Talk:History of hard disk drives

First 650 MB drive
Why is the Micropolis 5.25" 650MB drive listed in '93? DEC had a 5.25" 1.3GB drive (the RZ58) in early '92. 208.66.208.200 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed, why don't u edit the page. It would be nice if you had a reference to the announcement/shipment Tom94022 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No Such 300 Tb Seagate Drive?
"2007 - 300 terabit hard drives are said to come in 2010.[6]" was added to the chronology; however a search of the Seagate web site reveals no such announcement. Furthermore, the author of the underlying article has no apparent qualifications for his announcement nor does he cite his source. I have asked for a clarification and assuming I don't get one, will remove this citation in about a week. Any objections? Tom94022 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After lack of objection and lack of attribution by source I deleted this as fictitious, see http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/02/seagate-the-answer-to-digital-distribution/2#comments Tom94022 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How are 2.5-inch hdd powered?
Do they use a dedicated power source like 3.5-inch hdd, or is the power supplied through the ide connection? Terranitup 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a hybrid 44 pin connector consisting of the 40 pin IDE connector plus 4 power pins, for example [| Toshiba MK1233GAS].  The earliest 2.5" drives had a separate connector but it was a pin header type connector and not the washing machine connectors like the 3.5" and earlier drives.  Tom94022 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3.5" disks
When did these go into production? I have a 3.5" WD Caviar from 1992 (80MB!!!), and from experience they seem to be pretty commonplace in desktops by around then. --Zilog Jones 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first 3.5" HDD was the Rodime RO350 family which went into production in 1983; it was not very successful. The first really successful 3.5" HDD was the Conner CP340 family which went into production in 1987Tom94022 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was searching for a reference, and the Rodime page doesn't provide any, but in the article History of IBM magnetic disk drives I found this reference that says "First 3.5 inch rigid disk drive - 1983 Rodime RO 352 – 10 Megabytes, two 3.5" disk". Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

drive limitations
In the PC era section, there should be mention of the drive size limits, unless this is in another article? already. etc... 132.205.44.134 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 32MB FAT-12 limit / 128MB 4 entry Partition Table
 * 512MB CHS/DOS limit
 * 2GB 16bit limit
 * 8GB CHS/LBA mapping limit

