- Status
so the disc costs about $1.00 or less but they charge you $25 for blu ray
the argument for cassette to cd was that the cds cost less to make and have less moving parts and less failure rate and would last for a lifetime and the sound quality was crystal clear. cassettes cost $5-$8 at the time, and cds started at $10-$18. this was in 1990. the cds were a penny a piece for the music companies and there was no record feature so piracy was stamped out until the cd burners came along, then in 1995 dvd came along and had 8 layers and record features, this was before the RIAA so the music and movie studios sued the dvd makers for an indefinite injuction to cease and desist all things dvd until they could lock down ' piracy' issues which already existed with cassette and previous fair use laws and court rulings ( who remembers mix tapes, ya those court rulings no $, no problem ) then in 1996/97 mp3's came along (never mind the fact that we already had windows media files for audio and video ) and all the sudden there was copyright b.s. flaring up which didn't come to a head until napster deprived lars (metallica) of a gold fountain statue of himself for his back yard never mind that metallica became #1 in the world and sold records in more numbers than it would have with out the internet and mp3 reaching all the corners of the earth audiences and make sales in places that didn't even speak english and were brand new markets for these greedy fools, media executives made lars the poster child for DRM [Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)] and telling him why he was not richer than bill gates despite having distributed 10X more copies of metallicas music that micorsoft ever sold (ya lars because $16 per cd and $8 per cassette should generate more money that $100 windows 3.1 & windows 95 windows 98 oh and microsoft office suite($300)
so now the media industry forced feeds us trickle down tech, blu ray and ultra hd blu ray = 8 track of the 1970's in switching from vinyl to cassette.
computers have made every bit of tech the media industry is trying to force feed pedal to us like street urchins selling window washing services using old used gutter newspaper and gutter water on your BMW windshield. seriously. if even 1/10th of the money spent on this worthless optical disc system was spent on flash memory systems or broadband/wireless you'd have all 7 star wars movies on a micro sd card. usb3.0 would be much faster adopted system than the newest iPhone.
i don't even know why they are messing with 4k. 2k was standard in 1998. i still have my 2k 21" viewsonic crt from 1998 moores law has not kept pace in the monitor department and is falling extremely behind pixel count should be at 6k min. and 63" screen size.
oh that's right, you can thank the RIAA MPAA and Sony for this " for only a few extra dollars more, you can add hi fi! "
optical disc media should be at 10TB right now already on the market for $1-$5 a disc with the same record and play options as cassette and vcr ease of use.
thank god for hackers and thank the united states for the internet!
the argument for cassette to cd was that the cds cost less to make and have less moving parts and less failure rate and would last for a lifetime and the sound quality was crystal clear. cassettes cost $5-$8 at the time, and cds started at $10-$18. this was in 1990. the cds were a penny a piece for the music companies and there was no record feature so piracy was stamped out until the cd burners came along, then in 1995 dvd came along and had 8 layers and record features, this was before the RIAA so the music and movie studios sued the dvd makers for an indefinite injuction to cease and desist all things dvd until they could lock down ' piracy' issues which already existed with cassette and previous fair use laws and court rulings ( who remembers mix tapes, ya those court rulings no $, no problem ) then in 1996/97 mp3's came along (never mind the fact that we already had windows media files for audio and video ) and all the sudden there was copyright b.s. flaring up which didn't come to a head until napster deprived lars (metallica) of a gold fountain statue of himself for his back yard never mind that metallica became #1 in the world and sold records in more numbers than it would have with out the internet and mp3 reaching all the corners of the earth audiences and make sales in places that didn't even speak english and were brand new markets for these greedy fools, media executives made lars the poster child for DRM [Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)] and telling him why he was not richer than bill gates despite having distributed 10X more copies of metallicas music that micorsoft ever sold (ya lars because $16 per cd and $8 per cassette should generate more money that $100 windows 3.1 & windows 95 windows 98 oh and microsoft office suite($300)
so now the media industry forced feeds us trickle down tech, blu ray and ultra hd blu ray = 8 track of the 1970's in switching from vinyl to cassette.
computers have made every bit of tech the media industry is trying to force feed pedal to us like street urchins selling window washing services using old used gutter newspaper and gutter water on your BMW windshield. seriously. if even 1/10th of the money spent on this worthless optical disc system was spent on flash memory systems or broadband/wireless you'd have all 7 star wars movies on a micro sd card. usb3.0 would be much faster adopted system than the newest iPhone.
i don't even know why they are messing with 4k. 2k was standard in 1998. i still have my 2k 21" viewsonic crt from 1998 moores law has not kept pace in the monitor department and is falling extremely behind pixel count should be at 6k min. and 63" screen size.
oh that's right, you can thank the RIAA MPAA and Sony for this " for only a few extra dollars more, you can add hi fi! "
optical disc media should be at 10TB right now already on the market for $1-$5 a disc with the same record and play options as cassette and vcr ease of use.
thank god for hackers and thank the united states for the internet!
