Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

30 Blu-ray Discs In a 1.5TB MiniDisc-Like Cassette

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the answering-a-question-nobody-asked dept.

Data Storage 247

MrSeb writes "Hot on the heels of the most successful storage mediums of all time — MiniDisc and Zip disks — Sony has announced the Optical Disc Archive, a system that seems to cram up to 30 Blu-ray discs into a single, one-inch-thick plastic cassette, which will have a capacity of between 300GB and 1.5TB. As far as I can tell, the main selling point of the Optical Disc Archive is, just like MiniDisc, the ruggedness of the cassettes. Optical discs themselves are fairly resistant to changes in temperature and humidity, and the cassettes are dust and water resistant. What is the use case for these 1.5TB MiniDiscs, though? In terms of pure storage capacity, tape drives are still far superior (you can store up to 5TB on a tape!) In terms of speed and flexibility, hard drives are better. If you're looking for ruggedness, flash-based storage is smaller, lighter, and can easily survive a dip in the ocean. The Optical Disc Archive might be good as extensible storage for TV PVRs, like TiVo and Sky+ — but as yet, we don't even know the cost of the system or the cassettes, and I doubt either will be cheap."

cancel ×

247 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sony? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703195)

Does it have the XCP trojan installed by default? Will they sell you 5 tb and take four of them back with the first "upgrade"?

No, thanks. I'd rather use floppies than buy ANYTHING from Sony. I wish everyone else would stop shoveling money at these evil people as well. I doubt there's a less trustworthy entity on the planet.

Re:Sony? (5, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703247)

Ahem....you do know the 3.5" floppy standard design was referenced from the Sony design right?

Re:Sony? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703323)

Don't get in his way, he's on a "ranting roll," and once the sony-bashing boulder has started going, there's no stopping it.

Re:Sony? (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703429)

once the sony-bashing boulder has started going, there's no stopping it

True enough, but Sony built the hill.

Re:Sony? (5, Funny)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703543)

and possibly the boulder

Re:Sony? (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703745)

But look on the plus side. You can buy your movie collection again.

Re:Sony? (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703819)

and i just got rid of my 8 track...

Re:Sony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703377)

Ahem....you do know the 3.5" floppy standard design was referenced from the Sony design right?

Ahem....you do know that there were other popular sizes of floppy disks not designed by Sony, right?

Re:Sony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703405)

Haha, completely owned by a +5 informative on the top comment. Today's Slashdot loser is mcgrew. Please report back to the thread and admit your shortcomings. Kthxbye.

Re:Sony? (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703445)

You do realize that the 3.5 inch floppy came AFTER the 5 inch floppy, which came after the eight inch floppy, right? And that I didn't say a 3.5 inch floppy?

The earliest floppy disks, developed in the late 1960s, were 8 inches (200 mm) in diameter;[1] they became commercially available in 1971.[2] These disks and associated drives were produced and improved upon by IBM and other companies such as Memorex, Shugart Associates, and Burroughs Corporation.[3] The term "floppy disk" appeared in print as early as 1970,[4] and although in 1973 IBM announced its first media as "Type 1 Diskette" the industry continued to use the terms "floppy disk" or "floppy".

In 1976, Shugart Associates introduced the first 5 1â4-inch FDD. By 1978 there were more than 10 manufacturers producing such FDDs. There were competing floppy disk formats, with hard and soft sector versions and encoding schemes such as FM, MFM and GCR. The 5 1/4 inch format displaced the 8-inch one for most applications, and the hard sectored disk format disappeared. In 1984, IBM introduced the 1.2 MB dual sided floppy disk along with its AT model. IBM started using the 720 kB double density 3.5" microfloppy disk on its Convertible laptop computer and the 1.44 MB high density version with the PS/2 line in 1986. These disk drives could be added to older PC models. In 1988 IBM introduced a drive for 2.88 MB "DSED" diskettes in its top-of-the-line PS/2 models but this was a commercial failure.

