Comments

blink3times wrote on 10/5/2007, 7:34 AM
Yes, I know.... and it's starting to get pretty silly. Both formats have now demonstrated that they can put layer on top of layer.

Instead of concentrating on how they can outdo each other, they should be thinking on how to get at least ONE of these formats dummy-proofed enough, and cost effective enough so that average Joe can buy and operate them.
Kennymusicman wrote on 10/5/2007, 9:33 AM
It's also annoying in that many of such advances don't make it to the 'residential' /prosumer market. For example, DVD can handle 4 layers per side, for 8 layers total at about 29.7GB (don't ask me to find out where this info is - it's been a long time). How much do we actually get to play with? Duallayer....

Wonder what will happen with these newer platforms.. And what about holographic storage. With super-fast transfer rates.

Oh well

Ken
Quryous wrote on 10/5/2007, 7:26 PM
RND is slow and expensive. But, I wonder if it is as slow as the full adoption of either Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or something else.

I haven't even bothered to take a look at any of the early products, yet, and probably won't until the race is won or it makes no difference (multi-read/write). Sigh!
john-beale wrote on 10/5/2007, 7:33 PM
>How much do we actually get to play with? Dual layer....

And even that media is unrealistically expensive and still not as widely compatible as single layer. When my projects won't fit on a single DVD-R, I just use two discs.