Slashdot Mirror


Philip's SFFO 3cm 4Gig Optical Discs

JL writes "New Scientist reports that Philips has a demonstration in Japan recently of a 3cm rewritable optical disc that can store four gigabytes. The drive is small too!" Interesting that they note that 4 gigs can store 5 2 hour movies on the thing :)

200 comments

  1. Units of Storage by Mignon · · Score: 5, Funny
    Interesting that they note that 4 gigs can store 5 2 hour movies on the thing :)

    Indeed. How many Libraries of Congress is that, anyway?

    1. Re:Units of Storage by mojowantshappy · · Score: 0

      Indeed. How many Libraries of Congress is that, anyway? Who needs a library when you have 52 hours of movies?!

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    2. Re:Units of Storage by edmac3 · · Score: 1

      Is that fifty-two or just 5.2?

    3. Re:Units of Storage by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Five movies where each one is two hours long..

      Five two-hour movies

      --
      ^_^
    4. Re:Units of Storage by jafuser · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Is that fifty-two or just 5.2?
      Guess that depends on whether you use MPEG-2 or DivX =)

      When are we going to get DivX ;-) player units anyway?

      I've tried searching teh web, but It's nearly impossible to search for a "DVD/DivX ;-)" player without getting tons of old dusty websites about the Circuit City DivX fiasco.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    5. Re:Units of Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even 1. A "Library of Congress" unit is 20 petabytes. That's 20,000,000,000,000 bytes. 4 gigs is only 0.0002 LoC.

    6. Re:Units of Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the Library of Congress is still growing. In 1995 the LoC unit was 10 terrabyes, or 10,000,000,000,000. OOPS looks like I didn't write the correct decimal value of a petabyte. Add about 3 more zeroes to that number above.

  2. Pics by thebudda · · Score: 5, Informative

    found a Japanese site with pics http://www.zdnet.co.jp/news/0210/04/nj00_sffo.html

    1. Re:Pics by klocwerk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the last picture near the bottom of that site, there's a shot that looks like little compactflash modules with discs in them.
      I'm thinking they're probably just the equivalent of jewel cases, but wouldn't that be cool if it were an extension of the IBM microdrive concept.
      Mmmmm... 4 Gig microdrive...

      --

      "You worthless post!"
      -Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
    2. Re:Pics by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Pics by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Your eyes are keen, the CompactFlash is actually the disc drive; you stick the SFFO micro-disc in there and jack it in.

      Amazing!

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    4. Re:Pics by klocwerk · · Score: 1

      wicked!
      um...
      wow!
      Wonder when this may be hitting the market...

      --

      "You worthless post!"
      -Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
    5. Re:Pics by Syncdata · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the research budda.
      Let's see...It's re-writeable, Small as heck, holds for gigs of data, is highly jog resistant....The inner-spy in me is all atwitter.

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
  3. hm by dusanv · · Score: 5, Funny

    Philip's SFFO 3cm 4Gig Optical Discs

    That Philip is a mighty smart guy. I wish I could make optical discs.

    1. Re:hm by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should see the screwdriver he designed...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:hm by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should see the screwdriver he designed...

      Otherwise known as the "stripinator". Robertson's is clearly superior.

    3. Re:hm by SecGreen · · Score: 1

      Real mechanical geeks use Torx(R).

      --
      Dupe posts are /.'s tacit protest on the rights of users to time-shift content...
    4. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Torx site doesn't mention Robertson as a competitor... ;-)

    5. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Philips was actually designed to slip : Sort of like how the qwerty keyboard layout is intended to reduce speed, the philips standard was made to limit the amount of torque that can be applied to the screw: The drive will lift and slip out. Philips sucks ass.

  4. Obligatory pr0n reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    2G of pr0n in 3cm! Wow, that's smaller than my... oh, never mind.

    1. Re:Obligatory pr0n reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. It's 10 Gigs!

    2. Re:Obligatory pr0n reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, as least read the TITLE of the article. It's 4 gigs, dammit!

  5. Ah, I see... by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

    First versions of the disc will be:

    a) Ready for sale in two years.
    b) Store only 1 Gb.
    c) Expected to cost £70 / drive.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Ah, I see... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      (Im not paying £70/gig,

      It's £70 per drive. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Ah, I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats £70/drive, not £70 a disc. "discs can be made for "a few cents"." By yourself more than one disk and you'll have a considerably better cost space ratio then £70/Gb

    3. Re:Ah, I see... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      (Im not paying £70/gig, go back to 1996 and I might)
      Your not paying 70.00 a disk, your paying 70.00 a drive (accoring to the grandparent). that is the price of a cgeap CD burner. Of course unless lots of people get them they are worthless.
      What I really want in storage is already covered by the CD, the floppy, and the DVD (though DVD is a little expensive). This will be smaller then a DVD, but hold the same amount. What I think it needs to take off is that stuff that the CD people built into a drive to make a RW act like a floppy.
      Be so cheap that I don;t care if I waste the storage, like CDs are now.
      Have fast read writes (well compared to floppy)
      And lastly have a built on case like a MD, I want to be comfortable tossing this thing to my buddy.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Ah, I see... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "What I really want in storage is already covered by the CD, the floppy, and the DVD (though DVD is a little expensive"

      This would be the ideal solution to the storage problem with increasingly larger digital camera images--along the lines of the Sony CD1000 that uses mini CDs.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    5. Re:Ah, I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you bet the disks will be similar to the first iomega media prices

    6. Re:Ah, I see... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

      What I really want in storage is already covered by the CD, the floppy, and the DVD (though DVD is a little expensive). This will be smaller then a DVD, but hold the same amount. What I think it needs to take off is that stuff that the CD people built into a drive to make a RW act like a floppy.

      IIRC, this is called Mt. Raineer support, and the newest CDRWs support this.

  6. 3 cm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats tiny, the trouble witb little disks is that they can be broken easilly. I have enough problems with 8cm disks as it is!

    1. Re:3 cm? by High+Hat · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's easier to break a 3cm disc than breaking an 8cm disc. But it should be fairly easy for those to hide under your coffee cup...

    2. Re:3 cm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmm... of course, if you can hide them under a coffee cup, then they become quite useless as coasters. Once AOL moves to this format, what possible use will we have for their free discs?

    3. Re:3 cm? by shadowtramp · · Score: 1

      My opinion is that it may become a perfect replacement for floppy size storage.
      I switched to 8cm cd-rw and happy with it. No data losses after subway ride, for instance. And my previous 8cm rw was badly broken in inside tracks but was still writable and readable in the outside.
      You may also notice numerous complains about flash durability as well in the forums. In the same forums you will se how many peoples want to have device all in one: mp3 player, digital cam and handheld storage. One buddie even asked if his Canon D60 can serve him as file storage device :o)
      IMO up to now cd-rw kind of storage remains most durable and handy for the sane price. And device of the told size will undoubtedly become a hit when it will be offered for the told price. If any :o)

      --
      I'm not a brake. I'm an accelerator. Just a slow one...
  7. ...And hopefully no DRM... by Opiuman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope they don't try to burden this format with built-in DRM, because then it will 'flop' commercially so bad that it would put even Betacam to shame.

    1. Re:...And hopefully no DRM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Betamax.. Betacam is still widely used professionally.

  8. Skippy, this is Earth calling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not 52 hours, 5 2 hour movies. That is, five movies, each 2 hours long. To put it another way, 10 hours in total.

    Come in, Skippy...

    1. Re:Skippy, this is Earth calling. by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

      doh!

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  9. how about LOTR directors cut? by magwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    can they fit it on one? would be nifty.. !

    seriously, though. what happens to all those great storage options? it seems to me that every few months someone comes up with a clever technique, but I'm still stuck with 700mb CDr's !

    1. Re:how about LOTR directors cut? by twoslice · · Score: 1

      ...every few months someone comes up with a clever technique, but I'm still stuck with 700mb CDr's !

      Yeah tell me about it, I am still stuck with 5 1/4" floppies! If only they invented a way to transfer the information to the newer media types....

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    2. Re:how about LOTR directors cut? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Like DVD-R. Everyone was raving about how you could burn a disk with 5GB on it instead of 700MB, but you don't see those on the market...

      Oh, wait...

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    3. Re:how about LOTR directors cut? by magwm · · Score: 1

      hm jes, just thinking about one of these burners makes my wallet go red..

  10. WHY? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two years from now the world's smallest optical disc will let your cellphone store five two-hour movies...

    OK, I can see a small disk like this being very useful, but WHY does everything have to relate to the cellphone? "You can do this with your cellphone...you can do that with your cellphone."
    How about simple things, like actual coverage?

    Watching a movie on a 2.5" screen, no matter what the resolution, is simply silly.

    1. Re:WHY? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      How about simple things, like actual coverage?

      Amen. Here I sit by the window in my office in downtown DC, watching my Sucks PCS phone going Searching For Service....

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    2. Re:WHY? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

      WHY does everything have to relate to the cellphone?

      Well, most of the world has pretty good coverage. The US is the exception largely due to its vast size, but this means that unusually for a piece of technology, the US market is considered secondary. Hence, so is increasing coverage.

      The rest of the world is running out of things that cellphone companies can use to convince us to buy a new phone. It's stupid, but it serves as a quick easy application for marketing types.

      Watching a movie on a 2.5" screen, no matter what the resolution, is simply silly

      It would be pretty cool if they could build a decent screen into a pair of glasses though. Then the portability of something this size would be a definite benifit.

    3. Re:WHY? by SpitFU · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, kinda like a DVD player on your Dell PowerEdge 1650 or Sun Microsystems E250. Or even your 12 inch active matrix display on a laptop showing Lord of the Rings.

      -Heh

      --
      reassign null to be the tape device - it's so much more economical on my time as I don't have to change tapes_BOFH
    4. Re:WHY? by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

      Agree entirely, how long before the same approach to lightbulbs is applied to cellphones ? Once everyone's got there's, no one will buy any. I see cellphones that go pop after a years use rapidly approaching.

    5. Re:WHY? by HBPiper · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That time is already here. A new battery for your cellphone is more expensive than a new phone in a lot of instances.

      --
      "I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
    6. Re:WHY? by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, over the last 11 years I've got through 3 cellphones, never had to buy a new battery yet.

    7. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everything is related to the cell phone. Since most cell phones (mobile phones, handys) have a vibrating battery / motor built in now, think of a special holster for women ("Cent'r'Wear"), plus a service which you can buy to call you or send an SMS. Easy. Ooops.

      Bottom line: there are few things which you cannot actually do with a cell phone, e.g. making coffee or children, taking a bath, etc.

    8. Re:WHY? by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 2


      The rest of the world is running out of things that cellphone companies can use to convince us to buy a new phone. It's stupid, but it serves as a quick easy application for marketing types.

      How about reliable service and decent prices? I would get a cellphone if the rates were such that I could have two phones and service for rates comparable to a land line.

      All I see cellphones doing for me is contributing to a reduction in the number of available pay phones. It seems much more difficult to find one now than it ever used to be.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    9. Re:WHY? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      WHY does everything have to relate to the cellphone?

      Maybe because that is one of the few places you would actually want to use discs that small. 3 cm is actually too small for convient use on PC's. Too easy to misplace, and to finicky to insert into tiny drives for people with poor vision or poor coordination.

      On the other hand, can you imagine a cellphone with a DVD drive? That image is just begging to be used in all sorts of humorous ways :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:WHY? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      How about reliable service and decent prices?

      I meant marketing for the new disc. True, they could try to do this, and sell the the few people who still don't have a mobile, but that doesn't help the PR people for this disc. On the other hand, they can latch on to the easily graspable concept of a video phone, even if it does turn out to be a bad idea in reality.

    11. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big part (or majority) of population in the developed countries carry cellphones most of the time with them.

      While it's better to watch movies from laptop or take pictures with 4Mpixel camera, how many people are carrying laptop+digital camera constantly?

      "You can do XYZ with your cellphone" is significant since many people will benefit from it.

    12. Re:WHY? by kent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be pretty cool if they could build a decent screen into a pair of glasses though. Then the portability of something this size would be a definite benifit.

      Like this?

      They havent got it quite right just yet. However, I've been wearing a version that clips onto your classes for over 3 years now.

    13. Re:WHY? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Exactly like that!

    14. Re:WHY? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty cool if they could build a decent screen into a pair of glasses though. Then the portability of something this size would be a definite benifit.

      Yes! NOMAD, here I come!

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    15. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a pay phone? Some American thing again?

    16. Re:WHY? by shepd · · Score: 2

      >It would be pretty cool if they could build a decent screen into a pair of glasses though.

      Done and done and done.

      One day I'll have enough throw away money to buy a pair...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    17. Re:WHY? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Hmm, I've had 3 in the past 8 years (all GSM) and have had to get new batteries in every case. Whenever the second battery got past it's useful stage, I'd get a new phone. Not by design, it just worked out that way.

      And yes, I am familiar with memory effects and discarge fully before recharge. I used to phone a freephone automated system to properly drain them when they got low...the experience of owning a battery-hungry RC car showed me how important that is.

      Do you ever switch yours on? ;-)

    18. Re:WHY? by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

      It's on all the time, unless I forget to charge it... Having said that all but my first phone had li-ion power so much less of a memory effect. From my experience I'd say you've been unlucky...

  11. Pictures to look at by terrencefw · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are some nice pictures at: http://www.zdnet.co.jp/mobile/0210/04/n_sffo.html James

    --
    Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
  12. nice tech but when will it be available? by chamenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i don't mean to be a wet blanket here but announcement like this on slashdot are pretty common, and most of the time it takes a few years or so for the product to become widely available. more often than not, due to bad marketing decisions or various other reasons, the product doesn't even see the light of day.

    yea i know its nice to read about it and the article says 2 years more, but that's what they say all the time. rewritable DVDs were such a hot topic once but when they actually came out all the different formats and standards adopted by the different companies made it pretty much unsuited to mass-market adoption, not to mention the price of the drives themselves, though those have dropped a bit since.

    speaking of drives, the article mentioned the cost of the discs, but not the cost of the players themselves. the discs might be dirt cheap after a while, but are the drives going to cost too much for the average consumer to afford? and should it be cheap enough to be competitive with DVDs and HDTV will this get any opposition from rival companies who may view this as a threat to their products?

    1. Re:nice tech but when will it be available? by fishman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wayne Fletcher at Philips's Southampton lab says SFFO will be ready for sale in two years. Chris Buma, who heads Philips's optical division at Eindhoven in the Netherlands, says discs can be made for "a few cents". The drives will initially cost around £70 but this is expected to fall.

      Did you not read the next sentance?

    2. Re:nice tech but when will it be available? by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fletcher at Philips's Southampton lab says SFFO will be ready for sale in two years.
      Didn't Duke Nukem Forever have a relase date at one point? My rule of thumb is that until you can actually buy it, it's just a concept.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    3. Re:nice tech but when will it be available? by CutterDeke · · Score: 1
      Hopefully Philips will have the same success with this technology as they had with CDs.

      As for multiple options, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have competing standards - as long as you're not a bleeding-edge adopter.

      Finally, the article states: "discs can be made for "a few cents". The drives will initially cost around £70 but this is expected to fall."

    4. Re:nice tech but when will it be available? by Mattsson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well... Every new technology is expensive.

      DVD wasn't competatively prices compared to vhs or cd when released.
      DVD-R's are just getting competative, as in price per MB, compared to CD-R.
      Does that mean that they shouldn't have bothered to release the standard?
      Of course not. That way, no new technology would ever see the light of day.

      So if they do release this new diskformat, just wait a few years and it'll be at a price that the average consumer can afford.
      And by then something new will have arrived, that is expensive as hell but it 10x better...

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  13. MP3-solutions? by zeth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this technology will be cheap enough, is this not potentially useful for portable music?
    Imagine using these small drives as cartridges, such as the minidiscs. It would be great, and probably widley used. Just look at those old walkmans and such. They where great in their days.

    Wandering away...

  14. Is the price quoted realistic? by Midwedge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wayne Fletcher at Philips's Southampton lab says SFFO will be ready for sale in two years. Chris Buma, who heads Philips's optical division at Eindhoven in the Netherlands, says discs can be made for "a few cents". The drives will initially cost around £70 but this is expected to fall.

    I wonder how this price compares to costs to produce a DVD.

    1. Re:Is the price quoted realistic? by eXtro · · Score: 1

      The price of producing a DVD and of fabricating a DVD-R are two entirely different animals. Producing the DVD entails the movie itself, plus technicians to master it to DVD, paying people for any extras etc. The costs of making each DVD beyond this is cheap, but there are significant upfront costs.

      Manufacturing a DVD-R is cheap (I don't know how cheap, but I bought a stack of DVD-R for around 76 cents a piece) because its a cookie cutter operation. Once you have the process down you can make more inexpensively.

      Making these discs is more like fabricating the DVD-R than producing the DVD. Don't expect the price of DVD on this media to drop significantly.

    2. Re:Is the price quoted realistic? by Midwedge · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess I wasn't clear, I meant the cost of a blank DVD, without any content.

      But this made me think about the Manufactors cost of diffrent media.

      Like which is cheaper, a Cassette tape or a CD.
      VHS Tape or DVD.

      It seems to me that it would be a lot cheaper to make a cd/dvd blank than anykind of tape technology seeing as there are all kinds of moving parts vs a disk with coatings...

      Of course demand makes CD/DVD with content more expencive to the consumer than the tape counterparts.

      Just something to ponder on a Friday morning :)

    3. Re:Is the price quoted realistic? by eXtro · · Score: 1

      I think you're pretty accurate on the pricing, but I think as far as blank media goes the prices reflect actual costs. I can get blank dvd-r for under a buck or blank cd for under 30 cents. A blank DV tape is a few bucks, which seems fair since it should cost more to manufacture.

      The last time I looked DVD content was cheaper or as cheap as a VHS tape and included a lot more stuff. I may never look at the directors commentary etc but its still additional material and the director is going to want to be payed for that.

      CDs are unjustifiably expensive in my opinion, the manufacture has to be much cheaper than tapes or albums and distribution costs per piece should be cheaper as well (well, at least versus albums, I've never thought about how many CDs versus tapes you could fit into say a 3x3x3 box)

      I still buy CDs, though I'm a lot choosier about what I do buy because of the cost.

  15. My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its full of Philip's 3cm 4Gig Optical Discs!

  16. Value of information by Dexter77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have you noticed that if you calculate the value of those movies or especially MP3s on the disc (~16$/album, ~20$/movie) the value of a disc is more than the same weight disc made out of gold.

    Btw. if RIAA catches you walking around with pocket full of these discs, and those discs contain more albums than an average music store. Can they charge you similarly as if you had robbed all albums from one of their stores?

    1. Re:Value of information by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      Unless something changed, I wasn't aware that the RIAA itself had record stores...

      Sure, Virgin has it's super-massive get-everything-you-want-here-except-toothpaste mega-stores, but I wouldn't say it's an RIAA-owned operation.

      Plus, what if you happen to be a multi-millionaire, and you purchased all the music you ripped and burned to your pocket full of MP3s?

      Ok, so that isn't friggin likely...

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:Value of information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIAA can't charge you with theft. The police can charge you.

      Don't you feel better?

  17. Isn't it obvious? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This thing belongs inside a digital video camera. I mean, all that work on jitter resistance must have some point....

    1. Re:Isn't it obvious? by kipsate · · Score: 1

      That would suprise me.

      It is very hard to use optical discs for mobile storage, especially in consumer electronics like videocameras. They need to be highly shock-resistive.

      For optical storage to work, the write head must be very stable. Unfortunately, the head of an optical storage device is order of magnitudes heavier than that of a harddisk, which makes it very hard to keep it stable. Even with this somewhat lighter head they mention in the article.

      Remember the old portable cd-players, how they skipped very easily. New players read ahead now in buffers to avoid skipping. But obviously the same technology can not be used for writing.

      The only thing in videocameras to replace tape, will be Flash memory. The next generation will have capacities up to 8 GB.

      --
      My karma ran over your dogma
    2. Re:Isn't it obvious? by rschwa · · Score: 1

      It is very hard to use optical discs for mobile storage, especially in consumer electronics like videocameras. They need to be highly shock-resistive. For optical storage to work, the write head must be very stable. Unfortunately, the head of an optical storage device is order of magnitudes heavier than that of a harddisk, which makes it very hard to keep it stable. Even with this somewhat lighter head they mention in the article.

      There have been camcorders that record on mini DVDs for quite a while now.. Here's just one.

      The only thing in videocameras to replace tape, will be Flash memory. The next generation will have capacities up to 8 GB.

      Unless those 8Gig Flash memories come down below $5-$10 apiece, I don't see it replacing MiniDV or MiniDVD any time soon. I have a shelf full of videos of the kids, each one of those tapes is like 30Gigs (I'm not sure of the exact number, but 60 min at MiniDV bitrates is a lot). Those tapes were $10-15 when I first bought them, nowadays, they're less than $5.

      Right now, 1 Gig of Compact Flash is upwards of $250. I'm not holding my breath..

    3. Re:Isn't it obvious? by pacc · · Score: 2
      It is very hard to use optical discs for mobile storage,
      Hitachi is already doing this and Sony has a range of CDR cameras.
      For optical storage to work, the write head must be very stable.
      From the article:

      The three-centimetre disc will be the same thickness as a DVD, but the phase-change material that records the data will be a mere 0.1 millimetres thick, compared to 0.6 millimetres for DVDs. Philips says this should mean there is less risk of beam distortion if the disc tilts when the portable device gets jogged. Portable DVD players will not play smoothly if jogged.

      This jog-resistance is helped by making the glass and polymer lens that focuses the laser only 1.3 millimetres wide, just one-third the size of the lens in a DVD recorder. This means the optics need be only one-tenth the mass of their counterpart in a DVD, light enough for an electromagnet to keep them steady.

      Flash memory won't catch in videorecorders - not that it's not possible, but there are hundreds of applications that are less cost sensitive. Flash won't scale as good as DVD's when it gets cheaper since there's still the cost of the chip fab to consider...

      With new hardware formats like the VAIO Picturebook's DVD's have become the single most limiting factor for those that want a little more (I've even cut that feature from what I need on a notebook) so there will be a lot of devices waiting for this kind of storage (even though it's a total overkill for plain mp3).

    4. Re:Isn't it obvious? by rschwa · · Score: 1
      Right now, 1 Gig of Compact Flash is upwards of $250. I'm not holding my breath..

      Wow, my bad.. I was looking at DIMM memory, the cheapest I can find a 1Gig CF card is $695! A 512M card is a reasonable $230, but you're talking just a couple of minutes at MiniDV bitrates, and not all that much longer at a good quality MPEG bitrate.

      Plus, what's the write speed on CF or any of the NVRAM Technologies out there?

      I'm still not holding my breath.
    5. Re:Isn't it obvious? by BigBadBri · · Score: 1

      I just sent the missus on holiday with a £100 digital video camera that can record 15 minutes of video on a £20 64MB SmartMedia card. The quality is good enough for TV display.

      Next week in Aldi stores here, there will be a similar camera going for £50.

