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!

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Coming Soon to PCs

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-that-there's-anything-to-play dept.

209

An anonymous reader writes "A Yahoo! news piece has some sales details for the upcoming Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players. They also have some details on disc drives that read the new formats." From the article: "Sony has priced its first desktop computer that will have a Blu-ray Disc burner. The drive will be able to write to 25GB and 50GB BD-RE (rewritable) and BD-R (write once) discs. Sony will start selling 25GB BD-RE and BD-R discs in April for $20 and $25 respectively and 50GB capacity versions of the same discs later in the year for $48 and $60 respectively. The Vaio RC will be launched in 'early summer' and will cost around $2300. At the CeBIT show in Germany last week, Sony announced plans for a Vaio notebook with a Blu-ray Disc drive."

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

wow... what a bargain (5, Insightful)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947357)

50GB capacity versions of the same discs later in the year for $48 and $60 respectively.

Is is just me that thinks selling media for 2x the cost of a hard drive (if you calculate $/gig) stupid?

Re:wow... what a bargain (5, Insightful)

fatduck (961824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947364)

Especially when USB hard drives are roughly the same size as, and far more resistant to damage than, dvds?

Hard drives more resistant to damage? (4, Funny)

Curien (267780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947496)

I've never broken a DVD by dropping it.

Re:Hard drives more resistant to damage? (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947775)

But you'd have to scratch a usb hdd really hard to break it, don't you think ?

  I'll go for a 200gb or bigger usb drive instead. BlueRay (at least with these prices) can 'blue' my ass bye-bye. Sure it won't work with my neighbours 1000$ blueray player but i don't like him anyway :)

  Seriously, this blueray is quite many times more expensive than storing stuff on a dvd, and also can be scratched and broken really easily. So why relay on this ? To pay 60$ for a worthless scratched plastic disc that's only good for holding a coffe cup after 1 scratch.

  And for real portable data transfer, the usb sticks are the best right now, they just work and don't require a 1000$ reader. Disks like dvd/blueray/cdrom are far too large to fit into my pocket.

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947394)

2x? I upgraded my home PC a month ago, and bought 500GB worth of disks for about £120. Taking an exchange rate of approx 1.76 (from x-rates.com [x-rates.com] ), that works out as a touch over $68, or $6.8 per 50GB.

I appreciate that any new technology starts out expensive then drops in price, but that's ridiculous.

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947426)

Your calculation is backwarsd. A pound is worth more then a dollar, making it about $211, which comes to 21 dollar per 50GB.

Re:wow... what a bargain (2, Interesting)

frenetic_wimp (469446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947470)

I upgraded my home PC a month ago, and bought 500GB worth of disks for about £120. Taking an exchange rate of approx 1.76 (from x-rates.com), that works out as a touch over $68, or $6.8 per 50GB

Uhh... no. £120 is closer to $211, if you do the math correctly. Which is $21 per 50GB. GP is correct.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947638)

Yeah, my bad - I divided when I should've multiplied. Guess I really hadn't had enough coffee after all...

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947407)

And now that hard disks dropped to about $0.20 on the gig the only advantage is weight. A hard disk is certainly more reliable than a new blue ray disk. Plus if it goes wrong I've got shedloads of data recovery tools. I'm sure a duffed blue ray disk isn't going to be amenable to ext-recover. Basically the problem is I don't trust 50GB of data to a little plastic disk with no physical protection.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

Stripe7 (571267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947423)

Hard disks are cheaper and faster. I currently backup to hard disks. I keep several 250 GB external USB disks just for that purpose. Its faster, has larger capacity, and its available at 1/2 the cost of Blu-Ray!

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

386spart (725207) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947437)

I agree that it is expensive but the price of a hard drive doesn't matter. No medium compares well to the price of hard drives, but they have a different purpose than optical media or tapes. I would rather have a 20-pocket case of blueray discs in my laptop bag or bank box than a 500 gig disk.
Compare with dual-layer DVDs, backup tapes and such. Still expensive, but not that bad.

Re:wow... what a bargain (2, Insightful)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947446)

Media prices drop fast. When DVD was first introduced it was about the same price; look how much a blank DVDR costs now. And besides, media takes up less space. If I have 2.5 terabytes of data I can store it in a spindle of 50GB BD. On the other hand you'll have five 500GB harddrives sitting around. Lastly, media is more convenient; if you have five IDE drives, you have to shutdown the computer, replace the drive, and boot back up to get at content on a different disk; if you have five SATA drives, you still have to open up the case, unplug, and plug the new drive in; if you have a RAID array it's going to be on all the time and using electricity, as well as degrading. With media, you can just pop the old one out and the new one in. And besides, harddrives won't work nicely with your TV.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947586)

DVD's are cool, but Who is really going to take time to burn a stack? What if one gets scratched? I have a stack that is now useless, because it was contaminated by dust after the cat brushed by it. Something about polycarbonate and static electricity.

Nobody shuts off their computer to plug in a set of drives when we have USB hubs. USB rules for backups these days. SATA is for freaks.

Harddrives don't work nicely with the TV? You mean those machines with three particle accelerators?

Re:wow... what a bargain (4, Interesting)

Hackeron (704093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947854)

You what?

I have a Coolermaster stacker with 12x500GB drives on raid6 - thats 5TB of storage with 2 redundant drives siting under a 36" LCD in a cabinet - (you know, so its inaudiable).

Sure the drives alone eat around 200W of electricity, but I have another raid1 array of 2 x 2.5" drives I have the OS and basic storage on, the raid5 spins up only when I want to watch stored content (since the whole family uses it, its something like 5 hours a day, but its not showing on the electricity bill).

