3T HD


F

Flasherly

They're [3T HDs] essentially at the same price range, as 2T drives,
for not considering the better dollar cost average at 3T.

I've older MBs, early dual cores - no newer fancy mickey-mouse BIOS
stuff;- no 3T support.

That, however, does not appear to relegate me to having to purchase a
3T PCB supported "docking station," (or similar PCI controller/whole
new MB/ god only knows whatnot), to get a workable solution at
partitioning a newer 3T HD into a) 2T + b) .8T for purposes of
recognition on XP/SP1 tru 3.

I'd probably favor Seagate, then WD, all things consider when the
"creek don't rise." My assumption being, (an untested one), that
there are software provisions from HD manufacturers, to include 3rd
party partitioning software fixes -- for addressing an older XP OS
with a viable solution.

I'll also take that to mean: that once the objective (with drivers
and/or software provisions) is achieved on a 3T drive (divided into 2T
+ .8T) _THAT_ the drivers are no longer needed inasmuch for a
dependency issue _SHOULD_ that partitioned HD be transfered to a
similar (old OS system build) _WITHOUT_ any forthcoming HD
manufacturing driver dependencies.

IOW - the 3T HD will not be orphaned for lack of drivers. (Based on
perhaps an irrelevant observation, from my current 2T supported
docking station, whereupon once formatted/partitioned in said docking
station (via USB interconnectivity), transferal to my old MBs (which
do not support 2T drives) is rendered a _NON-ISSUE_*.

(*That stipulation should include, or so I'd assume not to ask for
trouble, that one would not presume to mount a 2T on such a board for
primary BIOS boot operations - rather in keeping with an older,
compliant HD for such purposes. ...Yea, yeah...I got a SDD in there,
too, w/ a boot arbitrator assigned to BIOS Drive0...working, though
it's not supposed to according to all spec'd accounts. You get my
drift, though, rainy-day stuff further down the road...after I get a
3T up and running.)

In SUM: Can I forsee _ALSO_, in need, having to purchase a 3T
supported Docking Station, after having purchased a 3T HD, because I
will fail miserably, getting my butt in a crack when to attempt to
partition it out, if at all, on these MBs (2 early Gigabyte dualcore
build configs - both in Intel/AMD socket variants)?
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

RayLopez99

They're [3T HDs] essentially at the same price range, as 2T drives,
In SUM: Can I forsee _ALSO_, in need, having to purchase a 3T

supported Docking Station, after having purchased a 3T HD, because I

will fail miserably, getting my butt in a crack when to attempt to

partition it out, if at all, on these MBs (2 early Gigabyte dualcore

build configs - both in Intel/AMD socket variants)?

you don't need all that storage capacity Flasherly. Kind of like having 300 HP in a family sedan. What's the point of that?

RL
 
J

John Doe

Regular Google Groups troll...

--
RayLopez99 said:
X-Received: by 10.43.78.135 with SMTP id zm7mr2130373icb.27.1396976696084; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.186.97 with SMTP id fj1mr25924obc.32.1396976695989; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!ur14no4672495igb.0!news-out.google.com!gi6ni272igc.0!nntp.google.com!ur14no4672489igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <q69pj9p11lb3a5sgo7uomsf5dm8c7f47pm 4ax.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.175.164.163; posting-account=fRZa_AkAAACE3nlFA9zM1Eq00OKq1Ycq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.175.164.163
References: <q69pj9p11lb3a5sgo7uomsf5dm8c7f47pm 4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b9835056-06e8-4cc6-88f5-de0009d8d7f3 googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 3T HD
From: RayLopez99 <raylopez88 gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:04:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:29852

They're [3T HDs] essentially at the same price range, as 2T drives,
In SUM: Can I forsee _ALSO_, in need, having to purchase a 3T

supported Docking Station, after having purchased a 3T HD, because I

will fail miserably, getting my butt in a crack when to attempt to

partition it out, if at all, on these MBs (2 early Gigabyte dualcore

build configs - both in Intel/AMD socket variants)?

you don't need all that storage capacity Flasherly. Kind of like having 300 HP in a family sedan. What's the point of that?

RL
 
F

Flasherly

don't need all that storage capacity Flasherly. Kind of like having
300 HP in a family sedan. What's the point of that?

I'm a firm believer in dollar-cost averaging. All else equal, in
technology, prices never drop. Next year's advancements - faster
bigger computing abilities - once they reach a mean standard of
acceptance and availability, hence replace last year's parts, they're
invariably, effectively equal.