A variant on the Sony design, introduced in 1982 by a large number of manufacturers, was then rapidly adopted; by 1988 the 3 1â2-inch was outselling the 5 1â4-inch.[6]

Maybe I should say something about my lawn here... BTW, mods, you moderate an almost incorrect statement as "informative"?

Re:Sony? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703505)

His post was correct. It may not be a relevant response to your post, but the 3.5" floppies were based on a Sony design, so his response was perfectly 100% correct and informative.

OTOH, that was 30 years ago, so "Offtopic" might be a better moderation.

WINNER (1)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703519)

You sir are todays winner of "Anal Retentive Nerd of the Day" ...the scary part is that I remember all of those incarnations of the floppy.

Re:Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703717)

Maybe I should say something about my lawn here

Oh yeas, I remember 8-inch floppies or better a 8-inch floppy. It stored the program I had to run for changing the date at midnight ... in the late nineties. Military IT is sometimes slow with upgrading.

Re:Sony? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703261)

I wish everyone else would stop shoveling money at these evil people

They are, and in increasing numbers
Sony posts its worst loss ever
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-10/japan-sony-earnings/54144022/1 [usatoday.com]

says it all really, treat your customers with contempt and they will make sure you cease to exist, one way or another

Re:Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703663)

says it all really, treat your customers with contempt and they will make sure you cease to exist, one way or another

If that was the case, Microsoft and most other large companies would be out of business by now.

Re:Sony? (-1, Redundant)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703297)

No, thanks. I'd rather use floppies than buy ANYTHING from Sony.

3.5" floppies are based on a design by Sony.

Re:Sony? (1, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703337)

Does it have the XCP trojan installed by default? Will they sell you 5 tb and take four of them back with the first "upgrade"?

My guess is it'll be released after 1.5 TB SSDs are widely available, yet somehow cost more. And I'll have to warn my family away from buying it, because they had a good experience with a Sony reel to reel tape player 40 years ago, therefore this must be pretty good too.

I doubt there's a less trustworthy entity on the planet.

Anyone in the .gov, anyone in mass media, anyone in marketing, anyone in finance, GM ... Least trustworthy computer hardware mfgr on the planet, yeah, I think they fairly easily meet that..

Re:Sony? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703453)

Just the BDR media by itself without any sort of fancy caddy is going to be more expensive than any other option available.

Re:Sony? (2, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703353)

Anyone buying a Sony product these days should have their head examined. I'm not going to bother listing the numerous ways they've fucked over their customers over the last decade (at least), but it's enough for me to greet every new product of theirs with a great, big middle finger.

Then again, it seems there's always someone ready to throw money at Sony for their newest piece of fucking shit that doesn't do what it's goddamned supposed to [youtube.com] .

Re:Sony? (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703651)

Anyone buying a Sony product these days should have their head examined. I'm not going to bother listing the numerous ways they've fucked over their customers over the last decade (at least), but it's enough for me to greet every new product of theirs with a great, big middle finger.

I am willing to give them a new chance now that they're rid of Howard Stringer and are restructuring.

Sony used to stand for quality and functionality, and it can go there again even if it's far from it right now.

Re:Sony? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703679)

I have to assume the summary was being sarcastic: "...the most successful storage mediums of all time â" MiniDisc and Zip disks." Minidisc is a bit like the Betamax of our generation, and Zip was prone to data loss.

1.5 TB divided by 30 discs == 50 gig each. Why? Another company has already developed a Bluray disc that can hold 1 terabyte all by itself (100 GB per layer times 10 layers). Strange that Sony would rather sell 30 discs in a cartridge instead of just 1. Not very efficient.

Re:Sony? (4, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703809)

Strange that Sony would rather sell 30 discs in a cartridge instead of just 1. Not very efficient.

Not strange at all, just Sony doing what Sony does...they just love their proprietary formats. Why sell a disc when you can create a cartridge of discs that only Sony produces hardware capable of reading? Might as well call it Memory Stick 2: Electric Boogaloo...

