Where are all the 1 TB, 7200 RPM laptop drives?

I'm looking to upgrade my secondary HDD and I can't find any 1 TB 7200 RPM drives except like enterprise ones that cost $300. Why don't there seem to be any drives of this size and speed? Or are there and I just can't find them?

 

there isnt a 7200 rpm 1tb 2.5'' drive.

 

Is there a reason for that?

 

The tech isn't 'there' yet...

most of the 1tb and all of the 1.5/2tb drives are 12.5mm or larger.

IRRC there's only 1-2 9.5mm 1tb drives and they are $100+

 

The Seagate and WD 1TB 5400's are now either at or under $100 now.

 

Does 7200 RPM really make that much difference for a non-OS drive? 750 GB 7200 rpm drives are like same price as 1 TB 5400 rpm.

 

I found my drive performs nicely it scored a 5.9 in the WEI or close to that. in reviews it was being pitted up against 7200rpm drives it wasn't as fast but, close too. The fact that it such high density makes it perform well fora 5400rpm drive. You can see my drive in my signature below.

 

indeed, if you want speed you go for SSD, if you want storage and speed you go for SSD and HDD, or if you have a lot of money you go for a SSD only system

 

For about $2500.00 USD you can have this... Newegg.com - OCZ Talos 2 C Series 960GB 2.5" Dual-Port SAS 6.0 Gbit/s (Full Duplex/Active-Active) Synchronous Mode Multi-Level Cell (MLC) Enterprise Solid State Disk TL2CSAK2G2M1X-0960 - Enterprise SSD

 

Most 1TB drives out there i read produce problem sooner then expected. I personally have a WD640GB Blue, its indeed a horrible drive. Anything beyond 500GB 7200RPM from WD at the moment are bad from my experience. You could get the WD500GB 5400RPM version if its for storage, its very genetic so will last for long time, else the 7200RPM will do too, although faster RPM mean more heat and less lifespan.

 

The tech has been 'there' for quite some time... the manufacturers just haven't found 'cheap' ways (for them) of making it yet.
They operate on the principles of 'cost effectiveness' and profits, not what is doable from a resource and technological point of view (if its not 'economically cheap', they won't do it anytime soon).

They are also using cheap materials and means of production, not what is 'technologically best or efficient'.

Look at cooling in laptops - inefficient to say the least... using materials that are 'cheap'.
'Retina displays' - invented some time ago (and viable in practical application on a mass production scale) - current 'mid-range' laptops have a 800p resolution.

Batteries - woefully outdated for over 2 decades.

IBM demonstrated a graphene CPU 2 years ago.
Semiconductors and means of production from synthetic diamonds (a material FAR superior to silicon and applicable in other electronic devices like HDD's that would effectively have many times more current capacity and speed) were patented in 1990's. ( Patent US7973339 - Diamond semiconductor element and process for producing the same - Google Patents)

Am I the only one seeing a 'pattern' that effectively demonstrates how we are using outdated technologies (with minor revisions every 12 to 24 months) which is a direct byproduct of society focusing itself on pursuit of 'profits' and limiting itself on arbitrary notions of 'value' and 'cost'?

 

You don't need a graphene CPU to watch Youtube, post on Facebook, and work on spreadsheets in MS Office, which is where 80% or more of the computing public falls. The continued dominance of smartphones and tablets will further diminish such "needs."

 

They are not mass producible, there is no point creating a great consumer CPU if you can only make a hundred or so for $100,000 each.

When 512GB mSATA drives are released MSI GT machines will be able to take 2TB of solid state storage in them for relatively reasonable money.

 

Exactly what Meaker said. There are very few people what would purchase a 1TB 7200 drive especially when a 1TB 5400 drive isn't that much slower.

 

A properly built (Hitachi TravelStar...) 7200 RPM 1TB HDD will be at least 40% faster and up to 60% (or more) faster than a 1TB 5400 RPM HDD.

I would be in the market to purchase a 1TB 7200 RPM drive.

Why? Because they're built to a different spec than their much lower performing 5400 RPM models (ie: they're much more reliable in my experience).

 

I see... so just because there is no 80% of the demand for it, it shouldn't be done and the market should be producing outdated garbage toys with planned obsolescence in mind?

Didn't someone say at one point that 640K is enough for people?
Just look at how THAT turned out.

