Id like to see affordable 1 - 2TB SSDs for Storage. Let's say 100 - 150 Euros. - Reduced Speeds, but still atleast twice as fast as a traditional HDD. - Increased Cell Durability. But noooo, keep pushing and pushing the tech. We need to get rid of traditional HHDs, not make them larger.

Ssd for storage sounds a bit silly. My storage drive is a 4gb usb3 seagate.

Why is it silly, SDDs are the future. At some point they gotta make SSDs with 16TB capacity to replace mechanical drives.

That was quick, 6TB drives only launched like last month

I rather have two 8gb drives than one big 16gb one sure. I would just ghost one of them and only really use one while the other is 100% mirror image. Every Seagate drive i ever own failed, i mean failed way before it's lifetime limits were up.

If all you are going to do is install a game to your 256Gb SSD from a Stored 2TB SSD then it is silly. That is unless 2-3TB SSD's come out and are around £150. Otherwise whats the point? May aswell take your data from you Mechanical Storage and put it on your SSD for fast loading etc. When you have finished, uninstall. If they make SSD's that are 2-3TB and they are expensive then nobody will buy them will they as they will say "Well i dont need an SSD for Storage, i will just use a cheap Mechanical drive for storage because thats all it is used for......Storage". Think about it.......:)

I'm sure they can come up with SSDs the same price as HDDs that store 4TB. And i'm talking pure "storage", so it doesn't need 1GB Read/Write speeds, but atleast twice as fast as a HDD. But i guess i'm the daft one here.

I'm sure they can come up with SSDs the same price as HDDs that store 4TB. And i'm talking pure "storage", so it doesn't need 1GB Read/Write speeds, but atleast twice as fast as a HDD. But i guess i'm the daft one here.

No, you are right m8. Time will prove you right. Doubt there will be a dedicated ssd just for storage though. I get what you are saying though. Why not just use old tech to make slow storage ssd's and all new tech goes into the super duper fast drives.

SSDs are the future and this is where all the money for R&D should be going not wasting it on "Improving" old tech that's going to inevitability be pushed aside one day for SSDs anyway From my own experience I cant even argue that HDDs are more reliable! I work for a company where we provide IT for companies that don't have their own internal IT staff and we also build our own PCs. Since moving to SSDs a few years back in all our desktop PCs I can count the number of failures we've had on one hand over several hundred PCs. The same cannot be said for when he used HDDs! HDDs need to go away

Since moving to SSDs a few years back in all our desktop PCs I can count the number of failures we've had on one hand over several hundred PCs. The same cannot be said for when he used HDDs! HDDs need to go away

HDD's need more maintenance then SSD's. SSD's will just keep going (in general) until their cells die off. Never had a HDD fail under my care. Though I do get the idea for IT companies. Maintenance is time consuming.

Id like to see affordable 1 - 2TB SSDs for Storage. Let's say 100 - 150 Euros. - Reduced Speeds, but still atleast twice as fast as a traditional HDD. - Increased Cell Durability. But noooo, keep pushing and pushing the tech. We need to get rid of traditional HHDs, not make them larger.

We are long ways off from that one and $130/150 US dose sound nice for 1TB but it going be some time before see 2TB SSD size unless it on PCIe board or they start making them in 3.5 drive size in stead of 2.5 drive size.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

I agree, on the other hand, it is an industry standard to measure in terabits instead of terabytes for hard drives; you're technically not being cheated out if all drives from all brands are do this. But still, 700GB alone is more than enough storage for everything I use and do. On an unrealted note, are these HDDs filled with helium? I know that's a new thing for super high-capacity drives, and it makes me wonder how much that's a good idea. Many companies with high-risk data (such as insurance companies) destroy hard drives on-site, and these companies are going to be the most interested in drives with capacities this high. Helium is a finite resource and we're running low. How are these companies going to salvage the helium? I'm not sure exactly why helium is used but I personally think it'd have been better to look into something like neon.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

I must admit, back in the day it didn't matter that much but now as HDD's are getting bigger and bigger that gap is getting bigger as well. We might understand why but some customer with no knowledge that buys a PC in a few years expecting a 8TB storage might just end up getting mad.

On an unrealted note, are these HDDs filled with helium? I know that's a new thing for super high-capacity drives, and it makes me wonder how much that's a good idea. Many companies with high-risk data (such as insurance companies) destroy hard drives on-site, and these companies are going to be the most interested in drives with capacities this high. Helium is a finite resource and we're running low. How are these companies going to salvage the helium? I'm not sure exactly why helium is used but I personally think it'd have been better to look into something like neon.

I don't think so. A company did it a while back as a "shortcut" to get to these sizes earlier on, but I think Seagate and WD are doing it without Helium (correct me if I'm wrong).

I agree, on the other hand, it is an industry standard to measure in terabits instead of terabytes for hard drives; you're technically not being cheated out if all drives from all brands are do this. But still, 700GB alone is more than enough storage for everything I use and do.

You mean SI units, bits would just multiply it out by 8. I just did the math to give a more precise number, the difference between 8TB (8*1024^4) and 8 trillion bytes is about 741.42GB. That's a ridiculous difference.