By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Welcome BLUERAY -- Bye Bye BLUERAY

Deviation59 on 01 May 2009
pbroy said:
Smashed said:
Yeah, this isn't going to hurt blu-ray, like.. at all.

 

Of course not, PLAYSTATION®3 is the future

You're completely missing the point... but that's not surprising from a fanboy.



Around the Network
Ail on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:

Solid state drives (AKA high-content flash storage) are far less reliable and far, FAR less time-proof than holographic storage. Holographic storage is a concept proven to be usable decades past write-date. Hard-drives become corrupt FAR before then, and flash memory isn't much more reliable than that.

Please supply links and other evidence to support this claim.

 

Besides the common sense aspect? Flash memory works by charging tiny transistors with electricity. So, naturally, a little bit of electrical charge of the wrong sort will easily erase everything on your flash memory. Don't believe me? Do it yourself - take a flash memory card, expose it to a non-controlled charge of electricity, and try using it again.

And actually, upon taking the time to read some more about it, I found a variety of other ways in which flash memory is inferior. Besides the ease in completely ruining what you've got, I'll copy over some content from Wikipedia.

Block erasure

One limitation of flash memory is that although it can be read or programmed a byte or a word at a time in a random access fashion, it must be erased a "block" at a time. This generally sets all bits in the block to 1. Starting with a freshly erased block, any location within that block can be programmed. However, once a bit has been set to 0, only by erasing the entire block can it be changed back to 1. In other words, flash memory (specifically NOR flash) offers random-access read and programming operations, but cannot offer arbitrary random-access rewrite or erase operations. A location can, however, be rewritten as long as the new value's 0 bits are a superset of the over-written value's. For example, a nibble value may be erased to 1111, then written as 1110. Successive writes to that nibble can change it to 1010, then 0010, and finally 0000. Filesystems built on NOR flash make use of this capability to represent sector metadata.

Although data structures in flash memory cannot be updated in completely general ways, this allows members to be "removed" by marking them as invalid. This technique may need to be modified for multi-level devices, where one memory cell holds more than one bit.

Memory wear

Another limitation is that flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage. The guaranteed cycle count may apply only to block zero (as is the case with TSOP NAND parts), or to all blocks (as in NOR). This effect is partially offset in some chip firmware or file system drivers by counting the writes and dynamically remapping blocks in order to spread write operations between sectors; this technique is called wear levelling. Another approach is to perform write verification and remapping to spare sectors in case of write failure, a technique called bad block management (BBM). For portable consumer devices, these wearout management techniques typically extend the life of the flash memory beyond the life of the device itself, and some data loss may be acceptable in these applications. For high reliability data storage, however, it is not advisable to use flash memory that would have to go through a large number of programming cycles. This limitation is meaningless for 'read-only' applications such as thin clients and routers, which are only programmed once or at most a few times during their lifetime.

 

All of these are problems that holographic data doesn't deal with.

Additionally, holographic storage works exactly like any other hologram - such as the ones on your credit cards. Holograms have withstood years upon years and still been the exact same thing. Just like a painting on your wall, a hologram is also a "picture" of sorts and doesn't change over time either. Holographic storage likely won't have any aesthetic to it, but it'll still have all the same physical properties. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

 

@Squillium - This has been able to provide as much as 1Gbps transfer rates (125MBps). So it surpasses your estimations substantially. Check here.

You fail to mention the issues of holographic drives though.

Access time for the current prototypes are around 200-250 ms...

Access time for a Solid State drive is 0.01 milliseconds.

 

And while there are ways to improve the number of write-erase cycles on SSD ( it used to be 1000 5 years ago or so, it is now 100 000) you will never be able to provide sub milliseconds access time with holographic drives as they rely on mechanical parts ( you still have to move laser heads)....

Finally the militaries have been using SSD for over 10 years so it seems reliable enough for some ppls...

 

So like I said this is good for mass storage archiving media but not as a replacement for a hard drive. High bandwith means nothing for a harddrive if the access time sucks....

