This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Why is the Micropolis 5.25" 650MB drive listed in '93? DEC had a 5.25" 1.3GB drive (the RZ58) in early '92. 208.66.208.200 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"2007 - 300 terabit hard drives are said to come in 2010.[6]" was added to the chronology; however a search of the Seagate web site reveals no such announcement. Furthermore, the author of the underlying article has no apparent qualifications for his announcement nor does he cite his source. I have asked for a clarification and assuming I don't get one, will remove this citation in about a week. Any objections?
Tom94022 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
After lack of objection and lack of attribution by source I deleted this as fictitious, see
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/02/seagate-the-answer-to-digital-distribution/2#comments
Tom94022 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Do they use a dedicated power source like 3.5-inch hdd, or is the power supplied through the ide connection? Terranitup 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
When did these go into production? I have a 3.5" WD Caviar from 1992 (80MB!!!), and from experience they seem to be pretty commonplace in desktops by around then. -- Zilog Jones 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
References
In the PC era section, there should be mention of the drive size limits, unless this is in another article? already.
etc... 132.205.44.134 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
See
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.2
This should be integrated into the article.
70.55.86.204 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What's this! Not a single word about the predecessor of the hard disk drive, the magnetic drum? It would appear from this article that IBM alone is to be credited for inventing the hard disk. As far as I can see, back in 1948 the foundations were laid by researchers at the Manchester university. http://tommythomas.org.uk/Manchester/manchester_drums.html - Onno Zweers 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the page because it was not clear that the cites were in fact the first at a particular capacity AND because it is not clear that a first of any capacity is, per se, worthy of listing in this article. HDD density has been increasing annually at a rate generally exceeding 25%per year for over 50 years so that at least every year or so there is a new "first" in capacity per disk drive. This is then complicated by the differing sizes in disk diameter and differing number of disks in a stack, so that a first in capacity per drive may be an also run in areal density (e.g. the Hitachi 1 TByte). On the whole, I think we are better off in not producing a long list of "firsts" that are really just evolutionary but should only cite those that are associated with some revolutionary technology. Tom94022 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yr edit to the HDD history page is incorrect in calling the use of Winchester "unsourced nonsense." The statement is not sourced but it is not nonsense. I refer you, for example, to "Winchester drives to be focus of attention over next two years," J Trifari, MiniMicro Systems, Februrary 1982, p 135-143, or the MiniMicro February 1981 edition which has eight articles regarding HDD's using "Winchester" generically and a cover that states, "Disk Drives: Diversification in Winchesters, Maturity in Floppies ...". A casual review on the technical and business literature of the early 1980's will find many instances of the use of Winchester drive as a generic for what we today most commonly call hard disk drive. Why it dropped from use in the late 1980's is an interesting question, but the statement is not nonsense. However, I don't think the statement adds much to the article so I didn't undo your reversion but I thought u might like to know of its factual basis. Tom94022 ( talk) 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember the use of "Winchester drive" as a synonym for hard drive. I am currently reading the number of Byte magazine of May, 1985 and I come across it several times, for instance in page 187 (page 189 in the PDF document) [1]. Even though that the term might have fallen into disuse, it is important to keep a record of it so when new readers come across it in an old text they can find out its meaning. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The external links of this article is being discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#History of hard disk drives - 1950s through 1990s in accordance with Wikipedia's External links guidelines. (notice added 04:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)) |
— Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a similar hard disk list last edited by Tom94022 ( User:Tom94022?) – Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/29/seagate-busts-out-3tb-external-hard-drive-for-250/
24.151.31.39 ( talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
At the time the HDD was invented, 1956, drums were used as main memory and not as storage. The IBM 305 RAMAC system used a drum for main memory and the IBM 350 RAMAC drive for storage. It is only later that as drums got displaced by core for main memory that some drums were used as storage but they were never able to establish more than a niche market. Prior to the invention of the HDD the primary storage device was the tape drive and I know of no system that used a drum for storage - memory yes, storage no. And I know of no system that ever used an HDD for memory. Absent any evidence to support Wtshymanski's contention that HDDs replaced drums, I am again removing this inaccurate statement. If there is any evidence to support this contention it should be discussed here and not by WP.EW Tom94022 ( talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Been so long, the terminology is slipping from me, so, if I'm using the wrong terms anywhere, by all means, please apply the correct ones. I was a software guy, not a hardware one.