Re:Sony? (1)

Stormtrooper42 (1850242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703771)

I'm not going to bother listing the numerous ways they've fucked over their customers over the last decade (at least)

Actually, if anyone has a link listing those, I'd be interested.
Putting rootkits on CDs isn't a sufficient reason to boycott, for some people I know. (They don't buy music)

Re:Sony? (5, Interesting)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703803)

Sure, Sony has done plenty to legitimately earn the scorn of its customers. Still, I myself am one of those who would readily spend money for the right Sony product. I've bought exactly four pieces of hardware from Sony. The PS1, PS2, PS3, and PSP. I don't regret any of those purchases, and I fully expect to buy the PS4 when it comes out. I'll probably get the PS Vita eventually as well.

There are two reasons I won't shy away from those purchases. First, I can hardly imagine a feasible scenario where I would withhold money from a company as punishment for a past action. Perhaps in protest an ongoing action such as "I won't buy anything from this company until they stop donating money to terrorist organization X every month." Other than that, I'll take how trustworthy I consider a company into consideration, but ultimately choose the option that provides me the greatest benefit.

There are games exclusive to Sony's system that more than justify buying those gaming consoles in my eyes. It doesn't hurt that I don't believe I've ever actually been harmed by any of Sony's actions, which makes it easier to take a logical rather than emotional approach.

The second reason I'll buy from them is that, whatever laws are in place, I don't consider a corporation a person. Kaz Hirai became the new President and CEO of Sony two weeks ago. What kind of turnover have other executives had? Who was actually responsible for the decisions you loathe, and how many of them even still work for Sony?

Re:Sony? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703961)

It seems like you are taking an emotional approach. The logical approach would be to look at the harm they've done to anyone, not just you. Sony has been a toxic company for a long time, and I won't continue to do business with them just because their terrible behavior hasn't personally impacted me.

Re:Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704003)

Sony had rootkits installed on DoD systems. They are a terrorist organization.

Re:Sony? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703379)

Do you have any idea how many things nowadays you use which were created by Sony, contributed to by Sony, or derived from Sony tech? No?

Seriously, this shit is getting old. Judge technology by its merits, not by what one single tiny division of a megacorporation may have done to irritate you.

Re:Sony? (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703699)

Buying computer hardware from a company that has deliberately installed malware on their paying customers' computers is brain-dead stupid.

Re:Sony? (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703931)

VCR? Nope. It's JVC technology.
Laserdisc player? Nope. Philips.
Cassette player? Nope. Philips again.
DVR? Nope.
CD? Yep.
DVD? Nope.

Re:Sony? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703425)

Does it have the XCP trojan installed by default? Will they sell you 5 tb and take four of them back with the first "upgrade"?

No, thanks. I'd rather use floppies than buy ANYTHING from Sony. I wish everyone else would stop shoveling money at these evil people as well. I doubt there's a less trustworthy entity on the planet.

How about Facebook?

Re:Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703697)

I doubt there's a less trustworthy entity on the planet.

How about Facebook?

I think Fecebook has a long way to go before approaching the, ehm, "qualities" of News Coproration.

So uh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703211)

They'll sell us a new disc to hold everything.. And then sue us for filling it up?

Either way. I'm not buying anything from sony ever again. Screw me five times.. Shame on me.

Zip discs (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703213)

Zip discs one of the most successful storage mediums of all time? Is that a joke?

Re:Zip discs (5, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703229)

Zip discs one of the most successful storage mediums of all time? Is that a joke?

Yes. And you didn't get it.

Re:Zip discs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703515)

Also the "hot on the heels" part, since those storage techs are over a decade old.

But we are 2 weeks past April Fool's, so I don't know why SlashDot posted this?

Re:Zip discs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703309)

They were very successful... at the consumer end. Lots of people had them in the home. Public schools and large universities would outfit every machine in every lab with them. It got to a point where, for a little while, they seemed nearly as ubiquitous as the 3.5" floppy.

Then cost effective CD-R came 'round, where you didn't need the $200 SCSI board and a $3-400 drive, and killed the zip drives right off.

As far as this media goes, if it's more reliable and wieldy than HDD, with capacities more like tape, but faster, less prone to failure, etc... then there might be a niche for em.