You actually keep confusing both because I don't really understand how the argument that the data will last over 50 years is any relevant for a hard drive replacement technology. Noone needs the data on their hard drive to last over 50 years... 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Naum on 01 May 2009

Blu will be enough for atleast8 more years then it will be replaced but will still sell for years just like DvD's does now and what VHS did for a few years when DvD came.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

thetonestarr on 01 May 2009
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:

Solid state drives (AKA high-content flash storage) are far less reliable and far, FAR less time-proof than holographic storage. Holographic storage is a concept proven to be usable decades past write-date. Hard-drives become corrupt FAR before then, and flash memory isn't much more reliable than that.

Please supply links and other evidence to support this claim.

 

Besides the common sense aspect? Flash memory works by charging tiny transistors with electricity. So, naturally, a little bit of electrical charge of the wrong sort will easily erase everything on your flash memory. Don't believe me? Do it yourself - take a flash memory card, expose it to a non-controlled charge of electricity, and try using it again.

And actually, upon taking the time to read some more about it, I found a variety of other ways in which flash memory is inferior. Besides the ease in completely ruining what you've got, I'll copy over some content from Wikipedia.

Block erasure

One limitation of flash memory is that although it can be read or programmed a byte or a word at a time in a random access fashion, it must be erased a "block" at a time. This generally sets all bits in the block to 1. Starting with a freshly erased block, any location within that block can be programmed. However, once a bit has been set to 0, only by erasing the entire block can it be changed back to 1. In other words, flash memory (specifically NOR flash) offers random-access read and programming operations, but cannot offer arbitrary random-access rewrite or erase operations. A location can, however, be rewritten as long as the new value's 0 bits are a superset of the over-written value's. For example, a nibble value may be erased to 1111, then written as 1110. Successive writes to that nibble can change it to 1010, then 0010, and finally 0000. Filesystems built on NOR flash make use of this capability to represent sector metadata.

Although data structures in flash memory cannot be updated in completely general ways, this allows members to be "removed" by marking them as invalid. This technique may need to be modified for multi-level devices, where one memory cell holds more than one bit.

Memory wear

Another limitation is that flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage. The guaranteed cycle count may apply only to block zero (as is the case with TSOP NAND parts), or to all blocks (as in NOR). This effect is partially offset in some chip firmware or file system drivers by counting the writes and dynamically remapping blocks in order to spread write operations between sectors; this technique is called wear levelling. Another approach is to perform write verification and remapping to spare sectors in case of write failure, a technique called bad block management (BBM). For portable consumer devices, these wearout management techniques typically extend the life of the flash memory beyond the life of the device itself, and some data loss may be acceptable in these applications. For high reliability data storage, however, it is not advisable to use flash memory that would have to go through a large number of programming cycles. This limitation is meaningless for 'read-only' applications such as thin clients and routers, which are only programmed once or at most a few times during their lifetime.

 

All of these are problems that holographic data doesn't deal with.

Additionally, holographic storage works exactly like any other hologram - such as the ones on your credit cards. Holograms have withstood years upon years and still been the exact same thing. Just like a painting on your wall, a hologram is also a "picture" of sorts and doesn't change over time either. Holographic storage likely won't have any aesthetic to it, but it'll still have all the same physical properties. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

 

@Squillium - This has been able to provide as much as 1Gbps transfer rates (125MBps). So it surpasses your estimations substantially. Check here.

You fail to mention the issues of holographic drives though.

Access time for the current prototypes are around 200-250 ms...

Access time for a Solid State drive is 0.01 milliseconds.

 

And while there are ways to improve the number of write-erase cycles on SSD ( it used to be 1000 5 years ago or so, it is now 100 000) you will never be able to provide sub milliseconds access time with holographic drives as they rely on mechanical parts ( you still have to move laser heads)....

Finally the militaries have been using SSD for over 10 years so it seems reliable enough for some ppls...

 

So like I said this is good for mass storage archiving media but not as a replacement for a hard drive. High bandwith means nothing for a harddrive if the access time sucks....

You actually keep confusing both because I don't really understand how the argument that the data will last over 50 years is any relevant for a hard drive replacement technology. Noone needs the data on their hard drive to last over 50 years... 

(1) You're talking about spinning-disc-based holographic storage. That's not the only kind of holographic storage that exists, nor is it the only kind that can survive. As holographic storage has a variety of superior aspects behind it, a variety of uses will arise. Portable holographic storage (as in DVD-like discs) has longer access times, but hard-drive-type storage works differently and can have multiple/different sorts of lasers to drastically cut down on access time.