Now the juicy part, the system is used for:
1) Phone, we have a normal analog line plugged into the PC and a voip contract, if we phone out, it goes over the internet saving a ton of money, incoming calls go through the PC so if no one is there, voicemail is emailed out or a fallback number is used like a work number that is forwarded to through voip (using asterisk@home, very easy setup).
2) Watching/recording sattelite TV, a simple DVB card plugged into a dish - didnt bother getting decoder cards or subscribing to Sky and what not as >1000 channels is really enough ;)
3) Surfing the web
4) Playing games on/offline (kick ass for FPS)
5) Listening to music with visualization
6) etc, etc, etc.

The remote is a cheap ATI one that works with Linux (using ubuntu dapper with XGL, looks stunning) and I have a media keyboard/mouse in the coctail table for FPS and what not.

I had to build it myself of course and set it all up, but it only took a day's worth and it was damn well worth it! - Any hardware problems I am emailed about instantly, there is a redundant PSU, redundant drives. Only had it for a month so cant speak of reliability, but I cant see it being any less reliabe than just a DVD player while providing so much more.

TVs are so obselete :)

Re:wow... what a bargain (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947447)

It's always a nitch market to begin with. The first person I knew who bought a CD recorder was a high end still photographer that was using it to archive files. His first drive cost $5,000. A few years later they were a couple of hundred. I paid $550 for my first DVD burner which I desperately needed at the time. A month later they were $450 and four months later the same one was around $250 but I burned a lot of disks in those months and I still use those back ups. I'm interested as a way of hard copying rendered shots in a digital format. I do it now on DVD but it takes a lot of DVDs and can be a bit clunky. I can store a lot of shots on 50 gig. Even better yet I can store the entire project file on disks of that size. I have to store them on several disks now and it's a bit clunky reinstalling them when needed. I do also use back up external hard drives but I've had failures with hard drives and I've rarely had trouble with disks. Also if you are going to store multiple backs up over time hard drives can take up serious space and can be problematic after they have set for a few years. I had disasterous experiences with Jazz drives in the past. In a hundred DVD folder I can store 5 terrabytes of information. That's a lot of hard drives especially when you consider a 100 gig hard drive holds a lot less than a 100 gig of information. A 50 gig DVD will pretty much hold 50 gig of data. Even with 500 gig drives it'll take eleven or twelve to hold as much as the one folder. Data recovery is extremely expensive if one of those drives goes down. If to be safe you do redundant back ups then you are talking 22+ drives to equal the one folder.

For most it won't make sense in the short term but give it a year when the 50 gig disks are even running $10 a piece and they'll start looking a lot more interesting.

Another issue is say I needed to send 50 gig of info through the mail. I'd much rather send a DVD sized disk than a hard drive that can be easily damaged.

A final note would be mastering films. For low budget producers they could burn a high res version of their film on a high capacity disk rather than using digi beta. Digital Beta decks are still extremely expensive due to the rariety. Blu-ray will be a much cheaper option. Say you want to project your new film at a local theater. All you would need is a single Blu-Ray disk. Instead of a stack of film cans you can put the whole thing on a disk that would fit in a breast pocket.

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947633)

Niche... It's a NICHE market..

Come on, geeks, get a spell checker or something!

Re:wow... what a bargain (4, Interesting)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947714)

Have you never lost data on those dvds? We used to back up photo projects and the like on CDs a few years ago, and the cds only seemed to last about 2 or 3 years before they made the cd drive shit itself and wet the bed all at once. On the other hand, only once in my life have I had a hard drive eat shit on me. That was most likely due to being in my dorm where there was lots of beer, people, rowdyness going on...

Re:wow... what a bargain (2, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947779)

Low budget film-makers use DV these days, mini-DV tapes are $5 and you get around 12Gb of DV on one (about an hour in SP mode, 90 mins in LP).

IEEE1394 is the biggest boon to cinema since the video camcorder.

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947501)

Is is just me that thinks selling media for 2x the cost of a hard drive (if you calculate $/gig) stupid?

It's not stupid. It's new tech, and prices will fall very soon when the market grows. It'll be $5 or $10 a disk next summer when the drives go mainstream, and even less after that.

Anyway, the first round of expensive Blu-Ray disks aren't for the general public to use for data storage. They'll be used primarily by those who need to (surprise) master Blu Ray disks. Primarily HD content providers-- game developers. filmmakers. and of course the porn industry who are always the first to embrace and support new mediums.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947520)

Hi, could you pop your HD in the post over to me here in Europe, thanks.

Re:wow... what a bargain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947851)

I won't send my hard drive to you, I kind of need it, but you can google for online shops that will mail you hard drives after you send them suitable payment.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

fred911 (83970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947526)

as smart as rewritable media costing less then -r media.

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947641)

Is is just me that thinks selling media for 2x the cost of a hard drive (if you calculate $/gig) stupid?

You keep valuable data on a single hard disk drive? Blueray drives are more comparable with tape drives when your looking at ~$1000 for a 50Gb native capacity drive and $35 per tape. Granted they don't yet have the proven reliability and will never be as solid as a tape backup. However they have the potential to become much much cheaper bringing them into the range of domestic backup solutions. I normally burn two DVD backups(1) and post one to my parents Blu-ray means I have to burn five times fewer disks

(1) and test the local copy every six months

Re:wow... what a bargain (4, Insightful)

dark_requiem (806308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947669)

You have to remember that when any new technology comes out, it is ridiculously expensive. Only when it starts to see reasonably widespread adoption will the costs be reduced to an affordable level. Prior to that, the market is too small to make a profit at what most of us consider "reasonable" prices. Early adopters pay a high price for having the latest and greatest, the rest of us wait to see which standard become dominant, then wait for prices to fall. If either HD-DVD or Blue Ray are recieved well by consumers, prices for that particular format will begin to drop to resonable levels as manufacturers increase their output, and will eventually (within a few years) be comparable with current DVD+/-R prices.

Re:wow... what a bargain (2, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947763)

What scares me is the thought of a $48 or $60 coaster, if I dare to get a speck of dust on it before burning (... or whatever causes most failures).

Re:wow... what a bargain (1)

Illbay (700081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947914)

I dunno.

Back a few years ago, Iomega was doing that regularly with their Zip disks.