As I recall the transition of hard drives from using the early style "slider" (directly in and out on a line through the center of the spin axis) of the head actuator mechanism to the more modern "radial" armatures (in which the head moves on an arc across the disc surface roughly perpendicular to the spinning drive) was a major development. I seem to recall that this mechanism could be controlled much more accurately, allowing a substantial boost in track density, and thus a notable increase in drive capacity. I'd suggest this development is worth mentioning in the timeline of key events.
--
OBloodyHell (
talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to jump from mainframes to PCs without discussion of the minicomputer era (late 70s to the early 90s or so). Very important for dic development with companies like DEC and HP dominating with the VAX series, HP3000/9000, etc. Any chance of us wedging this in-between? Mikebar ( talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Why was the article renamed? Mikebar ( talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that we also have an article on IBM drives alone, it's surprising to see how little coverage there is here for non-IBM work. Particularly non US work. IBM dominated in the early years, but through the '70s companies like DEC were just as important.
Although a dead end (as they couldn't use removable media), what about the giant platter drives? Some of these were around 4' wide. What about UK makers? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
When did the voice coil actuator make its debut? How long did stepper motor driven heads hang on after? Bizzybody ( talk) 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
How much $ per megabyte, when? More useful information in this chart. http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm Bizzybody ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
While disks quickly replaced drums for secondary storage, there was a lengthy period in which disks competed in the mass storage marketplace with various devices using magnetic tape strips (e.g., NCR CRAM, IBM 2321 Data Cell) and magnetic tape cartridges (e.g., IBM 3850). The article should mention that competition, although it should not give a timeline. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph still doesn't feel right to me so I found some reliable sources for primary storage circa 1957, namely "A Third Survey of Domestic Electronic Digital Computing Systems" (March 1961) and "Data Processing Technology and Economics, 2nd Ed. (c) 1979. The former lists all computers in the US as of about 1960 while the latter lists only what the author felt were "significant" computers beginning 1955. Both show the typical primary memory circa 1957 was overwhelmingly drum (either alone or as a cache to core) followed by core with other older memory technology a small percentage.
Also there was early cartridge tape in Hypertape (1961 ca) and it is pretty clear that the 3850 did not compete with DASD but instead was complementary, like hot dogs and hot dog buns. There are reliable sources that IBM mainly was after STC with the 3850 and may have gone as far as to shut down new reel to reel tape production anticipating the success of the 3850 (which never achieved its objectives).
Comments before I again revise the paragraph back towards its original simpler form? Tom94022 ( talk) 19:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not privy to when this standard changed in hard drive manufacturing, but in 1998, the IEC officially changed the definition of a megabyte to be 1000 kilobytes, rather than 2^10, or 1024 kilobytes (and likewise with kilobytes and gigabytes, but megabytes were most applicable during that itme. I think the article could be enhanced by adding some data about this change (not in-depth, necessarily, just a mention of the original storage being measured in what are now termed "mebibytes" (and kibi- and gibi- and etc.) As would be naturally assumed, computer and data scientists always referred to these multiples of bytes utilizing a base-2 unit, as that is what is most applicable when dealing with binary data. However, at some point, hard drive manufacturers realized they could represent their data in a base-10 format, thus significantly increasing the amount of data they represented their drives as storing. It seems apparent that this was not always the case, though became the case sometime in advance of 1998, when the IEC changed the suggested interpretation of the units. Computer scientists have trudged forward with the units most useful to them (now termed with the "b's" (mebi, etc.), although they often still use the previous words (mega, etc.) Nonetheless, consumers are left not really knowing (or perhaps caring) what measure is used by their OS (and, indeed, different operating systems report their storage differently: Windows says "mega", but considers mega to mean 1024, while some Linux distros use "mebi", eschewing mega entirely. While Mac OS uses "mega" to refer to 10^6 bytes (in accordance with hard drive manufacturers.) One can only hope this is cleared up one day...but I digress. The point of this is to state that this article should certainly make mention of the time in which these measurements changed meaning. I will do some research soon; however, if anybody has some knowledge (and where to find it) prior to my attempting to find sources, I do encourage them to contribute. Jtrnp ( talk) 03:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The last time this was discussed, which admittedly was many years ago, the consensus was that we do not need to include every capacity increase in the timeline. I'd like to take most of them out, particularly the ones that are announcements with no corresponding product release, per WP:NOTNEWS. Thoughts? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that this subject has reappeared, perhaps a chart like this either in this article or in the primary article . Tom94022 ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
To some extent coming to this article for the first time I was (also) expecting to be able to see an evolution of HDD form factor and a discussion on the evolution of interfaces ... (ST506 (MFM/RLL) ... actually they are a recording technique from memory), IDE, ATA SATA, USB .... and perhaps more in a prose narrative than an absolute timeline. Put simply I wonder whether the following sections would be interesting in narrative:
Just a thought ... I'm not doing anything myself. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does the tense shift from past to "historical present" in the timeline?
