Triple-Density CD-RW From TDK & Friends 117
Houndogk writes: "I came across this reading the news of the day at Tomshardware. This [article] talks about a new generation of CD-RW that promise to be 3x as fast and have 3x the capacity as current drives. It is also expected to scale to 4x and 5x." From the article: "[T]he premise of ML technology is the use of gray-scale disc encoding, with 3 bits per spot giving eight shades of gray. Under a microscope, the disc surface appears as a continuous blending of light to dark shading, versus the traditional disc appearance of either dark or bright spots." And what happens when we go to 24 bits per spot? ;) This announcement seems to partly answer GeoffM's quest for dual- or quad-density CD-Rs, and handily top Sony's moves to double-density.
Re:Why this won't work (Score:2)
So ??
How many discs are you burning that you dont expect to hold a very long time ??
lets see what data are usualy put on discs
The article talked about putting this into camera's and mp3 players / "walkmens" / "discmen" / "minidiscman" /
Sure a long lifetime would be nice, but some people, i know i do, usualy just listens to the lastest music the radio plays. So a short lifetime doesnt matter if the disc is cheap.
So, what does a marketing dude see from this... Cool 2 markets, one for casual data where the lifetime doesnt matter that much, and one for importent data where the lifetime is importent. So, you sell the 1-3 years cheap, knowing you'll sell lots of these. The others have longer lifetime. And since they offer an extra value, you can sell these for more money. Though they might be more expensive to make, they shouldnt be that much more expensive. Imagien having cd's which could hold data until my kids gets old... i bet people wouldnt mind paying 10$ for a disc that lasts this long or perhaps even 20$. Remember you dont have to use the long term discs. I doubt it would matter much if they only hold the usualy 650MB for the long term discs. (at least for the next decade or so)
Read my other replies, i think i happened to write it twice, about why these discs can also hold 1bit instead of 3bit.
ion++
Re:Whoa...what if they did this for RAM? (Score:1)
I Wonder How Long They Will Last... (Score:3)
Does the data change if the plastic starts to darken or yellow? Could make for some interesting aat data recovery. ("Well, you just have to subtract one from every byte".)
No Mass Duplication (Score:2)
Re:Digital (Score:1)
Adenine, Thyamine, cytosine and guanine
This is BS. 3-bit system makes no sense ? (Score:1)
What next ? a 49-bit processor ? :-)
Re:Digital (Score:3)
Digital means discrete values: in other words, only certain values are permissible.
Tri-state is digital: there are only three possible values, and there are no in-between values.
There are some excellent arguments to be made for using digital technology that goes beyond simple on/off. Easier to build fuzzy-logic devices, f'rinstance. Two tri-states provide more than twice what you get from two binary states, without requiring twice the circuit complexity, and the savings increase exponentially the greater the number of sensors/indicators/controls needed.
--
Thats because of the date they came out (Score:1)
Mechanical Storage Sucks Ass (Score:1)
Re:Digital (Score:1)
No, it's still digital. "Digital" just means that each element can hold one of a discrete number of values. Binary is just a special case of those values being "0" and "1". Think of the decimal number system where each symbol can hold one of ten discrete values. These symbols, btw, are called digits...
It's like the shift from 300 bps modems to 1200 bps. 300 bps encoded 1 bit into each state change (so 300 bps was in fact 300 baud). 1200 bps encoded 4 bits into each state, so 1200 bps is still just 300 baud. (And thus started the semantic wars!)
What I wonder, though, is what's the point of high-density CDRW disks that can't be read in any existing drive? I was under the impression that CDRW was just a stop-gap measure until DVDRW matured.
Chelloveck
Re:Digital (Score:1)
--
Theoretically possible, but is it worthwhile? (Score:1)
1 bit = 2 states
3 bits = 8 states
3 bits = 1 bit X 3
This yields 3x the data. Clear enough?
I would imagine (keep in mind data storage is not my field) that it would be easier to arrange this with two dyes so you could read a single byte out of four "spaces" instead of reading 9/8 of a byte out of three "spaces." But I don't know.
In any case, this seems like an unecessary step to take, when DVD-ROM, GD-ROM, etc. has already demonstrated that you can have high bit density and good reliability with the traditional one bit per space approach.
If they would get rid of the politically motivated "tariffs" on blank DVD media, it would probably replace CD-RW.
