[CeBIT] Seagate ST1.3 12GB: A 1" HDD

[Slaugh]

According to Clubic, this new HDD measures 40 X 30 X 5 mm, weighs 14 grams, is only 20dbA, consumes 30% less power than the previous generation, and comes with the "G-Force Protection" technology (see last picture).

[jaganath]

Shame it's not intended for the desktop PC market. If they had a full range of those things with bigger capacity there would be no need for the Silent Storage forum; we'd all have one of those.

[IsaacKuo]

Shame it's not intended for the desktop PC market. If they had a full range of those things with bigger capacity there would be no need for the Silent Storage forum; we'd all have one of those.

If they put this into a compact flash card, then we can use it as a hard drive. 12gigs is plenty of capacity for me, even for a dual-boot system.

[wim]

incredible!! what kind of devices will these be used in..?
i like the shock protection thing, i wonder if it can really work as well as the picture illustrates

[perplex]

Maybe Apple should reconsider their Flash usage with the Nano line-up

[Mr Evil]

So tiny. It would be great to have a RAID of them in a 3.5" bay size case.

[rpsgc]

incredible!! what kind of devices will these be used in..?
i like the shock protection thing, i wonder if it can really work as well as the picture illustrates

Cellphones and such.

[JazzJackRabbit]

I'm surprised this thing got so many positive responses over here. Well, maybe for extreme SPCR or for someone that only uses his PC to check his email this thing is golden, but even for an an average user this this drive is too small and too slow.

First capacity. True, for a bare system you don't need a lot, but after you install all the apps there will be barely any space left. On both of my 'work' systems at work and at home I have at least 20Gb taken just by OS alone with all the apps. This doesn't include any distributives, drivers, work files, or any multimedia files. So even if you do get this drive, it will only be good for someone cheking his email. Any user with any collection of mp3s will have to buy either another system drive which negates all the advantages he may have gotten from buying this drive, or he'll have to build another computer just to store his media files and put it in another room, a pretty expensive option on top of an already expensive 1" drive (and yes they will be expensive), not to mention that in a lot of cases ppl don't have another room that can be dedicated to computers. And what about games? You can't install games on a network storage and modern games can take up to 3Gb of HDD space. Ooops, there goes one quarter of your new hard drive... What if you want to backup CD or DVD you own? Well, I suppose you can backup one CD at a time, but that's it. What about DVD? Full dual layer DVD takes 8Gb and another 4Gb if you want to reencode it to a single layer. That's the entire capacity of your harddrive, hmmmm.....
Second problem is speed. I program stuff and I notice performance difference even between 7200RPM 2.5 drive and a good 3.5 drive. Desktop drives are significantly faster. Even in everyday usage 4200RPM hard drives are slow, there is significant delay at booting up the system. How fast do you think this HDD spins? I'm betting that loading any game will take couple of minutes at least and thinking about burning a CD or DVD from this drive? The drive won't be fast enough to supply the data at a speed required by 40x CD burning, not to mention DVD.

[rpsgc]

You do know this is for cell phones, mp3 players and portable devices don't you? This isn't for PC use

[mathias]

I'm surprised this thing got so many positive responses over here. Well, maybe for extreme SPCR or for someone that only uses his PC to check his email this thing is golden, but even for an an average user this this drive is too small and too slow.

Exactly. Even 1.8" drives were deemed useless for desktops here recently, they're not even as quiet as 2.5" drives, nevermind that they're far more expensive.

Not that you couldn't make a computer with one of these, but it would only make sense if it was ultra portable, miniaturized, or low power.

[JazzJackRabbit]

You do know this is for cell phones, mp3 players and portable devices don't you? This isn't for PC use

Look at jaganath, IsaacKuo and Mr Evil replies, they all want it to be available for desktop now.

[rpsgc]

Look at jaganath, IsaacKuo and Mr Evil replies, they all want it to be available for desktop now.

That idea is just downright crazy yet sexy at the same time

[jaganath]

Look at jaganath, IsaacKuo and Mr Evil replies, they all want it to be available for desktop now.

For Gods sake JazzJackRabbit, stop being so blinkered. If they can make a 12GB drive that small and that quiet, imagine what they can do with normal 3.5" and 2.5" drives. This is an advance in storage technology, and while this particular product will likely never see any statistically significant proportion of desktops, the trickle-down effect will apply and we can expect similar advances in other hard disk form factors.

[Eunos]

In outright terms, 160 gb from 2.5" or 500 gb from 3.5" isn't shabby either. The thing I'd love about a 1" drive is the low power consumption - you could wrap it in insulation 'til the cows come home. But then I do that with my 2.5 anyway.

