What's the technology that has higher GB capacity than Blu-ray?

Happy Hopping

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,837
some1 told me http://www.engadget.com/

has shown a new toy that has higher GB capacity than blu-ray. But I can't find the article.

does any1 know what it is?

I am not talking about research optical disk, I am talking about available to buy today optical storage toy
 
Yes, Holographic storage does exist in labs. It has an outrageous theoretical maximum capacity of 10 terabits.

As for available today, I have no idea.
 
THat's not much gain. Blu Ray can do 50 Gb. 100GB isn't all that much of a gain
 
Happy Hopping said:
THat's not much gain. Blu Ray can do 50 Gb. 100GB isn't all that much of a gain
Click to expand...

well, if that engadget article is to be believed, you'd get twice the storage of blu-ray for the same cost as standard DVD, due to the fact that it uses the less expensive red laser tech......it's not always only about the capacity, you have to figure into other things like cost as well.

twice the storage of blu-ray for a fraction of the price? count me in!
 
nitrobass24 said:
just backup to a hard drive
Click to expand...

yeah, because a hard drive is cheaper and a lot easier to use/transport than standard DVD-sized & DVD-priced discs, right? :rolleyes:

maybe in a corporate environment where drives are being swapped around all the time, and speed is essential (at the cost of price), or for people who keep their side panel off their cases all the time, or for people who don't mind either powering down their computer to connect it via IDE/SATA or purchasing an external USB/Firewire enclosure.......but for the majority of people, the cheaper price of the discs and not having to do any/all of the above is pretty nice.

even if the 100GB discs cost $5/each, i dare you to find a brand-spanking-new 1TB drive for $50, or a 1.5TB drive for $75 on a regular basis.......

then there's also the fact that hard drives are highly re-writable (therefore, easily corrupted/infected) and susceptible to magnetic fields, unlike a writable disc, which is (usually) only able to be written to once, and is impervious to magnetic fields.

i'm not saying discs are the be-all & end-all solution that don't have problems of their own, but at that price point, they're pretty damned attractive.
 
xXaNaXx said:
yeah, because a hard drive is cheaper and a lot easier to use/transport than standard DVD-sized & DVD-priced discs, right? :rolleyes:

maybe in a corporate environment where drives are being swapped around all the time, and speed is essential (at the cost of price), or for people who keep their side panel off their cases all the time, or for people who don't mind either powering down their computer to connect it via IDE/SATA or purchasing an external USB/Firewire enclosure.......but for the majority of people, the cheaper price of the discs and not having to do any/all of the above is pretty nice.

even if the 100GB discs cost $5/each, i dare you to find a brand-spanking-new 1TB drive for $50, or a 1.5TB drive for $75 on a regular basis.......

then there's also the fact that hard drives are highly re-writable (therefore, easily corrupted/infected) and susceptible to magnetic fields, unlike a writable disc, which is (usually) only able to be written to once, and is impervious to magnetic fields.

i'm not saying discs are the be-all & end-all solution that don't have problems of their own, but at that price point, they're pretty damned attractive.
Click to expand...


You cant just buy disc...you also have to buy the burner for it. They cant be rewritten. and you are saying its easier to transport a ton of disc then a Single Drive?
What about the time it takes to burn these disc compared to a drive. You can write 1tb of data to a hard disk faster then you could burn 50gb to a blu-ray disc.
Eventually you will have spent more on disc then a huge HDD would have cost
 
nitrobass24 said:
You cant just buy disc...you also have to buy the burner for it. They cant be rewritten. and you are saying its easier to transport a ton of disc then a Single Drive?
What about the time it takes to burn these disc compared to a drive. You can write 1tb of data to a hard disk faster then you could burn 50gb to a blu-ray disc.
Eventually you will have spent more on disc then a huge HDD would have cost
Click to expand...

Yeah, stupid ass people paying more money for all those CDs and DVDs over the years to use as backup storage. :rolleyes:

I will never understand why people think a hard drive not connected to the computer is backup storage. As stated previously, hard drives are much more volatile and prone to data loss than an optical storage medium. Sit a DVD on a shelf and put a hard drive next to it. Then push them both onto the floor. Which one is more likely to work after that little test? My money will be on the hard drive being more likely to be dead.

Hard drives have many many more points of failure than an optical disc and should never be considered any type of backup solution.

 
and when you drop that HD - godo by data! or you get a virus - good by data!

the disk short of snapping it in half... it is good to go for a feea years and you only buy a burner once, not with every disk either.
 
