IDE storage prices tumbling?

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?
46 answers Last reply
More about storage prices tumbling
  1. 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)
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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)
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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'.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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)
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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 .... ;)
  39. 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
  40. 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)
  41. 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
  42. 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)
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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?
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Storage Hard Drives