[JazzJackRabbit]

jaganath
I don't think it's gonna change anything. Hard drive noise remained the same for the past 10 years. The biggest reduction, if not the only reduction in noise was when manufacturers started using fluid bearings. You can't eliminate air whoosh. So if you think the technological inventions that went into making this hard drive are going to make regular hard drives quiter you are most likely mistaken. Hard Drive noise is mostly the funtion of the physical size and RPM. The biggest reason 2.5 hard drives are quiter because they use smaller size platters which limits vibrations and because they typically spin slower. Even so, I don't think that 2.5 hard drives are that much quiter than 3.5 ones. I remember a guy here who had 1.8 drive and he was saying that it isn't much quiter than 2.5 drives. And I belive him because 7200RPM 2.5" hitachi is just as noisy if not noisier than single platter barracuda. The only difference with smaller form factor hard drives is that they are much easier to silence than 3.5 counterparts.

[IsaacKuo]

Well, maybe for extreme SPCR or for someone that only uses his PC to check his email this thing is golden, but even for an an average user this this drive is too small and too slow.

First capacity. True, for a bare system you don't need a lot, but after you install all the apps there will be barely any space left. On both of my 'work' systems at work and at home I have at least 20Gb taken just by OS alone with all the apps.

That's IMHO outrageously bloated and crazy. On my most bloated dual boot machine, Windows plus Office, PSP, all of HP's assorted whatever-ware, and every random driver/software whatever from years of different hardware takes up only about 3.5gigs. Linux plus a heck-of-alot more takes up 3gigs.

Now, I guess that games typically take up tons of hard drive space, but there's obviously no reason for that in most 'work' systems.

Any user with any collection of mp3s will have to buy either another system drive which negates all the advantages he may have gotten from buying this drive, or he'll have to build another computer just to store his media files and put it in another room, a pretty expensive option

You can and should build a dirt cheap file server. The cost is more or less the cost of the hard drive. You can literally find suitable file server hardware in the trash.

I would never put my precious data in a SILENT computer, and I would never have my main home workstation be anything but silent. Therefore, I need to seperate file server anyway.

on top of an already expensive 1" drive (and yes they will be expensive)

Give it a few years. We shall see. I'm very cheap, so 2.5" drives are good enough for me. For now. My hope is that newer technologies will push down prices on old 2-4gig microdrives.

not to mention that in a lot of cases ppl don't have another room that can be dedicated to computers.

You don't need to put a quiet file server in a different room to get the benefits. A quiet file server which is sufficiently quiet for the bedroom or the TV room may not be sufficiently SILENT for workstation use.

And what about games?

The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.

Second problem is speed. I program stuff and I notice performance difference even between 7200RPM 2.5 drive and a good 3.5 drive.

That's what a fast RAID in a file server is for. Gigabit ethernet to a fast RAID will outperform any silent local hard drive.

BTW, the AVERAGE computer user doesn't program stuff.

The drive won't be fast enough to supply the data at a speed required by 40x CD burning, not to mention DVD.

I don't do any CD or DVD burning from local storage. I find burning data straight off the network to be more reliable even though my network is only 100mbit.

[JazzJackRabbit]

That's IMHO outrageously bloated and crazy. On my most bloated dual boot machine, Windows plus Office, PSP, all of HP's assorted whatever-ware, and every random driver/software whatever from years of different hardware takes up only about 3.5gigs. Linux plus a heck-of-alot more takes up 3gigs.

Now, I guess that games typically take up tons of hard drive space, but there's obviously no reason for that in most 'work' systems.

My main system at home is used for everything from work to gaming to entertainment. That's the beauty, I don't have to buy three computers for anything I would ever need. And I don't have anything extra installed. Just the OS, office, photoshop, two visual studios (third soon to be added), msdn, matlab, a bunch of other programms needed for school and multitude of smaller programs like burning software dvd/mp3/video players, SSH, dictionaries which don't take a lot. I have absolutely no idea how you could fit an OS and a "heck-of-alot more" in just 3 Gigs. Currently you can't do anything in 12Gigs other than browse web and check your email.

You can and should build a dirt cheap file server. The cost is more or less the cost of the hard drive. You can literally find suitable file server hardware in the trash.

I would never put my precious data in a SILENT computer, and I would never have my main home workstation be anything but silent. Therefore, I need to seperate file server anyway.

You cannot build a dirt cheap file server for the cost of the hard drive, unless you have a lot of spare parts available to you already. Just the P4/athlon mobo, CPU and memory is going to cost you $100-140. If you want to build system using P3/thunderbird era hardware then you are running into other problems like the lack of integrated network (in the best case you will get 100Mbit), lack of 48bit LBA support which will force you to buy external controller and in most cases lack of integrated video card. You will need to buy all of those. In the end going with legacy hardware will cost you the same or more than buying used P4 level stuff and you won't be getting nearly the same performance from it. I thought about upgrading my Athlon 1800XP machine up to date, but after I calculated everything it came out too expensive. I ended up buying P4 mobo, mobile celeron and 512MB memory which turned out to be significantly cheaper. And the prices I quoted don't include case and power supply or hard drives. And how are you going to manage it? You need another monitor or a KVM switch. Of course you could simply manage it via remote desktop, but it requires another computer to be on.