Hope the Linux support is good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947359)

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

RW cheaper than RO? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947360)

>Sony will start selling 25GB BD-RE and BD-R discs in April for $20 and $25 respectively

WTF?

DVD vs. BlueRay (5, Insightful)

cskrat (921721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947366)

4.7 GB for $0.30 or 25 GB for $20

Sounds alot like the price that DVD(+-)R media was introduced at. Part of me is cringing from sticer shock but realistically I know that in a few years they'll be in the sub $1.00 range when other manufacturers figure out how to make them.

Re:DVD vs. BlueRay (1)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947387)

"Part of me is cringing from sticer shock but realistically I know that in a few years they'll be in the sub $1.00 range when other manufacturers figure out how to make them"

I want to think the same thing, that the media will eventually drop to the same price tag. But I think that the climate is a bit different now, with the whole circus around filesharing etc.

The creepy thing is (if I'm not missinformd) is that the big movie/record companies is involved in these new format in a whole new way then the previous formats (CD,DVD).

I dont know, but I got a hunch that they are going try to keep the prices for raw media up. It will of course fail since the sales wont be the same, but I'm pretty sure that they will try.

Re:DVD vs. BlueRay (1)

tute666 (688551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947389)

Right....
Like they really sorted out Dual layer DVDR manufacturing process.
Lets get real, for a couple of long years bluray isn't going to be cheap enough.

Re:DVD vs. BlueRay (0, Offtopic)

fatduck (961824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947395)

Who is the target audience for BluRay DVDs? Hard drives are cheaper, portable, and easy to write to. They don't get scratched, smeared, melted, or destroyed. So you can put 12 movies on a BluRay and give it to your friend instead of just 1? I just can't see myself buying another expensive piece of hardware when the money could be better spent on another hard drive.

Re:DVD vs. BlueRay (5, Interesting)

donaldm (919619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947711)

Actually we should not just compare DVD vs Blu-Ray (or HD DVD) on price just yet. What we have here is a capacity comparison. Lets start with the following:

Floppy disk (1.2MB) - yes you can get larger but they are now pretty much obsolete. However they were good for their day. Lets not go into 5.25 inch, 8 inch or even (gasp) 12 inch floppies .

CD (650 - 800MB) - still useful for Music, install software and some backups. Look like hanging around for a long time. I doubt we will see a Music DVD put out by the Music Industry anytime soon.

DVD (4.7GB) - at the moment this media is very cheap (sometimes cheaper than a CD). Dual density is a lot more expensive though. Still 4.7GB is a very useful size (PC and small size backups including movies) although certain companies would like to see this killed off, I personally this won't happen for some time, since there are a lot of DVD/Hard-Disk player/recorders on the market which have really started to kill off VHS recorders. You could probably start a new Slashdot article just on this alone.

HD-DVD (15GB) - this is single layer proposed for HDTV.

Blu-Ray (25GB) - this is single layer proposed for HDTV.

For HDTV the industry is proposing 15GB to 30GB and this is were the above two fit in. You won't be able to put a HDTV show on standard DVD without some loss (normally considerable) and this is what the Entertainment Industry wants. In addition what is also wanted by the Industry is DRM and the best one will have a definite edge, although the PS3 will be will be the Trojan Horse that puts BluRay in the living room.

Holographic DVD (1.6TB) - http://www.betanews.com/article/Holographic_DVD_to _Hold_16_Terabytes/1133197797 [betanews.com] The specs are incredible however I cannot see HDTV being put on this. Where this will shine is in Small to Enterprise backup solutions and this is exactly what it is aiming at. Basically this puts the backup tape industry on notice since it now becomes very possible to have close to "near-line" recovery. Those people who are responsible for serious backups should welcome this.

Please don't come back at me suggesting disks to actually do backups. All I can say to that is try to backup 100TB and put that off-site cheaply, while taking into account possible disaster and recovery scenarios.

Comparing DVD to any of the above is rather silly and as far as costs go, the new media will come down eventually. Even today if you compare RW DVD to Write once DVD you are looking at approx 10 to 1 in cost so if the new disks are say $15 to $20 each for writable only it does not take much effort to imagine what the price of the RW ones would initially be.

check yer specs (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947761)

3.5 hardcase floppies, 1.44 was the norm max capacity
(although their were some weird ass variants that doubled them to 2.88)

Why are rewritables cheaper than writeonceables? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947385)

Anyone know?

Re:Why are rewritables cheaper than writeonceables (2, Insightful)

AwaxSlashdot (600672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947424)

Different technology so different material and production process so different prices (production cost is not the only parameter to determine sell price: offer/demand/strategy also influence the price).
The question then becomes: why buy writeonce while writemulitple is cheaper ? Well, sometimes people might want that the media won't be rewritten onto, I think.

AWX

Re:Why are rewritables cheaper than writeonceables (1)

astro-g (548659) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947449)

What for?
I can garuntee the disk will never be full,
And I can garuntee people wont remember to finalise the disk.
So someone who buys a write once disk, so it cant be changed is going to be in for a surprise when someone adds a new session to the end of the disk, replacing thier unchangeable files with new versions.

Re:Why are rewritables cheaper than writeonceables (1)

Sircus (16869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947487)

This struck me on reading it, too. The only thing I could come up with is that maybe the rewritable discs are less durable than write-once discs.

Too expensive (0)

coffeechica (948145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947386)

As long as the price stays like it is, I don't see much chance for this becoming popular at all. Why get a relatively easily destroyed or damaged storage medium when you can just as well back up on a hard disk for much less money?

Get the price down, then we can talk. But that's going to take two or three years, and who knows what flash storage size is possible by that time.

So how's this going to work? (1)

DRM_is_Stupid (954094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947390)

If the new generation of DVDs are designed to block copying, is the (HD/Blu-ray) DVD drive going to be directly connected to the video card, surpassing the CPU?

