1.6 terabytes on a dvd :o

D18241 · 21 May 2009 at 10:04

Not sure if been posted before or not but was reading this at work
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8060082.stm

nex20 · 21 May 2009 at 10:08

Im more concerned in how much the player/drive to use one of them discs will cost!

dirtydog · 21 May 2009 at 10:13

Presumably they will be just as susceptible to scratches as existing DVDs so storing that much data on one disc seems rather risky.

D18241 · 21 May 2009 at 10:20

suprised how much they changed from floppy discs for a few mb to this

Sankari · 21 May 2009 at 10:21

w00t Aussie technology for the win.

Gaygle · 21 May 2009 at 10:22

D18241 said:
suprised how much they changed from floppy discs for a few mb to this

Yeh i know, i always think that. I can't believe 10 years ago we used floppy discs which only held 1.44mb's. It's crazy!

dirtydog · 21 May 2009 at 10:25

I still remember using 360K 5.25" disks.

cactuscake · 21 May 2009 at 10:25

Hmm, if it doesn't read/write any faster than a DVD then I'd put my chips on portable solid state drives taking the lead in this market. They're supposed to be more reliable / less easy to damage as well.

Cosimo · 21 May 2009 at 10:27

dirtydog said:
I still remember using 360K 5.25" disks.

... and punch cards, those were the days.

bledd · 21 May 2009 at 10:28

always thought blu-ray and hddvd were a small jump (in terms of size) from the dvd

peterattheboro · 21 May 2009 at 10:42

Hmmm, maybe my maths suck but 1.6TB = 350 DVDs sized 4.4GB or just under

mame · 21 May 2009 at 10:47

peterattheboro said:
Hmmm, maybe my maths suck but 1.6TB = 350 DVDs sized 4.4GB or just under

it says 300 DVDs

WalesOwl · 21 May 2009 at 10:48

I don't really want to keep 1T of data on a DVD. Rather have a 10T HD to be honest.....

maxilive · 21 May 2009 at 11:08

The read and write times would still be terrible though, imaging trying to copy 1TB of data off a DVD...

mame · 21 May 2009 at 11:15

maxilive said:
The read and write times would still be terrible though, imaging trying to copy 1TB of data off a DVD...

hmmm I don't know. I remember when CDs were still a complete luxury on PC or Amiga. Most people then had harddrives around 60-170mb(not gb). A 320mb harddrive was huge and expensive so a ~700mb disc was massive. Then we hear that they have pencilled in the specs for a 4.7GB disc. Our reaction was pretty much "why the hell would you need that? It would take all day to read or write to it"

PhillyDee · 21 May 2009 at 11:19

A soundcard was a luxury too . . . .

mrk · 21 May 2009 at 11:28

640K will be enough for everyone! - Bill Gates

CaptainComedy · 21 May 2009 at 11:32

PhillyDee said:
A soundcard was a luxury too . . . .

and a graphics card was an accelerator to go with your other card

as long as the read times are good then its fine. If the write speed would be equal to that of a regular dvd/cd then the only benefit would be that you wouldnt need as many discs, which I guess is a benefit but if that terabyte dvd corrupts.... your pretty much done for.

Gerard · 21 May 2009 at 11:34

mrk said:
640K will be enough for everyone! - Bill Gates

That would be amusing if he actually said it. Nobody involved with operating systems would ever say that, they would obviously see with every new version memory usage would increase.

mrk · 21 May 2009 at 11:43

Gerard said:
That would be amusing if he actually said it. Nobody involved with operating systems would ever say that, they would obviously see with every new version memory usage would increase.

Shhh