Re:Zip discs (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703399)

Zip drives were NEVER as ubiquitous as a floppy. A few people might have had them here or there but they were hardly commonplace. They gained some traction but still suffered from being an expensive single vendor solution.

Re:Zip discs (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703423)

They gained some traction but still suffered from being an expensive single vendor solution.

That, and the famous click of death. Also the parallel port model was remarkably slow.

Re:Zip discs (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703511)

Ah, the click of death... especially impressive when a bad Zip disk could misalign the drive heads badly enough to screw up any other disks inserted. Probably the first widespread example of a computer *hardware* virus...

Re:Zip discs (3, Informative)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703621)

Every business that needed to store anything over 5MB had a Zip drive. and that's every business I consulted for in the late 90s.

So maybe not every desktop but every office or 1 out of 5 computers had them.

Re:Zip discs (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703797)

Storing something over 5MB? Just use the internal hard drive.

Re:Zip discs (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703827)

Every business that needed to store anything over 5MB had a Zip drive. and that's every business I consulted for in the late 90s.

So maybe not every desktop but every office or 1 out of 5 computers had them.

Your experience differs from mine. DAT tape drives were cheaper and more reliable (a bad tape would rarely ruin the drive), and I saw a lot more of those than Bernouilli, Zip and Jaz drives.

And in the late 90s, CD-R had arrived, obsoleting Zip drives nearly overnight.

Re:Zip discs (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703775)

Yeah, I never saw a Zip disk for less than about $10. They had reliability issues too. Remember the "click of death"? CD-Rs absolutely killed them with greater reliability, 7 times the capacity and 1/10th the price per disk, and an even larger installed base of CD readers.

Iomega also had one of the worst web sites I'd ever seen. Their home page made you download several megabytes of highly annoying flashing animated images. Would take too long today, but they did that a time when most Internet users were on dialup. That they were too cheap to take their website seriously didn't inspire confidence in their engineering.

Best storage device is still the hard drive. Best OS installation device is now a network card or a flash drive. Only reason I still use CDs, DVDs or even floppies is for legacy hardware that can't boot any other way. Some kind of solid state device will displace hard drives eventually. I thought memristors might be it, but haven't heard anything about them lately.

Re:Zip discs (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703349)

Yea that is what I tough. Zip Disks? At best it was a fad technology. Between Floppy Disks and Cheap Writable CD's
If you had a Zip Disk, you were basically assuming that you will only be using it with your computer, and not as a mean to ship data to anyone else. As most people didn't have Zip Disks. Unless their PC was bough between 1996-1998, and that is if they decided to pay for the extra feature.

Re:Zip discs (1)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703561)

Any company that worked in any way with graphics in that period had Zip disks.

Re:Zip discs (1)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703637)

you sure about that? if you cared about your files back then you'd use magneto-optical drives, which were quite reliable.

Re:Zip discs (1)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703773)

zip drives killed the Syquest drives pretty quickly if I remember correctly. Was in printing at the time and you basically had to have both but a Syquest and a zip drive but zip won out pretty quick.

Re:Zip discs (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703585)

Wait, you are putting Zip disks above CD-Rs in popularity? Or above floppy disks? Either of those formats, in their time, was ubiquitous. Zips come in a distant 3rd there.

And amazingly I have some floppies that have lasted over 10 years and are still readable. During my brief adventure into Zip disks they often wouldn't last 10 days before becoming thoroughly corrupted...

Re:Zip discs (2)

davros74 (194914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703833)

At the time (mid-to-late 90s), the computer labs at college were full of ZIP drives. For a brief time, they became the best way to transfer word docs and homework from dorm computer to lab computer and back. But very short lived (2 years maybe?)

