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.
Terabyte Hard Drive Useful?
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
slipper said:
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 said: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.
That's funny..
But by that time, they will be encoding music streams in MP10 format with 700Kbps.
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 said: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.
oldschool said:
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.
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.wordmunger said:
Only one thing comes to mind after reading this forum:
'640K ought to be enough for any one' - Bill Gates, 1981
'640K ought to be enough for any one' - Bill Gates, 1981
Mantat said:
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.
Mr Maui said:
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.
Old bastard
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.
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.
Viv said: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
Nny said:
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?
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.
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.
Soire said:
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/
MacUser1 said:
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?