You don't need to put a quiet file server in a different room to get the benefits. A quiet file server which is sufficiently quiet for the bedroom or the TV room may not be sufficiently SILENT for workstation use.

You don't say... I want to build to build another computer and move it in the closet because hard drive noise is too loud for me. No matter how much I silence my PC, I can't silence my HDDs without compromising on HDD temperatures. If it's loud for me right now it's going to be loud in the bedroom/TV room too.

The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.

Then why do we have silent video forum? Why almost every single rig of a typical SPCR has 6600GT-7900GT level videocard? If you don't play games you don't more than NV6600 or ATI9600 level video card, and yet, ppl are buying med-high level video cards.

That's what a fast RAID in a file server is for. Gigabit ethernet to a fast RAID will outperform any silent local hard drive.

Never toyed with the idea of networked raid for work, so I can't say if it really is going to be faster, but it is going to be pretty expensive.

BTW, the AVERAGE computer user doesn't program stuff.

You don't need to program to notice the difference in hard drive performance. A 4200 hard drive is slow enough that I notice significantly increased boot times.

I don't do any CD or DVD burning from local storage. I find burning data straight off the network to be more reliable even though my network is only 100mbit.

Now that is a BS. You cannot burn CD/DVDs over 100Mbit network. 100Mbit translates into 10MB/s, realistically more like 5-8Mb/s. 40x CD burning needs 6Mb/s bandwidth which pushes the limits of 100Mbit network to the limit. Burning DVDs requres 11Mb/s sustained transfer, 100Mbit cannot support it, nevermind 12-16x burning speeds.

[Mr Evil]

...I have absolutely no idea how you could fit an OS and a "heck-of-alot more" in just 3 Gigs. Currently you can't do anything in 12Gigs other than browse web and check your email...

Pfff. I have an old laptop with a mere 2GB drive in it and it runs XP just fine. I have to manage disc space carefully, but it is perfectly functional for more than just web browsing.

Even smaller than that, I have a copy of "Damn Small Linux" which is a complete OS and wide range of applications in less than 50MB.

[TomZ]

Now that is a BS. You cannot burn CD/DVDs over 100Mbit network.

Says who? I do it all the time!

[TomZ]

What would be cool is if you put a bunch of these into a RAID array to overcome the size and performance limitations, and use that on the desktop.

[IsaacKuo]

That's IMHO outrageously bloated and crazy. On my most bloated dual boot machine, Windows plus Office, PSP, all of HP's assorted whatever-ware, and every random driver/software whatever from years of different hardware takes up only about 3.5gigs. Linux plus a heck-of-alot more takes up 3gigs.

Now, I guess that games typically take up tons of hard drive space, but there's obviously no reason for that in most 'work' systems.

My main system at home is used for everything from work to gaming to entertainment. That's the beauty, I don't have to buy three computers for anything I would ever need. And I don't have anything extra installed. Just the OS, office, photoshop, two visual studios (third soon to be added), msdn, matlab, a bunch of other programms needed for school and multitude of smaller programs like burning software dvd/mp3/video players, SSH, dictionaries which don't take a lot. I have absolutely no idea how you could fit an OS and a "heck-of-alot more" in just 3 Gigs. Currently you can't do anything in 12Gigs other than browse web and check your email.

Did you even read what I wrote? I have Office on it (on the Windows side). On the Linux side, I have Open Office, as well as various other software suites I tend to prefer over Open Office when I have a choice (mostly gtk apps like Abiword and Gnumeric).

As for programming environments, I don't program on the Windows side--too expensive.

Just because you have no idea how it's possible doesn't mean it's impossible. I have SOME idea how you've managed to consume so much space. By default Windows wastes away unbelievable amounts of space with all its system snapshots and undo crap. Just turning that off should save you 10gigs of space (not that you need it, I suppose).

You can and should build a dirt cheap file server. The cost is more or less the cost of the hard drive. You can literally find suitable file server hardware in the trash.

You cannot build a dirt cheap file server for the cost of the hard drive, unless you have a lot of spare parts available to you already.

You can find a suitable file server computer in the trash. Really. A junked Pentium II with 32megs of RAM is overkill for a fast file server.

Just the P4/athlon mobo, CPU and memory is going to cost you $100-140. If you want to build system using P3/thunderbird era hardware then you are running into other problems like the lack of integrated network (in the best case you will get 100Mbit), lack of 48bit LBA support which will force you to buy external controller and in most cases lack of integrated video card.