See http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.2 This should be integrated into the article. 70.55.86.204 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic drums
What's this! Not a single word about the predecessor of the hard disk drive, the magnetic drum? It would appear from this article that IBM alone is to be credited for inventing the hard disk. As far as I can see, back in 1948 the foundations were laid by researchers at the Manchester university. http://tommythomas.org.uk/Manchester/manchester_drums.html - Onno Zweers 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since they coexisted for a long time, it is not clear that Magnetic drums are any more relevant than Tape Drives, Wire recorders or for that matter the discovery of magnetism, all of which already have Wiki pages.  Therefore I suggest no addition is necessary.  I do suggest u add yr link to the Drum memory page, it was interesting reading.
 * Tom94022 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tape drive were not used for mainstream random access file storage; drums were. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Firsts"
I reverted the page because it was not clear that the cites were in fact the first at a particular capacity AND because it is not clear that a first of any capacity is, per se, worthy of listing in this article. HDD density has been increasing annually at a rate generally exceeding 25%per year for over 50 years so that at least every year or so there is a new "first" in capacity per disk drive. This is then complicated by the differing sizes in disk diameter and differing number of disks in a stack, so that a first in capacity per drive may be an also run in areal density (e.g. the Hitachi 1 TByte). On the whole, I think we are better off in not producing a long list of "firsts" that are really just evolutionary but should only cite those that are associated with some revolutionary technology. Tom94022 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that in the long run the list needs to be better structured. But I thought some actual numbers would make sense and help give a feeling of the last 10 years of development, not just the last 2. I also agree that the information from manufacturers may be non neutral sales talk, but again, the idea was to give an overview picture here... If you have better sources, please add them. I'm sure there are more people that would like to see more actual capacities, the heading was after all known as "Timeline of capacity and....". It would be more helpful if you corrected any obvious errors and perhaps integrated this discussion into the article instead of just deleting additions that you don't feel fit in. RustyCale 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see [HDD Roadmap], by Ed Growchowski, ex HGST. He does a pretty good job of showing IBM's product progress since the mid-1990's; every year or so there is a new higher capacity 3.5" HDD.  His chart is likely biased towards IBM and may leave out the competitive products.  His chart also leaves out the first 40 years of disk drive history.  Typically, the highest capacity per box has been with the larger form factor until that form factor becomes obsolete.  The first > 1 GByte drive was likely the IBM 14" 3380 E series  circa 1985; this was then followed by 10.5" (maybe Fujitsu Eagle 1988), an 8" (unknown model, date), 5.25" (maybe Maxtor Panther 1 ESDI, circa 1989), 3.5" (maybe Seagate Wren 7, 1989), a 2.5" (unknown model, date), a 1.8" (unknown model, date), etc.  So where do you start and end?  The best source for the data are the Disk/Trend reports thru 1999 and then one of the other reporting servics, e.g. IDC, but it is a major data reduction task to figure out which was first at a capacity AND then so what - many times, the highest capacity per box is achieved by stuffing more disks into a form factor and not advancing technology.   With regard to the 4 "firsts" I reverted:
 * 1997 First 8 GB hard drive (IBM) - In 1996 Seagate shipped the Elite 23, a 23G 5.25" HDD and the Barracuda 8, a 9.1G 3.5" HDD. Not to say these were first, but just that the cite is wrong.
 * 2001 - First 120 GB hard drive - This maybe correct but it needs attribution
 * The remaining 2 appeared not to be first, but instead first with qualification (e.g., "high performance desktop").
 * I think I will change the title of the section to just timeline :-) Tom94022 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Winchester as an euphanism for hard disk drives
Yr edit to the HDD history page is incorrect in calling the use of Winchester "unsourced nonsense." The statement is not sourced but it is not nonsense. I refer you, for example, to "Winchester drives to be focus of attention over next two years," J Trifari, MiniMicro Systems, Februrary 1982, p 135-143, or the MiniMicro February 1981 edition which has eight articles regarding HDD's using "Winchester" generically and a cover that states, "Disk Drives: Diversification in Winchesters, Maturity in Floppies ...". A casual review on the technical and business literature of the early 1980's will find many instances of the use of Winchester drive as a generic for what we today most commonly call hard disk drive. Why it dropped from use in the late 1980's is an interesting question, but the statement is not nonsense. However, I don't think the statement adds much to the article so I didn't undo your reversion but I thought u might like to know of its factual basis. Tom94022 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. Maybe nonsense was too strong a word, but I think we have be very careful with such statements, since people who were not around at the time may take them as gospel. The sentence I removed was "During the 1980s, the term "Winchester" became a common description for all hard disk drives, though generally falling out of use during the 1990s." That's not true. The term Winchester was used to distinguish disk drives where the heads and actuators were in a sealed assembly along with the platters. This was a novel notion at the time as removable platter hard drives, patterned after the IBM 1311, predominated. As this design came to be universal, there was no need for Winchester and it dropped out of use. --agr (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO "sealed" is not a distinguishing characteristic. There were cartridge "Winchester" disk drives such as the SyQuest SQ306, DMA Systems MicroMagnum5, etc.  There was even an ANSI standard cartridge using "Winchester" technology.  Nor do I believe it to be true in the early 1980's that there were any drives announced using the older technology exemplified by 1311 descendants such as CDC's SMD.  Finally, by the early 1980's Winchester was being used to describe drives with technology beyond Winchester such as Watrous flexures, smaller sliders, two rail sliders, etc.  So I suggest in the early 1980's Winchester was universally used to describe any disk drive having low mass, low load heads on lubricated media, that is, all disk drives then being announced. My guess is the hard disk drive then came into use with the growth of PC's as a way of distinguishing them from the more universal flopppy disk drive. Tom94022 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Winchester describes a set of disk technologies. We can put aside the question of exactly what those technologies were. The term Winchester drive refers to a disk drive the embodies those technologies. It was mainly used to distinguish those disk drives from earlier, removable pack technologies. It wasn't a synonym for anything. Ultimately Winchester technology completely replaced the removable pack technology. Maybe that transition was over by 1980 as you say; I'd put it a couple of years later. I also agree that the term hard drive was introduced to distinguish them from floppy drives. I just did a search of Google Groups usenet archive. There is just one message referring to "hard drive" in 1983. Afterwards it becomes common.  Prior to that the term used is simply disk drive. If anything, hard drive is a later synonym for Winchester disk drive.--agr (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the 1984 Disk/Trend report (the earliest I have) 1983 unit shipments were 136.8 k removable media and 1,347.7 k "Fixed Disk Drives." Many, perhaps half, of those removable media products were "Winchester." FWIW, I did a Dialog search on Winchester from 1980-1985 and got 44 valid hits, in the early years, Winchester is in the articles title without qualification; however in the latter years the article titles use Rigid or Hard.  My MiniMicro citations above are similar examples.  In all of these cases, people are using the term Winchester as a synonym for what we now call Hard Disk Drive.  I don't think that the fact that there were less than 10% obsolescent non-Winchester's around changes that Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much disagreement here. From their inception through the early 1980s, storage devices with rigid, spinning platters were simply known as "disk drives." Wincheseter drives were a type of disk drive, based on technology introduced by IBM in the late 70s. That technology came to dominate the industry by 1983 or so. The term "hard disk drive" appears about 1984 in the personal computer market and is a reaction to "floppy disk drive" which is what the public was used to seeing. So, if anything, "hard drive" is a layer synonym for Winchester drive. --agr (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I recall it, the term Winchester quickly fell out of fashion among early PC users because if you said that your new computer had a Winchester, you ran the risk of being asked "What's a Winchester?" and having to respond "well, uh, I don't really know, I guess it's just some fancy kind of disk drive". I knew plenty of people who could define RTL or ECL, but most of us were pretty vague on Winchester.  Generally, we didn't know if it was a brand, a technology, an interface, a device class, or just a Shugart/IBM marketing conceit.  Among the PC crowd I don't think Winchester was ever a conceptual synonym for anything.  At best people were aping the term with no comprehension, perhaps from some early IBM PC marketing brochure.  Within the crowd, the lingo tended to be "I just picked up a new five-and-a-quarter" or "dude, you need to junk that old full-height".  While Byte would write articles about "new hard drive technologies" the actual devices were mostly referenced by form-factor, capacity, or interface (SCSI/ESDI/ATA).  Sometimes it was more generic such as "Sounds like your hard drive is having a head crash" or more pompous "My new $5000 machine has a 10MB Winchester."  If anything, Winchester was a functional synonym for unaffordable for as long as it persisted. MaxEnt (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the term is not as dead as I presumed. From MySQL Database Sensei Brian 'Krow' Aker "New media like this is all about caching. Winchester drives were brought in to speed up the data transfer for hot data. They acted as a caching layer between tape and main memory. Solid state drives will do the same for databases."   Perhaps Winchester is making a comeback as an antonym for solid state.  MaxEnt (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember the use of "Winchester drive" as a synonym for hard drive. I am currently reading the number of Byte magazine of May, 1985 and I come across it several times, for instance in page 187 (page 189 in the PDF document). Even though that the term might have fallen into disuse, it is important to keep a record of it so when new readers come across it in an old text they can find out its meaning.Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at External links/Noticeboard