Re:while it looks nice (Score:1)
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
Three bits means three "binary places". Each "place" is worth a power of two equal to it's offset from the rightmost place, just as each "place" in decimal is worth a power of ten equal to it's offset. So given three bits we can express the values 0 through 7 (000 through 111). With only one bit we can express 0 through 1 (0 or 1). It follows that eight grey values can represent three bits where two grey values could reresent one bit. Given that three is roughly three times the original capacity of one, my considered opinion is that, although your daughter's arithmatic is correct, your interpretation of it is not.
I'd suggest that you avoid embarassing gaffes like this by learning some basics. Perhaps visiting "How bytes and bits work [howstuffworks.com]" or asking your daughter to explain basic base-n math to you might be of some help.
Good luck!
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Re:Mechanical Storage Sucks Ass (Score:1)
Re:I Wonder How Long They Will Last... (Score:2)
Further, even if it did, it would do so in a fashion which is consistant across the disc, and would pose no more a problem than it does with binary CD-Rs right now. The different dyes and reflective surfaces of which show great variances in reflectivity and other characteristics between brands, not to mention variances of output power, frequency, divergence, and other thinks laser due to aging and manufacturing tolerance of the laser diode. The reader has some automagic circuitry (think AGC) and error correction to determine which bit is which, and these parts are at play continuously every time you read a CD.
So, even if the disc were soiled sufficiently that subtracting 1 from every 4-bit 'byte' would correct the reading process, this correction would happen automatically, as it is already done with current binary CD players (cheap Aiwa portables and 40x Plextors alike), and I don't suspect that they'll thow it out.
Is this a subtle suggestion (Score:1)
---
Re:Mechanical Storage Sucks Ass (Score:2)
Re:Why Base 3 logic is hard to work with (Score:2)
The 3x refers to the fact that the drives hold 3x as much information. If you want to talk about the number of states of each dot, it's not 3, but *eight*. So if you want to talk in bases, you should really be talking base-8.
But in any case, this is all abstracted to a high enough degree that to all intents and purposes one could consider the drive to be emitting a stream of binary digits, just like the old days. Only at the very lowest levels does the firmware need to know it's not dealing with binary states.
Re:Digital (Score:1)
Analog is continious.. We can never measure an analog signal exactly. We can only estimate measurements into fractions, eg. the length of a book is 12.347 cm. Fractions are not exactly decimals?
3bit is not three-state logic (Score:1)
Re:Cool! (Score:3)
--
Re:rgb (Score:2)
Cool! (Score:5)
ternary digit ==> "tit"
Now we can have "megatits", "tit compression schemes" (= corsets?), "parity tits", "titwise logical operators", "tit rotation", "tit buckets", and "128 tit encryption".
"big endian" and "little endian" will remain unchanged.
If your interests run toward utility rather than purience, you can notice that 8 tits (a "tyte"?) will store 3^8 = 6561 distinct values.
--
Re:Backwards compatibility? (Score:1)
Uhm... If I read the article correctly, that would require that each spot (which could take one of 8 states) default up to a 1 or down to a 0 (to be comb^Hpatable with the old drives) AND that each spot encode the proper state out of the eight (shade of grey) for the new drives to read it.
To efficiently do this en masse would be somewhat difficult.
Re:Digital (Score:1)
--
Re:Floppy (Score:1)
Floppies was made better, it started with 180Kb ?? perhaps even smaller, then it moved to 320, 720, 1200, and 1440.
But today people wants MB, not KB, and preferably GB's.
The most promising in this technology might be their idea to make 80 and 60 mm disc'
s. Take your average 3.5" (94x90mm) floppy, has a nice size, it can fit in a pocket, a CD cant do that, unless it is a BIG pocket, and then it does feel ackward. A floppy can also fit in a standart envelope, where a CD is again too big.
The 80mm should hold 650 mb, which really is quite enough for "casual" moving of data. You can have small video clips, you can have lots of pics, or perhaps music. They have a 60mm disk, whats that, minidisc size, i think so, nut 100% sure, which holds 200mb.