I don't care about the time it takes for backup. If it really takes a long time, I can do it just before dinner and go to do my cooking while the computer do its backup.

But I can't support the idea of hard drive for backup. That's absurd. Say I do camcorder filming in the summer, say I have 50 GB to 100GB per week. I can put those dozens of Blu Ray DVD on a binder, and say if there is a fire, I can take the binder and leave my house. But if they were on hard drives, am I suppose to carry hundreds of lb. of hard drives out of the house?
 
SmokeRngs said:
Yeah, stupid ass people paying more money for all those CDs and DVDs over the years to use as backup storage. :rolleyes:

I will never understand why people think a hard drive not connected to the computer is backup storage. As stated previously, hard drives are much more volatile and prone to data loss than an optical storage medium. Sit a DVD on a shelf and put a hard drive next to it. Then push them both onto the floor. Which one is more likely to work after that little test? My money will be on the hard drive being more likely to be dead.

Hard drives have many many more points of failure than an optical disc and should never be considered any type of backup solution.

Click to expand...


Wow Name calling arent we mature

And I never said drop it on the floor
Or which was more durable, I was talking about the easiest, and fastest way to do something.
Just cause you dont agree with someones opinion doesnt mean you have to be a jerk.

Happy Hopping said:
I don't care about the time it takes for backup. If it really takes a long time, I can do it just before dinner and go to do my cooking while the computer do its backup.

But I can't support the idea of hard drive for backup. That's absurd. Say I do camcorder filming in the summer, say I have 50 GB to 100GB per week. I can put those dozens of Blu Ray DVD on a binder, and say if there is a fire, I can take the binder and leave my house. But if they were on hard drives, am I suppose to carry hundreds of lb. of hard drives out of the house?
Click to expand...


You can say that you dont care about how long it takes but when you are backing up a lot of information on mulitple computers doing it on BluRay just does not make sense. Are you going to sit there and swap disk all night while your software runs and backups your computers.

I have setup mulitple backup systems, and I would never consider Optical as a solution. I either do Tape or HDD. At my Dad's business I setup a backup server with Hotswap drives with 4x 1tb HDD's in RAID1. He has 30 WS and they are all backed up everyday, and he takes one HDD home everynight with the previous days information, its been 14 months since I set this up and not a single drive has failed and even if one were to fail..its just the backup so as long as the place doesnt burn down and the drive he takes home failed its all good.

1 HDD is a lot easier then a binder full of DVD's
And honestly if you are really worried about loss of data due to fire, flood, etc, you should do offsite backups.

One other thing to note...do you see the big Computer companies like dell, hp, emc, netapp selling optical backup systems? No they have tapes and HDD systems.
 
nitrobass24 said:
Wow Name calling arent we mature

And I never said drop it on the floor
Or which was more durable, I was talking about the easiest, and fastest way to do something.
Just cause you dont agree with someones opinion doesnt mean you have to be a jerk.




You can say that you dont care about how long it takes but when you are backing up a lot of information on mulitple computers doing it on BluRay just does not make sense. Are you going to sit there and swap disk all night while your software runs and backups your computers.

I have setup mulitple backup systems, and I would never consider Optical as a solution. I either do Tape or HDD. At my Dad's business I setup a backup server with Hotswap drives with 4x 1tb HDD's in RAID1. He has 30 WS and they are all backed up everyday, and he takes one HDD home everynight with the previous days information, its been 14 months since I set this up and not a single drive has failed and even if one were to fail..its just the backup so as long as the place doesnt burn down and the drive he takes home failed its all good.

1 HDD is a lot easier then a binder full of DVD's
And honestly if you are really worried about loss of data due to fire, flood, etc, you should do offsite backups.

One other thing to note...do you see the big Computer companies like dell, hp, emc, netapp selling optical backup systems? No they have tapes and HDD systems.
Click to expand...

I never called anyone a name. I used sarcasm to illustrate the ignorance of a statement you made. Grammar goes a long way sometimes.

Also, when did this topic turn into a business/enterprise level backup discussion? I never saw anyone mention anything even close to that except for you. Trying to bolster your argument with a totally unrelated topic actually hurts your argument.

I will state once again that hard drives are not a proper backup solution due to the fact that they are volatile and prone to too many points of failure. A backup is supposed to be a second copy of your data that is safer than the first. Hard drives do not fit the criteria like optical and tape backup do.

