Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IDE storage prices tumbling?

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 3:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks here in
the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen a
lot.

I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but it
seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.

I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard drive
from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all taxes.

Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?

Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 3:59:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Davis Rorgh wrote:

> I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks here
> in the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have
> fallen a lot.
>
> I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but
> it seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
>
> I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard
> drive from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all
> taxes.
>
> Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>
> Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?

I think it's due to the slow introduction of newer drives at the high end of
the market.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 3:59:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1>, jo@nomail.com says...
> I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks here in
> the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen a
> lot.
>
> I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but it
> seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
>
> I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard drive
> from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all taxes.
>
> Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>
> Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?

There are many factors. Part of it is that computer sales didn't rise
quite as much as forcast, so there is a bit of oversupply. Also, the
shrinking number, but much bigger, computer system manufacturers (Dell,
HP, etc..) are putting more and more pressure on the drive manufacturers
to cut costs.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 3:59:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>
> Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?

They were holding at about $1 per GB for a while (little more for smaller
drives), and recently look to be about $0.80 per GB. SATA could be part of
the reason, but even SATA drives went down recently too.

My only complaint about the bigger drives is they don't offer much advantage
in speed. The fact that going from 7200 to 10000 RPM (about a 50% increase
in speed) doubles your sales price is an indication that they've hit a wall.
I don't know what to expect but unless they can up the bus speed (SATA 300
or even 600) and have every drive contain an internal RAID or something
there's not much reason to buy new hard drives these days.

Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
(maybe 4 GB). That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.
September 17, 2004 4:50:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
> I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks here
in
> the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen a
> lot.
>
> I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but
it
> seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
>
> I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard
drive
> from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all taxes.
>
> Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>
> Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?

Have you noticed the 40Gb hdd's are getting more difficult to find at the
big box stores and have almost doubled in price to ~$80 USD.

I agree with a comment in the thread - flash memory appears destined to take
over for <5 Gb applications.
September 17, 2004 7:52:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Besack wrote:
>>Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>>
>>Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>
>
> They were holding at about $1 per GB for a while (little more for smaller
> drives), and recently look to be about $0.80 per GB.

Is that Australian dollars? Lately Fry's seems routinely to have drives
in the U.S. 50 cents/GB ballpark, often without rebates.

SATA could be part of
> the reason, but even SATA drives went down recently too.
>
> My only complaint about the bigger drives is they don't offer much advantage
> in speed. The fact that going from 7200 to 10000 RPM (about a 50% increase
> in speed) doubles your sales price is an indication that they've hit a wall.
> I don't know what to expect but unless they can up the bus speed (SATA 300
> or even 600) and have every drive contain an internal RAID or something
> there's not much reason to buy new hard drives these days.
>
> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
> (maybe 4 GB). That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 8:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <414B084E.30001@prodigy.net>, abujlehc@prodigy.net says...
> David Besack wrote:
> >>Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
> >>
> >>Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
> >
> >
> > They were holding at about $1 per GB for a while (little more for smaller
> > drives), and recently look to be about $0.80 per GB.
>
> Is that Australian dollars? Lately Fry's seems routinely to have drives
> in the U.S. 50 cents/GB ballpark, often without rebates.

I just bought a 120G Seagate ST3120026A (8M buffer) from Best Buy.
Price is US$109.99, but there is $50 in rebates. That gives about
$0.50/G.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 8:45:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <EBE2d.30070$aW5.25337@fed1read07>, someone@spamfree.com
says...
>
> "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
> > I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks here
> in
> > the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen a
> > lot.
> >
> > I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but
> it
> > seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
> >
> > I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard
> drive
> > from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all taxes.
> >
> > Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
> >
> > Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>
> Have you noticed the 40Gb hdd's are getting more difficult to find at the
> big box stores and have almost doubled in price to ~$80 USD.

Small capacities are becoming the domain of tiny drives like laptop
2.5" or smaller. The very tiny (under 10G) is turning to Flash.

It's simple supply/demand. Nobody wants only 40G in a 3.5" drive
anymore, so manufacturers are phasing them out. Everybody wants those
monstrous 250G+ things to store all their illegal copies of music,
movies and porn.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 9:20:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:08:38 -0400: written by "David Besack"
<daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com>:

>these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
>(maybe 4 GB).

Definitely 4GB. I saw a flyer at work for some place called usbmall.com
that had the 4GB listed.

WAY EXPENSIVE though. They had it for like $800 if I remember
correctly. !?!?! Sorry, I don't need it *that* bad.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 17, 2004 10:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Besack wrote:

> My only complaint about the bigger drives is they don't offer much advantage
> in speed. The fact that going from 7200 to 10000 RPM (about a 50% increase
> in speed) doubles your sales price is an indication that they've hit a wall.
> I don't know what to expect but unless they can up the bus speed (SATA 300
> or even 600) and have every drive contain an internal RAID or something
> there's not much reason to buy new hard drives these days.

Increasing the bus speed isn't useful for a single drive. The fastest
drives in existence barely peak at 100Mb/sec, AFAIR. The bus speed
business is more marketing hype than anything else.

The phrase "internal RAID" is something of an oxymoron. The "A" in RAID
stands for "array" so obviously you've got a collection of disks. The
only form of RAID that theoretically delivers significant performance
improvements is the striped variant, and you pay the price of losing a
lot more data if one drive fails.

> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
> (maybe 4 GB). That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.

It's a question of focus. Hard drives being sold in mass-produced
consumer desktop machines are being sold on size and low price, not on
performance. Disks that are tuned for optimal performance tend to be
sought only by enthusiasts or those building high-end
workstations/low-end servers, thus they are more specialized and more
expensive.