The best part is that i dont see ANY reason why you cant use one of these disc's in existing CD-R/CR-RW's. And just burn the regular 1 bit instead of the advanced 3 bit. This means that if the manefactures license this, or create their own, then these 3xCD's can possibly very fast be very cheap for the media that is. This gives the advantage that there is no reason NOT to buy the 3x version vs. the 1x. And this gives a further reason for people to upgrade the firmware of their eq, so it can read these discs. I understood a software would be enough, no hardware was needed. In that case, a firmware change, and you can burn these big discs, or the old 1x's if you choose.
ion++
Oh, come on! (Score:2)
The price of competition, incompatibility, is balanced by the value of competition, which is each of the 5 standards trying to outdo each other, on the ground of price, performance, capability, reliability, useability, etc.
If there were only 1 standard, why would you think we'd get any improvement or innovation? The same forces that would bring about 1 standard *should* also force the system to never ever change or improve; the minute someone comes up with a better idea, you'd have 2 competing incompatbile systems, and the problem starts again!
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
MP3 players (Score:1)
--
Standards? (Score:1)
How long will it be before they finally come up with a standard for these increased density CDs, or are we going to have a bunch of different propriety formats to keep track of?
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
Also, while most audio CD players won't read CD-RWs, most DVD players will. I've used rewritables to test VCD burns before committing them to CD-R, and I've played MP3s off of 'em (the player is an Apex AD-600A...the model the MPAA loves to hate).
There are other options... (Score:2)
Your problems with accuracy can be handled in manifold ways; multiple lasers (3, ostensibly) to handle the burn accuracy. Read accuracy would probably be no different than what you described, using 12.5% intensity deltas between values, instead of 50% intensity values.
There's no reason to slow down the burn to increase accuracy; just use better receptors, and higher tolerance devices. That technique seems to work fine for Intel, which keeps cranking out faster and faster CPUs with better and better processes and technique!
So IDE doesn't cut it? That's why there is... SCSI, Firewire, SerialATA and USB2. My preference is for Firewire to take the lead, as it is the cheapest and most established of the 4 listed technologies...
So, given that we can get around all those technical difficulties... Why can't we see a faster read and burn rate?
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:This is BS. 3-bit system makes no sense ? (Score:2)
EDSAC, in 1949, used 35-bit words. The same year, BINAC used 31-bit words. 1951, the EDVAC with 44-bit words; and the IBM "Defense Computer" with 36-bit words.
Now, granted, these were binary bits; but it does show that powers-of-two are not necessary and, indeed, weren't even the norm back in the beginning.
There's no reason not to use three bits. It's fifty-percent more complicated to detect than binary, but twenty-five percent less complicated than detecting a four-state system. And tri-state electronics are plenty common, whereas four-state electronics aren't.
I think that as a proof-of-technology, 3 bits is the logical choice. As the technology advances, we'll undoubtedly see more bits-per-recording-pit.
--
Re:Whoa...what if they did this for RAM? (Score:2)
That's kind of the idea behind quantum computers. Each quantum bit would have 32 possible values, which is equivalent to 5 binary bits.
No, it's not. The idea of quantum computing is to have bits which are 0 and 1 at the same time. A "byte" made of 8 quantum bits is a superposition of all 256 states a normal binary byte can represent. So if you want to check which one out of the numbers 0-255 is the key in an encryption scheme, you can either test 256 values one after the other conventionally or check them all at once with a quantum byte.
The way i see it... (Score:1)
----------------
I am Moldy.
Re:This is BS. 3-bit system makes no sense ? (Score:1)
Just a thought, but the drive firmware could easily hide the whole base2 to base3 conversion and make the drive look like an otherwise normal CDRW with 3 times as many blocks.
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
We had specced a Pioneer slot-load 10x SCSI DVD-ROM. It must've been fairly new at the time, as they were unable to get that exact model. The system ended up getting built with a Toshiba 10x SCSI DVD-ROM (tray-load), which has worked about the same. I would think faster drives would be available now, though as with CD-ROM drives I suspect that any practical benefits were gained long ago and the continuing race for faster speeds isn't much more than a dick-size contest among the drive manufacturers. (Consider that 1x DVD-ROM runs at about the same data rate as 8x CD-ROM, and you'll see why.)
And what happens when we go to 24 bits per spot? (Score:1)
---
Re:This is BS. 3-bit system makes no sense ? (Score:1)
And on further inspection, it's not even base3, it's just three bits for each single bit on an ordinary drive. That's trivial to handle.