Re:So how's this going to work? (2, Informative)

zootm (850416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947580)

Information on the techniques used is available on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . In short, the content is encrypted when it passes through every part of the system, including the display device itself. Sony said they wouldn't be using the option on this media for the time being though.

That's not to say that the encryption is unbreakable, but certainly ripping is to be orders of magnitude more difficult than with DVD. Not impossible, of course.

Re:So how's this going to work? (1)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947770)

*Notices that many countless hours of bitching about piracy was soo wasted*

So they make soo many new HDTV monitors and TV's obsolete because they want them to be more secure, and then they release it to computer? Cmon you have to see how stupid these Anti piracy people are...

And the EULA (1)

ChrisMroz (907669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947391)

...all data written on Sony BD-RE and BD-R disks will transfer ownership to Sony. You must pay a monthly subscription fee to retain this data. All BD-R and BD-RE will be produced by sony, or a sony authorized distributor. No 3rd party will be allowed to create blank media for uses with any Sony(TM) Blu-Ray(TM) Drive(TM) without Sony's written consent, and giving up power of attorney to Sony to reflect the prices of recordable media. On a good note, Drives will cost $0.50 each. ^^^^^^^Sarcasm.... but I have a sad feeling that its not far off.

Re:And the EULA (1)

Fanboy Troy (957025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947416)

Well, I'm guessig Sony solely holds the patent for the ble-ray, so they do have a hand in its price [pcworld.com] . The EULA part may be a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure DRM will insure enough lock-in to make up for that problem.

Re:And the EULA (1)

ChildeRoland (949144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947897)

No 3rd party can produce blank media because of a little thing called a "patent". Perhaps we should just abandon the patent system...

HD DVD R cost? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947406)

I want to see how much HD DVD-Rs cost. They are supposed to be manufactured on a very similar process as DVD-Rs... meaning they have the potential to be cheap. (the key selling point of HD DVD)

If the price fits.... (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947409)

That sounds remarkably expensive.
I wonder what the new PS3 games are going to cost if the media itself is so expensive, not to mention a HDDVD movie!
Apart from DRM issues, would anyone be willing to pay that kind of premium? Or is all of this targetted for the corporate market?
Don't get me wrong, but if I could get my hands on an optical drive that can backup 50 gb of data that was economical ($5/disk would be ok), I would go for it.
Hmmm... I wonder how many mp3's I can fit onto one of those?

Re:If the price fits.... (1)

dekarguy (953442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947539)

I doubt pressing BD-ROMs will be as expensive as buying BD-R/RE and burning a game/movie to it. I don't know how much DVD-ROMs launched at, but this is about the price DVD+/-R's and RWs launched at. I am very suprised that burnable media is launching at the same time as the readers. It seems Sony is really confident in thier DRM.

Re:If the price fits.... (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947583)

Hmmm... I wonder how many mp3's I can fit onto one of those?

Almost 38 days worth of music in 128kbps MP3 files.

(Sorry people, I'm a math lover, I couldn't help but doing this math when I spotted the question)

Re:If the price fits.... (1)

dark_requiem (806308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947708)

Since the PS3's drive will be backward compatible with existing DVD and CD media, I expect the initial batch of PS3 games will be delivered on standard DVDs. Current capacity requirements don't really demand anything more. By the time games do need the capacity of the Blu Ray discs, the standard will either have become reasonably priced, or the PS3 will require the same disc swapping as past systems, and a large part of its usefulness (and price) will have been wasted. Sony is taking quite a gamble by using a format whose standards are so new that their definition and implementation has delayed the launch of their new console so long. We'll have to wait to see if it will pay off, but personally I'm favoring the Blu Ray format based on its larger capacity and the fact that Sony has now announced that it will not downsample analog outputs (at least initially).

Re:If the price fits.... (2, Interesting)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947875)

I heard all PS3 games will be Blu Ray. Which brings up an interesting question about piracy? Since piracy will be really low for the PS3 does that mean that the cost of games will be cheaper? Because Sony, Xbox, and Nintendo have been claiming games are expensive because of piracy (well at least that's one of the main factors).

Re:If the price fits.... (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947754)

As far as the PS3 goes I think (can anyone confirm this) that game manufacturers can still produce their games on DVD and even CD since the PS2 can do this and the PS3 is still backwards compatible. After-all it is rather wasteful, not to mention initially expensive to put a game on a Blu-Ray disk if the total capacity of the game can fit on a standard DVD or even a CD. I think if the game has HDTV data then a Blu-Ray disk will be needed.

You also have to remember that what we the general public would pay for a Blu-Ray disk is not what a manufacturer would pay since they would get substantial (possibly $1/disk) discounts for volume purchases.

You could even compare DVD disk prices when the PS2 initially came out (DVD's were about $10 to $20 each for just write once), yet except for a few games on CD (ie. Half Life) most came out on DVD. I think manufacturers (at that time) felt that DVD's were more difficult to copy than CD's, if that was true then the same will be for Blu-Ray until prices come down.

Oh, the name! (5, Insightful)

Godji (957148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947417)

The drive will be able to write to 25GB and 50GB BD-RE (rewritable) and BD-R (write once) discs. Sony will start selling 25GB BD-RE and BD-R discs in April for $20 and $25 respectively

Why the hell didn't they call the rewriteable discs BD-RW?! Has anyone heard of the work "consistency"? Now I have to explain to everyone that BD-RE is like CD-RW or DVD-RW, but for Blue Ray. Great work on the customer confusion front!

Re:Oh, the name! (1)

scuba0 (950343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947471)

Well.. That's about Sony in a nutshell, "consumers will have to correct after us", not thinking about all those other companies out there.

Could be worse (5, Funny)

CptnHarlock (136449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947514)

They could have called the WriteOnce disks something like "Singlewrite Media" and ended up with "BD-SM".. ;P ..

Cheers...

Re:Oh, the name! (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947591)

Talking about this, why isn't CD-R called CD-W instead? Something like "CD-Writable", since RW stands for "re-writable".

