+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Hardware Thread, 4k hard drives - problems for XP users in Technical; FYI BBC News - Hard drive evolution could hit Microsoft XP users...
  1. #1
    theeldergeek
    Guest

    4k hard drives - problems for XP users


  2. #2

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,810
    Thank Post
    1,298
    Thanked 1,659 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    507
    Interesting read.
    I presume that if there are enough people still using XP then something will be sorted out?

  3. #3

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,892
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,494 Times in 1,935 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    839
    So, yet more reason to update from XP to something more modern. They're stacking up now...

  4. #4
    stevenwba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Dudley
    Posts
    323
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
    Rep Power
    13
    first ive read about that, interesting, and as said above, hard to stay on win xp now

  5. #5

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,810
    Thank Post
    1,298
    Thanked 1,659 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    So, yet more reason to update from XP to something more modern. They're stacking up now...
    Yeah, making some headway in persuading the management to change OS from XP, the more reasons the better.

  6. #6

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,572 Times in 1,252 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    Makes you wonder however whether there's genuine demand for this. You can buy 2 terabyte hard drives for quite reasonable prices. 2TB = 2,000,000MB's and 11% of that is 220GB. Surely manufacturers need to change hard drives completely rather than focusing on just the format.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    43
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    It would still be compatible with XP, just slightly slower access through emulation.

    I've seen few users require more than 80GB hard drives.

  8. #8


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,653
    Thank Post
    229
    Thanked 866 Times in 744 Posts
    Rep Power
    298
    xp lets you chnage it ive just looked it just defaults to 512 bytes other options are 1024/2048/4096 at least on this pc

  9. #9
    mjs_mjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    bexleyheath, london
    Posts
    1,020
    Thank Post
    37
    Thanked 111 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    37
    How much more are they planing to put on one disk, i thought 2TB was enough.

    from [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS]NTFS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Maximum Volume Size
    In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264−1 clusters. However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP Professional is 232−1 clusters. For example, using 64 KB clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 TB minus 64 KB. Using the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16 TB minus 4 KB. (Both of these are vastly higher than the 128 GB limit lifted in Windows XP SP1.) Because partition tables on master boot record (MBR) disks only support partition sizes up to 2 TB, dynamic or GPT volumes must be used to create NTFS volumes over 2 TB. Booting from a GPT volume to a Windows environment requires a system with EFI and 64-bit support.[36]

  10. #10

    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3,069
    Thank Post
    210
    Thanked 430 Times in 310 Posts
    Rep Power
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    xp lets you chnage it ive just looked it just defaults to 512 bytes other options are 1024/2048/4096 at least on this pc
    That's allocation units - we're talking a layer below that; the actual sectors on the drive itself. An allocation unit or data cluster can be made up of multiple sectors which is why you have the options available in windows, the smallest you can go is a single sector, i.e 512 bytes.

    Under the new standard, the smallest you could go would be 4kb instead of 512 bytes like now.

    Mike.
    Last edited by maniac; 9th March 2010 at 02:29 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,157
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    The article talks about the emulation perhaps causing a 10% decrease in writing speed. I assume that's compared to non-emulated on the same drive. If so, I wonder how much "real" difference it will make? Generally, the increased data density means you can retrieve the data more quickly so compared to an older drive you could find that there's no real change in speed.

    I've no doubt we'll continue to get bigger drives for a while yet and people will fill them. I think the first hard drive I used (on an IBM XT) was 5MB and that was massive compared to 360k floppies! We're now nearly a million times that size and on it goes :-)

  12. #12
    mjs_mjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    bexleyheath, london
    Posts
    1,020
    Thank Post
    37
    Thanked 111 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    37
    I doubt this will cause a problem for anyone with XP. In all likelyhood, if they're still using XP they wont need more than 4TB, which is quite easily fitted into a machine using 2*2TB drives. If they need more than this (like me), networkable products will fill this gap in the market.

  13. #13
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,205
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by mjs_mjs View Post
    I doubt this will cause a problem for anyone with XP. In all likelyhood, if they're still using XP they wont need more than 4TB, which is quite easily fitted into a machine using 2*2TB drives. If they need more than this (like me), networkable products will fill this gap in the market.

    Exactly, most people on XP now will probably not need to change the HD before 2014 at which point XP is end of life so they'll have to change, or just accept the 10% performance hit.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Copying Hard Drives
    By marvin in forum Windows
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 15th April 2010, 12:21 PM
  2. [Ubuntu] Change hard drives
    By llawwehttam in forum *nix
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22nd January 2010, 01:12 PM
  3. Photoshop and Hard Drives
    By titch in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21st May 2009, 03:52 PM
  4. disposing of old hard drives
    By chrbb in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 29th November 2007, 11:29 AM
  5. Faulty hard drives
    By Jobos in forum Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 4th July 2007, 05:07 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •