It has to do with the specs for CDs and DVDs. The original audio CD standard required that about 150 KB be read from the disk each second. As drives became faster, they described their throughput as multiples of this base measure. With a DVD, which is primarily used for movies, the minimum throughput is much higher as video/audio information requires much more bandwidth than just audio. So the multiplier for DVDs represent a much larger chunk of data than that of a CD.
Some of the first PowerPC Performas and Powermacs (circa 95) had issues with the firmware and ROMs forcing apple to replace boards in *alot* of machines. It was no doubt a tremendous pain in the rear, and proably cost them alot of cash and PR standing.
Did anyone else notice that the number of storage layers is incorrectly listed in the Infoworld article on this storage system? If it did in fact have 2,000 layers(and since they're dealing with a cube, we'll assume the same number of rows and columns), you would only have (8*10^9) bits, or a.008 Tb capacity. Further analysis shows that with a 500 nanometer footprint, one could place *20,000* (((10^12(nm/m))/500nm)/100cm) rows, columns and layers of dots, giving us the listed (8*10^4)bits or 7.2759... actual Tb(1024^4 bits). Remarkable the difference a 0 can make. Even more remarkable have far I've gone to point out a missing zero...
Of course they could increase the size of the cube they're working with by 3.213% in each direction and have just over one *actual* (1024^4 Bytes) TB.
Slashdot Mirror
It has to do with the specs for CDs and DVDs. The original audio CD standard required that about 150 KB be read from the disk each second. As drives became faster, they described their throughput as multiples of this base measure. With a DVD, which is primarily used for movies, the minimum throughput is much higher as video/audio information requires much more bandwidth than just audio. So the multiplier for DVDs represent a much larger chunk of data than that of a CD.
Some of the first PowerPC Performas and Powermacs (circa 95) had issues with the firmware and ROMs forcing apple to replace boards in *alot* of machines. It was no doubt a tremendous pain in the rear, and proably cost them alot of cash and PR standing.
Did anyone else notice that the number of storage layers is incorrectly listed in the Infoworld article on this storage system? If it did in fact have 2,000 layers(and since they're dealing with a cube, we'll assume the same number of rows and columns), you would only have (8*10^9) bits, or a .008 Tb capacity. Further analysis shows that with a 500 nanometer footprint, one could place *20,000* (((10^12(nm/m))/500nm)/100cm) rows, columns and layers of dots, giving us the listed (8*10^4)bits or 7.2759... actual Tb(1024^4 bits). Remarkable the difference a 0 can make. Even more remarkable have far I've gone to point out a missing zero...
Of course they could increase the size of the cube they're working with by 3.213% in each direction and have just over one *actual* (1024^4 Bytes) TB.