--

GWC
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 18, 2004 12:53:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Besack" <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message news:cieulm$bmh5$1@netnews.upenn.edu
> > Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
> >
> > Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>
> They were holding at about $1 per GB for a while (little more for smaller
> drives), and recently look to be about $0.80 per GB. SATA could be part of
> the reason, but even SATA drives went down recently too.
>
> My only complaint about the bigger drives is they don't offer much advantage
> in speed. The fact that going from 7200 to 10000 RPM (about a 50% increase
> in speed) doubles your sales price is an indication that they've hit a wall.
> I don't know what to expect but unless they can up the bus speed (SATA 300
> or even 600) and have every drive contain an internal RAID or something
> there's not much reason to buy new hard drives these days.
>
> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
> (maybe 4 GB).

> That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.

Try 9-10 years back.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 18, 2004 11:29:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Besack wrote:
>
> > Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
> >
> > Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>
> They were holding at about $1 per GB for a while (little more for smaller
> drives), and recently look to be about $0.80 per GB. SATA could be part of
> the reason, but even SATA drives went down recently too.
>
> My only complaint about the bigger drives is they don't offer much advantage
> in speed. The fact that going from 7200 to 10000 RPM (about a 50% increase
> in speed) doubles your sales price is an indication that they've hit a wall.
> I don't know what to expect but unless they can up the bus speed (SATA 300
> or even 600) and have every drive contain an internal RAID or something
> there's not much reason to buy new hard drives these days.

You need a fast drive and you need a large drive, but not necessarily at the
same time. A small fast drive (~40 GB) and a large slower drive will do nicely.
The larger the data volume, the more permanent it tends to be.

> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
> (maybe 4 GB). That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.

Flash and hard drives aren't really in the same business. They only overlap
at the fringe where costs are still high.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 18, 2004 2:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...

SNIP!

Please don't crosspost. People replying don't notice and as a result
inappropriate stuff gets posted to some of the groups - e.g. the uk groups
are not really interested in discussions of the price of hard disks and
vendors in the US.

NB - this is deliberately crossposted as per the original as I don't know
which group(s) the OP may be reading to follow this thread.

Tony
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 18, 2004 6:58:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

TMack wrote:

>
> "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>
> SNIP!
>
> Please don't crosspost.

Pleas DO crosspost when it is appropriate, which, in this case, it appears
to have been. If he did not crosspost then several different people would
probably waste their time telling him things that someone has already said
adequately because they would not know that he had posted the same question
in multiple places or that it had already been answered.

> People replying don't notice and as a result
> inappropriate stuff gets posted to some of the groups - e.g. the uk groups
> are not really interested in discussions of the price of hard disks and
> vendors in the US.

However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK that concern does
not apply now, does it? What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
before you read the content?

> NB - this is deliberately crossposted as per the original as I don't know
> which group(s) the OP may be reading to follow this thread.

> Tony

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 18, 2004 11:38:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> TMack wrote:
>
> >
> > "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
> >
> > SNIP!
> >
> > Please don't crosspost.
>
> Pleas DO crosspost when it is appropriate, which, in this case, it appears
> to have been. If he did not crosspost then several different people would
> probably waste their time telling him things that someone has already said
> adequately because they would not know that he had posted the same question
> in multiple places or that it had already been answered.

Everybody have their own opinion about cross posting. Personally, I hate it
since it is usually used for broadcasting rather than intelligent discussion.
Typically, the OP 'hit and run', i.e. never enter the subsequent discussion.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2004 1:10:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"someone" <someone@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:EBE2d.30070$aW5.25337@fed1read07...
>
> "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
> > I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks
here
> in
> > the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen
a
> > lot.
> >
> > I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment
but
> it
> > seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
> >
> > I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard
> drive
> > from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all
taxes.
> >
> > Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
> >
> > Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>
> Have you noticed the 40Gb hdd's are getting more difficult to find at the
> big box stores and have almost doubled in price to ~$80 USD.
>
> I agree with a comment in the thread - flash memory appears destined to
take
> over for <5 Gb applications.
>
Hmmm - Thats an interesting comment.

If the size of affordable flash memory catches up with the minimum size of
an installed OS,
you could put you OS on a flash drive and data on an IDE dirves. Instant on!
and fast!
Anbody doing this yet?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2004 1:10:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Terry Wilson wrote:

> "someone" <someone@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:EBE2d.30070$aW5.25337@fed1read07...
>
>>"Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>>
>>>I have not been keeping a close watch on the price of IDE hard disks
>
> here
>
>>in
>>
>>>the UK but I took a look at prices recently and they seem to have fallen
>
> a
>
>>>lot.
>>>
>>>I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment
>
> but
>
>>it
>>
>>>seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
>>>
>>>I am looking at paying no more than £60 (about $105) for a 160 GB hard
>>
>>drive
>>
>>>from a reputable manufacturer (WD, Seagate, Samsung) including all
>
> taxes.
>
>>>Have IDE HDD prices fallen more than normal?
>>>
>>>Is this because of theintroduction of SATA?
>>
>>Have you noticed the 40Gb hdd's are getting more difficult to find at the
>>big box stores and have almost doubled in price to ~$80 USD.
>>
>>I agree with a comment in the thread - flash memory appears destined to
>
> take
>
>>over for <5 Gb applications.
>>
>
> Hmmm - Thats an interesting comment.
>
> If the size of affordable flash memory catches up with the minimum size of
> an installed OS,
> you could put you OS on a flash drive and data on an IDE dirves. Instant on!
> and fast!
> Anbody doing this yet?
>
>

Flash drives are not quite as fast as you may think.

Here's a place that has flash drives large enough...

http://www.dpie.com/storage/at2550.html

Note the Read Transfer Rate is 9.5 MBytes/sec, sustained. That doesn't
compare real well to the sustained read rate of modern hard drives.