--> past tense 1979 – IBM 3370 introduced thin film heads, 571 MB, non-removable 1979 – 1979 IBM 62PC "Piccolo" – 64.5 megabytes, six 8-inch disks, first 8-inch HDD 1980 – The IBM 3380 was the world's first gigabyte-capacity disk drive. Two 1.26 GB, head disk assemblies (essentially two HDDs) were packaged in a cabinet the size of a refrigerator,[20] weighed 455 kg (1000 lb), and had a price tag of US$81,000 (Model B4) which is US$246,304 in present-day terms.[21] --> historical present tense 1980 – Seagate releases the first 5.25-inch hard drive, the ST-506[22]; it had a 5-megabyte capacity, weighed 5 pounds, and cost US$1,500[23] EETech ( talk) 16:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The term introduced is ambiguous; it could refer to the announced date or to first customer ship (FCS). The lede should specify which date is used. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2011 I purchased a 3TB external hard disk drive. Recently I saw ~12 TB HDD at a shopping center.
The article currently does not explain the reason hard disk drives are changing. 2011-2022 brought about significant increases in HDD storage capacity. This article does not classify the paradigm-shifting changes in HDD technology from 2010 to 2022. Major advancements have been made, and this encyclopedia page needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:5700:9400:0:0:0:B ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it known (at least approximately) at what time there were more IBM compatible PCs sold with hard disks than without one? The late 1980s saw a wave of cheap clones without hard disks, and especially PC game software sold around 1990 often still supported floppy-only PCs, so I assume the transition was not too long before 1990, right? If you have any info on this, it would be nice to add it. An internet search didn't turn up any specific answers. -- 2003:C0:974C:6200:C10D:9876:D9C8:56F8 ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
At some point, IBM introduced gmr ( Giant magnetoresistance) based hd heads, and this soon became standard (naturally, reading heads only).
Not an expert, but I believe this was important enough development to be mentioned in the history and timeline. I don't have enough knowledge to add those details myself, only enough to notice their absence.
Peace קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Why is the Micropolis 5.25" 650MB drive listed in '93? DEC had a 5.25" 1.3GB drive (the RZ58) in early '92. 208.66.208.200 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"2007 - 300 terabit hard drives are said to come in 2010.[6]" was added to the chronology; however a search of the Seagate web site reveals no such announcement. Furthermore, the author of the underlying article has no apparent qualifications for his announcement nor does he cite his source. I have asked for a clarification and assuming I don't get one, will remove this citation in about a week. Any objections?
Tom94022 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
After lack of objection and lack of attribution by source I deleted this as fictitious, see
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/02/seagate-the-answer-to-digital-distribution/2#comments
Tom94022 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Do they use a dedicated power source like 3.5-inch hdd, or is the power supplied through the ide connection? Terranitup 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
When did these go into production? I have a 3.5" WD Caviar from 1992 (80MB!!!), and from experience they seem to be pretty commonplace in desktops by around then. -- Zilog Jones 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
References
In the PC era section, there should be mention of the drive size limits, unless this is in another article? already.
etc... 132.205.44.134 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
See
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.2
This should be integrated into the article.