Being a /. member, I was early adopter, so naturally I already had a SCSI controller to support those new CDROM thingies that showed up in the early 90s, so it was naturally to get the SCSI/parallel port version of the ZIP drive. On my computer, SCSI speeds (40MB/sec), but parallel port compatibility with everyone else (external drive naturally). Using a DB25 connector. One problem. Iomega decided to not use a DIP switch to control the modes, but instead auto-detect the SCSI bus or parallel port. Except they screwed up the termination on the SCSI bus. So the only *approved* method of using the external device was as the SINGLE and ONLY device on the SCSI host bus adapter. Seriously? My SCSI bus was notorious for parity errors and data corruption issues with the Iomega ZIP drive. I ultimately decided my data integrity was more important (several SCSI HDDs and a CDROM burner and tape drive), and the ZIP was then dead to me.

So it wasn't just the click of death that killed it. The Parallel/SCSI combo version had potential, but that too was foobar'd.

Re:Zip discs (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703449)

Dude, you fell into the sar-chasm.

Re:Zip discs (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703483)

Since it was made with humorous intent, I believe one may well call it "a joke".

Really the primary intent was irony.

What's the use case? (2)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703221)

From TFA:

"I can see the Optical Disc Archive filling two niches: quickly transporting large amounts of video across rough terrain; and providing extensible backup for multimedia devices, such as video cameras and TV PVRs, like TiVo and Sky+. Hard drives fill up pretty quickly, and high-density cassettes make a lot more sense than burning single DVD/Blu-ray discs. Unless Sony can get other companies to make and sell ODA drives, though, it will probably just go the way of the MiniDisc."

Re:What's the use case? (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703259)

"transporting large amounts of video across rough terrain"

they're going to have to rename "sneakernet" to "18-wheeler equivalent net"

Re:What's the use case? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703319)

Maybe bootnet or 4x4net?

Re:What's the use case? (4, Insightful)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703269)

From TFA:

"Unless Sony can get other companies to make and sell ODA drives, though, it will probably just go the way of the MiniDisc."

Hugely popular in Asia?

Re:What's the use case? (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703461)

From TFA:

"Unless Sony can get other companies to make and sell ODA drives, though, it will probably just go the way of the MiniDisc."

Hugely popular in Asia?

This is true. Got rid of my father's minidisc hardware and discs, all to .jp and local asian sounding names. Crazy popular little things over there, locally no one wants them.

Somehow, I was never quite certain how, their encoding and/or internal design was so much more energy efficient than early mp3 players, that you'd get like 4 times the playtime, despite the storage technology being a rotating disk.

Re:What's the use case? (1)

pacc (163090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703345)

News story Sony announces NEX-FS700 '4k-ready' E-mount camcorder

http://m.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/02/Sony-4k-ready-NEX-FS700-FS700E-camcorder [dpreview.com]

Sony is planning a future firmware upgrade that will enable the NEX-FS700 to output 4K bit-stream data over 3G HD-SDI when used with an optional Sony 4K recorder.

Re:What's the use case? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703407)

Hard drives fill up pretty quickly, and high-density cassettes make a lot more sense than burning single DVD/Blu-ray discs.

Of course, with Blu-Ray prices at about $3-4 apiece for 25 gigabytes, they're about four times as expensive per gigabyte as hard drives, making this false economy by any standards even without factoring in the cost of the cassette.

Replacement for UDO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703587)

This looks like it could be a viable alternative for UDO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Density_Optical. Many organizations that are using UDO are looking for a replacement since the format is essentially dead and their respective Risk/Compliance departments may not like the idea of using a NAS as a replacement. UDO was used extensively by credit unions and other financial institutions for document archival, e.g. loan documents, transactions, with applications like EMC's Application Xtender and Disk Xtender.

The most successful storage mediums of all time? (-1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703253)

MiniDisc and Zip disks were the most successful storage mediums of all time? By what criteria

I know it's not popularity because Zip disks were popular for about four years. I've never used a MiniDisc. Compared to CD or floppy disks both are losers.

It can't be by durability because Zip disk is on the list.

Re:The most successful storage mediums of all time (5, Funny)

HFShadow (530449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703289)

Hear that woosh? That was the sarcasm going right over your head.

Re:The most successful storage mediums of all time (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703307)

You didn't get the joke, it seems. Awkwaaaard.