What does compare very well is the almost 0, specifically .1ms, 'seek'
times as there's nothing mechanical to move around 'seeking'.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2004 11:29:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
> Terry Wilson wrote:
>
>> "someone" <someone@spamfree.com> wrote in message
>> news:EBE2d.30070$aW5.25337@fed1read07...
>>
>>> "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>> I agree with a comment in the thread - flash memory appears
>>> destined to take over for <5 Gb applications.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm - Thats an interesting comment.
>>
>> If the size of affordable flash memory catches up with the minimum
>> size of an installed OS,
>> you could put you OS on a flash drive and data on an IDE dirves.
>> Instant on! and fast!
>> Anbody doing this yet?
>>
>>
>
> Flash drives are not quite as fast as you may think.
>
> Here's a place that has flash drives large enough...
>
> http://www.dpie.com/storage/at2550.html
>
> Note the Read Transfer Rate is 9.5 MBytes/sec, sustained. That doesn't
> compare real well to the sustained read rate of modern hard drives.
>
> What does compare very well is the almost 0, specifically .1ms, 'seek'
> times as there's nothing mechanical to move around 'seeking'.

...and the lack of any noise whatsoever, and much more resistant to
physical shock.

Remember flash memory has limited write-cycles though, so its not suitable
for your page file !

CF-IDE adaptors are cheap, then just choose the size of CompactFlash
card required.
--
Mike
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2004 1:37:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mike Redrobe wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>Terry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"someone" <someone@spamfree.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EBE2d.30070$aW5.25337@fed1read07...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>>>>
>>>>I agree with a comment in the thread - flash memory appears
>>>>destined to take over for <5 Gb applications.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm - Thats an interesting comment.
>>>
>>>If the size of affordable flash memory catches up with the minimum
>>>size of an installed OS,
>>>you could put you OS on a flash drive and data on an IDE dirves.
>>>Instant on! and fast!
>>>Anbody doing this yet?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Flash drives are not quite as fast as you may think.
>>
>>Here's a place that has flash drives large enough...
>>
>>http://www.dpie.com/storage/at2550.html
>>
>>Note the Read Transfer Rate is 9.5 MBytes/sec, sustained. That doesn't
>>compare real well to the sustained read rate of modern hard drives.
>>
>>What does compare very well is the almost 0, specifically .1ms, 'seek'
>>times as there's nothing mechanical to move around 'seeking'.
>
>
> ..and the lack of any noise whatsoever, and much more resistant to
> physical shock.

True, and nice features, but not very relevant to the poster's comment
about "Instant on! and fast!"

>
> Remember flash memory has limited write-cycles though, so its not suitable
> for your page file !
>
> CF-IDE adaptors are cheap, then just choose the size of CompactFlash
> card required.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2004 2:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> TMack wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>> >
>> > SNIP!
>> >
>> > Please don't crosspost.
>>
>> Pleas DO crosspost when it is appropriate, which, in this case, it
>> appears
>> to have been. If he did not crosspost then several different people
>> would probably waste their time telling him things that someone has
>> already said adequately because they would not know that he had posted
>> the same question in multiple places or that it had already been
>> answered.
>
> Everybody have their own opinion about cross posting. Personally, I hate
> it since it is usually used for broadcasting rather than intelligent
> discussion. Typically, the OP 'hit and run', i.e. never enter the
> subsequent discussion.

Crossposting is a tool, like any other tool, and can be used properly or
improperly. Railing at those who use it properly does not serve any
purpose other than creating the kind of crossposted disturbance that you
were seeking to avoid.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 20, 2004 4:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
>> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
>> (maybe 4 GB).
>
>> That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
>> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.
>
>Try 9-10 years back.

10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and most
PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. I know this
is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly 10 years
ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 20, 2004 11:14:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <k56uk0l6d5dqrmosdu0780t7j4ihiemg36@4ax.com>, Chrisv wrote:
> 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and
> most PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. this
> I know is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly
> 10 years ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)

We tend to buy mid-market and from my records I have

1992 130MB £264 (all+VAT)
1994 540MB £209
1996 1GB £119

My first ever disk drive was a 5.25" FD on a BBC: £400!

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 20, 2004 11:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 20/09/2004 Tony Bryer wrote:

> In article <k56uk0l6d5dqrmosdu0780t7j4ihiemg36@4ax.com>, Chrisv wrote:
> > 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and
> > most PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. this
> > I know is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly
> > 10 years ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)
>
> We tend to buy mid-market and from my records I have
>
> 1992 130MB £264 (all+VAT)
> 1994 540MB £209
> 1996 1GB £119
>
> My first ever disk drive was a 5.25" FD on a BBC: £400!

Bought from Viglen when they worked out of a shed in a back street
somewhere? Plus of course the Watford DFs, a handful of chips in a
brown paper bag and a photo copied instruction sheet.

I blew the whole of my first ever Xmas bonus on those bits!

--
Jeff Gaines - Damerham Hampshire UK
Posted with XanaNews 1.16.4.6
http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d7xananews.htm
September 21, 2004 2:06:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Tony Bryer" <tonyb@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.00002bf1.00271a7c@delme.sda.co.uk...
> In article <k56uk0l6d5dqrmosdu0780t7j4ihiemg36@4ax.com>, Chrisv wrote:
> > 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and
> > most PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. this
> > I know is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly
> > 10 years ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)
>
> We tend to buy mid-market and from my records I have
>
> 1992 130MB £264 (all+VAT)
> 1994 540MB £209
> 1996 1GB £119
>
> My first ever disk drive was a 5.25" FD on a BBC: £400!
>
> --
> Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
>

I've still got invoices from 1996

Sept. 1996
850Mb Seagate's - £84 + vat
1G Quantum Fireball's - £103 + vat

Nov. 97
2.6Gb Fujitsu's - £104 + vat
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 21, 2004 4:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:k56uk0l6d5dqrmosdu0780t7j4ihiemg36@4ax.com
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the wall
> > > these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB now
> > > (maybe 4 GB).
> >
> > > That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> > > were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.
> >
> > Try 9-10 years back.
>
> 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and most
> PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. I know this
> is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly 10 years
> ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)

Well, that is wy I said "9-10 years" ago. ;-)

IBM introduced the DFHS model in 1993-94.
It was available in 1, 2 and 4GB eventually.

