No Q.E.D - what I don’t get is why instead of answering the OP you feel the need to question why anyone would need or want that much space. I don’t care if he’s got 137+ GB of mp3s, movies, CAD drawings or Photoshop graphics - the OP asked a question about the 137GB drive size limit and I was answering it rather than saying “you shouldn’t worry about it”.
And not to ad hom, but given your response in the thread about disk images, I’m starting to wonder about your IT expertise.
Oh quit whining. :rolleyes: You misread my post, I explained it to you, and now you want to act all offended because I dared to express an opinion. Well, excuuuuuse me. And before you go shooting off your mouth some more, please do note that I did answer the OP before expressing any opinions related to it. not instead of doing so, as you stated. If you wish to flame me, at least do so honestly.
Holy shit. Well, OK, but when there’s a drive that can handle more information than is avaliable in the universe and which thereby causes a paradox which itself ends the universe, I’m closing the damn thread about it!
My employer resells a product which has a plain jane Intel motherboard and a 250 Gigabyte Maxtor IDE HDD installed. No special cards for the drives, or anything.
I’m waiting for larger drives. In my line of work (which has nothing whatsoever to do with computer graphics BTW) we can fill terabytes up pretty quickly. Think about power plants with 6000 instrumented data points, logging data every second. I personally have seen a utility data system meant to gather statistics on energy use of individual residential customers which fills about 0.8 TB a month.
I want an 8x1TB RAID array myself. That would be cool. But I’d still manage to fill it up. If an hour-long show on TV is about 200MB as an AVI, and I set my capture card/software to record 10 hours a week in VCR mode…it doesn’t take long to add up. And an HDTV-quality hour might be…well, I don’t know, but I believe it’s quite a bit more.
Cripes. And I remember, three computers ago, paying extra to get the big 700-MB drive… 
My latest motherboard is an Asus A7V333 (BIOS revision 1016, dated 2003-01-28) with the Promise RAID controller (PDC20276) inbuilt, in addition to the system drive and other ATA devices. The board manual said nothing about a 137-GB limit for the drives in the RAID. Does anyone know whether this MB/RAID controller would choke if I got two 160-GB drives for the RAID? My plans to get two 120-GB drives are now seeming rather… underpowered.
My first Mac with 20MB seems ridiculously small compared to having 768MB of memory now!
In any case, I’m waiting patiently for those 220GB drives to come down a little bit more. My ex-Windows box is slowly being converted into my home server, with the eventual plan of replacing my TiVo and just about everything else in the home entertainment setup. Copy my DVD’s to the hard drive, record my shows, all of the MP3’s, the X10 controller, and if there’s room act as my central file backup server. So, yeah, I’ll probably want a couple of these big, huge drives.
**Bill H.[/b[ – this is a Linux box (Suse 8.2) – what types of problems did you have getting your drive to work? I’d probably end up partitioning mine anyway, since on my Mac and Linux boxes I prefer to have different mountpoints for different things.
(sorry to continue this tangent :))
Here’s a perfectly good reason for an average Joe to need a huge disk: One hour of home video in DV format is 10-20GB. If you want to do a nice job of editing your home video, you want several hours of source video for each hour of edited video.
If I had a 137GB drive, I’d use it all, easily. In fact, I’d like to have two of them, so that I could bounce those HUGE files between drives during editing.
How about firewire HD’s ? I think you can daisy chain them & get up to 60 terabytes
Balthisar:
Did your SE have the “FDHD” SuperDrive, or did it only take the 800K diskettes?
20MB? Were you rich? I had to get by with booting from 5.25" floppies. They were 360k and that’s the way it was and we liked it!
Of course, prior to that was my Apple II clone…
You had disks? My first computer was a ZX81, which used cassettes, and those only worked on good days!
Oh no, here come the old fogies with the, “Back in my day…”.
I wondered what the heck you were bitching about until I saw your last post.
“Ten minutes for 35 gigs? Man he’s flying!” 
I had the SuperDrive! Of course, uh, my SuperDrive then had vastly different storage capacities than my SuperDrive now.
Everyone else: I said my first Mac. My first computer had 4K of memory, 32 columns of text, and eventually – when I was able to afford it – a cassette player drive. TRS-80 MC-10..
I miss my SE. 'Twas my first Mac also. I finally let go of it when the Applied Engineering 40 MHz '030 card died, and along with it the ability to address 16 MB of RAM, and I wasn’t willing to go back to the stock speed and 4 meg limit.
I still have and run an installed copy of MacOS 9 that was installed on top of a copy of 8.1 which was installed on top of a copy of 7.6 the original of which had been updated in stages from System 6.0.8 on the old SE. For the longest time I still had ancient “MacWrite 4.6 Undo” crash files buried in my Preferences
I had a Mac once. It was an old 512 with the little monochrome screen and no HD. All my software for it was on floppies. I kinda liked that little machine. I learned Pascal on it.