Re:Mechanical Storage Sucks Ass (Score:1)
wooo hoo! (Score:1)
Re:wooo hoo! (Score:1)
You'll have just as much luck trying to get your DC to read the disc!
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:2)
I doubt that I could find a cd-rom and 20gb hard drive for $50
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:3)
Recordable DVD? Not in the US (Score:1)
but with the (eternally) soon-to-be-released recordable DVD formats
These will be loaded with so much copyright control (DVD CCA [dvdcca.org] is also the 4C Entity [4centity.com]) that the only files you'll be allowed to store are works you create yourself and works created before January 1, 1923 [8m.com] (in the US at least). This means that you will need to be in a band to store music on your DVD-R, and you can only store your band's music. And you definitely won't be able to encrypt files on DVD-R, as decryption of works you didn't create is a violation of 17 USC 1201.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
Why Base 2 logic is hard to work with (Score:1)
The Russians developed base 3 logic a long time ago, but it was abandoned and has never been given a second look. Why? It was too difficult to work with. Base 2 logic has a well developed language to describe it in Boolean algebra - well developed for more than a hundred years and so simple it's taught in most high schools. Base 3 or more has no such simple language; think about it - what is 1 AND 2? You'd need a whole new set of mathmatical language to just to lay out the simplest circuits, let alone reduce and optimize them. The more complicated it is to design something, the more likely there'll be errors in the design. Interfacing circuitry is also a bitch - how do you make a button that has three positions?
Of course, this doesn't really apply to storage media - you'd just need a translation layer to go from base-whatever to binary. If anyone knows of any newer developments in base >2, please reply - personally, I find it really interesting.
"If I removed everything here that I thought was pointless, there would be like two messages here."
marketing? (Score:2)
650 is a hard number to multiply in my head.
More vaporware maybe? (Score:1)
What are the real reasons why none of these new technologies come to light? Is it the realization that it will make some piracy easer by having more space available, the RIAA stepping in, or whoever. Since this is TDK, maybe this will actually come to the market, but this is getting really old not seeing anything out of all of these press releases.
Breast enlargment, anyone? (Score:1)
that's small
-----
Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
Confused. Of course 3x is good. 8x is better
Digital computing rules (Score:1)
Personally I'd wait for the DVD-RW, although I'm afraid it will be obsolete by the time people can afford it..
--
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
DVD-RAM doesn't work except in DVD-RAM drives (Score:1)
Why not use DVD-RAM?
DVD players and DVD-ROM drives cannot read DVD-RAM discs. Don't let the name fool you; it's like those old PD drives that could read CD-ROMs and read and write 650 MB phase-change discs. Good for backup and CD mastering but not good for distribution to end users.
disKs are magnetic; disCs are opticalLike Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
rgb (Score:1)
Re:Whoa...what if they did this for RAM? (Score:1)
From what I've read/discussed, what you mention relates to the basic quantum computer being built. The ideal quantum computer uses 32 possible values (the 32 states of an electron) as the person you replied to mentions.
The ideal quantum computer should be able to perform computations in time dt=0 seconds.
Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:4)
Floppy (Score:1)
One Problem... Special Software Needed... (Score:1)
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
Reader (Score:1)
but no license fees to DVD consortium... (Score:2)
Re:Why this won't work (Score:1)
Re:Whoa...what if they did this for RAM? (Score:1)
The idea behind the light bulb is not "to use 110V", but "to use electric current to heat up a thin wire (so that it heats up and emits light)".
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:2)
This is because CDRW discs reflect less light and thus require slightly different methods of reading what is reflected off of the disc. Most CD players are not capable of doing this, hence the reason they are not capable of reading CDRWs.
---
Put your feet out and stop
24 bits per spot? (Score:2)
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
----------------------------------
Re:wooo hoo! (Score:1)
1) DC systems do not read CD-RW material out-of-the-box.
2) Even if a DC could be made to read a CD-RW, it would not contain the logic to read a 3-bit CD-RW as described here.
Therefore, a DC would not be able to read these discs at all. (as they cannot read a DVD, or a piece of cardboard with writing on it, etc..)
Please think before you post.
