I'm curious... is there some rare metal that goes into making one hard drive bigger than another? The reason i ask is because of the $100 difference in price between a 40GB and 60GB iPod. Is there $100 worth of materials in there? They weigh the same and have the exact same dimensions... just curious...
Material-wise, what's the difference between a 40GB and 60GB hard drive?
- Thread starter Javery
- Start date
RaekwonThaChef
CAGiversary!
That's a difficult question. A 60gb drive of that size definately costs more to make than a 40gb drive, but $100 more...i don't really know... but to more specifically answer your question, no there is no material difference (AFAIK), the difference is in the aurel (sp?) density of the hard disk platters (anyone, feel free to correct me if i have some details mixed up).
opportunity777
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
It really doesn't cost that much to increase the space like that ... they are just targeting two different markets ... one who wants the best and one is content with having 40 gigs.
TheGreat2nd
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I think it has to do with the disk space?
I'm not too sure, but it's just like a regular hard drive. Looks the same, but definately not weigh the same. Doesn't a 160 GB hard drive feel heavier than a 40 GB hard drive? ... At least I think so...
Meh.
I'm not too sure, but it's just like a regular hard drive. Looks the same, but definately not weigh the same. Doesn't a 160 GB hard drive feel heavier than a 40 GB hard drive? ... At least I think so...
Meh.
[quote name='Moxio']I never thought of that. Makes you think.... HOW do you determine hard drive size if they have the same amount of parts?[/quote]
it has something to do with how many actual disks are in the harddrive itself and then how fast it spins , I took like a 2 week A+ class so I dont remember alot .
it has something to do with how many actual disks are in the harddrive itself and then how fast it spins , I took like a 2 week A+ class so I dont remember alot .
It's all about the area density (or bit density) of the platters (little plates) in the hard drive.
The metal the platters are made of isn't rare at all -- it's plain old aluminum (or in some cases glass). Each platter has a couple of read/write heads that are mounted on an arm that will scan the hard drive (think of an old record player). It is really just reading/writing data as magnetic impulses (positive/negative) as 1's and 0's.
So is there 100 dollar difference in material? Nope. The aluminum platters are a fraction of an inch bigger to allow for more area denisty to store data.
The metal the platters are made of isn't rare at all -- it's plain old aluminum (or in some cases glass). Each platter has a couple of read/write heads that are mounted on an arm that will scan the hard drive (think of an old record player). It is really just reading/writing data as magnetic impulses (positive/negative) as 1's and 0's.
So is there 100 dollar difference in material? Nope. The aluminum platters are a fraction of an inch bigger to allow for more area denisty to store data.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Its higly doubtful that they would make the plates bigger - the plates are usually as large as they can be to fit inside the drive. Far more likely that they would increase the number of plates. For instance, the 40GB drive may have 2 plates (20GB each) and the 60GB drive 3. That would require the addition of another head, in addition to the plate itself.
Its also quite possible that the maximum number of plates was already in use in the 40GB drive , in which case they would have to move to higher-density technology (still 2 plates, but each one holds 30GB), something which can be pretty darn expensive. Either way, though, the price for these sort of 'fashion' high-tech devices is predominately dependant on what the market will bear - AKA, what people will pay. There's a whole lot of people who will pay $100 extra for another 20GB, just so they can say they have the newest/best model.
Its also quite possible that the maximum number of plates was already in use in the 40GB drive , in which case they would have to move to higher-density technology (still 2 plates, but each one holds 30GB), something which can be pretty darn expensive. Either way, though, the price for these sort of 'fashion' high-tech devices is predominately dependant on what the market will bear - AKA, what people will pay. There's a whole lot of people who will pay $100 extra for another 20GB, just so they can say they have the newest/best model.
There are several factors. Within the same product line, say consumer PC grade Maxtor 3.5" drives using the current areal density standard du jour, the entry level product is a single platter with just one read/write head. The next step up is a second read/write assembly using the opposite surface of the platter. From there the next step is another platter with a single r/w head and from there a second head. This goes up to drives with four (the typical maximum these days but the big stacks in the mainframe era could have several times more)platters and a read/write assembly addressing both sides of each platter.