I went from the assumption that IDE drives are usually bigger than
SCSI drives but that assumption may be wrong re 10 years back.
Figure that.
IDE/ATA was in it's infant years back then and probably considered toys.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 22, 2004 5:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article news:<2r44j1F15ns6sU1@uni-berlin.de>, Terry Wilson wrote:
> If the size of affordable flash memory catches up with the minimum
> size of an installed OS, you could put you OS on a flash drive and
> data on an IDE dirves. Instant on! and fast!
> Anbody doing this yet?

It's not uncommon in "appliance" linux boxes - firewalls, PVRs, and
things like that.

e.g. http://linitx.com/index.php?cPath=4 for some examples of
firewalls.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 22, 2004 10:12:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:k56uk0l6d5dqrmosdu0780t7j4ihiemg36@4ax.com...
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Actually it seems like a lot of component technology is hitting the
wall
> >> these days. One exception I think is flash drives. They're up to 2 GB
now
> >> (maybe 4 GB).
> >
> >> That's pretty impressive considering that 6 years ago you
> >> were lucky if your internal hard drive was that size.
> >
> >Try 9-10 years back.
>
> 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and most
> PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. I know this
> is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly 10 years
> ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)

I bought a Time Laptop almost 5 years ago, came with a 6.4 GB drive.

Marcus
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 23, 2004 6:25:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cii0js011ao@news1.newsguy.com...
> TMack wrote:
>
> >
> > "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
> >
> > SNIP!
> >
> > Please don't crosspost.
>
> Pleas DO crosspost when it is appropriate, which, in this case, it appears
> to have been.

There is cleary a risk of problems when a message inviting comments is
posted to a specifically uk group such as uk.comp.vendors and also to
'general' groups with a world-wide readership. The charter of
uk.comp.vendors states "This newsgroup is for the disussion of issues
surrounding computer hardware/software vendors in the UK." As a result of
crossposting we now have lots of off-topic general discussion in
uk.comp.vendors about hard disks, prices in the USA etc. which as nothing to
do with vendors in the UK.

> If he did not crosspost then several different people would
> probably waste their time telling him things that someone has already said
> adequately because they would not know that he had posted the same
question
> in multiple places or that it had already been answered.

Crossposting usally creates confusion unless groups are carefully selected
AND the OP makes it very clear that the message has been crossposted. Also,
it is usually a good idea to consider setting "followups" to one group. A
post "may" be relevant to 3 groups, but followups can be set to one group.
Then the discussion will continue there. When using the followup header, it
is helps to put in the message somewhere "Followups set." However, the use
of followups is usually way beyond the average crossposter because they tend
to crosspost from a position of ignorance rather than skill.

> > People replying don't notice and as a result
> > inappropriate stuff gets posted to some of the groups - e.g. the uk
groups
> > are not really interested in discussions of the price of hard disks and
> > vendors in the US.
>
> However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK that concern
does
> not apply now, does it?

He stated that he was in the UK but he posted a general query about hard
disk prices and possible reasons for price reductions. He also quoted a
price in dollars which immediately looks inappropriate for a uk group.

> What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
> before you read the content?

Er..no. I wonder WTF discussions about US prices, US vendors and the
technical details of hard disk technology are doing in uk.comp.vendors, then
I look and see that the original has been inapproriately crossposted. I am
pretty sure that, for example, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage doesn't
want loads of discussion appearing there about the relative merits of uk
computer component vendors (most of which does not concern HDs or storage) -
likewise uk.comp.vendors can do without the discussions about USA vendors
and techinical details of harware .


Tony
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 23, 2004 6:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

TMack wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cii0js011ao@news1.newsguy.com...
>> TMack wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns956779E996897AF39@127.0.0.1...
>> >
>> > SNIP!
>> >
>> > Please don't crosspost.
>>
>> Pleas DO crosspost when it is appropriate, which, in this case, it
>> appears to have been.
>
> There is cleary a risk of problems when a message inviting comments is
> posted to a specifically uk group such as uk.comp.vendors and also to
> 'general' groups with a world-wide readership. The charter of
> uk.comp.vendors states "This newsgroup is for the disussion of issues
> surrounding computer hardware/software vendors in the UK." As a result of
> crossposting we now have lots of off-topic general discussion in
> uk.comp.vendors about hard disks, prices in the USA etc. which as nothing
> to do with vendors in the UK.
>
>> If he did not crosspost then several different people would
>> probably waste their time telling him things that someone has already
>> said adequately because they would not know that he had posted the same
> question
>> in multiple places or that it had already been answered.
>
> Crossposting usally creates confusion unless groups are carefully selected
> AND the OP makes it very clear that the message has been crossposted.
> Also, it is usually a good idea to consider setting "followups" to one
> group. A post "may" be relevant to 3 groups, but followups can be set to
> one group. Then the discussion will continue there. When using the
> followup header, it
> is helps to put in the message somewhere "Followups set." However, the
> use of followups is usually way beyond the average crossposter because
> they tend to crosspost from a position of ignorance rather than skill.
>
>> > People replying don't notice and as a result
>> > inappropriate stuff gets posted to some of the groups - e.g. the uk
> groups
>> > are not really interested in discussions of the price of hard disks and
>> > vendors in the US.
>>
>> However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK that concern
> does
>> not apply now, does it?
>
> He stated that he was in the UK but he posted a general query about hard
> disk prices and possible reasons for price reductions. He also quoted a
> price in dollars which immediately looks inappropriate for a uk group.
>
>> What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
>> before you read the content?
>
> Er..no. I wonder WTF discussions about US prices, US vendors and the
> technical details of hard disk technology are doing in uk.comp.vendors,
> then
> I look and see that the original has been inapproriately crossposted. I
> am
> pretty sure that, for example, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage doesn't
> want loads of discussion appearing there about the relative merits of uk
> computer component vendors (most of which does not concern HDs or storage)
> - likewise uk.comp.vendors can do without the discussions about USA
> vendors and techinical details of harware .