Re:There are other options... (Score:1)
Re:while it looks nice (Score:1)
The article mentioned using this in camera's with 80mm discs (a little smaller than a floppy), or 60mm in portable music players. In these sizes the disc could hold 650 and 200MB, which is quite nice for that sort of stuff. So what does it matter if the price is 10 og 20$ for a disc. Compared to the 85-90$ for a 64MB compactflash and 50$ for a 32MB. (pricewatch.com) Eventualy the price for these discs might even hit the 1$ a regular cdr is these days, i doubt compact flash will be that low.
your 1-4 points: if these discs can store 3 bits, and are intented to be used with regular cd-rom laser technology, clearly the same discs can be burnt using just 1 of those 3 bits. Remember, 3 bits means 8 different levels of light. If you can have 8, you can also have 2 levels of light, so you should be able to use these advances disc in your old cdr, though only burning the regular 650MB. This would mean that the CDR disc manefactures might only ship these discs. So, every CDR you buy has the ability to store 650MB, or with the right drive, 3x 650MB = 1950MB or almost 2GB. If the media supports it, and is as cheap, or almost as cheap as the old cdr's, which would you buy ?? just in case.
The articly further mentions just a software update. If thats all it takes you just need new firmware, possibly only new cdr creation software. This is where the real advantage comes in. Naturaly a firmware update doesnt let cd-rom drive manefactures sell new units, but should they choose to do so, you should possibly be able to use a firmware update. Some companies are already creating new firmware for the drives, so why not add this feature, if it isnt so hard. It makes the manefacture able to destingius itself from the others and say to you "we give you support and features for many years, not abandoning you the minute you walk out the door." So, if they do this, you get a nicer picture of them, and a higher reason to buy their eq next time.
ion++
Yippi-a-yeah (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
The logical union of cheapest and most established?
SCSI is not the cheapest; By far, SCSI drives and devices usually have a pretty hefty premium, whereas currently a Firewire drive is marginally more expensive than the IDE drives.
And stop being so silly; as to your firewire mouse, how about SCSI mice? Or SCSI washer/driers?
A firewire interface card is about $100 now; how is that terribly more expensive than SCSI?
As per USB, it is definitely more established, but I thought I said USB2? Which is a new update to the USB spec? Hello?
SCSI is more established, I don't disagree, but it's more expensive.
USB2 doesn't quite exist yet, so it is far from established...
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Isn't there an old saying... (Score:1)
DVD-RAM (Score:1)
I bought one about a year ago. You can store about 2 GB on a one-sided disc and 5 GB on a double sided disc. Works in Linux, too.
Re:wooo hoo! (Score:1)
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:1)
No, I would like to have all the OS providers define a set of standard APIs that they all agree to support. If need for a new API should arise, they define one together and all support it. Having one standard doesn't mean there is only manufacturer or provider who follows that standard. That's the whole point of standars, let others implement it too but not break compatibility.
> The price of competition, incompatibility, is balanced by the value of competition, which is each of the 5 standards trying to outdo each other, on the ground of price, performance, capability, reliability, useability, etc.
Which country has the shittiest and most expensive to use wireless phone networks in the world? The U.S. Because there a severel competing, incompatible "standards".
> If there were only 1 standard, why would you think we'd get any improvement or innovation?
Gee, maybe because the need for better technology drives people and companies to create new, even better standards? Like DVD over CD, or 100Mbit ethernet over 10Mbit ethernet. I'm SURE you can think of more examples.
--
Backwards compatibility? (Score:1)
I mean, instead of reading 3 bits a normal drive would get 1. If it's done right, a stripped down version of what's on the CD ought to be available.
I can't think of any applications off the top of my head, but it does bring new meaning to "hidden track"
To be more precise, 4 of the 8 "grays" should be bunched near enough to "bright" to be consistently distinguishable etc. etc.
Just a thought
-----
Re:while it looks nice (Score:1)
zipdisk: 120mb or something like that
cdrom: 650mb
My point: There will always be a need for larger media. cdroms are way too small; I don't want to put my mp3-collection on 200 cdroms. I want only one which I can take everywere. I think people will buy these things...maybe they will be expensive in the beginning (like the CD-R)...maybe a better standard will come, but in the end there will most certainly be a new standard (which will be outdated in a few years). Why not this one? You can never tell in advance if product will become a `standard' and certain products will always suffer from the problems you mention.
On the other hand...the CD-standard is nearly 20 years old by now, but I think it's time for something larger.
