any drawbacks to a 1TB drive?

S

slotguy

New Member
other than the amount of time it'd take to format or defrag.. ?

i'm thinking about trading in my 2 old ATA 300's for a SATA 1TB. western digital. i'm a little worried about the fact that if it dies i lose absolutley everything.. should be ok right?

should i expect problems with windows or whatever about the size? like how there's that 127Mb issue with the 300's. will i be able to use the whole thing?

any drawbacks :confused:
 
The only thing I can see is that if your drive does crashes, thats a lot of data that would be lost, but as long as you have a backup solution then it shouldn't be much of an issue.

What OS are you using? Vista has no problems seeing 1TB drives, and I believe XP SP2 doesn't either.
 
If you have 2 TB of pr0n that could be a problem, you would need more space!

There are two kinds of people in this world, people who back up their data and people who wish they did.
 
Don't want to hijack this thread, but does anyone have an estimate on how long it takes to defrag a moderately fragmented 1TB sata drive? With a say E8400 cpu? Q6600 cpu? If anyone has a 1TB drive, I am curious to know how long it takes you, your processor, and what program you use. Thanks.
 
I'll defrag mine and see how long it takes. I never defrag my hard drives. :)

EDIT: No, it looks like Vista has been running scheduled defrags ever since I reinstalled the OS. :\

BTW, processor usage appears to be insignificant.
 
Last edited:
other than price there arent really any downsides. i guess the data loss thing could be a downside, but all drives carry that risk
 
1 TB should not be a problem, as long as you have a good data protection plan in place. Backup regularly, and have some file recovery (in case of accidental deletion/recycle bin flushing) software in place to safeguard your data. Both are essential components for protecting data. It's not fun to hunt for emergency solutions after losing data.

BTW, I am also in a similar position as you are. I have about 1.X TB on my system right now, but not on a single drive...rather it's spread out over 4 drives. I am actually planning to replace the smaller drives with 2x 1TB drives solely for data, so that finally, it ends up as 2x500Gb and 2x1TB. Files these days are huge, and HDD space is cheap :D
 
I have a 750gb and a 320gb. 320 for the main and 750 for everything else. I backup alot of my stuff to dvds and put them in a safe. When I transfered all my stuff from the 320 to the 750 i defraged both drives and the 320gb took about 2hrs and the 750gb took way longer (prob 5hrs or more). If the cache speed is the same as the two 300's that you had then there really is no setbacks. Windows startup might be slower at startup by a little but thats about it.
 
is 7200 rpm the best i'm gonna do? i've heard about 10k... are they not so common yet?

$200 aint bad for one solid HD that'll hold a billion movies
 
slotguy said:
is 7200 rpm the best i'm gonna do? i've heard about 10k... are they not so common yet?

$200 aint bad for one solid HD that'll hold a billion movies
Click to expand...

The only 10k rpm drives i know of are the WD RAPTORS. These drives are really crazy fast when opening up files, running programs, etc. Thats only from other's word though.
 
raptors are indeed 10k, thanks for pointing them out. but they seem to be relatively small.. i think 150G is as high as i saw. i guess a 7200 is the best i can do with a terabyte drive. which is as fast as the HDs i've had for years and years...... :rolleyes:

give it 2 years, a windows 7 upgrade, and whatever else happens... and this $200 will look like a mistake. which is why i haaaaaaaate the world of computers :D

i am looking forward to putting that ATA stuff behind me though.. those thick old big grey strips... i will need a new motherboard but that will feel good............. so i'm getting a giant f'n harddrive. thanks for the reviews...........
 
[-0MEGA-];975846 said:
The only thing I can see is that if your drive does crashes, thats a lot of data that would be lost, but as long as you have a backup solution then it shouldn't be much of an issue.

What OS are you using? Vista has no problems seeing 1TB drives, and I believe XP SP2 doesn't either.
Click to expand...

My first thought when I saw the thread title. That's a ton of data to lose.
 
Those 10k raptors are tempting speed wise, but I can't really justify the $$ for such small drives....150GB is nothing these days. Besides, newer, larger drives are also usually much faster than before due to bigger cache sizes and higher areal bit density. For instance, using Teracopy, I was able to sustain 70-85 MB/sec for a while during file copying between my 500 GB (32MB cache) drives. On my old 250/16s I could hit only about 50 MB/sec.

And yeah, SATA is way better than PATA, even if it's just the cable managment lol. I can't imagine how I used to manage with those lousy IDE cables. I need to replace my DVD-RW with a SATA one too, sometime soon.

g25racer said:
defraged both drives and the 320gb took about 2hrs and the 750gb took way longer (prob 5hrs or more).
Click to expand...

I use an automatic defragger for the whole system; it keeps all the drives defragmented without any work on my part. Since it occurs in the background when there are unused CPU/HDD/RAM resources, I never have to worry about when it ends. :D I don't have to schedule defrags anymore and wait for it to finish.
 
It might not be that important, but Microsoft still thought it was important enough to schedule the defragger to run once a week in Vista by default
 
I use tuneup utilities one click maintance to defrag my drives and stuff. It defrags every week or something automatically though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top