PDA

View Full Version : Terabyte Hard Drive Useful?


Grimace
Mar 17, 2004, 09:07 PM
A terabyte of disk storage?? I know that this *is* possible, but it still blows my mind. FW800 & USB2 [At $1199, it's a steal!]

Has anyone bought or seen one of these in use?? I'm wondering what one might use it for besides video editing. And how many MP3s would this hold....
http://www.lacie.com/imgstore/product_medium/biggerdisk.jpg

stoid
Mar 17, 2004, 10:39 PM
100,000 mp3's based on the ad for the original 5GB iPod.

It's so beautiful. If you buy me one I'll tell you how it performs. ;)

Powerbook G5
Mar 17, 2004, 11:02 PM
Just add a red light in place of the blue and call it Hal 1000GB

Grimace
Mar 17, 2004, 11:55 PM
100,000 mp3's based on the ad for the original 5GB iPod.

It's so beautiful. If you buy me one I'll tell you how it performs. ;)

Why wouldn't it be 250,000 songs??

40GB
-----
10,000 songs
___________________

1000GB
--------
250,000 songs

stoid
Mar 18, 2004, 12:56 AM
Why wouldn't it be 250,000 songs??

40GB
-----
10,000 songs
___________________

1000GB
--------
250,000 songs

5GB = 1,000 songs
50GB = 10,000 songs
500GB = 100,000 songs
1,000GB = 200,000 songs

Looks like we're both wrong. :eek:

Also, I think that the 40GB - 10,000 songs is based on aac encoding. In your first post you specifically said mp3s, so you would have to go with the 5GB -1,000 mp3 reference. ;)

BrandonRP0123
Mar 18, 2004, 01:41 AM
A terabyte of disk storage?? I know that this *is* possible, but it still blows my mind. FW800 & USB2 [At $1199, it's a steal!]

Has anyone bought or seen one of these in use?? I'm wondering what one might use it for besides video editing. And how many MP3s would this hold....
http://www.lacie.com/imgstore/product_medium/biggerdisk.jpg

I remember having this conversation last time we broke the unit of measure reference measure - back with the first Power Mac with a 1GB drive. It'll get used. Trust me.

slipper
Mar 18, 2004, 01:46 AM
no all three of you are wrong

1000gb=200,001mp3s

briankonar
Mar 18, 2004, 02:11 AM
if i had the money i'd buy one right now.

i'd store my DVD library on it (uncompressed). i could fill several of these.

Mord
Mar 18, 2004, 05:31 AM
mmmmm.... toasted bytes

edesignuk
Mar 18, 2004, 05:53 AM
Nice, but you'd need two. If I had a terabyte of data, I couldn't stand to loose it if the drive failed :eek:

stoid
Mar 18, 2004, 06:21 AM
Size matters not.

KC9AIC
Mar 18, 2004, 06:26 AM
It'd be nice to hook it up to an old machine on a small-to medium size network, and use it as a backup volume. Then, the hard drive could be taken off-site in case of catastrophic failure at the workplace. It'd be easy to have a trusted employee drive it over to a secure location (another branch of the company, a warehouse, a faraway summer house, etc). There's more reliability in diversity. Also, this drive would be great for those who would want to archive video projects, which can easily be several gigs each.

Alternately, if someone really loves to store everything they find on the internet, this drive would suit them well.

jxyama
Mar 18, 2004, 09:21 AM
i think it's a bit too much data in one physical place... i'd feel much safer to have two half TB drives or even four quarter TB drives...

this drive is not cheaper or smaller than either of those options...

that is, of course, assuming you don't work with files that are half TB in size... ;) :eek:

eyelikeart
Mar 18, 2004, 10:34 AM
i think it's a bit too much data in one physical place... i'd feel much safer to have two half TB drives or even four quarter TB drives...