      If anyone's bothered by having to swap a card every 15 minutes or so (for personal rather than pro use), I'd personally consider them dumb.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  18. not terribly impressed by kipsate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We already have this capacity: (re)writable DVDs. So the main compelling advantage must come from the size and maybe energy usage.

    It is small, but Flash memory is even smaller. Let's say the drive will be commercially available in 1 year (and then I think I'm being optimistic.) By that time flash storage will already start to come close to these capacities. For instance, the successor of the proprietary Sony Memorystick and XD card technologies by Fuji and Olympus can go up to 8 GB. Flash is technically superior to optical storage (no moving parts, less energy consumption) but optical storage is far cheaper. But most people would store their flash memory on their harddisks anyway.

    --
    My karma ran over your dogma
    1. Re:not terribly impressed by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      It is small, but Flash memory is even smaller. Let's say the drive will be commercially available in 1 year (and then I think I'm being optimistic.)

      They quote a technician who says it will be available in not one, but two years. And then he is likely optimistic.

      And then it will only be available with 1 Gb discs at first.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:not terribly impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      along the same token, i'm not impressed with flash. i mean i can get a >20gb in a 1.8 inch thick hard drive like in the ipod. throw in quite a bit of ram in a respective device for buffering and you can save even more battery life.

      however, there's also another benefit to these optical discs. the read/write times are often greater than that of current flash.

      hard drives also have that same advantage and both are cheaper than flash for the number of Mb.

      also, this article is quite old. i'd seen it about 4 months ago, or at least pictures of the workign drive and such.

    3. Re:not terribly impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where can YOU get flash memory for 'just a few cents' ??

      My guess is, that over 2 years, hell even 3, 4 gigs worth of flash mem won't cost a few cents. Go figure.

  19. Men In Black? by Psiren · · Score: 3, Funny

    So Tommy Lee jones was right, that small disc he held *is* going to replace the CD someday... ;-)

  20. Side benefit... by silverhalide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First thought when I saw this was "oh yay, another format to buy, with mediocre advantages, namely size". Mini-DVD, meet Mini-disc! Then the thought occured to me, you could theoretically increase your maximum transfer rate off this media by quite a bit over traditional-sized DVD/CD-ROMs, since the diameter is smaller and thus angular inertia is much lower. The disc will have a higher maximum speed and won't explode around 28,000 RPM. Don't feel like hacking out the math, but I'd imagine it'd be signficant.

    1. Re:Side benefit... by jafuser · · Score: 2

      I've actually been wondering if we are to expect faster CD-R drives that will go, for example, 60x for Mini-CD's, and 48x for standard CDs...

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    2. Re:Side benefit... by KillboyPHD · · Score: 1

      you could theoretically increase your maximum transfer rate off this media by quite a bit over traditional-sized DVD/CD-ROMs, since the diameter is smaller and thus angular inertia is much lower. The disc will have a higher maximum speed and won't explode around 28,000 RPM.

      Except, because the path the laser travels is so much smaller per RPM, the RPMs would have to be porportionally faster to make up for it. (The disk would have to spin faster in order for the media to maintain the same speed under the "read head".) In the end, the faster RPMs would cancel out the smaller diameter and the angular momentum would come out a wash.

      --
      Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
    3. Re:Side benefit... by silverhalide · · Score: 2

      Hehe, can't wait until the drive confuses a mini for a standard, and you get CD parts shooting out of your drive. Finally, my nightmares of my CD-ROM shooting parts at me are coming true!

  21. Re:This has been covered already. by LondonLawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, last time this was posted as news the disc was billed as being coin sized. Some guy here apparently has a habit of rolling naked on his money (seems strange to me too). More interesting/funny was a comment about pushing quarters into the slot on your machine to pay for goods online. Future tech support headache on its way - this will take over from broken cup holders on your ROM drive.

  22. Wait wait wait wait... by HaloZero · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The first versions of the disc will store one gigabyte on each side, but the dual-layer coating already used for DVDs will double the capacity to four gigabytes in total."

    Hmm. x + x = 4x ? Err....

    I know I'm looking forward to this new tech. Same with the holographic storage, and the other 200 new media ideas/developments which we never end up seeing, or never par up as first announced anyway. *sigh* Please let this one come through? Please?

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by greenius · · Score: 1

      one gigabyte on each side, dual-layer
      2 sides * 2 layers = 4 surfaces.

      --
      I copied this sig from someone else (but where did they get it from?)
    2. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by LondonLawyer · · Score: 0

      Both sides of the disc. 2(x+x)=4x

    3. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by HaloZero · · Score: 0

      [grumbles at slashdot's 20-second-rule-system thing as he tries to post this reply for the FOURTH TIME...]

      *clears throat* Ahem. Anyway. Thank you for clearing that up. I hadn't caught the meaning behind the dual-layer bit. Thank you, thank you. :)

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
  23. Polite requests to media developers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1.
    Please make different sizes of media that use the same format, E.G. 3cm, 12cm, 30cm.

    Portable equipment can support just the smallest disc size.

    Consumer equipment can support the small and middle disc sizes.

    Industrial equipment can support the large discs, for things like medical applications where you need uncompressed HDTV, etc.

    2.
    Please encourage use of all sizes - I have loads of CD-singles that are on 12cm media, not the 3cm media. If only they were all on 3cm media, I could have a pocket-sized discman!

    3.
    Please consider the possibility of, for example, 12cm media, with a push-out 3cm disc in the centre, that contains the first track, (for audio applications, for example), so that you can buy an album, and play the single on your portable player.

    1. Re:Polite requests to media developers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Philips and Sony have been behind multiple sized discs for quite sometime. ie the 12/8cm discs for cd. the same is true for DVD+R/RW as well. (i don't think 8cm is in the DVD-R/RW spec at teh moment but i'm not positive about this)

      Philips has a mini cd player that's about 3 x 3 inches or so. easily sufficient to fit in a pocket. it runs on one battery and plays mp3s. the only downfall to it is the battery life. i believe there's a new version coming along that improves the battery life though.

      at teh moment it's not possible to push discs out because there's no way to "clip" the disc in so that it can spin at a decent speed without seperating. i think this is why many new albums are coming with a cd and a DVD of bonus material.

    2. Re:Polite requests to media developers: by burntoutjoy · · Score: 1

      1. hmm yea the cd-singles thing i've been thinking of for some time, but what you are suggesting would just frustrate me!! The difference being: all cd players are primarily designed to play the 12cm discs. Playing 8cm discs is then easy. if portable equipment *only* supported the smallest size, no albums on yr walkman! ok so you could say the whole album could fit on to the smallest disc, but then what would be the point of the medium sized one that, say, your separates at home could play? extra stuff a la DVD films? big wow. Great for companies who take people in with 'extra bonus content'. I ain't one of them.

      Industrial bigguns? maybe, but there's not a great deal of point. the drives that read the big discs probably won't ever read any smaller discs: real life isn't as integrated as the designed ideal. The big discs may as well be a completely different format, optimised for the task.

      2. I agree that singles should be released on 8cm discs: the amount of wastage is amazing! As i said above though, a tiny walkman would get on my nerves...

      3. cool idea, but if you don't like the idea of a tiny walkman, no point. I suppose this kinda thing is personal, but i sure as hell wouldn't want to be changing the disc every 20mins...

      I know i've talked about the CD format mostly, but that's because i think the setup works. if the next-gen format an get a high-quality album on a tiny disc, great! but then, as i said, there's no point in having the bigger consumer version.

    3. Re:Polite requests to media developers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, I have a Laserdisc player here that'll play anything from 8cm CDs to 30cm LDs.

      Actually it's quite funny to open the big tray, (on my LD player, you can just open the middle part of the tray, to insert a CD, it's quite a nice mechanism), and put a tiny CD-single in it, when you have friends round.

