Not happening, the cloud is unreliable and expensive. If the cloud offers me unlimited Storage space and fives me gigabit internet, I might consider it for music but not for anything else
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Seagate Announces First 8 TB Hard Drive for Enterprise Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not happening, the cloud is unreliable and expensive. If the cloud offers me unlimited Storage space and fives me gigabit internet, I might consider it for music but not for anything else
What was really amusing was when I had a Mac LC II. It had an 80MB hard drive, and I later purchased a ZIP drive to accompany it. So, I had a 80MB hard drive, and 100MB floppies.
Back in 1988 leading edge 286 12Mhz systems came with a whopping 20MB to 40MB drive. An average 45 minutes MP3 album @ 128Kbps would not fit on there
I fully support your statement as everything is being streamed. Your local storage requirement will be dictated by the OS and your need to access offline stuff.
This opens the door for smaller and super fast storage devices and thinner devices including 1TB flash drives for your backup needs.
Not happening, the cloud is unreliable and expensive. If the cloud offers me unlimited Storage space and fives me gigabit internet, I might consider it for music but not for anything else
Oh, I guess I forgot about the people who don't professionally require gigantic files, but are just weirdly determined that HD isn't good enough and that they need to be able to zoom into their videos and see the individual skin cells of actors. For the rest of us, streaming HD is good enough for now.
My thought exactly. Never dealing with that again; Hitachi only from now on
Triple Second that. WD or Hitachi as well for me. Seagate are just aweful!
My thought exactly. Never dealing with that again; Hitachi only from now on
Western Digital for me. I went to them after my Seagates failed (they were so cheap at the time, but I got what I paid for) and all my digital photos from 2004-2008 as well as music.
The music I could easily replace since I still have my CD's and using other sources
, but those photos of my son and his sister in those years are gone except the 500MB's of photos I was able to recover.I tried them again last year and the drive started acting funny so I sold it and said never again.
Now I have a full backup plan, a more organized photo management system, and WD drives.
That means 1 day 1 hr 1 minute 1 second after the warrenty period, this drive will have Zero bytes storage.
going off my experience with previous Seagate drives it will also run hotter than the sun and sound like someone digging up from the depths of the nine hells whilst doing read/write seeks
I remember three years before then proclaiming that 80MB is all that I'd ever need. My smallest USB flash drive is now 8GB. LOL
"It's all the space you'll ever need" is more likely to make you buy than "you'll come back for more storage every year or two, as long as you live".
WD has only failed once for me, but it was in the lemon 2006 iMac, so all bets are off there. Just curious, why do you like 2.5" drives in desktops?
----------
To be super nitpicky, he said "GB", not "GiB". So gigabytes, not gibibytes. The original 1000MB = 1GB was correct.
Oh sure - I was referencing Sears current woes more than his sales technique.
If someone ever told me that though I would laugh.
I currently have 8.08 TB used and 6.4 free.
And only 1.4 TB of it is porn.
Brands and brands
Yeah, Seagates were great for a long time, so I was shocked to find that there were problems. (I hope they can recover their disk image.) I think the first impressions either impress, or frighten people off: Last year I bought 4 3TB Red drives for my NAS and one of them began to die within the first 10 days. I took them all back and swapped them for the 3TB Hitachi Ultrastars. I read the reviews and pondered deeply before purchase and it may have just been a bad one, but it still made an impression on me given that it was my first WD purchase. I still cringe knowing that WD bought Hitachi and I really hope they leave the product line alone. WD: Don't make the Hitachi line thinner or try to make it snappier.
I still have a SCSI IBM Deskstar (from the '90s?) that sounds like a 727's APU, but it still works.
Yeah, Seagates were great for a long time, so I was shocked to find that there were problems. (I hope they can recover their disk image.
) I think the first impressions either impress, or frighten people off: Last year I bought 4 3TB Red drives for my NAS and one of them began to die within the first 10 days. I took them all back and swapped them for the 3TB Hitachi Ultrastars. I read the reviews and pondered deeply before purchase and it may have just been a bad one, but it still made an impression on me given that it was my first WD purchase. I still cringe knowing that WD bought Hitachi and I really hope they leave the product line alone. WD: Don't make the Hitachi line thinner or try to make it snappier.I still have a SCSI IBM Deskstar (from the '90s?) that sounds like a 727's APU, but it still works.
I'm not talking about maximum capacityI'm talking about the maximum size you can format a single volume in an array. If you scroll further down on that link, it specifically states: "Max File System Size: 16TB". So while you can have 24TB loaded, with n-1 for redundnacy that works out to around 17TB useable spacemeaning there would be one 16TB volume and a second volume of ~1TB.
That's just one of their boxes. Many of their other boxes - even 2-drive boxes - support 108TB.
e.g.: https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/spec/DS713+
The 3612, etc.
Are you referring to my post? Then it isn't true, ZFS is 128 bit as an example and runs fine on a 32 bit OS.
I guess it could be true if you consider the filesystem a part of the OS, and if that particular filesystem has a limit that is below the size of your disk(s).