- cross-posted to:
- futurology@futurology.today
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- futurology@futurology.today
- hackernews@derp.foo
Those totally look like the isolinear chips from Star Trek
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve been seeing news stories like this every couple of years for most of my life, and yet storage technology just continues to plod along at the same pace it always has. Nothing ever comes of it.
Just as you probably never see tape storage, you would never see this storage method either, as it’s not intended for personal use.
However, while you do not see tape storage being used, it’s maybe what the majority of world’s storage uses.
It’s a sensational headline, sure - but I manage a few 200TB single unit servers at work and my cell phone has more than 20x the storage the computer I took to college had, and probably 20x faster.
To claim what you are ignores the significant improvements we’ve seen in the past 2 decades.
Obviously I’m not saying storage technology doesn’t improve. But it’s incremental improvements, not exponential like these stories always claim.
idk, I’ve still got some 512kb floppies somewhere.
Next to me is a 512GB flash drive.
1997 - 2023 is 26 years for a 1,000,000x larger storage device.
So come 2049, that should be at 512PB, they’re forecasting 10PB.I say it sounds reasonable enough.
Same. It’s kind of a shame that folks forgot the word “vaporware” and what it means.
Vaporware is when software devs make claims about how great their yet-to-be-written software will be. Then, they never create it, either out of a lack of skill, time, or funding. Vaporware has, by definition, no proof of concept.
Hardware is a bit harder to call “Vaporware” since presumably they have working prototypes.
Commodore 65.
Intellivision computer.
Commodore SuperPET based on the Zilog Z8000.
- All vapourware.
The Atari 2700.
Vaporware historically includes stuff that never gets released officially, or was cancelled during the development process but was already advertised. One example of this was the Hellraiser game for the NES that would have pushed the capabilities of the console well beyond what it was ordinarily capable of because the cart included a Z80 CPU as a coprocessor. The Action Gamemaster (by Active Enterprises) in 1994. The Amiga Walker in 1996. Apple Interactive, which was a set-top box that ran OS 7, but it never went past the test type stage.
So like CD-Rs but with silica instead of organics.
I like the idea.
Seems more like a standard CD. It can only be written on once.
CD-ROMs are read-only(-memory) & usually stamped plastic covered with mirror-ish surface (aluminum-somethings prob?).
CD-R have an (recordable) organic layer on top you can burn lil patterns into, once only.
CD-RW can be re-written several times.
But none of them really last long.
Many pressed CD-ROMs and audio CDs will likely last over 100 years if stored properly. However, the tolerances in the standard are high so lots of manufacturers use cheaper materials and processes than intended while still producing discs with the CD logo. It will take decades before we really know which were worse than others. The most likely point of failure is delamination, which will leak air between the layers and oxidize the aluminum coating in a process named laser rot after Laserdiscs, the earliest commercial optical disc system.
Anyway, the longetivity of (re)writable CDs is indeed usually below 20 years.
Yes, storage is very important in the long run.
And music industry indeed had some of the thiccest disks afaik.
No, it’s not about the thickness. Most of it is clear plastic anyway, the data layer is only in the top few dozen micrometers. Also, all CDs and later 12cm discs were 1 mm thick by spec.
Yes, I am talking about the top layer - some are def thiccer and more scratch resistant (I didn’t mean thicket like you would notice looking at it from the side).
The recording layers of the CDDAs (1983-1987) had already vanished. So they lasted no longer than 40 years.
"SHM-CD"s would probably meet that 100 year mark but DVDs made them pointless by the time they were first released.
The firm claims it’s cost-effective, fast, and scalable technology for future data storage because no energy is consumed to store data and it can last more than 5,000 years due to the fact it’s made from ceramic. The best hard drives and best SSDs, by contrast, need to be replaced every few years.
lol, they for real discovered something that was discovered 12,000 years ago. ceramic keeps for a long time.
I’m pretty sure their discoveries here are not the material properties of ceramics, but how to turn them into cost effective digital storage devices.
He who keeps the old akindle, and adds new knowledge, is fit to be
a teacheran inventor.