  24. Why only 4 GB? by gpinzone · · Score: 1, Interesting

    10 Hours of movies? In what compression format? Certainly not MPEG-2. This is slightly less than a single sided DVD. Why make it so small? If you double the radius the amount of area is increased by a factor of four.

    1. Re:Why only 4 GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you half the radius, the circumference is reduced by a factor 2*pi. Therefore it can spin faster without being turned in to shrapnell.

    2. Re:Why only 4 GB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can certainly do it with MPEG-2, it jsut depends upon the bitrate and resolution.

      chances are it's MPEG4 though with the recent extensions i believe it can get DVD quality at about half the bitrate.

    3. Re:Why only 4 GB? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the area calculations aren't quite that simple...

      In a circle, if I double the diameter from 3cm to 6cm, you do have a 4x area increase. But optical media, you have to consider the empty spaces left on the inside and outside edges. Increasing to 6cm could potentially more than quadruple the capacity - I esimate about 4.3g per side, 112g for a 12cm version.

      What I really want to see is a 6-disc changer made out of a 12-cm CD-style plate - something like they suggest.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    4. Re:Why only 4 GB? by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      That's 10 hours of video on a cell phone screen. Video takes up a whole lot less space at that low resolution.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  25. HOLY SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    AWESOME! 5252210 hours of movies! KICK ASS!

    1. Re:HOLY SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha HEEe HAAAA HEEEE HEEE HaWWW!!!!!!!!@#!@#!

  26. Agent K by SupahVee · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Here's a nifty little gadget, (holding up small, silver-dollar sized, CD) It's gonna replace CD's soon. Guess I'll have to buy the White ALbum again."

    --
    "See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
    1. Re:Agent K by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Nah. Thanks to computers and thousands of geeks working on the problem, you'll be able to digitally transfer it over yourself.

      Unless the RIAA has something to do with it...

  27. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe we'll get lucky, and fashion will allow men to wear 3cm round, shiny, disc like ear rings?

    That, or jam them into vending machines.

  28. Will this the be like the rest? by renerask · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm still waiting for something which can replace floppy disks. Will this do it?

    Think about it. Nothing is really as useful and standard as the floppy. Easy use, always works, no special drivers, no monopoly.

    Will this drive form a new standard? I hope so, but I suspect it will do as Zip drives and the rest. If Phillips probably keeps the standard locked down like the Zip drives, then it will just be another useless Zip drive.

    Nice little thing, I hope it makes it :)

    -Rene

    1. Re:Will this the be like the rest? by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Uuuh. One thing to remember when talking about standards, and Phillips.

      Phillips had a hand in both the CD and DVD standards and holds a number of patnets for both the disks and the players...

      Seems to me, that they're fairly good with creating and maintaining standards... (anyone remember Phillips flexing it's muscles over the CD protection issue? Not that they did much, but still...)

    2. Re:Will this the be like the rest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Floppies suck ass. Slow, unreliable (these days, anyway).

    3. Re:Will this the be like the rest? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Easy use, always works, no special drivers, no monopoly.

      I remember the fun to be had trasfering data between a PC clone and the Atari ST. It wasn't easy, rarely worked, required a specially formatted floppy etc.

      But at least I didn't have to try it with an Amiga, same media, completely incompatible. The only reason the PC floppy standard came about was the the early manufacturers were cloning each others products; this compatability was essential otherwise your clone would be a useless beige blob in the pre-hard-drive days.

      But, as another reply stated, the cd-rom is the new standard. Just about everything can read iso9660. The only time you need special drivers is on ancient OSs where the CD was more of a hack.

  29. PCMCIA Type III by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    That beast fits in a PCMCIA Type III slot :-))))) Where can I get it?

    That will be DVD+RW I guess......

  30. Philips has been ok'ish in that regard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think IF there is no legal obligation for DRM mechanisms they will license the technology for players of open standards. They have been pretty consistent in argueing against mandatory DRM lately.

    Of course that might have something to do with them ditching their media production divisions a long time ago and having little commercial interest in DRM.

    If Disney buys enough senators to get what they want it will hardly be Philips's choice of course ... and you will have to go to Europe and Asia for your player. Until globalism and corporate dictatorship spreads their laws beyond US borders (EU will fall first, rest will follow).

  31. Datplay by Megane · · Score: 2
    Well, it looks like DataPlay is now officially dead.

    As for five 2-hour movies in 4 gigs, that sounds like it uses MPEG 4. Besides, most "2-hour movies" these days are really 90 minutes long. The rest of that two hours is for changing the audience.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  32. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the hell are we going to see any of these "10gb on a [insert tiny size here] medium" products on the market?

    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean rewriteable? I have a vision of the **AA's colectively saying "WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!" Seriously, where are those 100GB to 1TB florecent rewritable disks that where developed? */me looks through some corporate shredings boxes.*

  33. No moving parts by NineNine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm waiting for storage that can store a few gigs cheaply that has NO MOVING PARTS. MO's are nice, but as long as you've got moving parts, they're still the part of the computer most likely to fail (taking your data with it). I wish that storage companies would instead focus on say, flash card technology or something similar so that we wouldn't have to worry about drive failure.

    1. Re:No moving parts by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      but as long as you've got moving parts, they're still the part of the computer most likely to fail

      Not to mention the effects of motion on the battery life as well...

    2. Re:No moving parts by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the effects of motion on the battery life as well...


      Huh? What motion and what battery? Are you talking about laptops?

    3. Re:No moving parts by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Running a CD-ROM (or hard-drive) requires a high-speed motor, which is a relatively large power drain. Most laptops have power management capabilites to limit the top speed of the CD-ROM to save power, but they are rarely used. When I'm working away from a power outlet, I try to limit CD-ROM access. If you were watching a movie, you could save power by copying all the media to the hard-drive first, as the CD-ROM/DVD won't be spinning for as long.

      Solid-state storage doesn't have as much as a problem, and is usually more battery friendly.

  34. Five two-hour movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did you pull that out of? I can fit a million movies on one of those discs at 16x16 resolution with lossy compression.

    And numbers under ten should be written out.

  35. Compare & Contrast... by clinko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Think about this:

    Almost every school/University I have gone to has zip disks. This was a great Idea at the time because CD Burners were so expensive.

    Now, CDRW's are cheaper than zip disks. Hell the burners costs almost as much as a small pack of zip disks. CDs are pennies.

    My point:

    DVD+/-Rs is a safe bet. Why would anyone want to move to a format like this 4gb optical disk. It's just another "Zip Drive" of the future.

    1. Re:Compare & Contrast... by scharkalvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But you can't fit a dvd in your cellphone, or in (most) digicams.
      A 3cm format optical disk will give the IBM microdrive a run for its' money. DVD+-rw won't go away, but the smaller format will have its applications.

  36. 1.44 just felt a sharp stabbing pain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An article on here a while back suggested that the 1.44 floppy may well be dead soon! To which many of you shouted "never".

    I think you may have to reconsider that when these come out.

    1. Re:1.44 just felt a sharp stabbing pain by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2

      I think you may have to reconsider that when these come out.

      Just like the floppy was killed by the Zip disk. Seriously, what you need in a floppy replacement:

      Cheap. This should happen over time.

      Random access. Not the case with current CDRW, but could happen with this Philips thing.

      DEPLOYED EVERYWHERE. I doubt it will happen with this drive. CDs are just too good, and I can't see the point for home computers in having anything smaller than mini-CDs. Cellphones or cameras, maybe, but it's not like the average Joe has a camera or a bleeding-edge media cellphone. We'll see in about 2 years. On the other hand, you could make a bitching USB keychain out of these things (except for the moving parts). Maybe pocket drives will catch on, but for £70?. Whatever.