 * Discussion was archived at External links/Noticeboard/Archive 3 – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim Porter, Disk/Trend, and the web page "Five decades of disk drive industry firsts"

 * James N. Porter died March 2, 2012. He was the first full time digital storage analyst and founded Disk/Trend in 1977, publisher of market studies of the disk drive and data storage industries, per Tom Coughlin, A Silent Voice: James Porter, Dean of Storage Analysts Dies, Forbes, 3/06/2012.
 * Perhaps the last conference that he was booked at was Storage Visions 2012 Conference, Jan. 8–9, 2012.
 * His website www.disktrend.com has gone, but thanks to archive.org, which last recorded a snapshot on July 26, 2011, we can still link to it. In my opinion, this is a reliable tertiary source, which ideally should be supported by additional references to contemporary news items reporting each industry first.

3TB
I'll just leave this here...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/29/seagate-busts-out-3tb-external-hard-drive-for-250/

24.151.31.39 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HDDs Replacing Drums
At the time the HDD was invented, 1956, drums were used as main memory and not as storage. The IBM 305 RAMAC system used a drum for main memory and the IBM 350 RAMAC drive for storage. It is only later that as drums got displaced by core for main memory that some drums were used as storage but they were never able to establish more than a niche market. Prior to the invention of the HDD the primary storage device was the tape drive and I know of no system that used a drum for storage - memory yes, storage no. And I know of no system that ever used an HDD for memory. Absent any evidence to support Wtshymanski's contention that HDDs replaced drums, I am again removing this inaccurate statement. If there is any evidence to support this contention it should be discussed here and not by WP.EW Tom94022 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Drums are extinct, disks still exist. And any modern computer uses part of the very same disk used for storage as part of memory. What misunderstanding are you trying to prevent here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Williams tubes are also extinct, what does extinction have to do with the fact that HDDs did not replace drums in any meaningful sense - drums were used for internal memory and were replaced by core. Likewise, while we are all aware of virtual memory, IMO it is TMI so as to be misleading to state that HDDs are "used both for file storage and memory."  I will now flag the section added to see what other editors think. Tom94022 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, how big is the swap file on your computer right now? I don't understand what difference you are tryign to preserve. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually my PC swap file is never used because memory is essentially free for any reasonable application. Likewise swap files on servers is a thing of the past - ever heard of the 5 second rule?  But what does that have to do with the history of HDDs.
 * Your recent change is factual but a non-sequitor. You really should read Crichlow's 1973 study, "Proposal - Random Access File" to see the number of alternatives IBM considered before inventing the disk drive.  Drums were just one of the many alternatives rejected in favor of their invention - the disk drive.  I'm eliminating your addition, a non-sequitor, should be eliminated since it really mis-states the history and replacing it with a summary of the Critchlow study.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do your Web surfing on a file server? How delightful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And now we're actually concealing the reason a disk is cheaper than a drum. How nice. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps tell the unwary reader *WHY* IBM thought a disk was a preferred configuration, or are we going to use the usual Wiki copout and tell him to Google for it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know of one system that used an HDD for "RAM", the Palm LifeDrive. The amount of real RAM in the LifeDrive is very small. The use of part of a microdrive as pseudo NVRAM was very hard on the drive so they tended to die pretty quickly. Bizzybody (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Key Developments": Radial Armature Development
Been so long, the terminology is slipping from me, so, if I'm using the wrong terms anywhere, by all means, please apply the correct ones. I was a software guy, not a hardware one.

As I recall the transition of hard drives from using the early style "slider" (directly in and out on a line through the center of the spin axis) of the head actuator mechanism to the more modern "radial" armatures (in which the head moves on an arc across the disc surface roughly perpendicular to the spinning drive) was a major development. I seem to recall that this mechanism could be controlled much more accurately, allowing a substantial boost in track density, and thus a notable increase in drive capacity. I'd suggest this development is worth mentioning in the timeline of key events.

