Originally posted by: Pariah
For all of us that use 5 year old versions of office and Adobe apps.
My office is full of 5 year old versions of Office (even though Office upgrades are free to universities, no Office program yet can beat the graphing capabilities of Office 97). My parents and the general public that bought computers before the y2k scare all have computers from about 1999, running 1999 versions of office programs. Very few people go out and spend $100+ to upgrade Word or Excel, unless they really depend on it for a living. I honestly believe the majority of home users have a computer with office programs that are that old. You can ignore all of them if you wish. But I think they are a major piece of the market. Some of those are also feeling their ~1999 computer getting old and want a little upgrade. A new ATA HD will work great with their older computers and will still be running those 1999 office programs.
So basically you're going to form an argument around numbers that you don't understand and decided to not take the time to research. Good strategy. And by "research", I mean read the heading of the chart:
I edited my post above, now that I see where you got your numbers (next time please list your source). At StorageReview, ATA drives had a temperature gain above ambient of between 13.0°C and 22.1°C - average of 18.3°C. SCSI drives there had a temperature gain above ambient of between 20.0°C and 36.6°C - average of 28.5°C. Every single ATA drive ran cooler than every single SCSI drive (With the exception of the Segate Baraacuda 36ES2 which was a tad cooler than a very few ATA drives). It is interesting that you picked the absolute hottest ATA drive in your comparison, and used one of the coolest SCSI drives. What a great comparison that was. If you had to pick two drives, at least pick the two that are the best performing. Or pick the average: 28.5°C/18.3°C = 1.557. Thus the average SCSI drive is 55.7% hotter. 55.7% does not equal 14%, and is not negligible as you claim.
Now lets look at what the HD manufacturers have to say.
Seagate on Storage Technology.
(1) "approximately 25 percent of [Seagate's] R&D budget, is being applied to base recording technologies in Recording Heads, Recording Media, Motors, Advanced Concepts, Seagate Research, and emerging-market product opportunities". So if we eliminate advanced concepts, Seagate research, and the emerging market research, we are left with well under 25% of R&D goes into making the basics of the drive: recording heads, media, and motors. Of that <25%, I bet less than half is spent actually on making them cheaper (unfortunately we don't have the exact numbers). So a good estimate would be a max of ~10% of their R&D is spent on what I say home users need most: inexpensive drives.
(2) "Since the drive industry began some 40 years ago, the critical driving metric has been areal density. To assure Seagate holds the lead position in this critical race, it has dramatically increased technical spending for head and disc R&D. Since 1996, Seagate has increased spending for recording head R&D three times and for discs by nearly five times". Ok that is where the other 75% (more likely 90%) of R&D has gone. But most home consumers are at a point where we don't need or want higher density. This design goal has got to change. I want them to switch their R&D spending around. Make it 75% on cheaper parts and 25% on higher density. Heck I'd even like to see 90% on cheaper parts and 10% on higher density (and at the same time, slash the total R&D spending, so we consumers don't have to support it).
(3) "changes are coming at a time when cost has become a primary design consideration". Seagate there just said that cost wasn't a primary design consideration in the past, but finally has now become a primary design consideration. Too bad under 25% (and more likely 10%) is spent on their primary design consideration. "The company is redesigning and automating its manufacturing lines" That means this is an ongoing thing (or in other words they aren't finished yet). Thus they are still being manufactured at a higher cost than is theoretically possible with TODAY'S technology. I guess you are right Pariah, and Segate is wrong, about understanding the costs involved.
(4) "we are approaching a point where the data bearing particles are so small that random atomic level vibrations present in all materials at room temperature can cause the bits to spontaneously flip their magnetic orientation...may become a serious technology issue for new products in only two or three years...We want to make sure that...Seagate is prepared and has the ability to circumvent it; either go around, over under or through it." I'm saying we as a society don't need to deal with this problem at this point in time. The vast, vast majority of consumers right now don't need 500 GB hard drives. Maybe we will in the future, but not now. Thus I wish this R&D spending would drop - which then would slash the prices of drives.