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

Forums - Sony - Welcome BLUERAY -- Bye Bye BLUERAY

Ail on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
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.

 

 

Look at it this way.

If my company has to invest 1000$ on  SSD drive for me that will save me 10 minutes a day, they will make a profit out of it at the end of the year...

And I have builds that can take 40 minutes on a 8 core machines, mainly because of the stupid disc limitations...



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Dgc1808 on 01 May 2009

I don't see this hurting Blu-Ray anytime soon.



4 ≈ One

thetonestarr on 01 May 2009
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
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.

 

 

Look at it this way.

If my company has to invest 1000$ on  SSD drive for me that will save me 10 minutes a day, they will make a profit out of it at the end of the year...

And I have builds that can take 40 minutes on a 8 core machines, mainly because of the stupid disc limitations...

I think, ultimately, it's going to break down into two different directions based on what sort of use you're looking for - higher content or faster operation.

I also think that, if they can't find a superior form that offers both speed & content, they'll eventually come out with "hybrid" systems that utilize both techs in tandem. Frankly, I still think holographic tech can be enormously improved upon, all based off of what sort of lasers you use. There are types of laser setups that can operate without any moving parts whatsoever. It's a little more expensive - at first - but it ultimately provides an enormous amount of improved performance. But I understand your concerns, and see them as legitimate issues that must be overcame ultimately.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Vetteman94 on 01 May 2009
Dgc1808 said:
I don't see this hurting Blu-Ray anytime soon.

I agree it will be 10+ years before Blu-ray will be out the door.

 



Ail on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
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.

 

 

Look at it this way.

If my company has to invest 1000$ on  SSD drive for me that will save me 10 minutes a day, they will make a profit out of it at the end of the year...

And I have builds that can take 40 minutes on a 8 core machines, mainly because of the stupid disc limitations...

I think, ultimately, it's going to break down into two different directions based on what sort of use you're looking for - higher content or faster operation.

I also think that, if they can't find a superior form that offers both speed & content, they'll eventually come out with "hybrid" systems that utilize both techs in tandem. Frankly, I still think holographic tech can be enormously improved upon, all based off of what sort of lasers you use. There are types of laser setups that can operate without any moving parts whatsoever. It's a little more expensive - at first - but it ultimately provides an enormous amount of improved performance. But I understand your concerns, and see them as legitimate issues that must be overcame ultimately.

Hybrid technology actually exists and is on the market already but it's cumbersome.

It's DDR solid state drives.

It suffers from none of the issue you mentionned about SSD but has other issues.( you have no read-write cycle limitation)

Basically you have a drive that is made of a DDR memory and the drive has its own battery and power system and an internal backup storage format ( regular hardrive in most of the case).

When the drive is powered the hardrive is loaded in memory of the DDR SSD and from the point of view of the Operating System it behaves like a drive but works at the same speed as memory.

The issue is that you are limited by size ( 300G of DDR RAM still cost a bunch) and the applications are limited to duao boot OS and things like that right now.

 

 



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Mummelmann on 01 May 2009
thetonestarr said:
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
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.

 

 

Look at it this way.

If my company has to invest 1000$ on  SSD drive for me that will save me 10 minutes a day, they will make a profit out of it at the end of the year...

And I have builds that can take 40 minutes on a 8 core machines, mainly because of the stupid disc limitations...

I think, ultimately, it's going to break down into two different directions based on what sort of use you're looking for - higher content or faster operation.

I also think that, if they can't find a superior form that offers both speed & content, they'll eventually come out with "hybrid" systems that utilize both techs in tandem. Frankly, I still think holographic tech can be enormously improved upon, all based off of what sort of lasers you use. There are types of laser setups that can operate without any moving parts whatsoever. It's a little more expensive - at first - but it ultimately provides an enormous amount of improved performance. But I understand your concerns, and see them as legitimate issues that must be overcame ultimately.