--OBloodyHell (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is called Rotary Actuator and is indeed worthy of mention, the first being probably the hydraulically actuated Bryant 320 circa 1960. Bryant's follow-on the model 4000 was definitely hydraulic.  The first electronic rotary actuators shipped in 1975, they were the StorageTek Superdisk and the IBM 62GV (Gulliver), this is taken from IBM 62GV / STC 8800 Super Disk which I moderate.  FWIW, this and many other significant technologies and products were referenced by a link in the History of hard disk drives Timeline section to Porter's Five decades of disk drive industry firsts but the Wiki thought police took out the reference on the theory that somehow the section would be better without the link.  Beats me Tom94022 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Minicomputer Era
The article seems to jump from mainframes to PCs without discussion of the minicomputer era (late 70s to the early 90s or so). Very important for dic development with companies like DEC and HP dominating with the VAX series, HP3000/9000, etc. Any chance of us wedging this in-between? Mikebar (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence on SMD covers the dominant HDD of that era. Perhaps something about the earlier cartridge drives might add, but, of course, that started with IBM and the 2315. Tom94022 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. HP made significant contributions in this area with their 7920, 7925, 7933, 7935, and 7937 drives. I am inclined to state this article is very lopsided, going from the early IBM drives then focusing on PC drives when there is significant history between.  Mikebar (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion but at this point it is not even WP:OR. Disk/Trend the recognized expert in the disk drive industry market lists no DEC or HP minicomputer drives in its Five Decades Of Industry Firsts.  The Computer History Museum's more technical Main Timeline of (Hard Disk Drive) Significant Events and Products lists two DEC and two HP drives (none of the ones u list above).  Between the two lists by my count there are 56 HDDs listed so I can find no evidence to support your statement that the HP models you list made any contribution whatsoever.  This is a survey article which uses about 300 words to cover 20 to 25 years of history which means many fine products will not be listed.  In my view and relying upon the two references cited herein, the next product I would add from the list of 56 would be the Diablo cartridge family which did dominate the low end of the minicomputer market in the early and middle 1970s.  After that I might add the Maxtor family of the late 80s which killed the SMD.  I don't think we should be adding anything to the text part of this article that has not been independently validated as significant as in the cited two lists.  BTW in interest of full disclosure I am one member of the museum's Storage SIG and have edited or written some of its articles but the timeline is the consensus work of the group (about 10 members plus 20 observers).  I know of but am not affiliated with Disk/Trend.  Tom94022 (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask this, but it seems I am 10 years too late. The 1980's, with (usually) 8 inch SMD drives, seems to be lost from the article.  They should at least have a section between the 1970's mainframes, and the 1980's PC drives. There were drives commonly used wit Sun workstations, often with an NFS networked group of workstations.  (Other competing workstations, too.) The actual reason for asking now, is the comment in Compact disc related to this size of PC drives when the CD came out. Yes, but workstation drives, which might be owned by those mastering CDs, were bigger.  But how much bigger?  People were not mastering CDs on their PC in 1982. Gah4 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1979 marked the beginning of the 8-inch era in minicomputers - take a look at the CMH article 1979: HARD DISK DIAMETER SHRINKS TO EIGHT INCHES. You might want to take a few words from it into this article. This is a survey article which uses about 300 words to cover 65 years of history so IMO any addition should be short.  Tom94022 (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't expecting to say a lot about them. What I really wanted to know was how many MB they hold. Gah4 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That of course all depends upon the year. This is likely OR but based upon Disk/Trend reports, RDD 1981 and RDD 1990, in 1980 most 8-inch disk drives were in the range of 30-200 MB while by 1989 they were in the range of 500 to about 3,000 MB  (Seagate Sa≤bre 7).  Probably too much info for this article.  Tom94022 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe "In the 1980's 8 inch drives used with some mid-range systems increased from a low of about 30MB in 1981, to a top of the line 3GB in 1990." And I think it also needs a section. That doesn't seem like too much to me. Gah4 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the sentence in the section; a whole section seems inappropriate since the article is divided by date ranges. Tom94022 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. If the sections have to be decades, I suppose that is the way it works. The 1980's section is about half 8 inch drives and half PC (5.25in) drives. We could do sections based on disk diameter, which come close to the sections now. Gah4 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe "In the 1980's 8 inch drives used with some mid-range systems increased from a low of about 30MB in 1981, to a top of the line 3GB in 1990." And I think it also needs a section. That doesn't seem like too much to me. Gah4 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the sentence in the section; a whole section seems inappropriate since the article is divided by date ranges. Tom94022 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. If the sections have to be decades, I suppose that is the way it works. The 1980's section is about half 8 inch drives and half PC (5.25in) drives. We could do sections based on disk diameter, which come close to the sections now. Gah4 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. If the sections have to be decades, I suppose that is the way it works. The 1980's section is about half 8 inch drives and half PC (5.25in) drives. We could do sections based on disk diameter, which come close to the sections now. Gah4 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. If the sections have to be decades, I suppose that is the way it works. The 1980's section is about half 8 inch drives and half PC (5.25in) drives. We could do sections based on disk diameter, which come close to the sections now. Gah4 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Article move??
Why was the article renamed? Mikebar (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no justification and I am moving it back. No one used "hard-disk"!!!! Tom94022 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of non-IBM coverage
Given that we also have an article on IBM drives alone, it's surprising to see how little coverage there is here for non-IBM work. Particularly non US work. IBM dominated in the early years, but through the '70s companies like DEC were just as important.