However the factors that affect pricing are to a large extent independent of
national borders, especially in the UK which with the demise of Rodime as
far as I know has no indigenous hard disk production capability.

The primary result of complaints about crossposting, however, is an
off-topic discussion of the merits of crossposting, so by complaining about
it you have made the problem worse, not better.

It seems to me that you're being a lot defensive.

> Tony

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 24, 2004 6:59:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"TMack" <REMOVETHECAPStonymackin@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> > are not really interested in discussions of the price of
>> > hard disks and vendors in the US.
>>
>> However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK
>> that concern does not apply now, does it?
>
> He stated that he was in the UK but he posted a general query
> about hard disk prices and possible reasons for price
> reductions. He also quoted a price in dollars which
> immediately looks inappropriate for a uk group.
>
>> What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
>> before you read the content?
>
> Er..no. I wonder WTF discussions about US prices, US vendors
> and the technical details of hard disk technology are doing in
> uk.comp.vendors,

I am the OP. I think the poster was right. You seem to nitpick on
crossposting. What do you want people to do ... to multipost? A newsreader
can supress crossposts in the differemt groups the user goes to but it can
not suppress the same emssage if it is multiposted.

I chose the groups carefully. I limited the crossposting to a GNKSA-
approved four.

Many readers and posters in the UK newsgroups live in the US. I quoted US
prices in passing in order to permit these readers to also follow the low
prices I was referring to.

Two groups were to do with homebuilders (UK ones and US ones) because they
are the sort of people who buy at retail prices and retail prices is what I
was quoting.

> then I look and see that the original has been
> inapproriately crossposted. I am pretty sure that, for
> example, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage doesn't want loads
> of discussion appearing there about the relative merits of uk
> computer component vendors (most of which does not concern HDs
> or storage)

comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage deal with storage and I was posting about
storage prices. Maybe the low price is a worldwide phenomenon or maybe it
is not. comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage is the sort of place that would be
known.

> likewise uk.comp.vendors can do without the
> discussions about USA vendors and techinical details of harware

uk.comp.vendors also discusses comparative prices. Have a look through some
threads there to see what I mean.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 25, 2004 2:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:956E1E83FACF67AF39@130.133.1.4...
> "TMack" <REMOVETHECAPStonymackin@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> > are not really interested in discussions of the price of
> >> > hard disks and vendors in the US.
> >>
> >> However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK
> >> that concern does not apply now, does it?
> >
> > He stated that he was in the UK but he posted a general query
> > about hard disk prices and possible reasons for price
> > reductions. He also quoted a price in dollars which
> > immediately looks inappropriate for a uk group.
> >
> >> What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
> >> before you read the content?
> >
> > Er..no. I wonder WTF discussions about US prices, US vendors
> > and the technical details of hard disk technology are doing in
> > uk.comp.vendors,
>
> I am the OP. I think the poster was right. You seem to nitpick on
> crossposting. What do you want people to do ... to multipost?

You could have taken the extra 60 seconds and posted to each group
seperately using copy/paste. That way there is no risk of confusion about
who is replying from which group. The need to do this is illustrated by the
fact that J Clarke used the "followups to" in his post which meant that part
of this thread is now only appearing in only one of the four newsgroups.
Crossposting nearly always leads to problems if the message is likely to
provoke discussion. The whole point of having different newsgroups is to
put boundaries on discussions - and crossposting messes up the boundaries.


A newsreader
> can supress crossposts in the differemt groups the user goes to but it can
> not suppress the same emssage if it is multiposted.
>
> I chose the groups carefully. I limited the crossposting to a GNKSA-
> approved four.

Not that carefully - go and read the charter of uk.comp.vendors

> uk.comp.vendors also discusses comparative prices. Have a look through
some
> threads there to see what I mean.

No need to look at threads - look at the charter. i.e. "This newsgroup is
for the disussion of issues surrounding computer hardware/software vendors
in the UK." Which particular UK vendors were you discussing? You didn't
even request information about any particular vendors - you simply tried to
start a discussion about prices in general and the effects of SATA. Didn't
it occur to you that the crosspost would result in OT material being posted
to uk.comp.vendors? I suspect that it didn't because you didn't read the
charter before posting.

Tony
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 26, 2004 5:33:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article news:<41553284$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, TMack
wrote:
> > I am the OP. I think the poster was right. You seem to nitpick on
> > crossposting. What do you want people to do ... to multipost?
>
> You could have taken the extra 60 seconds and posted to each group
> seperately using copy/paste.

No, no, no, NO! That is the worst thing you could possibly do. that would
lead to four independent identically-worded questions in four separate
groups attracting four sets of very similar answers from four sets of
people -- each unaware that the same question is being answered in three
other groups at the same time. It leads to more noise and more wasted
bandwidth than crossposting.

> That way there is no risk of confusion about who is replying from
> which group.

... but that's the whole *point* of crossposting. If someone replies in one
groups the reply is seen in all the other groups so the people there know a
reply has already been given and won't waste their time and everyone's
bandwidth replying again.

> The need to do this is illustrated by the fact that J Clarke used the
> "followups to" in his post which meant that part of this thread is now
> only appearing in only one of the four newsgroups.

A followup I see the OP wisely decided to ignore. Using followups (on any
message after the first, at least) just converts a crosspost into a
multipost and is bad for all the same reasons that multiposting is bad.