I'm with u there. I'm preparing to get a set of 250's...one for backup & the other to double backup. :D

MacUser1
Mar 18, 2004, 11:07 AM
the advertisement in macmall magazine says that "it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video." that's just insane.

jxyama
Mar 18, 2004, 11:38 AM
actually, now that i think about it, it depends on the definition of "useful."

is it useful for me? no.

is it useful in a sense of driving the technology and market so that my next laptop will have 512 GB hd? absolutely. :D


"it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music..."

naturally, we'll eventually progress to...


this will allow the user to store enough music so that he can listen for his entire life, 24/7, 365 days a year, and never come across the same song twice! :eek:

wordmunger
Mar 18, 2004, 11:45 AM
I'm wondering what one might use it for besides video editing.


Some Photoshop artists routinely build projects 100MB or more in size. That would be just 2000 photoshop files. If you could produce one of these works per day, it would take just under five and a half years to fill your Terabyte drive.

jxyama
Mar 18, 2004, 11:58 AM
Some Photoshop artists routinely build projects 100MB or more in size. That would be just 2000 photoshop files. If you could produce one of these works per day, it would take just under five and a half years to fill your Terabyte drive.

true, but if it takes 5+ years, wouldn't you opt for 5 separate disks, perhaps? afterall, capacity increases and prices drop all the time, why make an investment now for 5 years ahead?

regardless, there's no "correct" way to use it... whoever sees the benefit for the price would get one, i guess.

it does have a bit of "awesome"-ness to it, though. "ha ha, you 200 GB disk is no match for my TB." that just sounds cool.

TBR
Mar 18, 2004, 11:58 AM
Some Photoshop artists routinely build projects 100MB or more in size. That would be just 2000 photoshop files. If you could produce one of these works per day, it would take just under five and a half years to fill your Terabyte drive.


At work we've just finished working on a 2.5 Gig photoshop file, It got so big the PC :( with it's huge hard disk, duel 3gig processors etc etc couldn't open it any more.

BUT I though I would try it on my humble Mac at home (just incase) and guess what....... it opened.

My machine is a 533 G4 with 640meg of RAM :D

So the Mac saved the day!

howard
Mar 18, 2004, 02:26 PM
your gig per mp3 debate makes me wonder how many terabytes the itms is... say it gets up to 1,000,000 songs, which i bet it will in less than a year... thats like 10 terabytes...give or take.

how many xserves would that be?

robbybogers
Mar 18, 2004, 03:50 PM
A friend of mine owns a graphic arts business and she had about 500GB's worth of data in just over 6 months. She had to order a 500GB to back it up. She wanted to get one but she needed it right away.

realityisterror
Mar 18, 2004, 04:20 PM
At work we've just finished working on a 2.5 Gig photoshop file, It got so big the PC :( with it's huge hard disk, duel 3gig processors etc etc couldn't open it any more.

BUT I though I would try it on my humble Mac at home (just incase) and guess what....... it opened.

My machine is a 533 G4 with 640meg of RAM :D

So the Mac saved the day!

what're you doing with 2.5 GB photoshop file???

reality

bennetsaysargh
Mar 18, 2004, 05:08 PM
i dunno. one could not have to ever buy a new hd if you get one of these.
it'll be interesting to see these inside consumer machines years from now, and we'll all look back on this thread and say, "imagine what it would have been like not to have them"

wordmunger
Mar 18, 2004, 05:11 PM
i dunno. one could not have to ever buy a new hd if you get one of these.
it'll be interesting to see these inside consumer machines years from now, and we'll all look back on this thread and say, "imagine what it would have been like not to have them"
Never say never. I can still remember my first hard drive--20 Megs (yes, I'm that old). I never thought I'd be able to fill that, and now 40 Gigs seems pretty tight--2000 times larger!

jxyama
Mar 18, 2004, 05:20 PM
Never say never. I can still remember my first hard drive--20 Megs (yes, I'm that old). I never thought I'd be able to fill that, and now 40 Gigs seems pretty tight--2000 times larger!

yeah, no kidding. my PB has more RAM than combined HD capacity in two computers i used in college... and that was less than 10 years ago! :p

tomf87
Mar 18, 2004, 05:43 PM
Size-wise, this thing has the capability for nice data marts and data warehouses. I guess transferring between a couple of machines would be its limit. Its speed and reliability would not be good enough for an external storage device on a production database server.