Although a dead end (as they couldn't use removable media), what about the giant platter drives? Some of these were around 4' wide. What about UK makers? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

First voice coil head actuator?
When did the voice coil actuator make its debut? How long did stepper motor driven heads hang on after? Bizzybody (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A useful chart
How much $ per megabyte, when? More useful information in this chart. http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm Bizzybody (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828062242/http://chmhdd.wetpaint.com/page/Disk%20Drive%20Patent to http://chmhdd.wetpaint.com/page/Disk%20Drive%20Patent
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728221058/http://ns1758.ca/winch/winchest.html to http://ns1758.ca/winch/winchest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of hard disk drives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209155900/http://isic.ucsd.edu/demandbased.html to http://isic.ucsd.edu/demandbased.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Competing devices
While disks quickly replaced drums for secondary storage, there was a lengthy period in which disks competed in the mass storage marketplace with various devices using magnetic tape strips (e.g., NCR CRAM, IBM 2321 Data Cell) and magnetic tape cartridges (e.g., IBM 3850). The article should mention that competition, although it should not give a timeline. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and I will do so in the history section removing it from the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, drums were used as primary storage at the time of RAMAC; later they attempted to become secondary storage but as u note were ultimately displaced by disk drives. My edit will so state and u are welcome to discuss or edit.Tom94022 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Core, delay lines, drums and William Tubes were all used in that period as primary storage. Of those only drums were used as secondary storage. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tape too existed before the secondary market was established, so I changed the wording a bit to make it clear that these older technologies and others attempted and failed. Again yr improvements are appreciated.  Twenty years takes us to 1977 which is past the 3850 announcement in 1974.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tape on reels existed, but not strips and cartridges. None of the competing devices used tape reels. The ones that I'm aware of are
 * IBM 2321 Data Cell: strips in magazine
 * NCR CRAM: strips in magazine
 * RCA 3488 (R.A.C.E.): strips in magazine
 * STC TeraByte Memory (TBM) - not sure of technology
 * IBM 3850: pairs of cartridges Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but I think the technologies that made drums suitable for secondary storage, flying and moveable heads all postdate RAMAC so that's why I changed the wording to focus on technology and not product. Semicondutor memory technology postdates RAMAC and didn't enter the market at all until 1978 and wasn't significant until Flash late last century.  So I'm happy with the paragraph but please go ahead and improve it as u see fit.  Tom94022 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot that Burroghs used drums for secondary storage before UNIVAC did. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph still doesn't feel right to me so I found some reliable sources for primary storage circa 1957, namely "A Third Survey of Domestic Electronic Digital Computing Systems" (March 1961) and "Data Processing Technology and Economics, 2nd Ed. (c) 1979.  The former lists all computers in the US as of about 1960 while the latter lists only what the author felt were "significant" computers beginning 1955.  Both show the typical primary memory circa 1957 was overwhelmingly drum (either alone or as a cache to core) followed by core with other older memory technology a small percentage.

Also there was early cartridge tape in Hypertape (1961 ca) and it is pretty clear that the 3850 did not compete with DASD but instead was complementary, like hot dogs and hot dog buns. There are reliable sources that IBM mainly was after STC with the 3850 and may have gone as far as to shut down new reel to reel tape production anticipating the success of the 3850 (which never achieved its objectives).