By the way, here in Spain if you go to a office supply store and ask for a "CD grabable" ("recordable CD" in English), you will get a CD-RW. If you want a CD-R, you should ask just a "CD". Weird, huh?

Re:Oh, the name! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947660)

Those were my original thoughts exactly. But frankly I like the sound of "RE" a lot more than "RW". Repeat after me: "Bee Dee Ree" That's a lot shorter than "Bee Dee Arr Duh Bull You" And on a completely unrelated note: I'm a late adopter so I still have to buy my first DVD writer. I'm still deciding whether it'll be NEC, LG, Benq or Lite-On.

Re:Oh, the name! (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947736)

But frankly I like the sound of "RE" a lot more than "RW". Repeat after me: "Bee Dee Ree" That's a lot shorter than "Bee Dee Arr Duh Bull You" No, that is a lot shorter than "Bee Dee Aarrrrgghhh Dubya" ;)

Re:Oh, the name! (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947801)

Because the W was the wrong nomenclature from the start.

EPROM
not
RWPROM

Personally I like the E, I knew straight away that it was erasable.

Though I am presuming that Blu-Ray is E and not RW. The two are not the same.

Blu-Ray drivers for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947419)

"Blu-Ray Coming Soon to PCs" does it mean can be used under Linux?

I'm currently evaluating a Multimedia Linux named Tomahawk Desktop [tomahawkcomputers.com] . It seems writing DVDs under Linux is seamless and second to none.

According to this [slashdot.org] previous post, Sony PlayStaion3 comes with Linux and Blu-Ray drives. Does this means Blu-Ray drives already can be used under Linux? Or does Linux require drivers for Blu-Ray?

Porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947431)



Just how many movies|video will we be able to cram on these things?

I can just see someone ordering one of these discs from NetFlix.

The question is: how long will it take someone watching one of those to collapse from exhaustion.


(sorry, but someone had to bring up the obvious topic)

leech (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947824)

Stop being a leech and answer your own goddam questions, it's not hard.

Great For Backups (1)

Soloact (805735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947448)

With the very large capacity hard drives out there, this, although it looks expensive, just might be the lesser expensive way to back up one's entire system, or entire hard drives. My comparison being the costs of these drives and media versus the costs of tape drives and media for massive backups. Besides, the prices will drop drastically on these, rapidly, just as they did with CD and DVD burners and media.

Re:Great For Backups (1)

lelkes (884952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947511)

I don't think that it is such a good idea to back up important data to CD/DVD/Blu-Ray. HDDs are much more reliable imho.

Re:Great For Backups (1)

Soloact (805735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947671)

Hard drives may be better because of the bargain. But take into account the energy spent on keeping the drives spinning. Optical storage might be prone to damage, but backups can be checked periodically, and copied and reburned, if one finds damage. If an hard drive goes, the data is much harder to recover. I suppose one would have to take all of the pros and cons of each type of backup, and utilize the best and most economical hardware and media for their individual purposes.

About HD and BD (3, Informative)

signore pablo (544088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947455)

For those that don't know much about them (i didn't)
STORAGE:
HD- HD DVD supports 15 gb for one layer and 30 gb for dual layer. A triple layer disc in development by Toshiba will hold 45 gb.
BD - Blu-Ray discs as said in the summary hold 25 gb for one layer and 50 for two. Also in development for BD is 100 gb 4 layer and 200 gb 8 layer discs. Both BD and HD are backwards compatible with the current DVD specification (although for BD it is apparently not compulsory for manufacturers to include it).
COPY PROTECTION:
HD - HD's will employ copy restriction developed by AACS LA. Audio Watermark Technology is also being used. All Hd dvd players will include a sensor that listens for audible watermarks placed in the soundtracks of movies. (read more at the wikipedia site [wikipedia.org] ).
BD - Blu-ray has "experimental digital rights management that allows for dynamically changing encryption schemes". This prevents a single crack from breaking the whole protection scheme like what happened with DeCSS and DVDs. Also included is digital watermarking technology. (more at wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Interesting note about Blue Ray discs, original discs made with blue ray technology were very susceptible to scratches and had to be enclosed in plastic caddies for protection. TDK came up for a solution to this in January 2004 that gave Blue ray discs "unprecedented scratch resistance." HD DVD discs use the same coating found on cds and dvds. For my money, it seems like BD is the better technology. We'll see how the copy protection pans out.
All information taken from wikipedia.org
LINKS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc" [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-DVD" [wikipedia.org]

ultimate bargain (1)

marcuz (752480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947461)

for that much money, are you crazy?! i'll buy a new harddrive instead of wasting my money on the first generation of these discs which are for sure easily scratched and would last readable for just a couple of years... - or should i say months?

I learned... (1)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947465)

...from last time to wait until a combo drive is released which does both. Well, that or wait until one format is a clear winner. My last PC came originally with a DVD+R(W) drive, and at that time nowhere seemed to sell +R disks except online, and they were about twice the price of -R disks even there. So, of course, I kept on using CDR instead until the price fell enough for me to get a +-R drive, and by then the disk price had equalised so it didn't really matter what I bought any more. At least, not to me.

This whole mess will probably sort itself out within a year or two. And since I don't have an HDTV or plan to buy one any time soon, I don't really care just now! :)

Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (3, Interesting)

trims (10010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947477)

Honestly, about the only things the new generation of DVD (HD-DVD and Blue-Ray) is going to be a success for is Hi-Def movies. At the size they are, there isn't going to be any demand for them to use on the PC as writable disks, unlike CD-R/W and DVD-R/W. People currently use CDs and old DVDs to do primarily three things: Transfer/backup important data, Audio (whether Orange-book audio or MP3/WMA/AAC), and home-video. All three of these things fit nicely into the current DVD/CD sizes, and even when Camcorders start using HiDef, people generally don't send around multiple hours of Video. At most, it's 1-2 hours of little bobby's Soccer game/birthday party. Which still fits on a DVD via MPEG4 (even in HiDef).