      SUPPORTED BY BIOS. Not going to happen for a good long time.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  37. Too Risky! by worthb · · Score: 1

    Have you ever held a spinning bicycle wheel by the spokes and then tried to tilt it? With the inertia that disk would have at 20,000 rmp, tilt the camera too much and it might fly out of your hands or break your wrist if it's strapped to your hand.

    --
    "the universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle" - Stapp's Law
    1. Re:Too Risky! by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 4, Funny


      I think that if you held a spinning bicycle wheel by the spokes you would either get sore fingers or get dizzy really fast.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    2. Re:Too Risky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, 3cm though, it'd be no worse than trying to tilt a spinning hard drive.

  38. yeah, but... by budalite · · Score: 0, Redundant

    it won't be worth a $%^& if wireless speeds are still in the %^&**er. :{)||

  39. Blu-Ray spinoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a Blu-Ray spinoff. If you want to know more about Blu-Ray you could check this explanation.

  40. Solid state memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Keep an eye on thinfilm.se, they have the memory cell technology (not suitable for main memory in a PC, but ideal for mass storage). "All" we need now is cheap submicron litography for roll to roll processing and we can kiss moving parts goodbye.

    1. Re:Solid state memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait till my hard drives can be all be replaced by massive solid state storage.

  41. Re:Pictures to look at -- shameless copycat ! by selderrr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this same URL is posted 5 comments above. Moderators : please do your job and nuke this karma whore

  42. PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm still waiting for something which can replace floppy disks. Will this do it?

    Floppy disk replacement isn't a matter of medium choice, there are plenty: zip, superdisk, orb, flash, et al. The problem arises from the lack of flexibilty of PC BIOS in being able to substitute those other mediums, which are often ATA/IDE based for the floppy disk.

    A simple solution would be to create add an additional ATA connector that the BIOS would treat as the floppy drive, depending on what was connected to it. At boot time if I disk was present and bootable, the system would boot off it and present it as the A drive. Even better would be a modular BIOS that would allow BIOS-level drivers to be installed so that BIOS could boot off of other buses -- USB, 1394, and so on without an operating system-level driver.

    One thing I'd like to know from BIOS experts is why this couldn't be done (especially the third "floppy" ATA connector) and what legacy OSes (*cough*DOS*cough*) would think of a floppy disk with > 2.88MB of available storage? Do they have hard-coded storage variables that can't deal with a "floppy" with capacities larger than 24 bits?

    1. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by satterth · · Score: 1

      Dude, The replacement for the floppy disk is the CDROM. Just about every computer user i know has a CDROM available somewhere. At least the Media can be read just about everywhere. Just wait a while longer and everyone and their dog will have a burner. Problem solved. Too bad someone can't make a 4x or a 8x CD-RW that supports 3cm and 12cm disc's for like 30 bucks. When the burner can be as cheap as a floppy disc drive, then it will replace it. Ignore the FDD port dude, it should have been tossed a long time ago just like ISA slots were. Just move over to IDE/SATA and get over it.

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    2. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by swb · · Score: 2

      Dude, The replacement for the floppy disk is the CDROM.

      But CD-ROM isn't a random-access read-write medium. Even packet-mode CD-RW will never be an adequate replacement for random-access r/w media.

    3. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      A simple solution would be to create add an additional ATA connector that the BIOS would treat as the floppy drive, depending on what was connected to it. At boot time if I disk was present and bootable, the system would boot off it and present it as the A drive.

      IIRC, that's exactly what Mandrake did to get their bootable CD to work in at least one of their 7.x releases: it somehow would trick the BIOS into thinking the CD drive was the floppy drive. Wierd, but kind of a cool hack since it generally worked great. The only problem was that sometimes it wouldn't change things back when it was done...

      As for storage limits, I know that pre-FAT32 DOS and Windows have a partition size limit of 2GB, and I believe a physical drive size limit of 8.4GB. QNX 4.x has a partition size limit of 8.4GB, and I strongly suspect that the physical drive size limit is also 8.4GB.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    4. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by swb · · Score: 2

      El Torrito bootable CD has kind of always worked that way, hasn't it? You specify a floppy disk image when writing the CD and the BIOS loads that image as the A drive; further reading of the CD requires whatever software on the A drive to load drivers for the CD, it gets assigned another drive letter. / would be on the image and everything else would be mounted from the CD.

    5. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by satterth · · Score: 1

      Yes, i do agree with you that its not a true/perfect replacement. But it does seem to fit the majority of my needs. Small, compact and re-writable media that can be read/written to just about everywhere. (All my friends and work have burners) Depending on what I'm transfering and to whom, i pick and choose between 8cm and 12cm media. Most of the time i use a 8cm CDRW because it fits in my pocket just like the old Floppy disk did.

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    6. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for storage limits, I know that pre-FAT32 DOS and Windows have a partition size limit of 2GB, and I believe a physical drive size limit of 8.4GB. QNX 4.x has a partition size limit of 8.4GB, and I strongly suspect that the physical drive size limit is also 8.4GB.

      Where did this come from?

      The physical size limit at this point probably depend more on the BIOS. There are BIOS limitations, depending on age, at 528MB, 8.4GB, 32GB, and probably another one at 137GB or so.

      (btw, floppies are formatted with FAT12, not even 16-bit.)

    7. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I'd like to know from BIOS experts is why this couldn't be done (especially the third "floppy" ATA connector) and what legacy OSes (*cough*DOS*cough*) would think of a floppy disk with > 2.88MB of available storage? Do they have hard-coded storage variables that can't deal with a "floppy" with capacities larger than 24 bits?

      There are two sets of ports reserved for hard drive controllers. A legacy OS would not see hard drives on a different port without special drivers.

      Floppy drives have another two set of ports, but they're handled differently, since they have a much smaller address space on the media.

      Also, many older OSes will detect the floppy type by checking the BIOS setting, which can be one of:
      00h no drive
      01h 360 KB 5.25 Drive
      02h 1.2 MB 5.25 Drive
      03h 720 KB 3.5 Drive
      04h 1.44 MB 3.5 Drive
      05h 2.88 MB 3.5 drive
      06h-0Fh unused

      So it's pretty much impossible to have these OSes work with a "floppy" with a larger capacity without a special driver or something.

    8. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by swb · · Score: 2

      The biggest problem is that CD/RW is a shitty rewritable medium. I don't think you can block erase the media (meaning it wouldn't work as a long term usage, reading, writing, erasing a lot of files) and it'd be god-awful slow.

    9. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Yes, I know.

      The physical size limit at this point probably depend more on the BIOS.

      However, the OP was asking about legacy systems. I deal with win95's fdisk and QNX 4.x on modern hardware everyday, and I am quite sure that neither of them can handle a physical drive larger than 8.4GB. BIOS support for larger drives is all well and good, but if the OS can't address the space, BIOS support means precisely dick.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    10. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by RJHill · · Score: 1

      CD-ROM isn't a random-access read-write medium. Even packet-mode CD-RW will never be an adequate replacement for random-access r/w media.



      CD-RW or DVD+RW drives which support Philips' Mount Rainier specification can be treated just like a floppy. The standard has been out for about a year and a half, but there are very few compatible drives in existence (HP DVD+RW, Teac and Yamaha CD, there may be others by this time), but AFAIK, Windows does not support it in the OS, though there is a kernel patch for Linux support.



      An 8cm form factor DVD+RW (announced a month or two ago) with Mount Rainier support would be perfect companion for a sub-notebook. Something like the Imation RipGo! recast as a DVD+RW would be OK too. 1.4GB (less ~25% overhead for the Mt. Rainier filesystem) on something that works like a floppy would be very nice.



      In the current political climate, every time I see a new optical technology proposed, I become suspicious that it's going to turn out to be an avenue for the introduction of new hardware DRM, i.e. if you want our shiny new storage medium, you must accept reduced utility.



      Time will tell, I guess.