BrandonRP0123
Mar 18, 2004, 11:10 PM
Nice, but you'd need two. If I had a terabyte of data, I couldn't stand to loose it if the drive failed :eek:


It's not a single drive. Look at the size of the case. LaCie's side suggests there's several configurations available - and upto 4 x 250GB SATA drives in the enclosure. 250 x 4 = 1000.

Check out the datasheet on http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10118

briankonar
Mar 18, 2004, 11:29 PM
Never say never. I can still remember my first hard drive--20 Megs (yes, I'm that old). I never thought I'd be able to fill that, and now 40 Gigs seems pretty tight--2000 times larger!

ergh how old are you? you're making me feel old because I remember my friends 90 Mhz 486 with a whopping 500 MB HD...i don't remember the specs of my Mac L2 or whatever it was called (GS?), but the HD was only 70 MB, and I believe the ram was measured in Kb :eek: .

Claris Works rules.

adamberti
Mar 19, 2004, 12:11 AM
I would buy 10 of them and download the internet so I could browse it offline....

On a serious unrelated note... are there any estimates at the size of the internet if you were to download it all, or how fast it's growing?

stoid
Mar 19, 2004, 12:24 AM
I would buy 10 of them and download the internet so I could browse it offline....

On a serious unrelated note... are there any estimates at the size of the internet if you were to download it all, or how fast it's growing?

Really big, and too fast. It's so big that you could never hope to store all of it even on a warehouse full of drives, and even if you had internet piped into your machine at a rate faster than any storage device could possibly record, you would fall behind immediately.

edesignuk
Mar 19, 2004, 01:10 AM
It's not a single drive. Look at the size of the case. LaCie's side suggests there's several configurations available - and upto 4 x 250GB SATA drives in the enclosure. 250 x 4 = 1000.

Check out the datasheet on http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10118
I don't see anything about RAID mentioned. So if one of the drives went, that'd be your lot! :eek:

cr2sh
Mar 19, 2004, 01:37 AM
I'm with u there. I'm preparing to get a set of 250's...one for backup & the other to double backup. :D

I've got a WD 8mb/250GB drive already, I'd love to pickup a second one along with a FW800 Raid enclosure...

lduncan
Mar 19, 2004, 03:16 AM
your gig per mp3 debate makes me wonder how many terabytes the itms is... say it gets up to 1,000,000 songs, which i bet it will in less than a year... thats like 10 terabytes...give or take.

how many xserves would that be?

It's only 3 xServe RAID's. Not a large amount of storage compared to a lot of data centres, many of which have Peta bytes (1000 TB) of data.

wordmunger
Mar 19, 2004, 05:19 AM
ergh how old are you? you're making me feel old because I remember my friends 90 Mhz 486 with a whopping 500 MB HD...i don't remember the specs of my Mac L2 or whatever it was called (GS?), but the HD was only 70 MB, and I believe the ram was measured in Kb :eek: .

Claris Works rules.
Well, there are lots of people older than me. But not only can I remember my first hard drive, I can also remember getting my first *floppy* drive, to replace the tape recorder I had been using for my Commodore 64. Yep, 64K. I was a pretty important dude back then with 64K *and* a floppy drive!

But pretty soon we'll have people here telling us about punch cards and computers as big as closets with 512 bytes of memory, and walking to school barefoot in the snow (uphill both ways!). There's always someone older.

jxyama
Mar 19, 2004, 08:30 AM
hmm... my first computer was IBM AT, i think? i don't even know how big the HD was... i do remember DOS taking rather long time to boot up. i could turn it on, go downstairs to grab some snack, then come back just in time to see the command prompt...

i do remember that my second computer in college was a Gateway with 100 MHz CPU and 100 MB HD. and i remember thinking how would i ever fill that much space up!

now i have two 40 GB HDs and i "only" have 20 GB or so free.