The new DVDs aren't big enough to make an impact on the backup market (where you need 100s of GB per disk to even be considered), and they are (and will remain) far more costly than ordinary CD/DVD-RW media. They have some attractiveness for PC and console gaming, but even there, without a huge amount of in-game video, current DVD capacity will suffice for years for the vast majority of games.

DRM and other factors will hurt uptake even more. Honestly, I figure it's going to take at least 20 years before the new DVD format have anywhere near the penetration that DVDs and VCRs do now. And that takes into account having the new DVD formats on consoles. People just aren't going to use them much.

The big media companies rushed this tech to market - there is no real demand for their functionality right now, and won't be for at least 5 years, minimum. From the consumer standpoint, this is a solution in search of a problem. I figure there will be a generation skip here - the replacement for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray should show up around 2020, and consumers are smart enought to see it, so I'm predicting that the new DVD formats will peak at about 10% of the current DVD market, if that.

-Erik

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (1)

bwalling (195998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947527)

People currently use CDs and old DVDs to do primarily three things: Transfer/backup important data, Audio (whether Orange-book audio or MP3/WMA/AAC), and home-video. All three of these things fit nicely into the current DVD/CD sizes

No, they don't fit nicely. I have 8GB of photos (and my oldest kid is not yet 3), 12GB of MP3/AAC, and I haven't even started getting the video off the camcorder. Backing up 20GB onto DVD sucks. I currently do it to another HD and at less frequent intervals to another computer. A 50GB DVD wouldn't be so bad, provided they can get that price down to $.50 per blank.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (2, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947567)

I disagree with the size-comment: People could and would send their entire mp3 or divx-collection around on a single disc if it would fit. 10GB on a DVD is plenty for a movie, but too small for a movie-collection.

But the benefit over DVD is quite small. going from CDROM to DVD gives you 10 times as much storage. Going from DVD to 1.st gen blu-ray gives you not even a factor of 3 -- and the price gets multiplied by like 50. Not worth it.

As someone said: at these prices, why buy 3 50GB blu-ray writables for $180 (and total capacity 150GB) sometime in the future when you even *today* can get a external-usb harddrive with 3 times the capacity, faster read/write, better compatibility, and lower defect-rate for less.

OK, so the bluray-discs are going to cost less air-freigth, that's about the only benefit I see.

But the intro-prices won't hold long anyway, I'm sure the $50/disc will fall, like all other optical media before it, by an order of magnitude in a year or two, and by two orders of magnitude as the format matures.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947623)

going from CDROM to DVD gives you 10 times as much storage.

Not even close. CD to DVD-5 gave an improvement of just over 6x. DVD-5 to DVD-9 gave less than a 2x improvement.

Going from DVD to 1.st gen blu-ray gives you not even a factor of 3

That's dual-layer DVDs to single-layer blu-ray discs. HOWEVER, you can't buy a blu-ray drive that will only burn single-layer discs (unlike the case with DVDs)... The very first one will be entirely capable of burning dual-layer blu-ray discs, so you're really talking about an almost 6x improvement (very much like the transition from CDs to DVD-5s).

and the price gets multiplied by like 50. Not worth it.

Prices drop dramatically very quickly. You'd have to be crazy or stupid to buy a new device at full price when it first hits the market.

OK, so the bluray-discs are going to cost less air-freigth, that's about the only benefit I see.

How about not being susceptable to G-forces. How about being impervious to electrical and magnetic fields? How about having the data uncoupled from the drive? How about very likely lasting an extremely long time (Blu-ray is based on Sony's amazing M.O. technology).

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (4, Funny)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947579)

> The new DVDs aren't big enough to make an impact on the backup market (where
> you need 100s of GB per disk to even be considered), and they are (and will
> remain) far more costly than ordinary CD/DVD-RW media. They have some
> attractiveness for PC and console gaming, but even there, without a huge
> amount of in-game video, current DVD capacity will suffice for years for the
> vast majority of games.

Just wait until the new .NET Generation Secure Gaming Framework comes out! All executables will be stored as Secure Managed Code, which means that the executable comes with 12 MiB of executable code, 25 MiB of security certificates and 120 MiB of Trusted Computing interface code. All videos will be stored via a proprietary XML extension (the .NET Generation Secure Media Framework Professional Edition)...

    <bytestream type="video/mpeg" drm-clsid="{1435:543236:EF32EF:AB543634E:3565363B3 4:432242342:ABAD5}"
                checksum="14758f1AFD44C09B7992073CCf00B43D">
      <byte drm-clsid="{435:AA564:CC922329:32323244AB34:A54654 B3343E32:EEFEEF3434:AB3A}">
        0x15
      </byte>
      <byte drm-clsid="{ABC123:F00BAA:CAFEBABE:DEADBEEF:100010 01001110:123456ABC:ABBA}">
        0x15
      </byte>
    ...

...which will ensure that no one in their right mind would ever want to copy that three-second cutscene. Not if it's 500 MiB big.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947664)

All three of these things fit nicely into the current DVD/CD sizes,

You could have said the same thing when DVDs came around. I mean, VCDs and SVCDs worked just fine for video... Disc space is disc space. People will find many, many uses for it.

At most, it's 1-2 hours of little bobby's Soccer game/birthday party. Which still fits on a DVD via MPEG4 (even in HiDef).

No, it only fits on a DVD if you do heavy filtering and denoising, such as WMVHD DVDs, which kill detail, cause compression artifacts, etc. Hell, you could fit 2 hours of HD content on a CD too, it'll just look crappy.

Besides, to PLAY that MPEG-4 HD DVD, you're going to need a to buy a special player. Guess what, it's going to cost just as much as an HD-DVD player, and have less flexibility and less future upgradability. After all, Blu-ray and HD-DVD player can play HD content encoded in MPEG-2/H.264/WMV9 on a DVD.