Comments before I again revise the paragraph back towards its original simpler form? Tom94022 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Circa 1957 the dominant computers were the IBM 704 and 705, both of which used core. ITYM that core was used as a cache for drum, but except for the Ferranti Atlas, which came later, that wasn't true. The UNIVAC 1103 used a drum, but had very little market share. The IBM 650 used a drum, but was a mid sized computer, as were the later UNIVAC SS80 and SS90.
 * The previous language was "typical" not dominant. Any way u measure it either in Phister (60% drum) or BRL (55-73% drum) drum was typical in 1957. I suppose we could come up with some language along the lines of "typically core or drum") but the current language is just wrong. Tom94022 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The IBM 3850 didn't "compete with DASD" because it was a DASD. It didn't compete with STC reel-to-reel tape drives, although it certainly competed with the STC TBM. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to say secondary storage; the 3850 technologies were never an attempt to compete in the secondary storage market. They competed in the tertiary storage market in which STC was becoming a dominant player.  Can you think of any system with only a library as secondary storage - I can't.  Tom94022 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the more I think about this the more I conclude that the "technologies" currently listed in the article as competeing with HDDs in the secondary storage market were for the most part never in that market - drums may be an exception but the rest were used in library systems that competed in the tertiary storage market. The only technologies that I can recall attempting to enter were bubbles, CCDs and maybe optical; none of which had any impact.  RAM had a brief appearance in the form of a 2305 alternative but that died with large memories and cached SCUs.  There are still library products and today they use tape cartridges.  So the sentance need fixing.  Tom94022 (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's possible that NCR CRAM competed with tape, but the IBM 2321, RCA 3488 and IBM 3850 were all marketed for use on online systems where disk was too expensive and demountable tape reels were too slow. There were a couple of systems that used permanently mounted tapes as random access devices, but the were too slow for use in online systems and well out of the mainstream. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see tertiary storage - none of the above were fast enough to be marketed as secondary storage. Yes they enabled online applications but that doesn't make them capable of secondary storage.  The 3850 was marketed as a replacement for the tape library.  Tom94022 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The literature from the 60s did categorize all these devices as Mass Storage or internally at IBM as RAMP (Random Access Memory Products) but this was categorization not competition in any one market. As we now use the terms, these Mass Storage products fell into at least two markets, secondary storage and tertiary storage  Back then we had tape operating systems and disk operating systems; the former died out and the latter became standard and I can't think of an example where the OS was on a IBM 2321, RCA 3488, IBM 3850, or any other tertiary storage product.  Disk OSes certainly were on drums and technologies were offered as HDD competitors for secondary storage but failed (e.g. bubbles) but I suggest this is TMI for this article - it belongs in the secondary storage article maybe.  So the most I suggest the article say is something like, "HDDs dominated the market for secondary storage until the advent of SSDs beginning in the early 1990s." Perhaps a footnote to drums would be appropriate but not much else.  Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at Computer data storage and I note that tape reels and cartridges do not match the definition given there, but rather the definition given in Computer data storage. I'm don't see the relevance of where the OS resided. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Megabyte => Mebibyte. When did binary change to decimal? (Important history!)
I'm not privy to when this standard changed in hard drive manufacturing, but in 1998, the IEC officially changed the definition of a megabyte to be 1000 kilobytes, rather than 2^10, or 1024 kilobytes (and likewise with kilobytes and gigabytes, but megabytes were most applicable during that itme. I think the article could be enhanced by adding some data about this change (not in-depth, necessarily, just a mention of the original storage being measured in what are now termed "mebibytes" (and kibi- and gibi- and etc.) As would be naturally assumed, computer and data scientists always referred to these multiples of bytes utilizing a base-2 unit, as that is what is most applicable when dealing with binary data. However, at some point, hard drive manufacturers realized they could represent their data in a base-10 format, thus significantly increasing the amount of data they represented their drives as storing. It seems apparent that this was not always the case, though became the case sometime in advance of 1998, when the IEC changed the suggested interpretation of the units. Computer scientists have trudged forward with the units most useful to them (now termed with the "b's" (mebi, etc.), although they often still use the previous words (mega, etc.) Nonetheless, consumers are left not really knowing (or perhaps caring) what measure is used by their OS (and, indeed, different operating systems report their storage differently: Windows says "mega", but considers mega to mean 1024, while some Linux distros use "mebi", eschewing mega entirely. While Mac OS uses "mega" to refer to 10^6 bytes (in accordance with hard drive manufacturers.) One can only hope this is cleared up one day...but I digress. The point of this is to state that this article should certainly make mention of the time in which these measurements changed meaning. I will do some research soon; however, if anybody has some knowledge (and where to find it) prior to my attempting to find sources, I do encourage them to contribute.Jtrnp (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the history of binary prefixes. Bottom line nothing has changed for HDDs, they have always had capacity specified using SI prefixes in a conventional manner; that is powers of 10.  Some operating system have and still report HDD capacity using SI prefixes but with a binary meaning.  Some OSes make the reporting prefixes optional.  The IEC 1998 standard did not change any measurement, just resolved the ambiguity between the same prefix have two different meanints.  IMO, nothing in this article needs further clarification of this issue since it is covered in excruciating detail in the referenced article. Tom94022 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * it is also coverred in the parent article, see Hard_disk_drive. It really doesn't need to be also coverred here. Tom94022 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about others, but IBM mostly didn't use powers of two for disks. No 512 byte blocks like others. The favorite block size for tapes was 800 bytes, 10 times the favorite record length. The 2314 disk has 200 cylinders of 20 tracks of 7294 bytes each. The 3330 with 404 cylinders of 19 tracks (plus one servo track) of up to 13030 bytes. The latter give 100,018,280, slightly more than a nice power of 10. More usual for the 3330 was four blocks of 3156 bytes per track. With numbers like those, there is no reason for powers of two. Gah4 (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about others, but IBM mostly didn't use powers of two for disks. No 512 byte blocks like others. The favorite block size for tapes was 800 bytes, 10 times the favorite record length. The 2314 disk has 200 cylinders of 20 tracks of 7294 bytes each. The 3330 with 404 cylinders of 19 tracks (plus one servo track) of up to 13030 bytes. The latter give 100,018,280, slightly more than a nice power of 10. More usual for the 3330 was four blocks of 3156 bytes per track. With numbers like those, there is no reason for powers of two. Gah4 (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Timeline again