Why is this? I checked that way back. Parts I tried to replace, say
it was 386 or 486 MBs at the time of 586 class MBs, they were shipping
boatloads off of all the remaining 386/486 off to South America, where
lines of waiting people formed, stretching into troves of grateful
consumerism filling convention centers, for keeping the 586 in
developed nations exactly at the same entry pricepoint as deemed,
profitably, most ripe.

Now, say, what's the difference between that 2T HD that's garnered all
the best 3000 reviews and a 3T HD, at a difference equating from newer
technology contributing an extra terabyte for merely $10US more?

(All aside blithely-blindsided ignorance of a technological realm now
headed into converting computers pragmatically into mobile augmented
cell phone devices, who's computing prowess is contingent if not a
perceived limitation of cloud services they're solely tethered to.)
 
P

Paul

Flasherly said:
don't need all that storage capacity Flasherly. Kind of like having
300 HP in a family sedan. What's the point of that?

I'm a firm believer in dollar-cost averaging. All else equal, in
technology, prices never drop. Next year's advancements - faster
bigger computing abilities - once they reach a mean standard of
acceptance and availability, hence replace last year's parts, they're
invariably, effectively equal.

Why is this? I checked that way back. Parts I tried to replace, say
it was 386 or 486 MBs at the time of 586 class MBs, they were shipping
boatloads off of all the remaining 386/486 off to South America, where
lines of waiting people formed, stretching into troves of grateful
consumerism filling convention centers, for keeping the 586 in
developed nations exactly at the same entry pricepoint as deemed,
profitably, most ripe.

Now, say, what's the difference between that 2T HD that's garnered all
the best 3000 reviews and a 3T HD, at a difference equating from newer
technology contributing an extra terabyte for merely $10US more?

(All aside blithely-blindsided ignorance of a technological realm now
headed into converting computers pragmatically into mobile augmented
cell phone devices, who's computing prowess is contingent if not a
perceived limitation of cloud services they're solely tethered to.)

One of the issues with increasing capacity, is how long it
takes to move all the data from one hard drive to another.

On hard drives, the transfer speed isn't keeping up with
the capacity.

I have a 3TB drive here. It uses the Acronis Capacity Manager
driver for WinXP, the one that makes the 2TB and 0.8TB
virtual disks. Once the Capacity Manager has created this
formatting, it is possible to access all the partitions from
Linux. It takes a bitmap loopback mount, using an offset parameter,
to gain access to the upper partition. So it is possible to get
the data off the drive in an emergency.

With a newer OS than WinXP, you'd use GPT partitioning instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Paul
 
F

Flasherly

One of the issues with increasing capacity, is how long it
takes to move all the data from one hard drive to another.

On hard drives, the transfer speed isn't keeping up with
the capacity.

I have a 3TB drive here. It uses the Acronis Capacity Manager
driver for WinXP, the one that makes the 2TB and 0.8TB
virtual disks. Once the Capacity Manager has created this
formatting, it is possible to access all the partitions from
Linux. It takes a bitmap loopback mount, using an offset parameter,
to gain access to the upper partition. So it is possible to get
the data off the drive in an emergency.

With a newer OS than WinXP, you'd use GPT partitioning instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table


Not possibly ready for that, GPT, and will hang on to FAT32 for as
long as possible if at all feasible. My Easeus Partition Magic
derived 2T drives are formatted under that scheme to FAT32. (I've had
some nightmare-grade restoration issues when going with NTFS and
subsequent corruption - nowhere and never near that severity with an
occasional rare FAT32 "hiccup" - so much as breathe to hot on NTFS and
it's prone to turn Jello into goop, in my experience.)

True and that reminds me of hearing rumors of issues of losing speed
when going out of intended 3T ideal standards with older soft/hardware
transpositions.

As it is, with USB-slotted transfers from docking station drive to
same, I'll average an abyssal 10KBytes/pSec (say to 20KB/s for my
fastest Class 10 USB flashstick, and up to a reasonable 50KB/s from
the HDs on internal SATA ports).

Thankfully, relocation issues or significant copy redundancy won't be
a primary imposition: once I've moved what needs to be where, it
usually sits just fine for awhile, usually more;- getting into it, I
really don't mind leaving a 5" DC fan motor on two docking stations
going at it between themselves at 10KB/s, and heading cozily off to
beddy bye.

Of course proof in the pudding may and besides eventually will include
newer hardware to maximize 3T potentials. Just getting "my beak wet,"
as they say in Sicily.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Y

Yousuf Khan

you don't need all that storage capacity Flasherly. Kind of like having 300 HP in a family sedan. What's the point of that?

I just bought a 3TB, and I definitely needed it, as my older 1TB and
1.5TB drives were becoming full.

Yousuf Khan
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top