The new DVDs aren't big enough to make an impact on the backup market (where you need 100s of GB per disk to even be considered),

That's just utter nonsense. Who defined this completely aribitrary value for minimum media sizes for back-ups? You realize you can spread data over multiple discs, don't you?

and they are (and will remain) far more costly than ordinary CD/DVD-RW media.

You could have said the same thing about DVD media when it first came out.

They have some attractiveness for PC and console gaming, but even there, without a huge amount of in-game video, current DVD capacity will suffice for years for the vast majority of games.

You could have said the same thing about CDs when DVDs were first comming out.

DRM and other factors will hurt uptake even more. Honestly, I figure it's going to take at least 20 years before the new DVD format have anywhere near the penetration that DVDs and VCRs do now.

You could have said exactly the same things about DVDs before they came out (and would have been terribly, terribly wrong).

I figure there will be a generation skip here - the replacement for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray should show up around 2020, and consumers are smart enought to see it,

That's a pretty brain-dead thing to say. HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs hold content in the highest resolution that it is possible for HDTVs to display. Since NTSC TVs have been the standard for 75 years now, I don't see any reason to believe that HDTV/ATSC will be upgraded any time soon. I'm sure holographic display is much more than 20 years away, so I don't expect any issues with keeping HD-DVD or Blu-ray for the next 100 years.

so I'm predicting that the new DVD formats will peak at about 10% of the current DVD market, if that.

Yes, well, I'm predicting that you'll be terribly, terribly wrong.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947808)

I have to agree. I currently work in the Video Retail and Rental industry, and we're just now starting to get customers to totally convert over to regular DVD. A small percentage of our customers don't even have TVs capable of RCA inputs, let alone have HD TVs where a HD-type DVD format would benefit. At most of the stores in our chain, we're still renting out VHS as 5-18% of our rentals. While our market may be slightly different from a large retail chain such as Best Buy, we are primarily renters, so the tech people buy at major retailers has a ripple effect with our rentals. Just trying to explain how to hook up the DVD players to certain customers confuses the Hell out of them, let alone trying to now explain the differences between three different types of DVD formats when VHS still isn't totally phased out. The jump to HD-DVDs was a bit early for the mainstream consumer market.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947836)

One hour of mini-DV is 12gb (90 mins in LP mode)

A disk that holds 1 tape's worth of raw DV is a VERY useful disk to have.

At the moment, we have to spend ages making DVD movies of DV rushes. Duplicating tapes is much less convenient but pressing "burn now" at the end of an import would be v. useful.

Re:Not anywhere near the success of "old" DVD... (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947873)

You are simply wrong in saying that the PC (and/or geek) market won't have any use for it.

Each good geek keeps the original distribution archives of his favorite software. These are often several GBs large (warez, games). So that when he reinstalls or changes the OS, he can quickly deploy his favorite programs instead of hunting them down all over the internet.

A 50GB BD-RW will be an ideal storage medium for these packages. It's much thinner than a hard disk and you don't need to load files from it every day.

Seeing is believing (0, Redundant)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947497)

So far, I see a lot of vaporware. Once I see the product, I'll believe it exists.

The rest (price, copy protection, reliability etc) has been mentioned before, so I won't get into depth there. Just that I'll certainly wait until those problems are analyzed before I'll consider buying one. And while the prices are higher than for external HDs, I don't really see a good reason to buy one.

Current movies aren't worth being copied. Or bought.

Your kidding right? (5, Insightful)

grungefade (748722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947524)

I can already see this new format going the way of many past failures (ie. Laser Disk, Beta, Minidisk).

The timing just isnt right. Consumers are not ready to start embracing a new technology when they just barely started embracing dvds. Lots of people have just begun moving their entire collection to dvd. Yes there were early adopters of dvd, but for the majority it has only been a few years. To introduce a new and improved format so soon will only make consumers realize what a sham it is. By making them have to buy the movies they have already bought a second time (maybe 3rd).

This new generation isnt revolutionary. Its not a big enough improvement to get an entire industry to switch. And 5 years from now 50GB is going to look very small.

We need a new standard that can not only support our needs now, but that can sustain them for many years to come.

Lets see... to get 400GB(rewritable) in discs would be $480.
For a decent 400GB hard drive today, around $225.

Already does this seem yesterdays technology.... and this is supposed to sustain us for many years?

Re:Your kidding right? (1)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947857)

....stack 8 discs....
tell me it's heavier than the HDD

Spelling/brand name Nazi... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947879)

Laserdisc, Betamax, Minidisc

although the last one should arguably end in a K depending on ones particular distiction between a disc and a diskette.

Arguments exist to support the disctinction being optical media vs. magnetic (in that case Minidisc would end in a 'c' as it does), but just as abundant are arguments that the distinction has to do with whether or not the disc is enclosed by some kind of rectangular/square housing, making the minidisc cartridge a disk.

Regardless, the Sony has dubbed their product with a 'c'

Linux support? (2, Interesting)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947549)

Does anybody has ANY info about Linux support for these drives?

Re:Linux support? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947589)

Won't happen - everything must be encrypted and lock down right through to the display, which precludes any possibility of opensource versions.

Re:Linux support? (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947604)

Who cares about movies - I want to backup/distribute data on it!

stfu linux nigger. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947616)

nt

Re:Linux support? (2, Interesting)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947615)

It should be, DVD Jon is already working on the DeAACS system now with a target date of late 2006/early 2007. The reason I know this is I know Cody Brocious (remember PyTunes/PyMusic) because I went to vo-tech with him. He now works for Linspire.

Re:Linux support? (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947631)

As I mention in another post - I personally don't care about movies. I'm in CD/DVD duplication bussiness and I need to be able to record "pure" data on it....

I Hate to say it, but... (1)

transami (202700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947572)

I have been looking foward to the PS3 for years now. But given the delay's, all this DRM crap, and these costs (beside the fact they never responded to my compnaies request to become a developer), I'm starting to think, "to hell with em". Think I'll take a Nintendo Revolution, stick mith my current DVDs and invest the money I save into a spirited start-up working on Holographic disks. Thank you very much.