I agree with the OP: he only posted to four groups and they all look fairly
relevant to the question. Posting to fewer groups might have been better,
but multiposting would defintely not.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 26, 2004 6:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008ce.19655b1b@nospam.aaisp.org...
> In article news:<41553284$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
TMack
> wrote:
> > > I am the OP. I think the poster was right. You seem to nitpick on
> > > crossposting. What do you want people to do ... to multipost?
> >
> > You could have taken the extra 60 seconds and posted to each group
> > seperately using copy/paste.
>
> No, no, no, NO! That is the worst thing you could possibly do. that would
> lead to four independent identically-worded questions in four separate
> groups attracting four sets of very similar answers from four sets of
> people -- each unaware that the same question is being answered in three
> other groups at the same time. It leads to more noise and more wasted
> bandwidth than crossposting.

Bandwidth is hardly an issue these days in text-based groups - and anyway
the subscribers to uk.comp.vendors could legitimately criticise the waste of
bandwidth due to OT stuff appearing on that group.. And so what if there
are similar answers in different groups? The best bet is not to cross post
at all. If someone MUST do it for some particular reason then the fact that
the message has been crossposted should be made VERY clear in the original.
The problem, as I have already stated, is that different groups exist for a
good reason - they have different charters and deal with different subject
matters. Crossposting accross a range of vaguely similar groups with a
ill-defined general query is BOUND to lead to stuff appearing in some groups
that is completely OT. For example, discussion of hard disk technology is
absolutlely fine for comp.sys.ibm.hardware.storage but it is completely OT
for uk.comp.vendors.

> > That way there is no risk of confusion about who is replying from
> > which group.
>
> .. but that's the whole *point* of crossposting. If someone replies in one
> groups the reply is seen in all the other groups so the people there know
a
> reply has already been given and won't waste their time and everyone's
> bandwidth replying again.

That would be fine if the subject was fully on-topic for all the original
groups AND people checked before replying. As it is, the OP didn't read the
charter of uk.comp.vendors (or chose to ignore it) and its pretty obvious
that people replying either don't know or don't care about the cross post.
The reason why crossposting is generally a BAD idea is evident in the amount
of stuff in this thread that is completely OT for at least one of the groups
involved and in the fact that somebody decided to use "followups to" in the
middle of it, enusring that part of the thread disappeared from the other
groups. If the OP had used "followups to", say,
comp.sys.ibm.hardware.storage then he could have had the "benefits" of the
crosspost without the risks of replies being OT for some groups and without
the confusion that almost inevitably ensues when messages are crossposted
without either warning or use of followups.

> > The need to do this is illustrated by the fact that J Clarke used the
> > "followups to" in his post which meant that part of this thread is now
> > only appearing in only one of the four newsgroups.
>
> A followup I see the OP wisely decided to ignore. Using followups (on any
> message after the first, at least) just converts a crosspost into a
> multipost and is bad for all the same reasons that multiposting is bad.

But it illustrates how things tend to rapidly get confusing when messages
are crossposted

> I agree with the OP: he only posted to four groups and they all look
fairly
> relevant to the question.

The title of a group is not enough to be confident that a post is
appropriate - the OP should have read the charters.


Tony
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 27, 2004 2:25:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article news:<4156c09e$0$20249$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, TMack
wrote:
> And so what if there are similar answers in different groups?

So ... anyone who follows all of those groups will see several different
discussions in dfferent places.

Whereas if the original question had been crossposted there would be only
one discussion -- with less repetition and more opportunity for fruitful
exchange -- and most decent newsreaders would only show it in one place.

I'm not arguing in favour of crossposting - I agree that it's done too often
and is usually inappropriate. What I *am* doing is to make two points:

1. Crossposting isn't automatically always evil. There are occasions when it
can be helpful and constructive to involve the communities of two or more
newsgroups in a discussion so that people with different interests and
expertise can all contribute, and the discussion will benefit from the
combination of their inputs.

2. Multiposting is always worse than crossposting.

There's also a third issue I was deliberately not making so much of, which
is that using followups is often also not a good idea. The usual advice is
that when crossposting one should set a followup-to just one of the groups
so that all the discussion takes place in just one group. It turns out that
that is usually not productive, because people who don't normally follow the
chosen followup group will probably not take the trouble to involve
themselves in the discussion - they might post once (though most don't
bother) but they won't see any further discussion or be able to enlarge upon
it. As most decent newsreaders will only show the discussion in one of the
subscribed groups it makes much more sense to allow the discussion to
continue to exist in all of them so that everyone gets the benefit of being
able to see all the replies.

This assumes that the thread is, and remains, on-topic in all of the groups,
of course. If the thread is not on topic in some of the groups that is an
argument against cross-posting to that group, not an agrument in favour of
followups (especially if the poster choses to set the followup to the
inappropriate group).

Setting followups after the thread has started is fatal. Each poster might
set followups to a different group and the discussion would become as
fragmented as in the multiposting case, with the additional problem that the
discussion might get taken to a group that the original poster did not chose
(and might not even be able to access).

> > I agree with the OP: he only posted to four groups and they all look
> > fairly relevant to the question.
>
> The title of a group is not enough to be confident that a post is
> appropriate - the OP should have read the charters.

Please don't quote me out of context. The rest of my paragraph said:

> Posting to fewer groups might have been better,
> but multiposting would defintely not.

The point I was making was against multiposting not in favour of
crossposting or of the OP's choice of u.c.vendors.

I'm not sure, though, now that you mention it, that anything the wording at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.comp.vendors.html says anything to exclude the
OP's post - vendors, after all, are people who sell stuff ... and so set
prices. People discussing vendors on the 'net might legitimately be
discussing many aspects of the vendors' business, including the prices they
charge -- and that is what the question was about.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 2:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008d1.1ddf63fe@nospam.aaisp.org...

SNIP!

> I'm not sure, though, now that you mention it, that anything the wording
at
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.comp.vendors.html says anything to exclude the
> OP's post - vendors, after all, are people who sell stuff ... and so set
> prices. People discussing vendors on the 'net might legitimately be
> discussing many aspects of the vendors' business, including the prices
they
> charge -- and that is what the question was about.

