[HN Gopher] The Hard Disk That Changed the World (2006)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Hard Disk That Changed the World (2006)
        
       Author : grunthos
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2022-06-15 10:11 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.newsweek.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.newsweek.com)
        
       | cm2187 wrote:
       | Hard drives are at this stage where no one will really miss them
       | given their performance vs SSDs, but still common enough to not
       | attract nostalgia. I think it is still mind blowing that such a
       | cheap device can move a physical head over a disk within a
       | minuscule precision, both in term of position and distance above
       | the disk, and this many times per second. Yes it doesn't do a
       | million iops, it only does like 10 iops, but I am still impressed
       | we get those 10 iops on a cheap consumer devices that stores TBs
       | of data.
        
         | pjdesno wrote:
         | WD says that the track width on their newest drives is about
         | 50nm. The servo has to position the head with an accuracy
         | considerably smaller than that, especially for writes - for
         | reads you can just try again if you're off center. (which is
         | why some drives have different seek time numbers for read and
         | write - they don't need as much "settling time" for reads) For
         | comparison, green light has a wavelength of about 550nm.
        
         | jasongill wrote:
         | I know you're making an exaggerated comparison, but 10 IOPS
         | would be closer to the performance of a floppy disk than even a
         | 5400rpm consumer hard drive (depending on workload, of course).
         | Imagine if we still had to deal with the performance of floppy
         | drives on a daily basis!
        
           | cm2187 wrote:
           | Actually I thought this was 10. Just double checked and a
           | consumer drive in more like 50. Floppy disk seems to be less
           | than 5.
        
       | bdavis__ wrote:
       | Nope. CDC 300MB Removable platters SMD.
       | 
       | http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/201...
       | 
       | More storage than you thought possible. And it was widely used
       | for about 10 years.
        
       | blakesterz wrote:
       | "The total amount of information stored on its 50 spinning iron-
       | oxide-coated disks--each of them a pizza-size 24 inches--was 5
       | megabytes. That's not quite enough to hold two MP3 copies of
       | Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog.""
       | 
       | So maybe a dumb question... what were they doing with that thing
       | back in 1956? That's such a small amount of data in such a large
       | space, was this actually used to do anything useful after it was
       | sold?
        
         | biggieshellz wrote:
         | It replaced a tub file
         | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tub_file), where workers would
         | pull individual cards by hand.
        
         | mixmastamyk wrote:
         | No, video, no audio. Decent amount of storage for text/data
         | files. Offload the old ones to tape. Make do with what's
         | available.
        
         | tresqotheq wrote:
        
         | kps wrote:
         | It's the equivalent of 36 feet of punch cards. That's a _lot_
         | of storage.
        
         | bluedino wrote:
         | Some of the first personal computers only came with 4k of
         | memory
        
         | michaelbuckbee wrote:
         | It's not a dumb question. Consider the value in moving
         | calculations from paper to a spreadsheet.
         | 
         | That's _about_ what it was like in the early computing days in
         | terms of overall amount of data and the types of general
         | processing that were done with it. Incredibly useful but only
         | applicable to a narrow range of tasks.
        
           | tresqotheq wrote:
        
             | yesenadam wrote:
             | Hi. You seem new to HN, and have already written a few such
             | comments. Don't do that here, thanks. Please read the "In
             | comments" section of the guidelines, which starts with "Be
             | kind." Thanks.
             | 
             | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        
         | Turing_Machine wrote:
         | Don't think of it as two MP3s. Think of it as 25-30 book-length
         | volumes of text.
         | 
         | That was plenty to handle payroll, inventory, sales, etc. for a
         | business, especially since the data model back then was to only
         | keep current, live data on the disk, while archiving old data
         | off on tapes.
        
           | xtracto wrote:
           | Also, reading from the article they are mentioning that there
           | _was_ already tape storage (non random access). I can imagine
           | that the 5MB random access disks were using as  "working
           | memory" and then results where still stored in tape.
        
             | Turing_Machine wrote:
             | Definitely.
             | 
             | "Batch processing" often involved reading the data off one
             | tape into the CPU, processing it, then writing it back out
             | onto another tape.
             | 
             | "Computer operators" basically did nothing but load the
             | proper tapes onto the drives at the proper times (plus
             | replacing printer consumables, etc.).
        
         | xtracto wrote:
         | My first computer with a hard disk was 10MB. You could store
         | the operating system (MSDOS 5) and several programs (I remember
         | Professional Write and QPRO. Not only that, but you could even
         | store games. Prince of Persia was available in 2 floppies (5
         | 1/4") with 720KB each one. You could store the whole game in
         | the hard disk as well... This was around 1990.
         | 
         | In 1956, 5MB was plent of storage.
        
         | kube-system wrote:
         | Very successful graphing calculators have main storage measured
         | in kilobytes.
         | 
         | You aren't running npm install on these machines, you're mostly
         | working with numbers.
        
         | tpmx wrote:
         | https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/ramac/
         | 
         |  _Before RAMAC, information had to be entered by running a
         | stack of cards through a punched card machine, and answers
         | would arrive in hours or days. RAMAC could find data in
         | seconds, alter it, and move on to find a completely different
         | piece of data. It let enterprises think about data in new ways,
         | mixing and matching it on the fly. Random access made the
         | relational database possible._
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database#1960s,_navigational_D...
         | 
         |  _The introduction of the term database coincided with the
         | availability of direct-access storage (disks and drums) from
         | the mid-1960s onwards. The term represented a contrast with the
         | tape-based systems of the past, allowing shared interactive use
         | rather than daily batch processing._
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | pjdesno wrote:
       | There's one on display at TJ Watson labs. It's kind of cool.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-16 23:02 UTC)