Except that they are made from synthetic materials which we can (and do) produce in abundance (and are even being touted as 'cheaper' than what is used now), along with our ability to mass produce technology at most a year or two after its prototype was made.

'Value' is arbitrarily decided. Cost has nothing to do with our technological ability to do something (let alone actual resources).
We live in a world of artificially induced scarcity because that's what drives the current socio-economic system.

You look at technology from a perspective of 'cost efficiency'.
I don't.
Cost efficiency = technical inefficiency.

Products are designed to break down and to be non-upgrade-able intentionally (or have a very limited ability in doing so).
If we were to design technology with the best possible materials we can synthesize in a sustainable capacity with highest technological efficiency... lets just say we wouldn't be having this conversion - alas, such a practice doesn't exist within Capitalism (except perhaps the military that shows some inclination towards making technology which lasts).

 

Cost has EVERYTHING to do with our technological ability to achieve something. Why aren't there hundreds of Bugatti Veyrons on the road? Why are they out of production now? Because few people wanted to or could purchase them. Why were all the GTX590s sold out within a few weeks? Because only a few thousand units were manufactured. Just because you can afford something does not mean that so can the rest of the 99%. And no I am not a fan of the Occupy movements.

You can look at it from whatever the heck perspective you wish. Fact - there are multi billion dollar companies out there that do not produce what you want. These companies did not get there by magic. Their management did something right and that is why Samsung's can sell their shares at over 500 bucks a share. So if they have not come out with something you want, it is because it is going to make them a loss and what you are saying is wrong.

 

the problem with your logic as always when you post things about new tech for cpus and so forth, is that you cant:
1) understand what are the laws of economics
2) You think that something that worked in lab will work everywhere else
3) You taunt untested and unreleased tech as something that are getting pushed behind, because there is some dark conspiracy between the companies against dumb consumers.

Thing is, silicon is going to be replaced, we are already researching ways to replace it. It actually takes time to get things going. Its completely different to manufacture something in a lab and to mass produce it. The designs for the intel cpus are done for some years, I dont know exactly the number of years, but for example haswell was already being tested last year, are you going to throw in the trash the cost of the development of ivy? Both use 22nm tech, however one is a complete different arch, while the other has some improvements over sandy. And do you really think that intel didnt suffered any delays producing that 22nm tech? They did, the most important company in this business had some tech problems in making the thing that they designed and tested for some years, including their factories.

Another fair example would be that some guys in some lab made a circuit board or something similar (I cant recall exactly) that was 1 atom thick, and due to it being that thin, its transparent, thus making way for really transparent electronics, does that mean that tomorrow we are going to have devices based on that? no! It takes time for tech to mature, let alone to develop machines to mass produce those things, do you really think that all the R&D money that intel uses is for their cpus and added chips? nope, its also used for their factories.

To continue on economics, hong kong was a pretty forgotten place, its only significance was that it was an island that have some people living in it, Im not even going to argue that they tried to make a coup or that they have a different ideology from mainland china. To get out of that abysmal thing that they called their economy they invested heavily in manufacturing processes for chips. Do you think that it took 1 year to make all that? It was an idea that started in the late 70's.

There are cartels in the tech industry, as in all industries, some given the entry barrier have to have cartels or monopolies. there are no dark conspiracies here, just plain money talking and logic.

You can see that I didnt even used money as the basis of the argument, just plain tech, and how long it gets to get things going.

The idea of multi planar transistors was something that was researched several years ago, when it was introduced for the masses? this year. Its troublesome to insert new tech, and while we need to do it, we also need to know how to make it happen.

btw here is a link to the 1 atom layer circuit board article that I talked about
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...electronics-made-from-single-layers-of-atoms/

 

The mere term 'economics' means to economize - sensible, smart and efficient allocation of resources - which is a direct opposite of what we do in Capitalism (being wasteful, creating an economy based on scarce resources even though we had practical/viable alternatives for a century which are renewable/non-polluting, and basing our technology on planned obsolescence/cyclical consumption which is ultimately wasteful, WITHOUT full-scale recycling).
We are also using 'cheap' materials and 'means of production' for the purpose of creating long term profits - because if companies were to come out with the best possible technology we can muster from the most advanced synthetic materials and to be upgrade-able, not to mention durable, long term profits would quite simply plummet.
Technical inefficiency is what drives the current system.