Grimace
Mar 19, 2004, 08:36 AM
hmm... my first computer was IBM AT, i think? i don't even know how big the HD was... i do remember DOS taking rather long time to boot up. i could turn it on, go downstairs to grab some snack, then come back just in time to see the command prompt...

i do remember that my second computer in college was a Gateway with 100 MHz CPU and 100 MB HD. and i remember thinking how would i ever fill that much space up!

now i have two 40 GB HDs and i "only" have 20 GB or so free.

But, applications grew quickly to fill the drive capacity. There seems to be slowing down of the size of applications and the number that people actually "need". Sure, someone will always want to have eleventyfive programs on his/her computer, but the market doesn't seem to need a terabyte right now. Most people will not come close to the capacity of a 60GB drive.

Mantat
Mar 19, 2004, 10:33 AM
The internet is not as 'big' as one can think it is...

First, Google has a cache of a lot of the pages. I dont know how big it is but my guess is that its not THAT big... Now add the files... Last time I checked, there was about 10TB on the eDonkey network. Now multiply this by let say 10 (?) and you are still under a petabyte... And if you zip it all, you would probably gain a few TB...

I cant check these number right now (at work) but I am prety sure the whole internet is bellow a TB. Of course this number doesn tinclude corporate network. And if you remove the porn, you can probably divide it by a factor of 2-3...

Mantat
Mar 19, 2004, 10:52 AM
I just found this article:
Here (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/tech/reports/rl31270.pdf)
Its two years old and says that at the time, the web was about 19TB 'on the surface' and the deep web was around 7500TB. The deep web include all the data in database. So I guess I was wrong but at the same time I would like to see confirmation of these numbers, and of course more recent ones which would include P2P network.

Anyone cares to search? I have googled away but couldnt find anything recent. They only give number of user and number of web pages/ sites...

wordmunger
Mar 19, 2004, 11:29 AM
I just found this article:
Here (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/tech/reports/rl31270.pdf)
Its two years old and says that at the time, the web was about 19TB 'on the surface' and the deep web was around 7500TB. The deep web include all the data in database. So I guess I was wrong but at the same time I would like to see confirmation of these numbers, and of course more recent ones which would include P2P network.

Anyone cares to search? I have googled away but couldnt find anything recent. They only give number of user and number of web pages/ sites...
Good work! I searched for about 15 minutes but couldn't find anything better than that. I think you can bet it has at least doubled since then.

eRondeau
Mar 19, 2004, 11:41 AM
One of the fundamental truths of business management is that the scope of any project will expand to fill the time available to complete it.

One of the fundamental truths of Microsoft operating systems is that they will expand in size to fill the amount of hard drive space available to contain them. I hear the next release of Windows will require a minumum of 975-gigs of free hard drive space for a basic installation. And their daily "security updates" will be about 10-gigs each. :D

Remember those old Commodore PET cassette tape drives? How the computer could pause/unpause them all by itself? Now that was some wild modern technology, wasn't it?

briankonar
Mar 19, 2004, 01:09 PM
and walking to school barefoot in the snow (uphill both ways!).

that was my grandpa's favorite story :D

monochrome screens...

iRobert
Mar 23, 2004, 06:29 AM
Good work! I searched for about 15 minutes but couldn't find anything better than that. I think you can bet it has at least doubled since then.
Counting the P2P networkis i'd say times ten at least... Just connect with a random P2P app and see the status bar. Without a doubt in no time it will say 950GB or something

Mantat
Mar 23, 2004, 08:20 AM
Counting the P2P networkis i'd say times ten at least... Just connect with a random P2P app and see the status bar. Without a doubt in no time it will say 950GB or something

950GB still fit on a single 1TB drive... ;-)

Also, a lot of the content on the P2P network is overlaping. If 10 users share the lattest version of open office, it will count as 10x the size of the file. So you have to take the data with care. Sure there is a lot of files, but not as much as they want you to believe. Dont forget that their main 'selling' pitch is the size of their network, so they will do as much as they can to make it soun big.

I still havent found the info. I think I am going to see a professor at the university this diner and suggest him to have a master student do a thesis on that.