 
SmokeRngs said:
Hard drives have many many more points of failure than an optical disc and should never be considered any type of backup solution.
Click to expand...

wait a sec, while the first statement in this sentence may be true, hard drive backups do have their place. if you had said they should never be considered any type of permanent backup solution, i would have agreed with this statement 100%.

SmokeRngs said:
A backup is supposed to be a second copy of your data that is safer than the first. Hard drives do not fit the criteria like optical and tape backup do.
Click to expand...

thank you, this is the exact point i was trying to make.

nitro, if hard drives work for you for backing up your data, then great....more power to you. and i'll admit, when i set up my 4+TB RAID-5 home file/media server, i will use extra hard drives as one way to backup the data that's really important on that array (which is nowhere near all of the data that will be on the array). but to rely solely on hard drives as your backup medium is just inviting disaster.....there are just too many things that can go wrong with a hard drive, that don't affect optical media in any way. and mark my words, if you continue to rely solely on hard drives as your backup method, you will get bitten by it....it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when"....and i don't want to see you on here crying about it when it happens.

what you need to realize is that the majority of the consumer world doesn't even have 1TB of data to backup all in one go, and although it's starting to get more common, most don't even backup 100GB all at once.

and yes, you have to purchase a burner to make the discs.....wow, you know, i never even took that into consideration. :rolleyes: hey, while we're at it, let's just add the fact that you have to purchase a computer to run that drive. oh yeah, and you have to pay for the electricity to run the computer! oh, and you need a car & gas to get you to/from work to be able to pay for all of it! :rolleyes: /sarcasm

so you have to pay for the burner....well....duh?! that's a one-time purchase, assuming there is no hardware failure. but again, if the article is to be believed, drives/players and discs are supposed to be around the same price as normal DVD players/discs. have you seen the prices for DVD burners lately? :confused:

look, i'm sure almost everyone here on the [H] can see where backing up to hard drives has its place, but this place is a very tiny fraction of the computer users on this earth. you're acting like it's the be-all and end-all, defacto, fool-proof, absolute best way to do things, and it's not. at the same time, i'll straight up concede the same fact about optical discs, because it's a fact.....but optical discs will always have their place, at least until some other technology is developed which completely and utterly undermines it in every way. there's nothing wrong with wanting/hoping for more storage capacity on them.
 
Well most peoples computers that I see typically have more then 100gb of stuff on it and for me backing up to blurays is completely out of the question. Until holographic comes to fruition I just dont see a place for optical backups unless you are trying to backup small amounts of data or a specific set of your data.

SmokeRngs quite being smart ass it doesn't make you look cool, or make people like you.
 
true enough, most people do have more than 100GB of stuff on their computers. but the question is, how much of it is stuff that actually gets modified and has to have a whole new copy of it backed up regularly? not only that, but how much of that stuff do you really have to transport on a regular basis?

the majority of stuff that takes up so much space on most people's computers are:

1) music -- these are static files, and are very rarely modified, if ever.
2) movies -- these are static files, and are very rarely modified, if ever.
3) photos -- the master, high-resolution copies of these are static files.....modified versions of them are saved as separate files
4) digital home movie files -- the master copies of these are static files.....modified versions of them are saved as separate files

so you only have to back up these files ONCE, because they're never changed. what does that leave you with (for the most part)?

1) modified, re-sized (and usually compressed, i.e., much smaller) photos
2) edited (and usually compressed, i.e., much smaller) home movies
3) office documents (word, excel, powerpoint, etc.)
4) program installations/configuration files

most of these things that need to be backed up incrementally usually take up very little space compared to the first group of static files.

again, there's nothing wrong with using a hard drive as a secondary copy of your data to protect you in the event one or the other of them takes a dump, but by no means should they be relied upon as a permanent backup solution.

larger capacity optical discs (at a fraction of the cost of blu-ray or spare hard drives) are a much better fit, especially if the person transporting them can simply bring along a disc or two to a friend's house or to work and just insert the disc, vs. having to carry around a much heavier, more fragile hard drive that they may or may not even be able to connect to someone else's computer.
 
God Damn, all of you grow up. This isn't the great debate of hard drives vs optical media in the world of backup. Start a new thread, or take it to the pms, stop putting on a show. In case you have forgotten, the topic at hand is Royal Digital Media's new disc.
 
If I have money for a SSD, I would use it as my primary C drive, as all my prog. will boot up and run faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top