      --
      Ron
    11. Re:PC BIOS is the enemy of floppy replacement by satterth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is kinda slow... So far I usually just use it to transfer 50Mb files from work to home and vice-versa. Currently i get a month or two of ussage from a disc. At that point i throw it away and use a new one. The pack of 10 will last quite a while.

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
  43. power hungry? by Pooh22 · · Score: 3

    it's one thing to karma whore, it's another to accuse others of the offence, even though the posting you want modding down was 45 minutes earlier than the shameless, karma whoring copycat that's now somewhere at the top of the page...

    karma sucks anyway, it's useful additions to the discussion that are valuable, dupes happen, live with it...

    1. Re:power hungry? by terrencefw · · Score: 1

      eh? What you talking about? I posted the link because the earlier posting had a mistake in it. Duh.

      --
      Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
  44. Slashdot Units by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let us put this in the proper context for /.

    The disks will hold *** 10 HOURS OF PORN! ***

    Now, see how simple that is?

  45. 3cm = No Corporate Security by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you can hide one under a coffe cup, think of the possibilities for information theft.

    Think, a white coffee cup, a white 3cm casing, a little rubber cement... no one would even know that 1-4 gigs of sensitive corporate information was leaving the building.

    Small enough to be tucked into the 5th pocket on a pair of jeans, slid into a shoe without much (if any) discomfort, palmed, hidden inside a container of stress putty, even tucked into a person's hair.

    Hey, isn't that roughly the size of the iPod's wheel?

    Hell, 3cm is small enough to hide almost anywhere...

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    1. Re:3cm = No Corporate Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, just send secret corporate data to your own computer using this really neat thing called THE INTERNET. :)

    2. Re:3cm = No Corporate Security by symbolic · · Score: 2


      Coming to a Congress near you: DMCCA

      Digital Milennium Coffee Cup Act.

  46. "Philips" not "Philip's" by nmg196 · · Score: 1

    It's "Philips" not "Philip's".

    Whoever wrote that needs to read this:

    http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

  47. Few inches across by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2

    I hope they make a normal DVD-sized one. It would be nicer to have a 50-gig disk that is a few inches across than a 4-gig disk that is 3 centimeters across. (I don't watch that many movies on my cell phone.

  48. you don't say? by mehfu · · Score: 1
    [...] 3cm rewritable optical disc [...] The drive is small too!

    No shit. You just said it was 3 cm. It's like saying: The house was 100 metres wide... and it's huge too!

    Oh, you don't know the metric system? Bah!

    1. Re:you don't say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 meters wide? Is that VU meters? Man, that's small! Now if you gave us the measurements in rods or hectacres, it would make more sense.

    2. Re:you don't say? by bbc22405 · · Score: 1
      Article blurb said: [...] 3cm rewritable optical disc [...] The drive is small too!

      Some dumbass replied: No shit. You just said it was 3 cm. It's like saying: The house was 100 metres wide... and it's huge too!

      No, it's like saying the house was 100 metres wide, and the lot it was sitting on was only .1 hectares. It's not a metric vs American problem. If you will go back and actually read the blurb, you will realize that the author is saying that "The MEDIA is 3cm, yet the DRIVE that will hold the media is small too."

      (Your house is 100m wide?!? Who are you, a Vanderbilt?)

  49. Portable Music by NeonSpirit · · Score: 1

    There is already a minuature disk format especialy for music. The Sony MiniDisk format. This clips the hight and low frequencies to make the file size smaller, and with a slight lose in quality five or six albums can be fited onto a single disk. The one I have only alows real time transfer, but more recent models allow data transfer form a PC.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.....my life is my own.
    1. Re:Portable Music by zeth · · Score: 1

      As i said in my post "...such as the minidiscs...", I am aware of the "Mini disc", and I have used them for several years myself, although with this new technology one could have entire music collections on one "disc" instead of just an album or two.

      Minidiscs are really nice, but they are not common in the US, afaik? In Europe though, they are very common.

  50. Re:"Philips" not "Philip's" [ot] by play6ack · · Score: 1

    I am certain that you meant to write "Philips'", but I could be mistaken since I am not a native speaker.
    Do I need to take a look at english grammar again? :)

  51. Re:"Philips" not "Philip's" [ot] by nmg196 · · Score: 1

    Maybe yes. The company name is Philips. So either of the two would have been ok...

    "Philips SFFO 3cm 4Gig Optical Discs" would have been as accurate as "Sony Television" which is fine for a title.

    But yeah, they may have wanted to say it in the possessive manner, in which case they should have written:
    "Philips' SFFO 3cm 4Gig Optical Discs" as you say.. Equivalent to Sony's Television...

    The latter option though, makes it sound like they own *one*, rather than they produce them.

    Ok I'm getting really pedantic now. I'm sorry - I'll stop... :)

  52. People still use floppy disks? by RatFink100 · · Score: 2

    I was trying to remember the last time I used a floppy rather than a network connection or a CD-RW.

    A few months ago I installed linux on an old machine without a bootable CDROM drive.

  53. Didn't the Tricorder use these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember from an old Star Fleet technical manual that the tricorders from the original series stored their data on little quarter-sized disks. Didn't they?

  54. Philips got out of the Music business befor MP3s.. by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interestingly enough, Philips got OUT of the music business right as MP3s were taking off...
    1998 Seagram buys Polygram from Matsushita rival Philips for US$10.4bn

  55. No. by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Robbing a store would be breaking & entering and grand theft, going around with a bunch of cds is "only" mass copyright infringement. Also intent would be a factor, if you rob an entire cd store, the intent is presumably to sell those for profit. If "everybody" can walk around with a music store in their pocket, you can claim it's just for personal use.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  56. This Just In by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 4, Funny
    As a result of intensive lobbying by the RIAA and MPAA an emergency bill was passed in Congress today. The bill, known as the Fervently Undoing Computing Capabilities of all Users act (F.U.C.C. U.), requires that each copy of the disk, code-named HWN (Hillary's Worst Nightmare), contain special embedded DRM software developed by Microsoft (motto: bend over, we got your DRM right here!) that includes the user's entire DNA sequence and will only be useable on special drives and computers that adhere to the PC (19)84 specification and run the forthcoming MS Palladium (rommed edition) operating system.

    "There will be some small loss of space on the disc itself as a result", said congressman Payme Goode, "but the disc will still have abundant free space, a good 1.44 Meg, available for the end-user's data".

    Any purchaser of the disc will require a license. In order to apply for the license, the applicant must first submit to a thorough background check and will be profiled and fingerprinted by the authorities. Once granted a license to use this dangerous technology, the licensee will be required to carry the license at all times or face a penalty of 50 years in prison with no parole.

    "We think that this is a very fair and equitable act", Hilary Rosen was quoted as saying, "It nicely balances the rights of the individual user against the recording and motion picture industries' rights to ensure that all digital technology is hobbled to the point of being useless".

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  57. Yes, but... by silence535 · · Score: 1

    ... does it play ogg vorbis files?

    -r

    --
    Dyslectics of the world, untie!
  58. Magneto Optical Disk ? by JoshRoss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has to be MO. One of the biggest disadvantages to MO is the COST.

    Last time I checked, the 5.2 GB 5.25in discs costs about $80.00usd. I can just imagine what this would cost.

    I do not think that you will see anything like this in a car stereo, just because a product like this will not hit critical mass in the marketplace.

    I'm thinking that 5gb compact flash, or something like it will hit the market first. It, CF, would be smaller, faster and more reliable.

    Another problem with small media is the speed. At 3cm this thing is going to be slow. Even on the outside tracks, *warning my math sucks*,
    (3/2)*pi*r*d/?, shit never mind... But even if it's going at 10,000 RPM it's going to be slow.

    Power consumption will suck. Look at the microdrive.. If you have a small disc spinning fast it drains batteries way too quickly. You would not be able to listen to an entire album without a recharge.