Mr Maui
Mar 23, 2004, 08:26 AM
5GB = 1,000 songs
50GB = 10,000 songs
500GB = 100,000 songs
1,000GB = 200,000 songs

Looks like we're both wrong. :eek:

Also, I think that the 40GB - 10,000 songs is based on aac encoding. In your first post you specifically said mp3s, so you would have to go with the 5GB -1,000 mp3 reference. ;)



I need to concur with Stoid. The iPod Mini (4GB) holds 1000 songs which projects out to 250000 mp3s.

However, I must add, that anyone who has 250000 mp3s should start their own online music store and compete with Apple, Sony, Napster, Microsoft, etc. (after negotiating all of the legal deals with labels, artists, etc. of course). :D

wPod
Mar 23, 2004, 09:19 AM
i think it's a bit too much data in one physical place...

heh. . . i remeber when i first saw a computer with a 1GB HD thinking that was rediculously large and there is no need for it ever. . . give it some time, we will eventually see 1TB spinning silenetly on a 1" drive in our powerbook G7s. and we will all be complaining for more space b/c the pictures on our 5 GIGApixel cameras are taking up tooo much space.

Mr Maui
Mar 23, 2004, 09:59 AM
heh. . . i remeber when i first saw a computer with a 1GB HD thinking that was rediculously large and there is no need for it ever. . . give it some time, we will eventually see 1TB spinning silenetly on a 1" drive in our powerbook G7s. and we will all be complaining for more space b/c the pictures on our 5 GIGApixel cameras are taking up tooo much space.


SATISFACTION ... kinda like tomorrow ... a plateau that can never be reached.

neut
Mar 23, 2004, 10:23 AM
what do you need a terebyte for? raw video editing and soudtracking.... :D

a G5 and a few of those and i'd never leave my house ever again. ;)


peace.

Viv
Mar 23, 2004, 11:23 AM
Never say never. I can still remember my first hard drive--20 Megs (yes, I'm that old). I never thought I'd be able to fill that, and now 40 Gigs seems pretty tight--2000 times larger!

20Mb wow but I remember the 5.1/2 inc full hight 10Mb arriving at the workshop:-)

The power supply was bigger than the terrabyte drive!

Viv

DiGi
Mar 23, 2004, 12:33 PM
I have 1.7TB storage in my home bsd fileserver and have cost me ~1300 euro.

iRobert
Mar 23, 2004, 03:10 PM
I have 1.7TB storage in my home bsd fileserver and have cost me ~1300 euro.

How much do you have available :D?

Mr Maui
Mar 23, 2004, 04:03 PM
I have a copy of Macworld from 1986 and it has a 20Mb hard drive for only $1149, and you can upgrade your Mac Classic to a WHOPPING 2 Mb of RAM. Guess we have gained a little ground through the years ... yet still never satisfied.

DiGi
Mar 23, 2004, 05:12 PM
How much do you have available :D?

Now only 330GB ... 20Mbps inet feed rox

tomf87
Mar 23, 2004, 08:24 PM
Now only 330GB ... 20Mbps inet feed rox

I have you beat on the connection. I have a 200Mb connection. The thing flies like the wind. I have roughly 2 TB in 3 different SAN's but that's about it.

jeffy.dee-lux
Mar 23, 2004, 10:26 PM
no all three of you are wrong

1000gb=200,001mp3s


sheesh, it all depends on how big your mp3s are...
why can't someone just figure out how many days of music that is under 128kbps.

alright fine
i get about 90 and a half days.
hmmm, how long do you think an ipod battery could power this thing for?

oldschool
Mar 23, 2004, 11:11 PM
Using some figures in previous posts, and an average life span of 74 years, you would need approximately 37 Terabytes of space to have music from birth to death. I included a few mp3's to play at the funeral in that calculation. :D

tomf87
Mar 24, 2004, 07:23 AM
Using some figures in previous posts, and an average life span of 74 years, you would need approximately 37 Terabytes of space to have music from birth to death. I included a few mp3's to play at the funeral in that calculation. :D


That's funny.. :) But by that time, they will be encoding music streams in MP10 format with 700Kbps.