I've lost count of the number of these. (Score:1)
In the past few years I've seen countless stories, on this site and others about tech from an equally countless number of companies promising CD tech that will double, triple or (insert multiple here)-ple the storage capacity of CD's.
This stuff is vaporware
Re:Digital computing rules (Score:2)
http://www.c-3d.net/tech_frameset.html
Digital (Score:4)
This sounds like that story in which RAM was made that could store 4 values instead of 2 by using the same technology described here.
That didn't make it. Will this?
Sanjuro
Re:Isn't there an old saying... (Score:1)
The EE Times article pointed out that this technology is supposed to scale up to higher density and eventually move over to DVDs. (Also note that TDK has virtually the same press release on this page [tdk.com].This means it might be a cheaper way for us to get to HD-DVD than waiting for cheap blue lasers. I agree that we don't want another limited utility Sparc/Clik/LS120 device, but if the underlying tech gets added onto the CDR or DVD-R specs at some point, then it could be a positive development.
I again sense this particular one being designed less for the progress of information storage technology, and more to provide TDK with their own unique storage format.
Already they have Sanyo, Plextor and Mitsubishi lined up so it's not just TDK going at it alone. Of course they'd love to get royalties on this, but that means they'd want the technology to be widespread. Finally, let's not forget that in terms of storage density they'll be competing with the will-it-ever-get-released FMD [slashdot.org] drive from Ricoh and Constellation.
while it looks nice (Score:4)
more specifically, do we really have a WANT for this drive? before you call me -1 troll, ust consider this...
there are a number of possible endings the removable media story could have from this:
1) everybody buys these, and they become standard. media prices plummet, everybody is happy.
2) there becomes a "standards-war" between these drives and all of the other removable media types, prices get slashed, and the consumer has no real standard, but prices are cheaper as each company tries to out-do the other.
3) there becomes a "standards-war" between these drives and all of the other removable media types, and because nobody is buying enough of any one type of drive, there is no standard, and prices are higher because of production costs.
4) Not enough people will buy the drive, so it will die quickly. The few people that do own them will have to pay high prices for the discs, and they won't be able to give them to anybody else, as maybe 5 people will have them.
sorry if it sounds like FUD, but that's all i think when i see new removable media...
4 state (Score:1)
That was supposed to be a joke, but I guess it makes some sense...
Are you legit? (Score:3)
I found absolutely nothing in Google with the word "chlarodium" in it. It looks like you're BSing us with the intent of karma-whoring.
I hereby declare Shenanigans on you unless you can fess up with a reference or a spelling correction.
Here we go.. (Score:1)
--
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
That's the thing that I'm cursing: almost the only thing I can think of to do with CD-RW's would be to store music from my computer temporarily (eg. for a party), but then the players won't play them. For just about everything else CD-R's are a better solution as they are very cheap. (I don't have to carry 600M of stuff (eg. video) around be either.)
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
No, instead of 1 bit (2 states) you store 3 bits (8 states). So that gives you three times as many bits, hence three times the capacity. But to encode 3 bits, you have to be able to produce (and later read) 8 gray levels.
In order to acheive 8x, you'd have to implement all 256 shades of gray the Windows Paintbrush allows you.
Re:Are you legit? (Score:1)
------------
Whoa...what if they did this for RAM? (Score:1)
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
However, one of the real advantages of this should be that if you can store 3 bits at each "pixel" surely you can also store 1 bit. This would mean that you can use these "advanced" disc's as the old 1x disc. Just burn it with the old standard, one bit, not 3 bits per pixel. This means that if the cd-r and cd-rw manefactures wants to, they could stop producing the old 1x only discs, and only make these 3x's disc's. This gives you a bigger reason to update the firmware in your existing hardware or buy new.
ion++
Re:Will it be out before it's obsolete? (Score:1)
I'm not entirely happy with the situation, though. First of all, it WOULD be nice to have certain options on DVD, e.g. MSDN, various Linux distros (AFAIK only SuSE does this). Second, there is a big performance gap between IDE and SCSI. I own the topline Pioneer of both varieties -- my first one was SCSI, I got it more than a year ago, and its 6x speed is STILL the fastest. A couple of months ago, I put an IDE model into a different machine, and it runs at 16x. It *is* faster. Lastly, I'm thinking that I'm not getting much of a deal. For the current price of a DVD-ROM drive, you could buy a CD-ROM drive and have enough money left over to tack on another 20GB to your hard drive, which will perform even faster. Things are better, but not as much as they could be.
