While this is a single comment on the 2 TB drive page (Newegg), a long time before I read what the guy said I was thinking about the same thing.Pros: Good capacity....
Cons: High capacity...
Other Thoughts: High capacity drives come at the cost of volatility. When seagate released the 1.5 TB drive, I was skeptical. As a physicist, I know that capacity is limited by technology, and while miniaturization is moving quite quickly, there is still a physical capacity, regardless. with magnetic storage this dense, one slight error by the head will corrupt the file, and repeated events - all of your files.
While the storage, and other perks from reviews already posted, are pretty good, I don't see these drives having a long lifetime, and most definitely wouldn't use them in high volume and mission critical environments. I'll stick with my 1TB drives until these have been on the market for a good amount of time. Call me a skeptic, but I'd like to think that I didn't spend an obscene amount of time in school for nothing.
First, the Samsung 1 TB drive (HD103UJ) received a high number of complaints from people stating those drives were faulty, so many critics that I decided to purchase the 750 GB model (also the 1 TB drive was expensive that time, so two enough reasons for me). Some people stated the drives worked for months before they eventually died... which is real bad when it's something unpredictable. In that case, we can't say for sure how those things are build and if they will last the same time as the old and low-capacity models.
Well, I haven't seen any HDD dying yet (not even from old age), and mine have years of usage, but they were probably build in 2002, 2003 (Samsung 160 GB and Seagate 300 GB). So I can't say anything about younger and high-capacity drives (currently I own 2 Samsung 750 GB drives, but they are months old). And my system is used 24h/day.
And then, as you might probably know, the massive failure from Seagate 1.5 TB drives (and probably a plenty more from the same company, I believe they are known as 7200.11).
Google did a research about this:
http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience
But what I am really concerned about is not why or how the drives might die. It's the expectations we can have with these kinds of drives. Are they really so much complex, build to have a long lifetime, or the companies are investing in something that is not meant to have that capacity?
I mean, I always wondered why fast drives (with 10K or 15K RPM) have a very low capacity, and why someone haven't build a 500 GB SCSI drive for example, making the same commercially viable for most people. Then someone said to me it was impossible due to limits of technology.
Aren't we doing the same thing with normal internal drives? Do you see a resemblance with them and the tower of Pisa (the design was flawed from the beginning)?
HDDs are old technology, perhaps a single drive was not supposed to have so much storage capacity, without those side effects, or at least a shorter (or probably risky?) lifetime.