Additionally, while it may have slower access times, every other "time" is drastically shorter, and that very nicely counteracts your complaints.

 

(2) Prototype technology is prototype. You should know better than to try using a prototype's minor inferiorities as a method of argument because you know it'll change, and likely in a magnificent manner.

 

(3) Just because the military has been using it for years doesn't mean they intend to continue using it. I use flash memory - heck, I own more flash storage space than the vast majority of people out there - easily over 80GB worth. Doesn't mean it's the best solution out there. The military has used all sorts of tactics and technologies that are outdated now; it's called advancing technologies. This is probably the weakest point you've presented this entire debate.

 

(4) Going back to something you said earlier on this page that I didn't address, you said "last I checked I couldn't buy a holographic drive at the Best Buy down the street" or something like that. This is also a ridiculous point, as no prototype technologies are ever available at Best Buy. Could you find solid state drives at Best Buy ten or twelve years ago? Were Blu-Ray drives readily available at Best Buy back in '03? No? Oh, that's right! They were still prototype technologies at those points in time and therefore not commercially available to the everyday consumer!



 SW-5120-1900-6153

colonelstubbs on 01 May 2009

9 posts and this is what you want to contribute? Oh yeah, great stuff



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

Around the Network
Ail on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:

Solid state drives (AKA high-content flash storage) are far less reliable and far, FAR less time-proof than holographic storage. Holographic storage is a concept proven to be usable decades past write-date. Hard-drives become corrupt FAR before then, and flash memory isn't much more reliable than that.

Please supply links and other evidence to support this claim.

 

Besides the common sense aspect? Flash memory works by charging tiny transistors with electricity. So, naturally, a little bit of electrical charge of the wrong sort will easily erase everything on your flash memory. Don't believe me? Do it yourself - take a flash memory card, expose it to a non-controlled charge of electricity, and try using it again.

And actually, upon taking the time to read some more about it, I found a variety of other ways in which flash memory is inferior. Besides the ease in completely ruining what you've got, I'll copy over some content from Wikipedia.

Block erasure

One limitation of flash memory is that although it can be read or programmed a byte or a word at a time in a random access fashion, it must be erased a "block" at a time. This generally sets all bits in the block to 1. Starting with a freshly erased block, any location within that block can be programmed. However, once a bit has been set to 0, only by erasing the entire block can it be changed back to 1. In other words, flash memory (specifically NOR flash) offers random-access read and programming operations, but cannot offer arbitrary random-access rewrite or erase operations. A location can, however, be rewritten as long as the new value's 0 bits are a superset of the over-written value's. For example, a nibble value may be erased to 1111, then written as 1110. Successive writes to that nibble can change it to 1010, then 0010, and finally 0000. Filesystems built on NOR flash make use of this capability to represent sector metadata.

Although data structures in flash memory cannot be updated in completely general ways, this allows members to be "removed" by marking them as invalid. This technique may need to be modified for multi-level devices, where one memory cell holds more than one bit.

Memory wear

Another limitation is that flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage. The guaranteed cycle count may apply only to block zero (as is the case with TSOP NAND parts), or to all blocks (as in NOR). This effect is partially offset in some chip firmware or file system drivers by counting the writes and dynamically remapping blocks in order to spread write operations between sectors; this technique is called wear levelling. Another approach is to perform write verification and remapping to spare sectors in case of write failure, a technique called bad block management (BBM). For portable consumer devices, these wearout management techniques typically extend the life of the flash memory beyond the life of the device itself, and some data loss may be acceptable in these applications. For high reliability data storage, however, it is not advisable to use flash memory that would have to go through a large number of programming cycles. This limitation is meaningless for 'read-only' applications such as thin clients and routers, which are only programmed once or at most a few times during their lifetime.

 

All of these are problems that holographic data doesn't deal with.

Additionally, holographic storage works exactly like any other hologram - such as the ones on your credit cards. Holograms have withstood years upon years and still been the exact same thing. Just like a painting on your wall, a hologram is also a "picture" of sorts and doesn't change over time either. Holographic storage likely won't have any aesthetic to it, but it'll still have all the same physical properties. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

 

@Squillium - This has been able to provide as much as 1Gbps transfer rates (125MBps). So it surpasses your estimations substantially. Check here.