The last time this was discussed, which admittedly was many years ago, the consensus was that we do not need to include every capacity increase in the timeline. I'd like to take most of them out, particularly the ones that are announcements with no corresponding product release, per WP:NOTNEWS. Thoughts? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to not reading reading the other discussion: But I might be inclined to suggest two (collapsed) tables. One Focusing on (Year, Capacity, Notes and reference) ... The other being the existing timeline but with capacities somewhat out of the timeline, more technology focused.  As I'm writting this I'd need to mull if a good idea, but I tend to prefer (sortable) tables at times to list, and the current discussion omits form factor.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see there appears to be a content dispute. I am minded the contribution made by 84.250.160.96 over focuses on helium and introduces unneeded capacities.  I would suggest at present the first use of a helium drive may be notable and would be acceptable, mentioning a drive does not use helium is likely WP:UNDUE.  On that basis I have reverted the edit but suggest the first significant use of helium would be appropriate.  thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I left the first helium drive in the list when I cut out the others, and it's there now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I kind of like separating out the capacity increases to a table. Maybe we can even find a source that has already done this, and quote from it, if that's not too much of a copyvio. I'd be inclined to retain the timeline as a list, since it doesn't really have tabular data. I would not collapse the tables, per MOS:DONTHIDE. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'd suggest removing most incremental capacity increases as specific events. Capacity is a function primarily of areal density and form factor.  I suggest we should just note the capacity and form factor when a major new technology or machine design is introduced, such as helium and leave the routine announcements of incremental increases in capacity off this article.  Note that some capacity information is listed in the table in List_of_disk_drive_form_factors; we could improve that table by adding in capacity at first introduction and adding in 14-inch.  Also note that history of areal density is  coverred in Hard_disk_drive and in the [|graph] therein. Tom94022 (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Consistent with the above I have removed all capacity increases not associated with technology or machine design. Let's see what other editors thingk Tom94022 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, and I think it could be cut further, to make the real milestones stand out more (things like perpendicular and helium). I would prefer you remove these items rather than commenting out. It would be easier to see in the diff view exactly what has been removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's wait a day to see what comments this raises and then I will clean out the comments. Tom94022 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that this subject has reappeared, perhaps a chart like this either in this article or in the primary article. Tom94022 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see a few of these on the big milestones, such as the first 1MB, 10MB, 1GB, 1TB. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Without an significant associated technology or machine design improvement its hard to categorize passing through a particular capacity as a "milestone" and for the most part such improvements did not occur at any specific new integer power of 10 higher capacity point.  The chart pointed to does in fact include the data on some of the more recent capacity data points so it could be pointed to for any one interested in such data.  Tom94022 (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As it turns out the chart is inaccurate so it can't be used. Maybe there is a more accurate chart.  Regardless, putting some arbitrary integer power of 10 capacity points into the timeline doesn't seem appropriate.  Tom94022 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the inverse of the technology timeline. It takes a measure that readers will be familiar with (size) and relates that to time. I still remember the day my first 1GB drive arrived, and how it cost £1,000. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly a table of first dates (Years) with Form Factor vs Capacity might work .... which might be best on its own page to to requiring a reference per cell. Form factor being Diskpack, 8in, 5.25FH, 5.25HH, 3.25, 2.5, 2.5SSD.  Capacity could go 5mb,10,20,30,50,100,300,600,1GB,1.6GB,2GB,2.5GB,4GB,10GB,... 1TB ... 14TB.  Quite frankly following the introduction of Seagate drives would give a reasonably accurate base.  It's an approach.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most (maybe it should be all) entries in the timeline already have stated capacity and most (probably not should be all) form factor changes are already listed. IMO not all form factor and/or disk diameter changes are significant enough for inclusion, for example the several 8-inch varients or the many height variations in other form factors.  I will put in capacities where missing and may add in some form factor/disk diameter changes with capacity.  I did look for an accurate capacity over time chart but did not find one.  Other than that I still don't see the value in adding arbitrary integer power of 10 thresholds to this timeline. Tom94022 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see a simple table with the largest capacity commercially available HDD capacity each year from the first HDD to the current year. Charts with massive five year gaps and dots on a diagonal line are useless to pin down *precisely* a value that's not dead nuts on one of the widely spaced vertical and/or horizontal lines. Are people supposed to hold a ruler on their screen then calculate the value of the closest dot? I was just telling someone about a scrapped disk array I saw in a junkyard in 2003 that had 9 gigabyte drives and adding up all the slots totaled 1 TB. I had thought that it could've been replaced by a PC with a pair of 500 GB drives, but I wouldn't have though that in 2003 because 500 GB drives didn't exist until 2005. I knew what the biggest drives available in 2003 were *in 2003*. But that was 20 years ago and *now* I don't know and I can't find any information online that can tell me. Two simple columns of data would be the most accurate and most useful way to present the information. Bizzybody (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that such a chart would be interesting but absent a reliable source it would be a difficult piece of original research particularly for drives of this century; note that from 1977 to 1999 such information was available in Disk/Trend Reports and that prior to 1977 IBM pretty much set the maximum capacity. Tom94022 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that you can plug in the number (date) you want to calculate the y-value. No need to read if off the chart manually. The formula is (maybe use excel):
 * Capacity in GB = exp(-4.7 + 15.5 * exp(-exp(-((days_since - 3200 * -0.37 + (-7400)) / 3200))))
 * with days_since as the "days since 1980.01.01", for example 16,045 days today as per google.
 * You could also look at the raw values directly, since there are only few/none in any give year. Eheran (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If is referring to the chart at the top of this talk section then it can't be used since it is both inaccurate and incomplete and therefore not a RS. It really would be OR to generate a list of maximum production HDD capacity by year from 1957 to date.  Might be fun to do and put in context of SDD capacity :-) Tom94022 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you provide me with that data (and I think mostly the data pre-2000 has that issue), I can update the graph. Eheran (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * it is a lot of work to get an accurate and consistent set of data. Specifically, for the date metric are we talking announcement date, beta shipment date, production shipment date, general availability date or earliest of the them? The first disk drive as best I recall was beta shipped in June 1956, announced in September 1956 but production shipments did not happen until 1957.  Last century most HDDs were announced before any shipment, today many are generally available at announcement with some enterprise class units actually shipping before general availability. Regardless of the metric we choose for the x-axis, it is a major research project to find the 67 or so specific annual maximum capacity:date tuple and it may amount to OR if a graph is published without a RS to each datum.  I could do it, but is it worth the work :-)  Tom94022 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Form factor and disk interfaces
To some extent coming to this article for the first time I was (also) expecting to be able to see an evolution of HDD form factor and a discussion on the evolution of interfaces ... (ST506 (MFM/RLL) ... actually they are a recording technique from memory), IDE, ATA SATA, USB .... and perhaps more in a prose narrative than an absolute timeline. Put simply I wonder whether the following sections would be interesting in narrative:
 * Evolution of disk form factor
 * Evolution of disk interfaces (and controllers)
 * Rise of the SDD and decline of the HDD
 * Would need a better title, discussing price/performance capacity, reliability, lifetime, power consumption of each and how the use of the SDD is increasing and the HDD decreasing.