Gosh - I think we've had an intelligent debate - and reached a fair measure
of agreement which is quite unusual on usenet. However, I must comment on
the last point above - the group is for discussion about named vendors or to
request information about vendors, not for discussion about the general
business of buying and selling. Basically, its where people go to recommend
particular vendors (occasionally), criticise particular vendors
(frequently!) or ask where is the best pace in the uk to buy stuff.

Tony
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 7:05:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article news:<41588619$0$20244$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, TMack
wrote:
> SNIP!

Yeah, it was kinda longish. Sorry.

> Gosh - I think we've had an intelligent debate - and reached a fair measure
> of agreement which is quite unusual on usenet.

I hope so ...

> > I'm not sure, though, now that you mention it, that anything the wording
> > at http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.comp.vendors.html says anything to exclude
> > the OP's post ...
[snip]
> ... the group is for discussion about named vendors or to
> request information about vendors, not for discussion about the general
> business of buying and selling. Basically, its where people go to recommend
> particular vendors (occasionally), criticise particular vendors
> (frequently!) or ask where is the best pace in the uk to buy stuff.

Yes, I know what it's meant for ... my point was that the charter doesn't
actually say that ("discussion of issues surrounding" covers a multitude of
sins) so even consulting the charter isn't always enough to know whether a
posting is on-topic for a particular group.

Usenet's low signal to noise ratio is well known and unfortunate ... but some
of the most interesting discussions I've followed and participated in have
been off-topic. I'd hate to have the thought police spoil *all* the fun.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 12:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"TMack" <REMOVETHECAPStonymackin@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> "Davis Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:956E1E83FACF67AF39@130.133.1.4...
>> "TMack" <REMOVETHECAPStonymackin@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > are not really interested in discussions of the price of
>> >> > hard disks and vendors in the US.
>> >>
>> >> However, since he stated specifically that he is in the UK
>> >> that concern does not apply now, does it?
>> >
>> > He stated that he was in the UK but he posted a general query
>> > about hard disk prices and possible reasons for price
>> > reductions. He also quoted a price in dollars which
>> > immediately looks inappropriate for a uk group.
>> >
>> >> What do you do, look for crossposting and whine
>> >> before you read the content?
>> >
>> > Er..no. I wonder WTF discussions about US prices, US vendors
>> > and the technical details of hard disk technology are doing
>> > in uk.comp.vendors,
>>
>> I am the OP. I think the poster was right. You seem to
>> nitpick on crossposting. What do you want people to do ... to
>> multipost?
>
> You could have taken the extra 60 seconds and posted to each
> group seperately using copy/paste. That way there is no risk of
> confusion about who is replying from which group.

Maybe it is ok if you do not read more than one group. if you do
then your newsreader should be able to kill any crossposts you have
read after you have seen the first one. It does this by message-id
and your suggestion prevents this from working.

> The need to
> do this is illustrated by the fact that J Clarke used the
> "followups to" in his post which meant that part of this thread
> is now only appearing in only one of the four newsgroups.
> Crossposting nearly always leads to problems if the message is
> likely to provoke discussion. The whole point of having
> different newsgroups is to put boundaries on discussions - and
> crossposting messes up the boundaries.

Follow-up never really seems to work well in practice. Have a look
in the old threads on the newsreaders group where they discuss this.


>> A newsreader
>> can supress crossposts in the differemt groups the user goes to
>> but it can not suppress the same emssage if it is multiposted.
>>
>> I chose the groups carefully. I limited the crossposting to a
>> GNKSA- approved four.
>
> Not that carefully - go and read the charter of uk.comp.vendors

I go by what is accepted by the group members. Not one complained
about the crossposts. Also agroup which discusses vendors will be
aware of factors which help answer my question about falling prices.

>
>> uk.comp.vendors also discusses comparative prices. Have a look
>> through some
>> threads there to see what I mean.
>
> No need to look at threads - look at the charter. i.e. "This
> newsgroup is for the disussion of issues surrounding computer
> hardware/software vendors in the UK." Which particular UK
> vendors were you discussing? You didn't even request
> information about any particular vendors - you simply tried to
> start a discussion about prices in general and the effects of
> SATA. Didn't it occur to you that the crosspost would result in
> OT material being posted to uk.comp.vendors? I suspect that it
> didn't because you didn't read the charter before posting.

I have a feeling you almost have a need inside you to go over to
uk.comp.vendors and do some netcopping. I know you would be kept
busy there because there are many examples of what you are
complaining about.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 12:53:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Rorgh" <jo@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9572CEA945B3401A4D@204.153.244.156...

SNIP

> I go by what is accepted by the group members. Not one complained
> about the crossposts.

I did!

> Also agroup which discusses vendors will be
> aware of factors which help answer my question about falling prices.

Irrelevant. A group such as uk.comp.vendors will have people who are aware
of many issues to do with computers - that doesn't make all computer-related
discussions on-topic. Anyway, the main point that I was making was NOT
about you original post being OT. It was about the fact that it was
crossposted to hardware discussion groups in a way that was BOUND to result
in substantial numbers of VERY OT replies appearing in uk.comp.vendors


> >
> >> uk.comp.vendors also discusses comparative prices. Have a look
> >> through some
> >> threads there to see what I mean.
> >
> > No need to look at threads - look at the charter. i.e. "This
> > newsgroup is for the disussion of issues surrounding computer
> > hardware/software vendors in the UK." Which particular UK
> > vendors were you discussing? You didn't even request
> > information about any particular vendors - you simply tried to
> > start a discussion about prices in general and the effects of
> > SATA. Didn't it occur to you that the crosspost would result in
> > OT material being posted to uk.comp.vendors? I suspect that it
> > didn't because you didn't read the charter before posting.
>
> I have a feeling you almost have a need inside you to go over to
> uk.comp.vendors and do some netcopping. I know you would be kept
> busy there because there are many examples of what you are
> complaining about.

