It was *NOT* Bill Gates that decreed that nobody will want to exceed the 640K limit. It was IBM in its infinite wisdom that did so !! If I am not mistaken, IBM wanted to top end memory to run their emulation/connection software so that the IBM PCs (remember them ??) could be used as terminals for their heavy iron (PC3270 ??).
It was (pre-IBM)Lotus-Intel that first attempted to break that limit !! Now everyone has Gbs of ram and no one thinks twice about it !!
And to think that it was Shugart Associates who first made the hard disks available for small(??) computers and, in the process, invented the Shugart Associates System Interface (SASI) which later evolved into Small Computer System Interface (SCSI), innovation in this field has certainly gone East !!
Now, it seems that the financial industry will follow suit soon !!
Decline and fall of the American Empire !! Or should that be "The Empire strikes out" (to use a baseball term) !!
Sorry, but I disagree. It's classic FUD. Fear (oh noes, bigger hard disks is impozzible, where is my pr0n to goes?), Uncertainty (we may get a bit more out of the current tech, but we can't get 50% or 100% per year) and Doubt (there may possibly be some new tech to solve this, but it's unproven).
All, presumably, based on PR stuff from the HDD boys designed to puff their R&D arms and shown to be doom-mongering (for this coming year at least) by this latest announcement.
WD My Passport Essential 500GB Portable Hard Drive - Black (USB 2.0)
WD Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive (Serial ATA-300, 7,200 RPM, 32MB)
WD My Book Essential Edition External 1TB Hard Drive (USB 2.0, 16MB)
Intel X25-M Gen2 160GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (SATA)
WD My Passport Essential Portable 320GB Hard Drive - Black (USB 2.0)
TDK tunnels through hard drive areal density record
TeeCee
FUD=FAIL #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 09:56 GMT
Yesterday afternoon:
".....best areal density practice in production HDDs is 378-394Gbit/sq in......."
".....cannot continue delivering 50 to 100 per cent or more annual increases....."
This morning:
"....have achieved an areal density record of 803Gbit/sq in ......"
I wonder what tomorrow will bring?
Anonymous Coward
This sparked some interest #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 10:46 GMT
but only because I mistook areal for areola, now data written to boobs would be interesting.
Paris cos she has small, compact storage.
Destroy All Monsters
It's not FUD, TeeCee #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 11:00 GMT
FUD has an ulterior motive:
"Microsoft hints that it might possibly own patents which are core to some very popular Open Source Packages and that anyway Linux is unsecure"
Honest errors can happen:
"Bill Gates cannot imagine why anyone would want more than 640K. Evar."
Ishkandar
@Destroy All Monsters #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 13:50 GMT
It was *NOT* Bill Gates that decreed that nobody will want to exceed the 640K limit. It was IBM in its infinite wisdom that did so !! If I am not mistaken, IBM wanted to top end memory to run their emulation/connection software so that the IBM PCs (remember them ??) could be used as terminals for their heavy iron (PC3270 ??).
It was (pre-IBM)Lotus-Intel that first attempted to break that limit !! Now everyone has Gbs of ram and no one thinks twice about it !!
And to think that it was Shugart Associates who first made the hard disks available for small(??) computers and, in the process, invented the Shugart Associates System Interface (SASI) which later evolved into Small Computer System Interface (SCSI), innovation in this field has certainly gone East !!
Now, it seems that the financial industry will follow suit soon !!
Decline and fall of the American Empire !! Or should that be "The Empire strikes out" (to use a baseball term) !!
TeeCee
@DAM #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 13:50 GMT
Sorry, but I disagree. It's classic FUD. Fear (oh noes, bigger hard disks is impozzible, where is my pr0n to goes?), Uncertainty (we may get a bit more out of the current tech, but we can't get 50% or 100% per year) and Doubt (there may possibly be some new tech to solve this, but it's unproven).
All, presumably, based on PR stuff from the HDD boys designed to puff their R&D arms and shown to be doom-mongering (for this coming year at least) by this latest announcement.
Steven Knox
@TeeCee #
Posted Wednesday 1st October 2008 18:40 GMT
1. research != production
2. The earlier article mentioned the same perceived upper limit for TMR as in this article (1Tbit/in^2). TDK's development is well under this limit.
3. "cannot continue" != "will stop immediately"
4. Identifying a potential problem != FUD