Expectations for single-platter hard drives > 500 GB?

[CommodorePET]

It seems that the maximum size of single-platter 3.5" hard drives has stayed at 500 GB for quite a while. I wonder if anyone has any good information about when the next larger size of single-platter drives may be expected to be available. Platter capacities skipped so far for single-platter drives are: 667 GB and 750 GB.

I can understand manufacturers' reluctance to sell 667 GB hard drives (weird number, thus marketing problem). But I did expect a 750 GB single-platter drive -- which has not appeared so far.

 

[sminlal]

I believe that the inability of most motherboards to boot from drives > 2TB and the inability of a lot of older operating systems to handle drives > 2TB is a big reason why drive capacities have stopped their upward progression for the last year or two. We're starting to see some larger external USB-connected drives, and WD is selling 3TB "bare" drives packaged with a compatible SATA controller card - but I don't think we'll really see a spurt in capacity until these issues are resolved.

 

[CommodorePET]

...drive capacities have stopped their upward progression for the last year or two.

My question focuses on single-platter hard drive capacity, not multiple-platter hard drive capacity. Platter capacities have been increasing. For example, the 2 TB and 3 TB hard drives you mention typically use 750 GB platters (three or four of them). On the other hand, even with 750 GB platters in general use these days, one does not see any single-platter 750 GB hard drives. Only single-platter drives with 500 GB at the maximum.

 

[sminlal]

My guess is that the higher-density platters are still more expensive to produce and therefore they're only used in the high capacities that can command a higher $/GB price. Not many people would be willing to pay a premium $/GB these days for a 750GB drive, especially if they could get a 1GB drive (with two 500GB platters) for the same or less.

 

[Snipergod87]

^+1
However I myself (I assume like the OP) prefer single or dual platter drives, less of a chance for something to go wrong.

 

[sminlal]

The downside of drives with fewer platters is that they tend to be the most expensive in terms of cost/byte. And for a given amount of storage (say, 1TB), I strongly suspect that a single 1TB drive is no less reliable than two 500GB drives using the same platter density. In fact, the 1TB drive would have to have twice the failure rate before the balance tips.