Er...no there aren't "many examples". The vast majority of posts are
on-topic and very few get crossposted to hardware discussion groups - and
save the "netcopping" stuff - its the standard lame diversionary tactic used
by everyone who gets called for OT posting, inappropriate crossposting etc.
etc.

Tony
October 13, 2004 12:29:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>
> 10 years ago, the biggest IDE drive you could get was a 1G, and most
> PC's were still being sold with 540MB and smaller drives. I know this
> is correct, because I bought a PC (Dell P90) almost exactly 10 years
> ago, and 1G was definitely "the king". 8)
>

yep ...... my IBM P-75 came with a 540

I am sure because my Mom still uses it at her beach house for email


and that is worth a smile .... ;) 
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 13, 2004 1:51:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:59:04 +0100, Davis Rorgh <jo@nomail.com> wrote:

>I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but it
>seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.

I know this is an old post but if you take a look at the past history,
the price is always dropping. At times, it may be going down just a
few pennies, and other time it takes a mighty big drop.

I remember when an 80 MB hard drive used to sell at about $2000. Back
then, most computer didn't have more than 1MB of RAM, B&W only video,
and (other than big commercial uses like banks) the idea of needing
more than a few MB of storeage was ludicrous.

Today for the same $2000, I could probably build a RAID array with
around 3 or 4TB of storeage. But today, that much space is still
ludicrous. :) 
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 13, 2004 4:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Impmon wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:59:04 +0100, Davis Rorgh <jo@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>>I know it's all "faster and cheaper" with a lot of computer equipment but
>>it seems that HDDs have really taken a big drop.
>
> I know this is an old post but if you take a look at the past history,
> the price is always dropping. At times, it may be going down just a
> few pennies, and other time it takes a mighty big drop.
>
> I remember when an 80 MB hard drive used to sell at about $2000. Back
> then, most computer didn't have more than 1MB of RAM, B&W only video,
> and (other than big commercial uses like banks) the idea of needing
> more than a few MB of storeage was ludicrous.
>
> Today for the same $2000, I could probably build a RAID array with
> around 3 or 4TB of storeage. But today, that much space is still
> ludicrous. :) 

Actually, with the advent of HDTV it's a lot less ludicrous than it was a
couple of years ago. At something like 20 gig an hour a terabyte's only 50
hours.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 13, 2004 5:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:43:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Actually, with the advent of HDTV it's a lot less ludicrous than it was a
>couple of years ago. At something like 20 gig an hour a terabyte's only 50
>hours.

And by the time HDTV becomes mainstream, you can pick up a TB sized
hard drive for about $200 and you could get a DIY RAID totaling around
10TB or more for under $2000. And in the future, that size would be
ludicrous. :) 
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 13, 2004 5:41:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Impmon wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:43:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Actually, with the advent of HDTV it's a lot less ludicrous than it was a
>>couple of years ago. At something like 20 gig an hour a terabyte's only
>>50 hours.
>
> And by the time HDTV becomes mainstream, you can pick up a TB sized
> hard drive for about $200 and you could get a DIY RAID totaling around
> 10TB or more for under $2000. And in the future, that size would be
> ludicrous. :) 

10TB doesn't give a whole lot more recording time than you get now with a
maxed out analog Tivo. Assuming you don't consider HD to be "mainstream"
now.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 15, 2004 1:23:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote
>
> I remember when an 80 MB hard drive used to sell at about $2000. Back
> then, most computer didn't have more than 1MB of RAM, B&W only video,
> and (other than big commercial uses like banks) the idea of needing
> more than a few MB of storeage was ludicrous.
>
I remember when a 2.5 MB disk was 14" across and used to sell for over
$5000. Now, where did I leave my teeth ?
I wasn't far wrong, either - http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.shtml says $5100
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 15, 2004 9:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:23:45 +0100, "Cornelius J Rat"
<corneliusjratNO@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>I remember when a 2.5 MB disk was 14" across and used to sell for over
>$5000. Now, where did I leave my teeth ?
>I wasn't far wrong, either - http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.shtml says $5100

Remember? How about actually owning a monster? I have a 50MB hard
drive that is 14" and in a metal case 2 feet high and 3 feet deep and
weights probably close to 75 pounds. The disc are in a transparent
cover and they make those old records look as small as a CD.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 15, 2004 9:12:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Impmon wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:23:45 +0100, "Cornelius J Rat"
> <corneliusjratNO@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I remember when a 2.5 MB disk was 14" across and used to sell for over
>>$5000. Now, where did I leave my teeth ?
>>I wasn't far wrong, either - http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.shtml says $5100
>
>
> Remember? How about actually owning a monster? I have a 50MB hard
> drive that is 14" and in a metal case 2 feet high and 3 feet deep and
> weights probably close to 75 pounds. The disc are in a transparent
> cover and they make those old records look as small as a CD.

I've got the Data General 1.2 meg version of the RK05 he's talking about,
and the Nova 2/10 minicomputer (don't seem so 'mini' now days. hehe) to go
with it. As well as a PDP11.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 15, 2004 12:07:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Cornelius J Rat wrote:
> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote
>
>>I remember when an 80 MB hard drive used to sell at about $2000. Back
>>then, most computer didn't have more than 1MB of RAM, B&W only video,
>>and (other than big commercial uses like banks) the idea of needing
>>more than a few MB of storeage was ludicrous.
>>
>
> I remember when a 2.5 MB disk was 14" across and used to sell for over
> $5000. Now, where did I leave my teeth ?
> I wasn't far wrong, either - http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.shtml says $5100

I remember something similar to that in Prestel (BT's old Teletext
thingy), the guy there was boasting about it holding a million
characters, as he carried it across the room I remember thinking
"where's his sword?" :-)

--
Pretentious? Moi?
!