Just a thought ... I'm not doing anything myself. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is just a chronological list of events subordinate to the main article and IMO really wouldn't benefit from such narratives. Such narratives are in already in the main article, i.e., Form Factors and interfaces and both have more detail in linked articles such as Hard disk drive interface.  I agree that major changes in technology (such as interfaces) and major changes in machine design (such as form factors) should be enumerated herein but associated narratives should be left to their main articles.  As far as SSD vs HDD that is well coverred in their respective articles but there might be a few milestones to be added to this list article, e.g., SSD revenue first exceeded HDD revenue and SSD annual unit shipment first exceeded HDD annual unit shipment. Tom94022 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Verb tense
Why does the tense shift from past to "historical present" in the timeline?

--> past tense 1979 – IBM 3370 introduced thin film heads, 571 MB, non-removable 1979 – 1979 IBM 62PC "Piccolo" – 64.5 megabytes, six 8-inch disks, first 8-inch HDD 1980 – The IBM 3380 was the world's first gigabyte-capacity disk drive. Two 1.26 GB, head disk assemblies (essentially two HDDs) were packaged in a cabinet the size of a refrigerator,[20] weighed 455 kg (1000 lb), and had a price tag of US$81,000 (Model B4) which is US$246,304 in present-day terms.[21] --> historical present tense 1980 – Seagate releases the first 5.25-inch hard drive, the ST-506[22]; it had a 5-megabyte capacity, weighed 5 pounds, and cost US$1,500[23] EETech (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Events are usually past tense. Otherwise most is present. That can mean both in the same sentence or paragraph. Introduction and release are events. It has seemed to me that "world's first" once true is always true, but many call that an event, and so past tense. Gah4 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Events are usually past tense. Otherwise most is present. That can mean both in the same sentence or paragraph. Introduction and release are events. It has seemed to me that "world's first" once true is always true, but many call that an event, and so past tense. Gah4 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Does introduced mean announced or delivered?
The term introduced is ambiguous; it could refer to the announced date or to first customer ship (FCS). The lede should specify which date is used. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For HDDs the terms introduced and announced are pretty much synonyms although in IBM terms announcement was a formal event; e.g. RAMAC was introduced before it was announced.  Until very recently announcement/introduction almost always preceded FCS so I don't see the need for any specification in the lede.  If there are some FCS dates listed as introduction those errors should be corrected.  Tom94022 (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IBM 350 RAMAC.jpg

PMR, HAMR,
In 2011 I purchased a 3TB external hard disk drive. Recently I saw ~12 TB HDD at a shopping center.

The article currently does not explain the reason hard disk drives are changing. 2011-2022 brought about significant increases in HDD storage capacity. This article does not classify the paradigm-shifting changes in HDD technology from 2010 to 2022. Major advancements have been made, and this encyclopedia page needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:5700:9400:0:0:0:B (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the history article about hard disks. You'll find more technical detail in Hard disk drive. --Zac67 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it suggests that old history might be last week. They might not be going so fast, as the larger drives will last most of use a long time. Gah4 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it suggests that old history might be last week. They might not be going so fast, as the larger drives will last most of use a long time. Gah4 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it suggests that old history might be last week. They might not be going so fast, as the larger drives will last most of use a long time. Gah4 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

When did the PC market transition from mostly floppy-only to mostly hard disk based systems?
Is it known (at least approximately) at what time there were more IBM compatible PCs sold with hard disks than without one? The late 1980s saw a wave of cheap clones without hard disks, and especially PC game software sold around 1990 often still supported floppy-only PCs, so I assume the transition was not too long before 1990, right? If you have any info on this, it would be nice to add it. An internet search didn't turn up any specific answers. -- 2003:C0:974C:6200:C10D:9876:D9C8:56F8 (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And when was the transition from hard drive plus floppy to hard drive plus DVD and hard drive plus USB thumb drives. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I got a PC/AT clone in 1987, as they were pretty common by then. I suspect XT clones were popular then, too. There were also hard-cards that fit into an ISA bus slot popular around then. It might be that PCs were sold without a hard drive, and then one was added by the user, into 1986 or 1987. Gah4 (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I got a PC/AT clone in 1987, as they were pretty common by then. I suspect XT clones were popular then, too. There were also hard-cards that fit into an ISA bus slot popular around then. It might be that PCs were sold without a hard drive, and then one was added by the user, into 1986 or 1987. Gah4 (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would speculate that shipment of PCs with HDDs exceeded those with only FDDs happened well before Apri 1987 which seems to be the date of withdrawal by IBM of its FD only PCs (see:).
 * As important as they were, by the late nineties floppy disks were on their way out. Re-writable CDs were introduced that had the same capabilities as floppy disks but were more reliable.(see: )
 * The Apple iMac "Core i7" circa mid-2011 might be the last Apple desktop with a DVD but they are still available in PC desktops so its pretty hard to figure out the transition from PC/HDD/DVD to PC/HDD/USB. Tom94022 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

GMR
At some point, IBM introduced gmr ( Giant magnetoresistance) based hd heads, and this soon became standard (naturally, reading heads only).

Not an expert, but I believe this was important enough development to be mentioned in the history and timeline. I don't have enough knowledge to add those details myself, only enough to notice their absence.

Peace קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * See 1997. --Zac67 (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a real expert, but I thought gmr was more significant development/step in hd history than this casual mention (which I apparently missed) represents. I might be wrong there.
 * Peace. קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)