You fail to mention the issues of holographic drives though.

Access time for the current prototypes are around 200-250 ms...

Access time for a Solid State drive is 0.01 milliseconds.

 

And while there are ways to improve the number of write-erase cycles on SSD ( it used to be 1000 5 years ago or so, it is now 100 000) you will never be able to provide sub milliseconds access time with holographic drives as they rely on mechanical parts ( you still have to move laser heads)....

Finally the militaries have been using SSD for over 10 years so it seems reliable enough for some ppls...

 

So like I said this is good for mass storage archiving media but not as a replacement for a hard drive. High bandwith means nothing for a harddrive if the access time sucks....

You actually keep confusing both because I don't really understand how the argument that the data will last over 50 years is any relevant for a hard drive replacement technology. Noone needs the data on their hard drive to last over 50 years... 

(1) You're talking about spinning-disc-based holographic storage. That's not the only kind of holographic storage that exists, nor is it the only kind that can survive. As holographic storage has a variety of superior aspects behind it, a variety of uses will arise. Portable holographic storage (as in DVD-like discs) has longer access times, but hard-drive-type storage works differently and can have multiple/different sorts of lasers to drastically cut down on access time.

Additionally, while it may have slower access times, every other "time" is drastically shorter, and that very nicely counteracts your complaints.

 

(2) Prototype technology is prototype. You should know better than to try using a prototype's minor inferiorities as a method of argument because you know it'll change, and likely in a magnificent manner.

 

(3) Just because the military has been using it for years doesn't mean they intend to continue using it. I use flash memory - heck, I own more flash storage space than the vast majority of people out there - easily over 80GB worth. Doesn't mean it's the best solution out there. The military has used all sorts of tactics and technologies that are outdated now; it's called advancing technologies. This is probably the weakest point you've presented this entire debate.

 

(4) Going back to something you said earlier on this page that I didn't address, you said "last I checked I couldn't buy a holographic drive at the Best Buy down the street" or something like that. This is also a ridiculous point, as no prototype technologies are ever available at Best Buy. Could you find solid state drives at Best Buy ten or twelve years ago? Were Blu-Ray drives readily available at Best Buy back in '03? No? Oh, that's right! They were still prototype technologies at those points in time and therefore not commercially available to the everyday consumer!

 

Most PC users don't need bigger drives...

What they need is drives with improved performances because drives are the limiting factor in performances of most applications....

I work in the software industry and right now most of us are more excited with drives that will allow us to cut compilation time by a factor 2 to 10 than by drives that would be 100 times bigger or with bigger bandwith..........

I want a restart of my PC to take a second and have my application  start almost instantly when I click on them...

That's what PC users want....

 

I see you're backing out though, you're half admitting that the technology could be so far as to be 10-12 years out.

Well Solid State is out and starting to spread so I stand by what I said. Solid state is the next hard drive evolution, maybe in 10-15 years we will get your holographic drives but they are so far out I'm not sure why all the publicity around them...

All the laptops we are getting at work this year will have Solid State drives....

 

PS : And no matter what kind of holographic drive you look at, as long as they have lasers that need to move their access time will never be anywhere close to memory access times...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

thetonestarr on 01 May 2009

Most PC users don't need bigger drives? Oh boy, for someone that claims to work in the software industry, that sure is a foolish statement. I seem to recall someone making a similar statement back in the '80s. Something about 640KB being enough for anybody, right?

Look how wrong he was. Sure, maybe people don't need that much space right now, but give them five or ten years and 5TB drives will be commonplace in store-bought PCs.

As for quicker starts... The majority of the reason programs/OS's don't start faster than they do is due to memory restrictions - not having enough memory, or not having memory able to operate quickly enough. Almost nothing to do with access times and completely to do with bandwidth and total amounts of memory. Yeah, obviously, access time affects it, but any "access time" less than a second-long frankly, to the human, is nearly "instant" anyways.

Either way, I'm absolutely not "backing down", and I resent you trying to claim that I am. I never stated that holographic storage was going to be taking over anytime in the near future in the first place. Such a drastically different technology will take quite some time to present itself in a commercially viable manner. Flash memory is only starting to present itself as a viable successor after how many years of the technology being around? Flash has been used for decades. Holographic storage is, yes, far from commercial usability right now. Doesn't mean it's not the future.