70.55.86.204 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What's this! Not a single word about the predecessor of the hard disk drive, the magnetic drum? It would appear from this article that IBM alone is to be credited for inventing the hard disk. As far as I can see, back in 1948 the foundations were laid by researchers at the Manchester university. http://tommythomas.org.uk/Manchester/manchester_drums.html - Onno Zweers 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the page because it was not clear that the cites were in fact the first at a particular capacity AND because it is not clear that a first of any capacity is, per se, worthy of listing in this article. HDD density has been increasing annually at a rate generally exceeding 25%per year for over 50 years so that at least every year or so there is a new "first" in capacity per disk drive. This is then complicated by the differing sizes in disk diameter and differing number of disks in a stack, so that a first in capacity per drive may be an also run in areal density (e.g. the Hitachi 1 TByte). On the whole, I think we are better off in not producing a long list of "firsts" that are really just evolutionary but should only cite those that are associated with some revolutionary technology. Tom94022 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yr edit to the HDD history page is incorrect in calling the use of Winchester "unsourced nonsense." The statement is not sourced but it is not nonsense. I refer you, for example, to "Winchester drives to be focus of attention over next two years," J Trifari, MiniMicro Systems, Februrary 1982, p 135-143, or the MiniMicro February 1981 edition which has eight articles regarding HDD's using "Winchester" generically and a cover that states, "Disk Drives: Diversification in Winchesters, Maturity in Floppies ...". A casual review on the technical and business literature of the early 1980's will find many instances of the use of Winchester drive as a generic for what we today most commonly call hard disk drive. Why it dropped from use in the late 1980's is an interesting question, but the statement is not nonsense. However, I don't think the statement adds much to the article so I didn't undo your reversion but I thought u might like to know of its factual basis. Tom94022 ( talk) 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember the use of "Winchester drive" as a synonym for hard drive. I am currently reading the number of Byte magazine of May, 1985 and I come across it several times, for instance in page 187 (page 189 in the PDF document) [1]. Even though that the term might have fallen into disuse, it is important to keep a record of it so when new readers come across it in an old text they can find out its meaning. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The external links of this article is being discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#History of hard disk drives - 1950s through 1990s in accordance with Wikipedia's External links guidelines. (notice added 04:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)) |
— Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a similar hard disk list last edited by Tom94022 ( User:Tom94022?) – Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/29/seagate-busts-out-3tb-external-hard-drive-for-250/
24.151.31.39 ( talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
At the time the HDD was invented, 1956, drums were used as main memory and not as storage. The IBM 305 RAMAC system used a drum for main memory and the IBM 350 RAMAC drive for storage. It is only later that as drums got displaced by core for main memory that some drums were used as storage but they were never able to establish more than a niche market. Prior to the invention of the HDD the primary storage device was the tape drive and I know of no system that used a drum for storage - memory yes, storage no. And I know of no system that ever used an HDD for memory. Absent any evidence to support Wtshymanski's contention that HDDs replaced drums, I am again removing this inaccurate statement. If there is any evidence to support this contention it should be discussed here and not by WP.EW Tom94022 ( talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Been so long, the terminology is slipping from me, so, if I'm using the wrong terms anywhere, by all means, please apply the correct ones. I was a software guy, not a hardware one.
As I recall the transition of hard drives from using the early style "slider" (directly in and out on a line through the center of the spin axis) of the head actuator mechanism to the more modern "radial" armatures (in which the head moves on an arc across the disc surface roughly perpendicular to the spinning drive) was a major development. I seem to recall that this mechanism could be controlled much more accurately, allowing a substantial boost in track density, and thus a notable increase in drive capacity. I'd suggest this development is worth mentioning in the timeline of key events.
--
OBloodyHell (
talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to jump from mainframes to PCs without discussion of the minicomputer era (late 70s to the early 90s or so). Very important for dic development with companies like DEC and HP dominating with the VAX series, HP3000/9000, etc. Any chance of us wedging this in-between? Mikebar ( talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Why was the article renamed? Mikebar ( talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that we also have an article on IBM drives alone, it's surprising to see how little coverage there is here for non-IBM work. Particularly non US work. IBM dominated in the early years, but through the '70s companies like DEC were just as important.
Although a dead end (as they couldn't use removable media), what about the giant platter drives? Some of these were around 4' wide. What about UK makers? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
When did the voice coil actuator make its debut? How long did stepper motor driven heads hang on after? Bizzybody ( talk) 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
How much $ per megabyte, when? More useful information in this chart. http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm Bizzybody ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
While disks quickly replaced drums for secondary storage, there was a lengthy period in which disks competed in the mass storage marketplace with various devices using magnetic tape strips (e.g., NCR CRAM, IBM 2321 Data Cell) and magnetic tape cartridges (e.g., IBM 3850). The article should mention that competition, although it should not give a timeline. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph still doesn't feel right to me so I found some reliable sources for primary storage circa 1957, namely "A Third Survey of Domestic Electronic Digital Computing Systems" (March 1961) and "Data Processing Technology and Economics, 2nd Ed. (c) 1979. The former lists all computers in the US as of about 1960 while the latter lists only what the author felt were "significant" computers beginning 1955. Both show the typical primary memory circa 1957 was overwhelmingly drum (either alone or as a cache to core) followed by core with other older memory technology a small percentage.
Also there was early cartridge tape in Hypertape (1961 ca) and it is pretty clear that the 3850 did not compete with DASD but instead was complementary, like hot dogs and hot dog buns. There are reliable sources that IBM mainly was after STC with the 3850 and may have gone as far as to shut down new reel to reel tape production anticipating the success of the 3850 (which never achieved its objectives).
