Printable View
A while ago I posted this link which lead to an article about the new 1000 gig drives. Well, yet another site has confirmed this, but with DVDs. The common example seems to be that one could record every Simpsons episode EVER on one of these babies.
Read it fresh from the stands :)
I win!
Yeah all that is pretty fancy stuff,
what about the readers for an example:
a normal cd filled up with mp3 will take longer to load then a normal cd filled up with music in wav format...
Now lets suppose we have a 1000 Gb disc, how long will this take to load the whole cd??
Unless im wrong somewhere on this ( and if i am pls correct me ) its good that this will only be public around 2010...so the dvd readers technology has the time to catch up...
Greets,
Ganglylamb...
ps: i believe this thread is one that should go into the GD.
The original claim, by a single researcher, was for a 100TB read/write disk with extraordinary data-transfer rates to be available cheaply within "a couple of years".
The new claim, by an unrelated international group made up of researchers from several universities, claims a 250GB to 1TB read-only disk to be possibly available by 2010.
I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the new claim proves the old claim. That would be like saying that Intel's claim of 10GHZ CPUs by 2010 proves NoBrand's claim of cheap 2000GHZ CPUs by 2007.
Or to look at it another way, why would this group be bothering with a 1TB read-only disk to be available by 2010 when the other guy is going to release a 100TB read/write disk by 2007?
More detailed article.
If I remember correctly, the 100TB disks use an entirely different technology than the 1TB dvd disks. The 1TB disks have a projected price range of about the cost of dvds today while the 100 TB disks were priced at something like 50 bucks / disk (I dont remember exactly). The 1TB disks stand to replace current dvd disks, while the 100 TB disks wont be nearly as mainstream.
moore's lawQuote:
Originally Posted by anonytmouse
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dayknight
haha owned
thats awesome
Hardly...Quote:
Originally Posted by RoD
Moore's law is entirely about increasing transitor count. Transistor count does not necessarily mean a speed increase. If it did, we'd be in trouble. Intel's P4 line has only increased by 540 MHz in the last 2 years (3.06 B vs 3.6 E), AMD's Athlon by only 200 MHz (XP 3200+ vs FX-53/A64 3800+/A64 3700+) in the last year.
anonytmouse's argument holds up, a claim from Intel of 10GHZ CPUs by 2010 in no way proves NoBrand's claim of cheap 2000GHZ CPUs by 2007.
After all, why would it? Beyond the simple fact that the dates seemed to have been overlooked (10 GHz in 2010, 2000 GHz in 2007... did you see it this time?) once again, Moore's law says NOTHING about GHz.
So... I'm confused. Who was owned?