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,473
- 7
- 54,965
I would agree except service providers are already griping about bandwidth limitations. Bloating the network traffic with super duper hd is only going to make the problem worse and drive up costs of service and/or limit bandwidth to users worse than it is now in some cases. For streaming to be relevant, they need better internet access coverage. Saying streaming is the way to go when not even half the u.s. has true broadband access is a bit premature. That's like saying rip out all the fueling stations because electric cars are finally here, all 20k of them. Not just the u.s., just used that as an example since that's my personal situation. And still doesn't cover the limited access to 'owned' goods.
If the internet is down and I want to watch a movie I can still toss a dvd in and enjoy my movie. If all my movies and things were streamed and/or cloud based, so much for that idea. Wasn't that long ago much of the northern u.s. was without their cable internet for weeks so to say it's unlikely doesn't fly. It's very likely. I'd rather not be under someone else's thumb so the option for discs is a nice one to have. It doesn't hurt anyone who prefers to stream so why do they care? If you prefer to stream, rely on the cloud etc, more power to you. Complaining about something like content being available on disc if you don't even use them is a little odd. How much sense would it make for a man to be overjoyed if they finally stopped producing panty liners because there were other options available. Was it really affecting his world that much? lol
If the internet is down and I want to watch a movie I can still toss a dvd in and enjoy my movie. If all my movies and things were streamed and/or cloud based, so much for that idea. Wasn't that long ago much of the northern u.s. was without their cable internet for weeks so to say it's unlikely doesn't fly. It's very likely. I'd rather not be under someone else's thumb so the option for discs is a nice one to have. It doesn't hurt anyone who prefers to stream so why do they care? If you prefer to stream, rely on the cloud etc, more power to you. Complaining about something like content being available on disc if you don't even use them is a little odd. How much sense would it make for a man to be overjoyed if they finally stopped producing panty liners because there were other options available. Was it really affecting his world that much? lol
Optical "writable" storage like CD DVD or BD is a bad idea for long term data storage/backup. Although manufacturers estimate media longevity in the range of 25-100 years (varying with the type of media), independent studies shown that optical media stored in "normal conditions" has an expected longevity in the order of 5-10 years. If it is in a a room with signifficant temperature changes (e.g hot in summer) optical media can last as short as 2-3. Direct sun light can reduce life to a few months, even weeks. An HDD, in normal conditions, will outlive any optical media however od oil lubricated discs needed to be spin once in a while to stay in working conditions. On average, SSDs (or any flash based device) will have longer data longevity that both optical media and HDDs.
However, none of them is good for long term data storage. There is a reason why IT companies use tapes for backaup and long term storage.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,473
- 7
- 54,965
True, tape storage is a reliable option. Then again I've got dvd's and cd's well over 5yrs old that still load fine and I've had thumb drives based on flash memory just crap out for no reason. Nothing is perfect and as the case with most backups redundancy is important if the files are critical. I've known many businesses that use tape for daily data backup making multiple copies, at least one stored on site with another stored off site. I still remember the days of backing up things like installation files to cd and how many cd's it took. Large leaps going from 700mb cd's to 4-8gb dvd (single/dual layer) to 25gb dvd. Think of all the storage people who use discs would need to store 10 dvd's worth of data on if we were still stuck with cd's.
Professional discs tend to last a bit longer but then again it's a different process where they data layer is 'stamped' rather than just photo etched with a laser. People worried about the expensive of players/burners for the new media type have little to worry about I think. Naturally when tech is new it's expensive. I can recall br players costing a couple hundred, now internal burners are $70 or less. Same with dvd players. I still remember when cd burners were $45 and now dvd burners can be had for $15-20.