And, I'll say it again. There are ways to do holographic storage without having moving lasers. Different types of lasers can do wonderful things.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Words Of Wisdom on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:

Solid state drives (AKA high-content flash storage) are far less reliable and far, FAR less time-proof than holographic storage. Holographic storage is a concept proven to be usable decades past write-date. Hard-drives become corrupt FAR before then, and flash memory isn't much more reliable than that.

Please supply links and other evidence to support this claim.

Besides the common sense aspect?

I don't think you quite understand. 

Here's how it works:

1) You make a claim (I will bold it for you). 
2) I ask for proof of your claim.
3) You provide informative and interesting articles for me to read which prove your claim.

I don't give a flying fart about your argument with Ail or Blu-ray, but I would be interested in articles regarding holographic storage.



Ail on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Most PC users don't need bigger drives? Oh boy, for someone that claims to work in the software industry, that sure is a foolish statement. I seem to recall someone making a similar statement back in the '80s. Something about 640KB being enough for anybody, right?

Look how wrong he was. Sure, maybe people don't need that much space right now, but give them five or ten years and 5TB drives will be commonplace in store-bought PCs.

As for quicker starts... The majority of the reason programs/OS's don't start faster than they do is due to memory restrictions - not having enough memory, or not having memory able to operate quickly enough. Almost nothing to do with access times and completely to do with bandwidth and total amounts of memory. Yeah, obviously, access time affects it, but any "access time" less than a second-long frankly, to the human, is nearly "instant" anyways.

Either way, I'm absolutely not "backing down", and I resent you trying to claim that I am. I never stated that holographic storage was going to be taking over anytime in the near future in the first place. Such a drastically different technology will take quite some time to present itself in a commercially viable manner. Flash memory is only starting to present itself as a viable successor after how many years of the technology being around? Flash has been used for decades. Holographic storage is, yes, far from commercial usability right now. Doesn't mean it's not the future.

And, I'll say it again. There are ways to do holographic storage without having moving lasers. Different types of lasers can do wonderful things.

 

Giving gigantic drives to software developers at this point is counterproductive and a nightmare for IT folks due to backup issues....( because no matter how reliable the technology is you will still get nightly backup of sensible data).

 

I just got my new PC at work.

It's a dual Quad core with 8 Gigs of Ram and...only 300Gb of disk.

I don't need more, the code is in a database, why would I need 1 Tera or more on my machine....

 

Right now the most counter productives tasks in software development are compilation and unit testing, reduce the time they take significantly and productivity will increase a lot...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

thetonestarr on 01 May 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
thetonestarr said:

Solid state drives (AKA high-content flash storage) are far less reliable and far, FAR less time-proof than holographic storage. Holographic storage is a concept proven to be usable decades past write-date. Hard-drives become corrupt FAR before then, and flash memory isn't much more reliable than that.

Please supply links and other evidence to support this claim.

Besides the common sense aspect?

I don't think you quite understand. 

Here's how it works:

1) You make a claim (I will bold it for you). 
2) I ask for proof of your claim.
3) You provide informative and interesting articles for me to read which prove your claim.

I don't give a flying fart about your argument with Ail or Blu-ray, but I would be interested in articles regarding holographic storage.

Here's how it worked:

(1) I made a claim. You bolded it for me.

(2) You asked for proof of my claim.

(3) I provided links detailing what I referred to.

(4) You overlooked them and concentrated on only the first line, which falls under the category of "other evidence", which you also asked for.

:)

 

Ail: I do admit your point in that extra space for developers is counterintuitive. However, most home users prefer additional storage space not for ridiculous programs that take up an enormous amount of space, but rather for storing loads and loads of media. I, for instance, have about 1.4TB of space currently held up by an ENORMOUS collection of songs, television shows, and movies. The everyday consumer wishes to be able to do the same - and that is why greater amounts of space are preferable... for the consumer. Developers, yes, should always learn to do more with less. Given that I have a vague amount of amateur development experience (and a bit of schooling... nothing to brag about, enough to understand), I know the benefits of this. And I agree, on that note.

 



 SW-5120-1900-6153