers calculate in powers of 2, not 10.

Terabyte is 2^40 bytes. Yes, it isn't strictly a terabyte, as tera is 10^12, but bytes are always in powers of 2. In terms of networking, you might talk about terabits, that's in powers of 10, but I'm not sure what that'd be.

Exactly. I got a 120gb HDD with my new pc last year and figured I'd never fill it.....then I got a tv capture card and DVD burner. I got sick of constantly running out of space recording sat tv so I recently bought a 250 gb second HDD......and we still even managed to fill that taping a huge Simpsons marathon :p

I have a 120 in mine. Brand new. It's already a quarter full. Now, I haven't even really moved everything back onto it. I'm bad about that. I make backups and then never move my files back. When I do, I'll have about a third of it used. If I had more money, I'd be buying all sorts of other programs I could use, which would then take up more space.

Basically, if I emptied my backups and had monies, I could probably have the drive filled by the end of the year.

I have a feeling that some people do more with photo's than just editing them. (not neccessarally you though)

Ok...didn't see that tangent coming...

O_o.

very true. When I work on a project in After effects or premiere, the source files that make up the project are often several gigs. My batch of source files for my most recent video project weighed in at 4 gb, nearly filling a DVD disc.

The raw output file that after-effects exported was something like 4 gb, and sound wasn't even added yet.

I then added the audio in premiere and then exported it in the divx format,, and the finished product was 700 mb. not bad. Divx is awesome.

The moral of the story: yes, video editing is very resource-intensive and demands a considerable ammount of HD space. What I routinely do now I couldn't pull off on anything less than 100 Gb. (my 160gb HD is more than ample for all my needs--- for now, at least)

Last Christmas I edited all the episodes of Red vs Blue Season One together for a friend and then burned them to DVD. Not as good as the the Official version, but still fun to watch.

Anyhow, what I basically did, was import them all into iMovie on the iMac, and literally combine them as best I could into one full length feature. No episode cuts, no credits until the end. Worked pretty well. However, the converted files alone, without having been edited, shot from 500ish meg, to about 4 gig. If I recall correctly, iMovie likes to have at least another gig to play around with while you edit. Then the edits themselves started taking up space. All of that added up fast to the point where I was choking the iMac and had to move everything to a 80 gig external drive and work from there.

In the end, I had a full blown DVD with a custom menu, chapters, and a pretty decently edited together RvB Season One. And it all fit on one DVD.

Video editing takes mucho room.

So much porno....

So much warez....

*drools*

Um... You simply posted 2^64 in bytes, which is not the limit of a 64-bit file system. The correct size limit would be 16,777,216 Peta-bytes (18,889,465,931,478,580,854,784 bytes and 1,024 times as much; yes, I don't know the prefixes past peta-). You forget that a single standard FAT cluster is 8kB (8192 bits), not a single byte. Anyway, using a 1kB cluster is out of the question, as you'd likely lose 70% of the storage space on a drive with such an insanely small cluster size.

Also, it amuses me that most companies simply get away with claiming that a gigabyte is 1,000,000,000 bytes (or that a terrabyte is a trillion bytes). I think the only reason for the decimal prefice is due to how convenient that 2^10 is fairly close to 1,000. (only 24 above)

As for the drive itself, from the information regarding buffers (the fact that it has four 8MB buffers), I would guess that it is merely four 3.5-in. 400GB HDDs, not a impressive. And look at the weight of that thing! (5kg) A single normal 3.5in. HDD weighs slightly less than a single kg; that's a lot of weight for that "huge" HDD.

Also, I could see how useful such a drive would be. Considering that it is external (which, by the way, would almost double the price, for those who think it to be too expensive for a HDD), it would be an ideal fast-writing backup medium for collections of servers.

Actually, whether 1.6 terabytes in a RAID array, or in that array, it costs about the same.

~250 bucks for a 400 gig hdd.

Is that a steel case on that removable drive? Let me see if i can pick it up with this powerful magnet... :p

*looks at his 40 gig hard drive that only has 10 gigs used up*

I'm fine with what I've got. :p