Sony's going down!

Replace tape? (1)

m1chael (636773) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947594)

Will these replace tape backups?

Possible uses ? (3, Interesting)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947628)

I think one possible use of the rewritable disks would be in bootable disks, like knoppix et al.

while the write speeds are still low compared to hard disks, and the access times would suck, it would be nice to be able to boot a disk on any computer, and be able to save all your work on that same disk. Beats having to work with only web based documents, or leaving small images on the local hard drive.

I can imagine a time when you could go to a net cafe (for example) and the pc you hired didn't have a hard disk at all, just a HD rewriter. You bring your own OS and leave no traces (incriminating or otherwise).

I guess this is possible now with DVD-RAM but the available space is a bit limited.

Another possibilty would be true use anywhere software. You wouldn't need to write for any particular market segment anymore, as you would provide the software and OS on the same bootable disk, great for corporate desktops or front of house applications.

I realise this idea will be shot down in flames for various reasons, but I still think it has merits. For example you could have MoviX [sourceforge.net] or GeexBoX [geexbox.org] AND 40 or 50 movies all on the same disk.

And don't forget the *Flash*!!! (4, Interesting)

transami (202700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947658)

Considering it takes around 10 years for optical media to make a 5-fold increase in capacity (CD 0.7GB 1983/91 -> DVD 4.7GB 1997 -> BD 25GB 2006) and Flash memory seems to be doubling every year (512Mb 2001 -> 16Gb 2006), the question is how long before Flash over-takes optical in capacity? Answer: about 5 years. Of course it will probably never beat optical discs for capacity/$, but at some point flash memory should be cheap enough that it doesn't rally matter a great deal. Flash memory is much more convenient to use. In other words, if the current trend continues, optical disks will be obsolete within 10 years. (Yes, that's right. 1TB flash cards anyone?)

Re:And don't forget the *Flash*!!! (4, Funny)

doodlelogic (773522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947728)

every exponential trend
comes to a sticky end

Will the PC drives be able to play the movie disks (0, Troll)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947700)

And if so, will we need Windows Extra DRM edition (aka Windows Vista) or will we see Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players available for current operating systems?

So will burned DVDs play in a BD player? (3, Interesting)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947716)

With 25 or 50 GB capacity it would be nice to copy a collection of standard DVDs to the discs for use when travelling, etc. Imagine being able to keep one disc in a portable DVD player and be able to choose from three, six or as many as ten different DVDs all on one disc. I realize there are technical limitations such as creating a custom DVD menu and the cost of BD media, burners and portable players is going to be prohibitively expensive at first, but will a BD player play a movie from a burned BD-ROM? And I don't mean a HD movie, I am talking about the current DVD standard we have now.

Anyone know or is it even possible to know at this point?

Re:So will burned DVDs play in a BD player? (1)

signore pablo (544088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947732)

right now with nero ultra edition 7 i can make my own menus and import any kind of video file and it will automatically convert it to dvd video. I'm sure there will be software similar for bd and hd... its not very hard. you drag the files in, create the menu and the titles appear automatically as buttons on the menu which you can edit. You can choose that clips not play successively so as to go back to the main menu after being done with one clip. So as for more than one movie, yes I'm sure this will be supported.

History repeats itself, whatcha expect? (4, Interesting)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947724)

As many so correctly point out - we've seen this before, they come out, are expensive, the media at ludicrous prices and most of us play the waiting game until it actually pays to buy one.

Not a bad thing really. Those who wants to ride the "fast-tech-lane" and be first with the latest - pay for innovation and pave way for the normal people who wouldn't get caught dead paying 60 bucks for a CD.

Personally I was "first-with-the-latest" all the way in my early twenties when the Commodore-64/Amiga was all the rave...and it stopped when I grew older and prioritized differently. I then found out that instead of buying a DVD-Recorder at 500 dollars (plus 30 bucks each DVD-R) I'd use my trusty CD-recorder and bought CD's for 20 cents each, easily reaching 4.7 gb with just a few bucks, sure....I'd have to change discs a bit, but it was more practical for the time as no single file took 4.7 gb so I could have a neat archive with files and names.

Later on, the DVD recorders dropped to an astonishing 50 bucks, and an even more astonishing 50 cents pr. DVD if I bought these "overseas" which I certainly did. Because NOW it paid to buy DVD's instead of CD's.

Interestingly enough - the need for storage haven't been in sync with the expansion of program/file sizes, so we're in for a treat.

I can't for the life of me fill up my old 80 GB harddrives, even with multi-booting systems with Linux AND windows. I'm actually more likely to use the 80 GB harddrives as "2-year-milestone-swapdisks" just replacing them with the need for change (new os/ new stuff etc.) and it's actually cheaper keeping my old stuff ready to use on those older drives, way safer too!

My old CD's peel after 5 years, some lasted 10...but I have 10 years old harddisk I still can connect and get my old photos, documents etc.

Food for thoughts...

Free Root Kit Included? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14947760)

A Sony DRM standard.

Does anybody trust them enough to buy this?

I do not.

 

So what's next? (1)

sjwoo (526878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947780)

The move from VHS to DVD was huge, as we know: random access, superior picture quality, widescreen, menus, specials, etc. The move from DVD to Blu-ray/HD-DVD is analogous to going from an Athlon XP 3200+ to an Athlon64 3700+: frankly, not that much.

I think many of us on /. realize this...so what's next? Somebody predicted 2020 to be the year when the new thing comes out. My take: 3D. 3D will usher in another massive adoption, because it would be a technological leap instead of a baby step. Stereoscopic 3D will be a cash cow, as the technology will not be 100% mature in the beginning, meaning the entertainment companies will be able to release version after version for many years.

Re:So what's next? (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14947837)

Except that nobody wants to wear gay 3d clunky glasses while working on the computer. So unless you're talking about holographic 3d images that don't require said gay glasses, I wouldn't put any money on it yet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?