 

This has already been playing out for a decade or so, Raptor drives and the like sacrifice storage capacity for better speed. I do agree that consumers (such as myself) want loads of space for movies, music and TV shows for instance but there are also those who miss the balance of performance and transfer speed that is absent in PC's today, harddrives are simply too slow. Especially if one factors in future implements such as GRID, which has been known to output up to 56Gbit/s, something any bus and harddrive (or other storage tech for that matter) of today has no way of living up to.

I wish there was a storage format that was both quick and had lots of room, maybe someday we'll have it. In the meantime I'll probably keep whining that my HDD can't keep up with the CPU, GPU and RAM and is halting the progress of my ever growing gaming rig's power! I also refuse to pay three times as much for a harddrive that stores one third of the content just for more speed.

Lol, life is hard!



Ail on 01 May 2009
Mummelmann said:
thetonestarr said:
Ail said:
thetonestarr said:
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.

 

 

Look at it this way.

If my company has to invest 1000$ on  SSD drive for me that will save me 10 minutes a day, they will make a profit out of it at the end of the year...

And I have builds that can take 40 minutes on a 8 core machines, mainly because of the stupid disc limitations...

I think, ultimately, it's going to break down into two different directions based on what sort of use you're looking for - higher content or faster operation.

I also think that, if they can't find a superior form that offers both speed & content, they'll eventually come out with "hybrid" systems that utilize both techs in tandem. Frankly, I still think holographic tech can be enormously improved upon, all based off of what sort of lasers you use. There are types of laser setups that can operate without any moving parts whatsoever. It's a little more expensive - at first - but it ultimately provides an enormous amount of improved performance. But I understand your concerns, and see them as legitimate issues that must be overcame ultimately.

 

This has already been playing out for a decade or so, Raptor drives and the like sacrifice storage capacity for better speed. I do agree that consumers (such as myself) want loads of space for movies, music and TV shows for instance but there are also those who miss the balance of performance and transfer speed that is absent in PC's today, harddrives are simply too slow. Especially if one factors in future implements such as GRID, which has been known to output up to 56Gbit/s, something any bus and harddrive (or other storage tech for that matter) of today has no way of living up to.

I wish there was a storage format that was both quick and had lots of room, maybe someday we'll have it. In the meantime I'll probably keep whining that my HDD can't keep up with the CPU, GPU and RAM and is halting the progress of my ever growing gaming rig's power! I also refuse to pay three times as much for a harddrive that stores one third of the content just for more speed.

Lol, life is hard!

 

I have a bunch of guildies that have purchased external SSD drives and installed Wow on it. The performances are supposedly amazing and you could actually repeat that for the games you use often.

You woudn't need that much space if you only put games on the drive and would not be penalized by the write-cycle limitation as it is mostly read operations...



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

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

superchunk on 01 May 2009
Soleron said:
Diablerie said:
TruckOSaurus said:
MontanaHatchet said:
It's spelled Blu-ray. I can't believe you could miss it when it's written Blu-ray in the article. Anyways, this won't threaten Blu-ray in the slightest.

I corrected your correction. When correcting someone maybe you could use a complete sentence so you don't confuse people even more.

"Corrected your correction" is a sentence fragment.  When you are correcting someone on their correction, maybe you could use proper grammar so that you don't confuse people even more.

 

Don't get mad.  I'm just goofing around.

I've just corrected your correction of a correction using quotation marks, a comma, and extra words.

I have perfected and finalized the post-tree of corrections.

 



theprof00 on 01 May 2009

lol everyone is already committed to BR.

It's a done deal. Holographic media will have to sit back another 5-10 years.

EDIT: just to clarify, I remember hearing about the BR drive in ps3 since the tenth grade. 11 years later and BR is still expensive. This will take a long time to actually hit the market.



superchunk on 01 May 2009

While I do think HVD will come into use fairly soon, it won't replace Bluray. They won't be used for the same purpose unless HVD has some major advantages for use in movies.

Example, Bluray is out yet music still comes on CDs. Why? Because a CD overall is suited perfectly fine for music and there are no major advantages for studios to use Bluray.

HVD will be used for mass storage and backing up solutions, not movie/video game content.

Bluray's only real competitor will be either the red light solution VMD or download only solutions storing info purely on harddrives.