Re:The most successful storage mediums of all time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703627)

Honestly, that one was puzzling me, too. Maybe I would've had an easier job getting the joke if both named technologies were Sony's work. Instead of one Sony and one Iomega for some reason. I mean, the MiniDisc part was obvious, as it's another in the line of failing Sony storage formats, but where'd the Zip Disk comparison come from? Seriously, they couldn't have gone with "MiniDisc and UMD"? Do any of the editors have even the slightest concept of the flow of a joke?

"Ha ha, remember that one Sony technology and that one Iomega technology? Well, um, Sony's making another thing! They're... no, it's not in conjunction with Iomega, they're making this... no, Iomega doesn't have anything to do with this at all, they... look, no, all I'm saying is Iomega made this one format that didn't take over the world, so it's funny! And Sony's making this... LOOK GODDAMNIT I MENTIONED IOMEGA'S STORAGE MEDIA OF FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, THAT'S THE JOKE. Except with Sony. And Sony made this other thing, and they're making this new thing that... wait, where are you going?"

Re:The most successful storage mediums of all time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703497)

That's ze joke.

But really, I was quite saddened Zips never took off.
Floppies were at an end, and the mess we have from then till now with transplanting hard drives is just as bad.
I can't wait for the SSD age. No more "OH GOD I TOUCHED THE CIRCUIT I RUINED EVERYTHING LIFE OVER" kinds of worrying, or "OOPS I banged it too hard, life over", and various others of the family.

I still cherish my Zip drive. Transferal storage discs that were circuitless was a dream idea. It could easily reach the sizes of hard drives now if more work was put behind it.
And alignment isn't a problem. That is a problem with hard drive designs, not the universe.

Re:The most successful storage mediums of all time (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703885)

They really screwed up with the minidisk; the nice thing about them was that they would fit in a shirt pocket, and they held (iirc) 250 mb, which is 250 floppies worth of data in the same sized medium as a floppy. You could easily fit a couple of CDs worth of music if compressed to MP3 or Ogg on one. Their problem was they wouldn't work in a slot-based CD player, like in a car where they would have been incredibly handy (car MP3 players hadn't taken off yet).

Of course, I stopped using them after Somy rooted my computer when my daughter played a music CD in it. I'm not stupid enough to buy computer gear from a company that would deliberately install malware on their paying customers' machines.

The cost of the system (1, Flamebait)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703257)

> we don't even know the cost of the system or the cassettes, and I doubt either will be cheap.

This is Sony, right? The cost will be a sudden change in your ability to use it, or a compromise of your freedom to privacy and/or supporting them in their quest monopolize the market through proprietary standards.

Even if it's good technology, I think I'll find some other way to get my storage done.

Re:The cost of the system (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703293)

*Sorry, that should be 'rights to privacy.'

Re:The cost of the system (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703373)

Different Division.

Just because it is Sony it doesn't mean they are not going to make products that have competing interests across the department.

What's wrong with an SATA drive and dock? (1)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703327)

I'm sure a single 2TB SATA hard drive is cheaper than the cassette and I know a cheap eSATA dock will be cheaper than ODA system. If you're worried about water, put the drive in a ziploc bag before transporting.

Re:What's wrong with an SATA drive and dock? (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703557)

Not enterprise grade, hell not even SMB grade....

Re:What's wrong with an SATA drive and dock? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703667)

Isn't enterprise grade the same as not-much-better-but-really-fucking-expensive grade?

Re:What's wrong with an SATA drive and dock? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703789)

For SMB grade, you have to burn everything onto mask ROMS. And then blow on them.

Re:What's wrong with an SATA drive and dock? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703843)

Real enterprises with challenges such as these are not nearly as fussy as you seem to be.

Never mind "SMB grade".

Lost me (4, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703347)

You lost me at "Sony".

Yawn. Sony wants another media format. (3, Interesting)

slaker (53818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703365)

I think this is just Sony trying once again to replicate its success with the Compact Disc format. It has a long history of making new formats, just to see if they'll catch on. I'm sure it's quite lucrative if one does, but the other aspect of that is the proliferation of bizarre Sony formats that aren't even supported by Sony after some production period. How many versions of the Memory Stick did Sony wind up making? Six? Seven?