Unless you're talking about REALLY ancient computer hardware, 48bit LBA support is as simple as using Linux (either a "normal" Linux distribution or a turn-key dedicated file server solution which some here prefer). Even if you want to stick with Windows (in which case you obviously have to spend money on the OS), there may be an overlay utility which comes with the hard drive.

And how are you going to manage it? You need another monitor or a KVM switch. Of course you could simply manage it via remote desktop, but it requires another computer to be on.

What's wrong with having another computer on? BTW, KVM switches are dirt cheap nowadays.

The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.

Then why do we have silent video forum?

SPCR is NOT populated by average computer users. We know it. We're proud of it.

Why almost every single rig of a typical SPCR has 6600GT-7900GT level videocard?

That's wrong. None of my computers have anything of that level, and I alone account for what...half a dozen computer systems? Even just me eliminates the "every single rig" qualification.

Many SPCR rigs use integrated video for improved airflow and reduced cooling requirements. And of course, there's the elite club of Shuttle Zen users...

That's what a fast RAID in a file server is for. Gigabit ethernet to a fast RAID will outperform any silent local hard drive.

Never toyed with the idea of networked raid for work, so I can't say if it really is going to be faster, but it is going to be pretty expensive.

Not all THAT expensive. An old PIII with a single IDE card, a gigabit NIC, and 4 hard drives can get 75% of gigabit speeds (half of the hard drives share the PCI bus with the NIC, and PCI is just barely higher than gigabit bandwidth).

I don't do any CD or DVD burning from local storage. I find burning data straight off the network to be more reliable even though my network is only 100mbit.

Now that is a BS. You cannot burn CD/DVDs over 100Mbit network.

Every single CD and DVD I've burned in the last several years proves it.

100Mbit translates into 10MB/s, realistically more like 5-8Mb/s.

Actually, with full duplex it's theoretically 20MB/s. I actually get only 10Mb/s. That's with NFS. With Windows networking, I only get around 5Mb/S.

Burning DVDs requres 11Mb/s sustained transfer, 100Mbit cannot support it, nevermind 12-16x burning speeds.

I don't really know what the requirements are. Before I switched to Linux, I was using Windows burning DVDs from the local drive (network speeds too slow for me to even consider trying). Even so, my old PIII was slow so the status light on the DVD burner was constantly red/orange. It would frequently spin down entirely, presumably for the computer to catch up. Needless to say, DVD burns took FOREVER, but hey--they actually still worked anyway. As long as the DVD burner supports "burn-safe", or whatever the heck they call it, it's okay if the data being fed to it is being fed really slowly.

Anyway, ever since I switched to Linux and burning over the network, I get nothing but "green" status lights and the drive never spins down while burning.

[CA_Steve]

Maybe Apple should reconsider their Flash usage with the Nano line-up

We think alike. I've got a 1st gen 4GB Mini that I use for travel and wished that it was 8GB. This 12GB meets my needs quite well. It'll be 2 years before Flash can get to this density/pricepoint.

[andyb]

I personally wouldnt use one of those drives in my desktop, but I made a conscious decision to make a compromise between noise and performance and price and space, the result is in my Sig.

It's not the ultimate in silence, the ultimate would be driveless and fanless, but its performance would suck for playing games etc etc. Likewise I have large storage needs so another compromise there. And taste otherwise I would buy a P150 but its colour scheme would offend my eyes.

Most people compromise, the ones who dont, compromise by building multiple machines for multiple uses, I dont have that luxury (I wish I did).

However getting back to the drive, 12GB of storage in that tiny form factor is very nice indeed, and to woo the SS (solid state) crowd it has a gyroscope (I beleive) built into it to aid protection (IBM did this with some of their laptops 12+ months ago).

The drive itself is NOT revolutionary, but its evolving in the correct way very fast with a little help from "Perpendicular Technology".

Andy

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

Did they mention if this unit uses the perpendicular magnetic system?

[jaganath]

Did they mention if this unit uses the perpendicular magnetic system?

Yes, it does:

tach digest

Seagate's drives just keep getting smaller - and capacity keeps getting larger. At the 3GSM, they have announced their latest hard drive, the ST1.3 Series 12GB 1-inch hard drive, which enables more audio and video within mobile devices.

The new ST1.3 Series drive is 23% smaller than Seagate's current 1-inch drive, but using perpendicular technology, packs in 50% more storage capacity with 30% less power consumption.

[mathias]

Maybe Apple should reconsider their Flash usage with the Nano line-up

We think alike. I've got a 1st gen 4GB Mini that I use for travel and wished that it was 8GB.

What's stopping you from swapping in a bigger drive?

[CA_Steve]

It's a level of customization that I really don't want to do. Plus my gen 1 Mini only gets about 5-6hrs per charge. I'd rather wait for a higher capacity small form factor iPod with the higher time per charge (~18hr).