Disk drive pioneer Al Shugart dies

[Andy]

Dec 13, 4:39 PM EST
Disk drive pioneer Al Shugart dies

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Alan Shugart, the co-founder of hard drive
maker Seagate Technology LLC, has died, the company said Wednesday. He
was 76.

Shugart helped pioneer the multibillion dollar hard drive industry, in
which Seagate now holds the leading market position. He founded the
company in 1979 and left in 1998.

Described by some as a maverick, Shugart was well known for his
colorful personality that included an effort to get his dog to run for
Congress. The unsuccessful ploy became the topic of one of his three
books, "Ernest Goes to Washington (Well, Not Exactly)."

Shugart died Tuesday at Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula,
said Seagate spokeswoman Julie Stills. He was admitted last week and
died of complications from heart surgery he underwent six weeks ago.

He was still working until the day of his death, checking e-mails for
his company, Al Shugart International, a startup incubator based in
Santa Cruz, Stills said.

He is survived by his wife, Rita, four daughters, a son, and seven
grandchildren.

 

[GreatArtist]

I just bought my first Seagate drive. They seem to have a good
reputation now.
Didn't Seagate have a mediocre reputation about a decade ago?

 

[David A. Flory]

RIP Al Shugart

Thanks for the post. I hadn't heard he had died. Shugart is definitely
one of the people who made the PC as we know it today.

I just bought my first Seagate drive. They seem to have a good
reputation now.
Didn't Seagate have a mediocre reputation about a decade ago?

Yeah, they did. They made some pretty bad drives in the late 80's
through the nineties, but got their act together in the late 90's. That
was about the time I started buying Seagate again. I still have a
Barracuda 50 from 1999 that works great.

Dave

 

[Odie Ferrous]

RIP Al Shugart

Thanks for the post. I hadn't heard he had died. Shugart is definitely
one of the people who made the PC as we know it today.


Yeah, they did. They made some pretty bad drives in the late 80's
through the nineties, but got their act together in the late 90's. That
was about the time I started buying Seagate again. I still have a
Barracuda 50 from 1999 that works great.

Dave

Makes you wonder. In the late 80s the ST125 was a terrible drive; then
along came Conner and cleaned up the field.

Look at Conner now, compared with Seagate.

(Anyone remember Microscience drives? Late 80s...)



Odie

 

[Paul Rubin]

Makes you wonder. In the late 80s the ST125 was a terrible drive; then
along came Conner and cleaned up the field.

I think there is a repeating cycle, where someone develops new
technology that makes a reliable drive, then pushes the technology
further and further (increasing capacity) til the resulting drives
are no longer reliable, then they have to clean up their act by
incorporating new technological advances.

Look at Conner now, compared with Seagate.

Conner got absorbed into Maxtor, I thought.

 

[Rod Speed]

I think there is a repeating cycle, where someone develops new
technology that makes a reliable drive, then pushes the technology
further and further (increasing capacity) til the resulting drives
are no longer reliable, then they have to clean up their act by
incorporating new technological advances.

It was more a dud approach which produced stiction that
did get fixed eventually and you dont see it much anymore.

Conner got absorbed into Maxtor, I thought.

Nope, by Seagate. They're still visible on the Seagate site.

It was Quantum that got absorbed by Maxtor rather
later than when Seagate absorbed Conner, and now
Maxtor has got absorbed by Seagate.

Rather incestuous, hope they dont end up with two heads or something.

 

[ajmoss_throwaway_account_001]

It was Quantum that got absorbed by Maxtor rather
later than when Seagate absorbed Conner, and now
Maxtor has got absorbed by Seagate.

Rather incestuous, hope they dont end up with two
heads or something.

Indeed - most of them now have four (320GB) or six
(500GB) heads. Before the invention of PRT, eight
heads were standard, and IBM once disasterously
flirted with ten heads (Deskstar 75GB).

If 3.5 inch hard disks ever get manufactured with
just two heads, in any but the budget market, it
would indicate that the manufacturers have stopped
caring about expanding capacity. That could only
happen in a monopoly situation.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Indeed - most of them now have four (320GB) or six (500GB) heads.

That is assuming that those sizes are manufactured and sold most.
The number of platters used is just proportionate with the size
of the model, so a 160GB model just has 2 and a 80GB has 1.
Some even smaller sizes didn't even use a full platter side.

Before the invention of PRT, eight heads were standard,

Nonsense.
Only in the last few years -when platter capacity expansion stagnated-
did we see bigger drives using more than 3 platters, the 7k500 wearing
the crown with 5 platters.

and IBM once disasterously flirted with ten heads (Deskstar 75GB).

Still does in the Deskstar 7k500.

If 3.5 inch hard disks ever get manufactured with just two heads,
in any but the budget market, it would indicate that the manu-
facturers have stopped caring about expanding capacity.

Or are so far ahead in the capacity race (in the laboratory)
that they never need more than two to supply current sizes.
It may however limit the available size range.

That could only happen in a monopoly situation.

Nope, just a controlled race where no one wants to be too
far ahead in the market. They all make the same sizes already.

 

[ajmoss_throwaway_account_001]

That is assuming that those sizes are manufactured and sold most.

I suppose my viewpoint is shaded by the fact that I'm perpetually
buying more and more storage space; so I head straight for the
sizes that offer the most gigabytes per unit cost.

It would be appalling to build a brand new desktop computer
with a 40GB hard disk, when 80GB ones are almost exactly
the same price, and 160GB ones are only a fraction more.

Ten years ago, I paid 120 pounds for my first 1.2GB hard disk,
because I couldn't afford a 2.1GB one. Today, the same sum
of money will get you two hard disks in the capacity/price
sweet spot (320GB), so I really can't see why anyone would
settle for less than about 250GB nowadays.

The number of platters used is just proportionate with the size
of the model, so a 160GB model just has 2 and a 80GB has 1.
Some even smaller sizes didn't even use a full platter side.
Obviously.


Nonsense.
Only in the last few years -when platter capacity expansion stagnated-
did we see bigger drives using more than 3 platters, the 7k500 wearing
the crown with 5 platters.

I stand corrected. For some reason, I thought the Seagate 7200.7
(to take a specific example from the capacity range 40-160GB)
stored 40GB per platter. It actually stores 40GB per side.

Is the same true of the IBM 120GXP?

Still does in the Deskstar 7k500.

The datasheet for the Seagate 7200.9,
http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/100389997c.pdf
gives the same areal density (97.69 Gbit/inch^2 average)
for the 200GB, 250GB, 300GB, 400GB and 500GB models.

Even without knowing the area of the recording surface,
we can look at the highest common factor, and guess the
capacity per head. Even though Seagate make a point
of not telling us this, their 500GB 7200.9 drives must
have ten heads as well.

Or are so far ahead in the capacity race (in the laboratory)
that they never need more than two to supply current sizes.
It may however limit the available size range.

The only way this can happen is if someone invents a new
technology -- perpendicular recording is a perfect example.

Seagate have had a few more months to play around with it,
and so are the only manufacturer so far to go above
167GB/platter and three perpendicular heads per drive.
Rather than sitting on this technology, they are cashing
in by selling 750GB hard disks at a premium price to
anyone who needs them.

Nope, just a controlled race where no one wants to be too
far ahead in the market. They all make the same sizes already.

They all want to be a little ahead. For example, Intel vs. AMD:
which one can produce the world's best CPU, sell it for $1000
a time, and sink the profits into R+D for the next generation?