Anyway, this is just more of that and I'm sure it will fail and be forgotten soon enough.

Re:Yawn. Sony wants another media format. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703479)

Yeah damn them and their trinatrons, 3.5 floppy drives, and blurays!

CD was more Philips than Sony though...

Bluray was the better format from that war. I am sure there will be another one here...

Re:Yawn. Sony wants another media format. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703735)

Bluray was the better format from that war. I am sure there will be another one here...

Sony backed 'ODA' vs. Microsoft backed 'Data cubes'
Star Wars fanboys will notice that the Microsoft offerring uses layerred holographic data storage techniques, and relentlessly bother George Lucas and Microsoft to unite and rename the storage devices 'Holocrons.' In retaliation, Star Trek fanboys will back Sony.

Re:Yawn. Sony wants another media format. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703805)

Well the Compact Disc was successful because Philips co-developed it with them. When Sony and others introduced copy-protection on CDs, Philips reminded them that CDs with copy protection violated the Red Book specification and could not bear the Compact Disc logo.

Dear Slashdot Editors (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703393)

Dear Slashdot Editors,

Please edit summaries before they hit the front page. For example, here is TFS with all the bullshit removed. I left the joke in for you, even though Sony didn't create Zip disks... Perhaps the poster meant Memory Stick, Betamax, Magic Gate or one of the other custom Sony formats.

"Hot on the heels of the most successful storage mediums of all time â" MiniDisc and Zip disks â" Sony has announced the Optical Disc Archive, a system that seems to cram up to 30 Blu-ray discs into a single, one-inch-thick plastic cassette, which will have a capacity of between 300GB and 1.5TB. The main selling point of the Optical Disc Archive is, just like MiniDisc, the ruggedness of the cassettes. Optical discs themselves are fairly resistant to changes in temperature and humidity, and the cassettes are dust and water resistant. The article is light on potential uses."

Please tell me video games now come as cartridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703443)

Please tell me video games are going to come back as cartridges!

Nothing from sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703477)

Sony: You can keep your crap.

Valid Use (2)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703525)

IF following = True, then good tech;

Size = smaller than a 3.5" HDD
Cost = less than that of a 3.5" HDD of equal capacity.
Longevity = MTBF, maximum writes.
Durability = Already assumed by format.

Seriously, when people get done bashing Sony, they may want to at least consider the tech being discussed. And those saying Zip disks were "NEVER" as popular as they have been made out to be, must not have been in IT for very long at all. IO-Mega has sinced replaced ZIP with the REV drive, but it is similar tech, to be sure.

Assuming the above criteria is met, I may consider buying for my own backup needs. At least with someone like that I should be able to keep the media in a bank vault, or other secure location.

Re:Valid Use (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703539)

At least with *something*..... need to do 2 checks before i hit submit, obviously.

good for backups (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703529)

Years ago I got a good deal on a high capacity optical drive for my laptop. It was a time of hard disks in the range of 1GB, so the optical drive not only greatly enhanced my storage space buy also provided a very effective back up solutions. CDs and DVD have never been a good backup solution for me, and hard disks are good for incremental frequent backups, but aren't really any better at long term backups. If someone were able to to produce these drives at a reasonable cost, less than $200, and the disk were not hugely expensive, this would be a good solution for backups. However I fear that the drives will cost $500 and therefore it will suffer the fate of all other optical media not used for entertainment. It will simply be too expensive for widespread adoption. Even with drives that play video, the performance of Blueray is interesting.

5TB on tape? (1)

ashpool7 (18172) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703589)

Yeah, for an absurd amount of money. The 1.5 LTO-5 drives cost at minimum a grand, and $45 for the cart. The 5TB T10000C tape drive costs $30,000 at CDW!

This could be really cool depending on the price.

Whoops, $22,000 (1)

ashpool7 (18172) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703617)

Stil, a lot of money!

Re:5TB on tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703705)

The big question is the useable life span for the disks. If they degrade faster than tapes these things are pretty much useless for archiving.