So, I would say I understand the underlying function of the current socio-economic system.
I just don't approve of how it does things because its exactly the opposite of what it SHOULD be doing (or touts its doing).

Silicon is going to be replaced when companies reach the limit of what they can do with it, not before.
Its a multi-billion dollar industry, that can still milk consumers for all its worth.
That said... regardless if Intel had issues transitioning to 22nm tech, it doesn't matter.
They knew going to 22nm and lower (with silicon) was possible some time ago, and instead of immediately working on a 22nm (or smaller scale) cpu, they went with INCREMENTAL decreases once every 2 years (or so) - because its PROFITABLE.
Doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to make it happen sooner if they actively worked on it.

Also, on usage of more advanced semiconductors made from synthetic diamonds...
They could have implemented synthetic diamond as a material wherever possible in electronics in mid 1990's to supplement existing silicon chips and mitigate inefficiency (and increase performance).
A transitional hybrid if you will until they could make a full diamond cpu.
Similar thing could have been done with graphene.

Why are we still using copper for heat-sinks?
Its 'cheap' - and not very effective.
There are several other materials that could have been used in its' place that are technologically superior and can be produced in abundance.
'Cost' is nothing more than a hindering nuisance which is arbitrarily decided by those who hold the largest amount of a needed resource so they would earn more profits in the long run.

There are tons of examples throughout our history where 'cost prohibitive' technologies were invented and never used.
Cost prohibitive = possible in a technological/resource capacity (in abundance no less), just not profitable from a monetary point of view.

Testing doesn't have to be conducted over a decade... it needs about 6 months or maybe a year of field testing... after which it would need 6 months up to a year to be mass produced - yes, our technology IS that capable - seeing especially how majority of the production industry is AUTOMATED.

This notion that technology needs to 'mature' is only linked to the monetary aspect of the whole premise.
Has little to do with its viability in practical application.
If a technology is demonstrated to be superior to what you made before and works as intended, the next step is to integrate it into existing technology and see if you can augment it, if not completely replace it.
IBM demonstrated this with graphene in 2010.
It was done before the year 2000 with synthetic diamonds.
So, why aren't we at least seeing graphene used partly in current day electronics (cpu's included)?
Because commercial companies don't like to invest in such new technology until its' cost comes down because that would mean they need to expend more compared to the profits they could make.
Greed in its finest form.
Plus, companies (due to competitive 'nature' of the system we are in) cannot put out radically advanced technology.

So what?
Mag-lev trains were made in 1974 which are 10x more energy efficient compared to standard trains, not to mention faster.
In the same time frame, vacuum based mag-lev trains were stated to be possible to construct, which would reach 4000m/h (6500km/h).
We had (and still have) ample resources and technology to make it happen, but it didn't catch on globally due to 'monetary costs'.
It wouldn't be something that would take a year to make.
But if there was a global effort to transform the local and intercontinental transport to mag-lev... it could have been done in about a decade (using the technology and automation of the said times).
Today we can do it in less time because of our increased ability to automate things (over 75% of the global workforce can be automated today - even construction - which is where humans slow down the process by a great margin - and we've had industrial grade robotics since 1964).

Whoever said anything about a conspiracy?
You don't need any in a system where common interests converge (and they do so on a daily basis in Capitalism) - DeBeers for example is one of the largest cartels on this planet.
They keep prices of 'natural' diamonds artificially high, even though as a material its the second most abundant in the universe (not to mention on Earth), and we've been producing synthetic ones since 1953 for industrial use - while chip ones (yellow color with high purity and little to no imperfections) were doable in 1990's - which was when semiconductors from the same material was patented and achievable with the technology of the time (not to mention its superior properties over silicon were well known).

Eliminate the entire notion of 'cost', 'value' and 'cost efficiency' and focus on making technology from best possible synthetic materials we can make in abundance with highest possible technological efficiency (all in a sustainable capacity with little to no impact to the environment) and you'd see technology TODAY that you would only dream of reaching practical application in just under 50 years or more.

I will agree planning needs to be taken, but it doesn't require years to go through.
The patent system, not to mention bureaucracy slow down the process immensely (along with plannings of how to be most 'cost efficient' - spend as little money as possible).