Clearly, DVD isn't living up to its potential. The IDE/SCSI disparity may eventually be resolved, but unless it gets cheaper, hard drives are going to just mop the floor, and by that I mean it is cheaper and easier to install everything to disk, rather than occasionally swapping one DVD for another from a different set (or one of five from the same set regularly). I'm not going to try implying that hard drives are portable. Like everything else, DVD needs to be cheaper and more widespread. This is NOT something that its proponents can sell just by saying "it's better".
Re:Why isn't it 8x then ? (Score:1)
3x? So what? (Score:1)
old tricks, doling out tiny increments in speed
and capacity. 2x? 3? *yawn* wake me when they get to 10x, or 100x.
3 bits doesn't mean tri-state (Score:2)
It's all about potential... But... (Score:1)
Think short term. Yeah, I can back up my 60gig of MP3s on 20cds instead of the 70 that I use now.
Think consumer. Use those mini-cds in digital cameras. You can still make small cameras that can take incredible pictures because there is all kinds of space. CD-Players, you can have the Beetle's Anthology on a few CDs, you have have 230min of music on one CD. MP3 Players, Yeah, GIGs on one CD! Okay, heaven!
Think future. Want to talk potential, here's one for you. Expand this technology to DVDs. They already hold 4.6gig of data, okay, drop in the greyscale technology and we are looking at nearly 14gig! Let's think about that, 14gig. Star Wars Saga on one DVD. Or even better, imaging that in a digital video camera. Oh yeah, that sounds nice.
Now of course there are always problems and possible flops. Zip drives started out nicely, and have tapered off since CDs and burners/rewriters have become so cheap. Come on, you can get a 50cd spindle at Best Buy for $20, but Zip Disks have been $8-10 a piece for what, going on two years? How about the SuperDisk? Great concept, good potential, 120meg (more than the zip disk) on a 3.5 disk AND it'll read the older disks so it's a replacement drive, not an additional one. To me, sounded good, but then again, I had to buy a new drive, and the media was too expensive, again $10 a pop. Zip disks were already out, and you could pick up a decent burner for $250 then (twice the cost of the SuperDisk drive, but burners get you 6 times the space and media is cheap) So, too little, too late.
Now we have this greyscale technology. Is it realistic, or just someone saying "we CAN do it" but never do. Six months ago I read about a drive that boasts over 6gig of storage on a translucent CD using neon technology. Sounds neat, which will come out first? They boast 1.9gig storage with this new greyscale technology, but we already have DVD technology that CAN hold 4.6gig. They claim only firmware upgrades are needed for this to work, I'll believe it when I see it. What'll new drives run with all the enhanced speed, $500, $600? Software?? What software will support this? Or should I say, how much will TDK be selling it for? They have to make all their money for their great discovery somewhere, what $2-300 a pop for the software? Where does their bottom line come into play, they are a business afterall.
Here is what *I'D* like to see:
1: Decide on a DVD writing format so that regular DVD players can read them (like CDR have)
2: Have DVD-R drives come down to a reasonable price. $600 wouldn't be outrageous for a DVD-R drive that'll write standard DVDs.
3: Expand upon the existing DVD writing technology. (Can we do 6 or 8 gig per DVD)
4: Then once we have a good DVD standard that using the DVD capicity nicely, then we can throw in the greyscale or rainbow, or whatever technology to increase it even moreso.
5: (Doubt it'll happen but I can wish) I want to be able to copy my DVD movies! Or better yet make my own DVD movies.
Does it make sense to keep redoing a technology that will be dieing off? Companies are moving away from CDs and going to DVD. As for consumers, we can burn CDs cheap as hell now, so why would we shell out hundreds more? CDs are pennies a piece, so why would we go back 5 years to paying several dollars a cd? Yeah, reduces cd, but at 100 times the cost?
Yes, it has potential, but when applied to another technology it has much better potential. Question is? How much, when, and more importantly, will it really ever happen?
Re:I Wonder How Long They Will Last... (Score:2)
Re:This is BS. 3-bit system makes no sense ? (Score:2)
--
Increasing complexity would increase error rate. (Score:3)