![Image](https://img.clubic.com/photo/000000FA00263759.jpg)
![Image](https://img.clubic.com/photo/000000FA00263761.jpg)
![Image](https://img.clubic.com/photo/000000FA00263762.jpg)
![Image](https://img.clubic.com/photo/01F4000000263763.jpg)
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
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.jaganath wrote: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.
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.JazzJackRabbit wrote: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.
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.Look at jaganath, IsaacKuo and Mr Evil replies, they all want it to be available for desktop now.
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.JazzJackRabbit wrote: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.
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.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
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.on top of an already expensive 1" drive (and yes they will be expensive)
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.not to mention that in a lot of cases ppl don't have another room that can be dedicated to computers.
The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.And what about games?
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.Second problem is speed. I program stuff and I notice performance difference even between 7200RPM 2.5 drive and a good 3.5 drive.
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.The drive won't be fast enough to supply the data at a speed required by 40x CD burning, not to mention DVD.
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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.IsaacKuo wrote: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 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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.IsaacKuo wrote:The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.
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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.IsaacKuo wrote:BTW, the AVERAGE computer user doesn't program stuff.
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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.JazzJackRabbit wrote:...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).JazzJackRabbit wrote: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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.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.
What's wrong with having another computer on? BTW, KVM switches are dirt cheap nowadays.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.
SPCR is NOT populated by average computer users. We know it. We're proud of it.Then why do we have silent video forum?IsaacKuo wrote:The AVERAGE computer user doesn't play computer games, other than Solitaire.
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.Why almost every single rig of a typical SPCR has 6600GT-7900GT level videocard?
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).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.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
Every single CD and DVD I've burned in the last several years proves it.Now that is a BS. You cannot burn CD/DVDs over 100Mbit network.IsaacKuo wrote: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.
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.100Mbit translates into 10MB/s, realistically more like 5-8Mb/s.
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.Burning DVDs requres 11Mb/s sustained transfer, 100Mbit cannot support it, nevermind 12-16x burning speeds.
Yes, it does:Did they mention if this unit uses the perpendicular magnetic system?
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.