    One of the few reasons that you need a disc is because its inexpensive. Inexpensive enough for content producers to sell their wares in that format. There is no WAY that the RIAA would sell a disc with 1000 hours of music on it. for anything close to $100usd.

    And even if the content producers do not produce content on this format. The best hope for this media will be a backup solution, which comes back to speed and cost.

    The next video disc will have to have enough room for at least 1 HD movie. With better compression this might happen on this disc, but why not use a 9gb DVD? There is not a need for ultra portable video. And again, look at the cost. My guess is that there will be something like DVD2 or something that uses the same media but uses better compression to get more bang for your buck.

    For removable storage (floppy killer dev) it HAS to have to have a drive that plugs into a USB port. like key ring storage. Otherwise, it's useless for being universally excepted. And if you take the drive around with you with one disk in it all the time, why bother with a disc?

    I wish that I had more positive things to say.

    1. Re:Magneto Optical Disk ? by necere · · Score: 1

      Minidiscs are magneto-optical, and they run ~$3 apiece. Granted, that's only ~140MB, but they've been around a decade. My guess as to why 5Gb MO discs are so expensive is because they can get away with, i.e., MO discs are used primarily by institutions that are tied to their hardware, and it's simply cheaper or easier to keep buying expensive media than replace the hardware.

      Besides that, I don't thinks these Philips discs are MO. DVD-RW isn't MO, and these discs are just smaller, denser versions of CD/DVD-RW.

      --


      .necere.
  59. Even better.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! :)

  60. drive size by pipper-noiter · · Score: 1

    i just hope they will let the drive fit in a floppy disk slot, so i dont have to buy a new tower. two standard slot sizes are enough.

  61. Better yet: high-end digital still camera by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think if Philips can resolve the issue of shock resistance and make a re-writeable disc in this new format that stores at least 3 GB, there's a better application: high-end digital still cameras.

    With professional digital still cameras already going past ten megapixels in resolution, even a 1 GB IBM Microdrive in a Compact Flash Type II slot ain't going to cut it especially if you store the digital still in uncompressed .TIF format. This new drive could be perfect for professional digital still cameras, that's to be sure.

  62. You're probably right. Here are some other factors by Adam+J.+Richter · · Score: 2
    because the path the laser travels is so much smaller per RPM, the RPMs would have to be porportionally faster to make up for it.

    I think you're right, but linear bit density is also a factor. If the limiting factor is the acceleration experienced at the edge of the disk, then

    a = v**2/r
    v = sqrt(a*r).
    So, the maximum velocity that can be achieved underneath the read head still decreases as we make the media smaller, as you correctly observed. By this reasoning, it looks like a SFFO would have half the maximum media velocity of DVD:
    v = sqrt(a*r).
    v_DVD = sqrt(a*r_DVD) = sqrt(a*12cm)
    v_SFFO = sqrt(a*r_SFFO) = sqrt(a*3cm)
    v_SFFO / v_DVD = sqrt(a*r_SFFO)/sqrt(a*r_DVD)
    v_SFFO / v_DVD = sqrt(a*3cm)/sqrt(a*12cm)
    v_SFFO / v_DVD = 0.5

    However, with SFFO, the bit density has been increased. These discs are about 1/16th the area of a DVD (1/4th the diameter: 12cm vs. 3cm), and 1/5th the capcity (4.7GB vs. 1GB), so they have about triple the areal density (bits per unit area), at least if we assume that the unusable areas in the center and outer margins will be proportional to disc area.

    If the density increase has come equally from shrinking the distance between bits on the track and shrinking the distance between tracks (i.e., the aspect ratio of the bits remains the same), then the change in linear density of bits along a single track will be proportional to the square root of the change in areal density. In other words, the bits are probably closer together by 1/sqrt(3). So, labelling the density of adjacent bits within one track as "linear_density", we get:
    bandwidth = v * linear_density
    linear_density_SFFO / linear_density_DVD = sqrt(3)
    bandwidth_SFFO / bandwidth_DVD = (v_SFFO * linear_density_SFFO) / (v_DVD * linear_density_DVD)
    bandwidth_SFFO / bandwidth_DVD = (v_SFFO / v_DVD) * (linear_density_SFFO / linear_density_DVD)
    bandwidth_SFFO / bandwidth_DVD = 0.5 * sqrt(3)
    bandwidth_SFFO / bandwidth_DVD = 0.86

    Other factors that may also determine how fast the disc can be spun are when the disc media starts to ripple and buckle, which I believe is helped by media thickness and hindered by media diameter (SFFO is smaller but thinner), and frictional and aerodynamic forces, which are portional to v or v**2 respectively, which would favor spinner small media faster.

  63. Ahh crapp... by nomel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Got some nano-dust on my cd...gotta clean it...

  64. Re:MP3-solutions? Already been done, by Hodr · · Score: 1

    I think the minaturization of portable music has already been played out to its ultimate conclusion. Does anyone remember these? (In case my link didn't work correctly, and I suspect it wont... http://www.8trackheaven.com/pocketrock.html )

  65. Pi correction by yerricde · · Score: 1

    If you half the radius, the circumference is reduced by a factor 2*pi

    I don't think so. If you halve the radius, you halve the circumference, and you reduce the area to one-fourth.

    2*Pi*r = p
    2*Pi*(1/2*r) = 1/2*p

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  66. Re:Who would fly on it? by Eccles · · Score: 2

    But CD-ROM isn't a random-access read-write medium.

    And this matters because...? Just grab another cheap blank when you need to copy more files.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  67. +5? My, how the moderators love their crack... by adolf · · Score: 2

    Without doing any serious math...

    This new 3cm disc can indeed have very high data transfer rates, but it will not rely on absurd spindle speed in order to happen. This is going to be a very low-velocity medium.

    While it certainly is physically possible to spin a smaller disc faster than a larger one of similar composition without it turning into shrapnel, there is absolutely no need to do so given the areal densities involved.

    I'll use a CD-ROM for comparison, because we're all familiar with them. And I'm going to make quick work of the math, because it's late. And I'm going to use inches, because it's a unit that I'm comfortable with, aside from giving me a good opportunity to upset the more worldly readers of this text. I'm also going to make horribe blind assumptions and assertions, pull numbers out of my ass, and do all kinds of other underhanded things. I haven't even read the fucking article, and I'll probably be modded down for my effort (Note to Mods: if you think I'm wrong, either reply yourself and show me why, or piss off). Here goes:

    Let's assume that our 5" CD has a hole in the midde 2" across that can't store information, for a total recordable area of 16.5 square inches. If this disc holds 700MB of usable data, it has an areal density of 42MB per square inch. And as long as I'm not showing my work, I figure this is good for a transfer rate of 19.5 megabytes per second at 28,000 RPM.

    Let's assume that the 1.18" disc has similarly-proportioned hole in the center, so that it also has 16% of its area consumed by mounting surfaces. This leaves us with 0.904 square inches of usable area, or 3.6GB per square inch.

    Which is to say that data transfer should happen about 85 times faster than a CD, on average, at a given angular velocity. This is also to say that it can produce data rates equal to those which causes CDs to disintegrate, at only 326 RPM.

    Multiply that by 10, and you get a nice, sane, 3260RPM device which will be kind on battery life and offer a transfer rate somewhere in the impossible realm of 16GB/second.

    And at a CD-shattering-but-probably-safe 28,000 RPM? 1.3 terabytes per second.

    How many Libaries of Congress is that per minute?

    I don't even want to bother with trying to figure out at what speed such a small disc would itself disintegrate at, given these numbers.

    Thus, I submit that the format, in the unlikely event that it ever sees the light of day, will operate at extremely low spindle speeds, have fairly high latency, and excellent sustained transfer rates.

  68. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    I do not seek the ignorant; the ignorant seek me -- I will instruct them.
    I ask nothing but sincerity. If they come out of habit, they become tiresome.
    -- I Ching

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...