Thank you. I'll have a read.
Btw, when graphene was invented back in 2004, I already envisioned atom sized transistors and full fledged atom sized computers.
It spurs imagination for one thing... and that's my point.
Instead of going down gradually, just focus on doing the best of what the material is capable of right away.
Research needs proper resources to be conducted.
Money simply grants access to those resources.
If we remove money from the equation and supply labs with ample relevant resources (as opposed what is being done today by artificially limiting them through 'budgets and cuts'), we wouldn't have the issues we have today.

And yes... it IS that simple.

 

No one is going to read all that to simply argue with you when the fact of the matter is that no company has come out with the technology that you say should be ubiquitous. If you think everyone out there is wrong and only you are correct, and if you think money can simply be removed from the equation, please, start a company that manufactures....well whtaever you wish to manufacture and we shall see how long your company lasts.

 

Maybe. Just find me some solid evidence to prove it.

The '640K' quote won't go away -- but did Gates really say it? - Computerworld

 

@ maverick1989

Such a company would not last long in a Capitalist environment because there would be no long term profits to be made.
I'm not saying that 'everyone is wrong and I'm right' - I do keep an open mind to the possibility I'm wrong... however, looking how the socio-economic system works, its relatively easy to see it doesn't do things that are efficient from a resource/technology point of view... but efficient from a monetary point of view (big difference).

 

Here is the thing you didnt refute anything that I said, but we can also add more things to the lists that you dont know.

Automation of the process has nothing to do with the tech needed to make it happen. Its only something that helps us to achieve that, not the basis.

Have you by any chance saw how complex the machinery to make those things happens is?

I only mentioned one problem with the fabrication tech, because I thought it would be enough, but you can see other problems from TSMC, samsung, and several other companies. To make those factories happen is indeed another big hurdle. We are talking about bleeding edge here, where just a few companies can make the machinery necessary to make it happen, its far from cars or other consumables machines, those are high precision with controlled environments settings.

I thought that I explained to you another time what the economics of this period of time is (i.e. what version of captalism we are using right now and have been since the late 60s), its far from what you think it is. We are in an economy of endless money, thats right, endless money.

Waste, recycling, renewable energy sources? Thats another thing, its patterns of consumerism, I try to generate little waste as possible, I do take 2 baths per day, I do want to buy an electric car. Does everyone does that? Nope. Thats on the minds of the consumers, when we didnt have a clue to what was going on or how things are going to be affected by our decisions, accountability has grown a lot since I was a young kid looking at the nothingness that was ECO 92, which still is a nothingness so many conferences and years still. But popular awareness is something that is growing, hence I said the trend about accountability.

When you state that they withdraw things on purpose from us its a conspiracy.

Do you know how was the cost of the tech of maglev trains was? and do you know how much it is now? its still a extremely expensive proposition. Also it doesnt matter that the train can reach a gazillion of kilometers per hour, when we the passengers cant. You have to rethink the entire way that the cabins are built, I used the TGV and the eurostar trains recently, and there is a discomfort, its very minor, but my neck and back felt the acceleration and the continuous speed. Pressurized cabins are one thing to note, but they also add weight, bulk, the train loses efficiency.

Also your argument about maglev, which I do prefer over regular trains, is basically senseless, for example in a country like france that has tons of railroads, you are going to throw a lot of it in the trash just to make it happen? no! you are going to use what you have, adapt the tech to what you use. If you are a country like china that infrastructure is lacking, you can do such things, there isnt a waste of available resources for you. Or like in brazil where we are planning to build a mag lev based train between 3 major cities and several important ones. Sincerely you complain about pattern of consumerism when what you propose is an intensification of those.

we have gone through Debeers (in another thread), I did a paper on what they do to the world, the only jewelry that I wear are watches (yes I still use those, I like those, I also dont buy extremely expensive ones), and my gfs are already told that I wont give them jewelry, gold is also a problem, have you saw how those mines work?

Your argument is based on how stupid the consumer is, mine is based on how the tech reaches a certain point that its viable to be used. You are still confusing what happens on a lab to what can be produced today. You are also forgetting that integration is something that is extremely complicated.

I thought that you were an engineer, a lot of those things you should know already.

 

Soooo you are saying that there is no reason to develop the product OP is asking for because it will make the manufacturers a loss but they should still develop it? This thread seems to have lost its purpose. Question was - Where are the 7.2k 1TB conventional drives. Answer - D.N.E. And probably won't for a long time.

 

Yeah this thread kinda derailed..