wordmunger
Mar 24, 2004, 07:42 AM
Using some figures in previous posts, and an average life span of 74 years, you would need approximately 37 Terabytes of space to have music from birth to death. I included a few mp3's to play at the funeral in that calculation. :D
That's great... but when you're 74, are you really going to want to listen to the music you picked back when you were 18? And what if there was a song you really liked? You wouldn't be able to listen to it more than once. And who's going to write all that music? Where are you going to buy it--it's more than the complete holdings of the ITMS. If you manage to work all these details out, then you still have to actually listen to it. The "Journey" years will be particularly painful.

oldschool
Mar 25, 2004, 02:07 PM
That's great... but when you're 74, are you really going to want to listen to the music you picked back when you were 18? And what if there was a song you really liked? You wouldn't be able to listen to it more than once. And who's going to write all that music? Where are you going to buy it--it's more than the complete holdings of the ITMS. If you manage to work all these details out, then you still have to actually listen to it. The "Journey" years will be particularly painful.

You're right, i think it would take more than a lifetime to organize, buy, rip and download all that music.

jsw
Mar 25, 2004, 07:15 PM
You're right, i think it would take more than a lifetime to organize, buy, rip and download all that music.

Look at it this way: if you record audio at ~3K/sec, you could record a decade per TB. Let's assume these drives shrink like others have and in a decade or so you've got miniature 1TB drives.

Then you could carry a medallion with you and record everything you ever heard for the following decade. Assuming nighttime would take even less to record, and intense sounds more (3K/sec is pretty low quality, but enough to hear what's going on from a spoken work point of view), it'd fit.

Assume a small 50 TB drive in 15 years. More than enough to record a lifetime worth of audio. 1 PB miniature drive in 20 years. A lifetime of audio and video - all you've seen and heard, all those school memories, all the dates, children, grandparents, movies, EVERYTHING.

Now that's pretty cool.

And it'll all be inside an iPod. :)

kanker
Mar 27, 2004, 07:20 PM
Well, there are lots of people older than me. But not only can I remember my first hard drive, I can also remember getting my first *floppy* drive, to replace the tape recorder I had been using for my Commodore 64. Yep, 64K. I was a pretty important dude back then with 64K *and* a floppy drive!

But pretty soon we'll have people here telling us about punch cards and computers as big as closets with 512 bytes of memory, and walking to school barefoot in the snow (uphill both ways!). There's always someone older.I do remember the first "portable" computer I ever used. It was my father's HP-85 that his company provided for his use. 16k, 5" B/W screen, tape drive, and a built in thermal printer that used paper that was maybe 4" wide. He, of course, started out with punch cards and grew up in Minnesota walking through snow deeper than a 2 story house, naked.

musicpyrite
Apr 3, 2004, 09:22 PM
Only one thing comes to mind after reading this forum:

'640K ought to be enough for any one' - Bill Gates, 1981

nbs2
Apr 4, 2004, 08:57 PM
950GB still fit on a single 1TB drive... ;-)

Also, a lot of the content on the P2P network is overlaping. If 10 users share the lattest version of open office, it will count as 10x the size of the file. So you have to take the data with care. Sure there is a lot of files, but not as much as they want you to believe. Dont forget that their main 'selling' pitch is the size of their network, so they will do as much as they can to make it soun big.

I still havent found the info. I think I am going to see a professor at the university this diner and suggest him to have a master student do a thesis on that.

I have a friend who is running Kazaa...in, um....not the US. Canada...yeah Canada. Anyway, right now, there is 4,037,760 GB of data on the network. Overlap or not...that's a lot of hard drives no matter how big they are.

Blaaze
Apr 4, 2004, 09:22 PM
My first computer was 60 mhz 8 mb of ram, 500 mb HD, and a 2x CD-ROM. It was ***** back then. How things evolve so quickly in computer la-la-land.

Nny
Apr 11, 2004, 03:16 PM
I need to concur with Stoid. The iPod Mini (4GB) holds 1000 songs which projects out to 250000 mp3s.

Apple got their new storage figures using 128 kbps AAC as opposed to 128 kbps MP3 (which is what they used previously). They kept average song length the same, but the smaller file size of AAC got them more songs per a gig. (So your 250,000 figure would be correct for AAC files, not MP3s)

Personally, I think both 128 kbps MP3 and AAC suck. I use 192 kbps MP3 or higher ALWAYS.