So, within the same generation of drives, assuming perfect manufacturing, the additional cost is mainly the additional read/write heads and platters, plus some additional manufacturing complexity and time. But manufacturing is never perfect. Just as a CPU line tries for the top speed every time but ends up producing a range of speeds after testing, hard drive production has its issues. For instance, for most drive form factors, except those that only permit single-sided platters, the target in platter production is always a double-sided product. A good percentage will fail testing on one side but be perfectly good on the other and fully suitable for use in a single-sided drive. That is a big savings compared to just junking the entire platter. Also, a good platter side may not meet its target capacity. Error areas that are completely harmless if they are found in testing and marked as unusable in the drives firmware. All drives have less than their best case scenario capacity but many sold as low capacity can have as much as 40% unusable area. People aren't given to complaining if it means they get the low capaity models for cheap.
When Western Digital and Microsoft issued a joint press release announcing the supply deal for Xbox hard drives a few years ago, I was amused to see at the bottom, in the area where the two companies were given brief descriptions, that WD's included a sentence touting them as being the first company to standardize on 15 GB per side 3.5" platters. This raised the question of why the Xbox would only have 8 GB (officially, more often 10 GB in practice) of hard drive capacity. none of the companies involved will reveal the full details of the deal but Microsoft managed to score the then lowest ever price per magabyte on commodity hard drives by offering WD and Seagate a way to move product that might otherwise have been unsellable for, if not a profit, at least other than a complete loss.
So, within the same generation of drives, assuming perfect manufacturing, the additional cost is mainly the additional read/write heads and platters, plus some additional manufacturing complexity and time. But manufacturing is never perfect. Just as a CPU line tries for the top speed every time but ends up producing a range of speeds after testing, hard drive production has its issues. For instance, for most drive form factors, except those that only permit single-sided platters, the target in platter production is always a double-sided product. A good percentage will fail testing on one side but be perfectly good on the other and fully suitable for use in a single-sided drive. That is a big savings compared to just junking the entire platter. Also, a good platter side may not meet its target capacity. Error areas that are completely harmless if they are found in testing and marked as unusable in the drives firmware. All drives have less than their best case scenario capacity but many sold as low capacity can have as much as 40% unusable area. People aren't given to complaining if it means they get the low capaity models for cheap.
When Western Digital and Microsoft issued a joint press release announcing the supply deal for Xbox hard drives a few years ago, I was amused to see at the bottom, in the area where the two companies were given brief descriptions, that WD's included a sentence touting them as being the first company to standardize on 15 GB per side 3.5" platters. This raised the question of why the Xbox would only have 8 GB (officially, more often 10 GB in practice) of hard drive capacity. none of the companies involved will reveal the full details of the deal but Microsoft managed to score the then lowest ever price per magabyte on commodity hard drives by offering WD and Seagate a way to move product that might otherwise have been unsellable for, if not a profit, at least other than a complete loss.
[quote name='kaw']It's all about the area density (or bit density) of the platters (little plates) in the hard drive.
The metal the platters are made of isn't rare at all -- it's plain old aluminum (or in some cases glass). Each platter has a couple of read/write heads that are mounted on an arm that will scan the hard drive (think of an old record player). It is really just reading/writing data as magnetic impulses (positive/negative) as 1's and 0's.
So is there 100 dollar difference in material? Nope. The aluminum platters are a fraction of an inch bigger to allow for more area denisty to store data.[/quote]
The platters tend to be fairly common materials but the read/write heads do use rare earth magnets and other harder to acquire elements. OTOH, they're tiny, the tinier the better and don't need more than a tiny amount per unit. Those rare elements are used precisely because they enable to magnetic effects that have made the massive leaps in drive capacity possible.
/first disk drive was an 88K floppy.
The metal the platters are made of isn't rare at all -- it's plain old aluminum (or in some cases glass). Each platter has a couple of read/write heads that are mounted on an arm that will scan the hard drive (think of an old record player). It is really just reading/writing data as magnetic impulses (positive/negative) as 1's and 0's.
So is there 100 dollar difference in material? Nope. The aluminum platters are a fraction of an inch bigger to allow for more area denisty to store data.[/quote]
The platters tend to be fairly common materials but the read/write heads do use rare earth magnets and other harder to acquire elements. OTOH, they're tiny, the tinier the better and don't need more than a tiny amount per unit. Those rare elements are used precisely because they enable to magnetic effects that have made the massive leaps in drive capacity possible.
/first disk drive was an 88K floppy.
bread's done