Re:5TB on tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703719)

blu-ray writable media (not even rewritable) is still more expensive than just buying hard drives.

Balance (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703611)

What is the use case for these 1.5TB MiniDiscs, though? In terms of pure storage capacity, tape drives are still far superior (you can store up to 5TB on a tape!) In terms of speed and flexibility, hard drives are better. If you're looking for ruggedness, flash-based storage is smaller, lighter, and can easily survive a dip in the ocean.

Maybe it's a good balance of features. Tapes can hold more, but they're generally slow for accessing files because it's all sequential. This would be slower than hard drives, but perhaps more durable(...?). I'd bet that these are cheaper per TB than Flash. Many times, when picking a solution, there isn't one option that's clearly superior in every way. Instead, you have to pick a solution where the advantages/disadvantages are balanced to meet your needs.

I would guess this will be sold as an archival format, similar to how you might use tape, but more convenient to access a specific file without spooling through a whole tape.

Re:Balance (1)

tirerim (1108567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703889)

That depends -- how fast does the dye degrade? Blu-Ray discs are supposed to last longer than CD or DVD, but given that those can degrade after only a few years, I still wouldn't be too confident about this format lasting long enough to be considered archival.

Tapes for high bitrate media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703635)

You're joking, right? ..does anybody actually think about this shit before approving the story?

Maximize that proofit loss (1)

MytQuinn (1846480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703659)

$6.4 Billion in losses last year, with ideas like this they will top that next year easily. Go Sony, just hope it doesn't take too long to go broke.

The many headed dragon of Sony (3, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703661)

Why does Sony keep coming out with "Storage solutions", when the other arm of Sony doesn't want us to save *anything*?

I mean, come on Sony... have you ever considered that those evil pirates are downloading your music/movies because you're giving them the tech to save a billion terrabytes of stuff? What do you think they are going to fill up all that space with?

If computers were only 16mb of ram and a 40mb hard drive, they couldn't save a 4gb movie, now could they? Come-on man, think!

WATCH OUT! (1)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703665)

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. " - Jack Valenti, 1982

So, given that according to wiki, a VHS tape is "In modern-day digital terminology, VHS is roughly equivalent to 333x480 pixels luma and 40x480 chroma resolutions (333x480 pixels=159,840 pixels or 0.16MP (1/6 of a MegaPixel))" times 4 hours, how many Boston Stranglers is this medium?

Re:WATCH OUT! (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703975)

about 5000 boston stranglers, or .02 american presidents in post-911 units

give it up sony (2)

Simulant (528590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703673)

""Hot on the heels of the most successful storage mediums of all time — MiniDisc and Zip disks"

Don't forget about Memory Sticks. The world is holding it's breath for another proprietary storage medium from Sony.

Idiot article author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703677)

"Basically, there’s somewhere between 3 and 30 discs in a single cassette."

Yes, sure there is.

30 discs, I don't think so, it's not thick enough to fit 30 discs in it. What does he mean exactly? An unknown number of discs which have more than 25GB capacity each, but definitely not 30? Talk about shoddy journalism.

One Serious Drawback (0)

joelsherrill (132624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703703)

It's from Sony.

Reasons for optical... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703721)

...haven't changed all that much:

1) Better random access than tape

2) Less fragile than hard drives, designed to be removable

3) Cheaper per-byte than flash

Optical is more expensive than hard drive, so if you're comparing it against removable hard drives, or an HD "toaster" setup (a box in which you can plug raw SATA drives) then the question is one of durability. If that's not an issue, go with plugable hard drives.

Tape is still cheapest, so if random access is not an issue, go with tape.

If cost isn't an issue, go with flash.

The problem as I remember with Minidisc is that the cost per byte for data storage didn't pencil out, and the sample rate wasn't conducive to high fidelity audio, which left it a solution that didn't address any particular problem. It'll be interesting to see if they've come up with a set of specs that have meaning now. I strongly suspect Sony will come up with a good solid implementation and then price it out of market.

Halt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703949)

"These are not the storage devices you are looking for. Move along. Move along."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>