Jason Dunn
03-08-2006, 06:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/03/notebook_drives_at_up_to_160_gb_put_under_the_microscope/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/03/notebook_drives_at_up_to_160_gb_put_under_the_microscope/index.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Current 3.5" desktop drives offer capacities of up to 500 GB, with the 750 GB capacity point to be hit around the middle of this year. Compared to this, the 160 GB drives that are currently available for 2.5" drives seem almost small. Does this mean that 2.5" drives are falling behind? This is not the case by any means, because there are some technical differences that need to be factored into this equation. First, 2.5" drives usually work with one or two magnetic platters, whereas 3.5" models can be equipped with up to five. Second, the platter diameter is much larger with 3.5" desktop hard drives, offering a larger total storage area. If you do an apples to apples comparison, looking at the areal density of storage, most 2.5" drives will actually do very well."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/tomshardware-notebookharddrives.jpg" /><br /><br />A notebook with a massive hard drive (or two) can make a very capable portable video/photo/audio editing workstation, so I'm thrilled to see the continued improvements in 2.5" drive technology.