Comments before I again revise the paragraph back towards its original simpler form? Tom94022 ( talk) 19:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not privy to when this standard changed in hard drive manufacturing, but in 1998, the IEC officially changed the definition of a megabyte to be 1000 kilobytes, rather than 2^10, or 1024 kilobytes (and likewise with kilobytes and gigabytes, but megabytes were most applicable during that itme. I think the article could be enhanced by adding some data about this change (not in-depth, necessarily, just a mention of the original storage being measured in what are now termed "mebibytes" (and kibi- and gibi- and etc.) As would be naturally assumed, computer and data scientists always referred to these multiples of bytes utilizing a base-2 unit, as that is what is most applicable when dealing with binary data. However, at some point, hard drive manufacturers realized they could represent their data in a base-10 format, thus significantly increasing the amount of data they represented their drives as storing. It seems apparent that this was not always the case, though became the case sometime in advance of 1998, when the IEC changed the suggested interpretation of the units. Computer scientists have trudged forward with the units most useful to them (now termed with the "b's" (mebi, etc.), although they often still use the previous words (mega, etc.) Nonetheless, consumers are left not really knowing (or perhaps caring) what measure is used by their OS (and, indeed, different operating systems report their storage differently: Windows says "mega", but considers mega to mean 1024, while some Linux distros use "mebi", eschewing mega entirely. While Mac OS uses "mega" to refer to 10^6 bytes (in accordance with hard drive manufacturers.) One can only hope this is cleared up one day...but I digress. The point of this is to state that this article should certainly make mention of the time in which these measurements changed meaning. I will do some research soon; however, if anybody has some knowledge (and where to find it) prior to my attempting to find sources, I do encourage them to contribute. Jtrnp ( talk) 03:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The last time this was discussed, which admittedly was many years ago, the consensus was that we do not need to include every capacity increase in the timeline. I'd like to take most of them out, particularly the ones that are announcements with no corresponding product release, per WP:NOTNEWS. Thoughts? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that this subject has reappeared, perhaps a chart like this either in this article or in the primary article . Tom94022 ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
To some extent coming to this article for the first time I was (also) expecting to be able to see an evolution of HDD form factor and a discussion on the evolution of interfaces ... (ST506 (MFM/RLL) ... actually they are a recording technique from memory), IDE, ATA SATA, USB .... and perhaps more in a prose narrative than an absolute timeline. Put simply I wonder whether the following sections would be interesting in narrative:
Just a thought ... I'm not doing anything myself. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does the tense shift from past to "historical present" in the timeline?
--> past tense 1979 – IBM 3370 introduced thin film heads, 571 MB, non-removable 1979 – 1979 IBM 62PC "Piccolo" – 64.5 megabytes, six 8-inch disks, first 8-inch HDD 1980 – The IBM 3380 was the world's first gigabyte-capacity disk drive. Two 1.26 GB, head disk assemblies (essentially two HDDs) were packaged in a cabinet the size of a refrigerator,[20] weighed 455 kg (1000 lb), and had a price tag of US$81,000 (Model B4) which is US$246,304 in present-day terms.[21] --> historical present tense 1980 – Seagate releases the first 5.25-inch hard drive, the ST-506[22]; it had a 5-megabyte capacity, weighed 5 pounds, and cost US$1,500[23] EETech ( talk) 16:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The term introduced is ambiguous; it could refer to the announced date or to first customer ship (FCS). The lede should specify which date is used. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2011 I purchased a 3TB external hard disk drive. Recently I saw ~12 TB HDD at a shopping center.
The article currently does not explain the reason hard disk drives are changing. 2011-2022 brought about significant increases in HDD storage capacity. This article does not classify the paradigm-shifting changes in HDD technology from 2010 to 2022. Major advancements have been made, and this encyclopedia page needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:5700:9400:0:0:0:B ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it known (at least approximately) at what time there were more IBM compatible PCs sold with hard disks than without one? The late 1980s saw a wave of cheap clones without hard disks, and especially PC game software sold around 1990 often still supported floppy-only PCs, so I assume the transition was not too long before 1990, right? If you have any info on this, it would be nice to add it. An internet search didn't turn up any specific answers. -- 2003:C0:974C:6200:C10D:9876:D9C8:56F8 ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
At some point, IBM introduced gmr ( Giant magnetoresistance) based hd heads, and this soon became standard (naturally, reading heads only).
Not an expert, but I believe this was important enough development to be mentioned in the history and timeline. I don't have enough knowledge to add those details myself, only enough to notice their absence.
Peace קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)