EDIT: Meant to say "128 kbps as opposed to 160 kbps MP3" ...correct post below in thread.

Penman
Apr 11, 2004, 07:44 PM
I'm not old and I bought a 2Gb drive in the early nineties. The size of a shoebox and almost $3,000 dollars (in the UK - PC's were shipping with 120MB drive at the time).

I work with video and since December I've filled a 250GB drive. I'd buy one of these if it was as fast as the 500GB extreme (which I will buy next week.)

With Blu-ray DVD coming and HD camcorders filling a TB's going to be easy real soon. I predict that Gigs in 2004 are like Megs in 1994. We'll see PB's (not PowerBooks - we'll never see new PowerBooks) soon.

Anyway - spending your money on peripherals is a way of forgetting about Apple's slowness and you can take them with you when you upgrade.

20Mb wow but I remember the 5.1/2 inc full hight 10Mb arriving at the workshop:-)

The power supply was bigger than the terrabyte drive!

Viv

Soire
Apr 14, 2004, 01:28 PM
Apple got their new storage figures using 128 kbps AAC as opposed to 128 kbps MP3 (which is what they used previously). They kept average song length the same, but the smaller file size of AAC got them more songs per a gig. (So your 250,000 figure would be correct for AAC files, not MP3s)

Personally, I think both 128 kbps MP3 and AAC suck. I use 192 kbps MP3 or higher ALWAYS.


Hey what do people recommend to convert songs into? Is AAC noticeably better or worse quality than MP3? And what about for larger files- is AIFF or WAV actually better? And didn't I hear there would be a hot topic at NAB this year about some file format that keeps a record of its' history?

cait-sith
Apr 14, 2004, 01:56 PM
what are the data xfer rates on this disk? i don't think it would be alright as a busy database storage device, if it has, say, 10 megabytes per second max transfer rate. given an average query size of maybe 10k for detailed information, you can get away with.. 10000 transactions per second? okay, maybe get like 50 of them and normalize your data distribution. (which is easier said than done!) but if i'm running that kinda operation, just gimme many xserves with built in 750s! and a 23" cinema screen! for each one!

damnit i remember making my own magnetic cores with coat hangers, blowtorches, and plyers. and making the modem sounds with your voice! and guessing at the responses! okay maybe not. i remember my tandy 1000 sx though.

these big disks may become the norm eventually. but remember, there is a limit to how small you can go with the current archetecture. we can't minimize forever, until we develop ways to manufacture with subparticles anyways.

Nny
Apr 14, 2004, 02:42 PM
Hey what do people recommend to convert songs into? Is AAC noticeably better or worse quality than MP3? And what about for larger files- is AIFF or WAV actually better? And didn't I hear there would be a hot topic at NAB this year about some file format that keeps a record of its' history?

I reread my post you were responding to and realized I got the facts a little off. Apple originally said 1,000 songs on the 5 GB iPod using 160 kbps MP3. Then they said more songs fit on the newer iPods because they switched to 128 kbps AAC. The reason I correct myself is because Apple claimed 128 kbps is better than 160 kbps MP3 when they made the switch to AAC. I don't know the truth behind their idea of quality comparison, but 128 kbps AAC is better than 128 kbps MP3. Still, if you use good earphones or canalphones then you will need to use a higher quality than 128 kbps anything. iTunes offers 192 kbps for both AAC and MP3 as it's "Higher Quality" option, but you can customize it to go higher. 192 kbps MP3 works fine for my ears. Your mileage my vary.

Here are some links for review:

http://www.xciv.org/~meta/audio-shootout/

http://www.recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtml

http://ekei.com/audio/

ingenious
Apr 14, 2004, 09:25 PM
the advertisement in macmall magazine says that "it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video." that's just insane.

u'll probably eat your words someday!

"Wow! You're PM is old!!! I can't believe that it only has 3 TB of storage!" LOL remember the M$ 640K ram thingy?