From: Aaron W. Brown (aaron_at_designcraft.com)
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000 - 05:13:34 EDT
>
>The point is when technology pushes new HD capacities, they initially
>come out in >12.5mm sizes on a frequent basis and these drives have
>larger capacities and sometimes faster rpm rates. In time, similar
>capacity devices are offered in smaller form factor(s) as technology
>affords it. The 770 series can accomodate larger physically sized
>HDs (>12.5mm). The 600 series can not. This was the case with the
>25gb drive, and I suspect it will happen again in the future with
>other drives, manufacturers and capacities as they push the envelope
>for speed and capacity.
>
>Mark
A fatter drive by definition has a capacity and performance increase
over a thinner drive of equal media density and rpm. Because a 17mm
drive has more platters/heads, data is read/written faster when
compared to a 12.5 (or thinner) drive. A 17mm drive could have 5 platters,
so 10 heads. Whereas a 12.5mm would have only 3 platters and 6 heads. 10
heads handles more data that 6. 40% more. That's a lot of real performance
where it counts. The thick drive stores 40% more data too.
For the same reason, (more media/heads) the fatter drives cost more to
make than the thinner drives. The lower cost allows the thin drive to be
the
new defacto standard. The fat drive is faster and stores more so it hangs
on.
When thin get close in capacity to thick the writing is on the wall.
Aaron Brown
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:59 EST