Professional discs tend to last a bit longer but then again it's a different process where they data layer is 'stamped' rather than just photo etched with a laser. People worried about the expensive of players/burners for the new media type have little to worry about I think. Naturally when tech is new it's expensive. I can recall br players costing a couple hundred, now internal burners are $70 or less. Same with dvd players. I still remember when cd burners were $45 and now dvd burners can be had for $15-20.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
f-14 mentioned disc costs, but who buys movies when they first come out? I don't, and it's not as if one has to wait that long for prices to drop, which isn't a problem now that movies launch on DVD/BR very soon after the initial cinema release. Within a couple of months they're much cheaper, and then there are the big drops at holiday periods in the sales, eg. original LoTR extended trilogy on bluray was 15 UKP in the new year sales here. Others I bought within the last 6 months on bluray for decently low prices were John Carter (6 UKP), Prince of Persia (5.25), Lawence of Arabia (7), Cowboys & Aliens (6.48), Zulu (6.60), Dark Star (7) and Ghostbusters 1 & 2 (9); these were from Amazon, but I nabbed some other good deals from HMV high street store aswell.
I agree with synphul, I want to be able to play movies whenever I like, and net outages do happen. Problem with shifting up to 4K is the bandwidth increase is huge, standard broadband speeds are barely good enough atm for reliable HD streaming, never mind 4K. If they try to roll this out before the infrastructure can handle it, the extra loading which just clog up the system and ruin the streaming reliability for everyone else.
synphul, you mentioned tapes. I would love for there to be a decent consumer tape solution, something like a feature-reduced version of LTO-6, that would be awesome, but I guess tape makers have no incentive to produce such a thing, low margins on consumer products, etc. I would have thought it should be possible to make something that doesn't have the unncessary features of the Enterprise Ultrium drives, but does retain the speed & reliability to a decent degree. But then such a product would probably be popular with companies aswell, seeing the tradeoff vs. pro models as being perfectly worthwhile in many cases, and the makers wouldn't want to harm their own premium sales.
Consumers though do need a radical leap in what is available as backup solutions, given the increasing amount of data people produce with modern devices. HD is the norm for cameras, and I know even just music collections can be very large these days. I've helped a few normal users with their PC issues; backup concepts never even occur to them, they're unaware of the nature of hw failure and what that implies. The lesser reliability of consumer rust spinners doesn't help matters.
Ian.
I agree with synphul, I want to be able to play movies whenever I like, and net outages do happen. Problem with shifting up to 4K is the bandwidth increase is huge, standard broadband speeds are barely good enough atm for reliable HD streaming, never mind 4K. If they try to roll this out before the infrastructure can handle it, the extra loading which just clog up the system and ruin the streaming reliability for everyone else.
synphul, you mentioned tapes. I would love for there to be a decent consumer tape solution, something like a feature-reduced version of LTO-6, that would be awesome, but I guess tape makers have no incentive to produce such a thing, low margins on consumer products, etc. I would have thought it should be possible to make something that doesn't have the unncessary features of the Enterprise Ultrium drives, but does retain the speed & reliability to a decent degree. But then such a product would probably be popular with companies aswell, seeing the tradeoff vs. pro models as being perfectly worthwhile in many cases, and the makers wouldn't want to harm their own premium sales.
Consumers though do need a radical leap in what is available as backup solutions, given the increasing amount of data people produce with modern devices. HD is the norm for cameras, and I know even just music collections can be very large these days. I've helped a few normal users with their PC issues; backup concepts never even occur to them, they're unaware of the nature of hw failure and what that implies. The lesser reliability of consumer rust spinners doesn't help matters.
Ian.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,473
- 7
- 54,965
Many places are pushing for cloud storage which is pretty cheap as it's just the cost of large drive volumes and bulk bandwidth which is less costly than physical products manufactured, packaged and shipped as well as taxed. The problem still goes back to what internet options are available to people and bandwidth limitations. I live less than an hour from a major metro region in the u.s., only a couple miles off a state highway and close to several smaller suburbs.
A lot of people live in regions like I do where broadband just doesn't exist. No cable, no dsl, no t1 - you're limited to 3g/4g mobile, dialup (enter the wayback machine) or satellite services typically bundled/advertised with satellite t.v. I'm not THAT far off the beaten path yet may as well be in the middle of a remote desert for service. Dialup is worthless, satellite has very low bandwidth allowances (not suitable for hd streaming much less 4k) - a couple movies and you'd be done for the month. Wireless used to have unlimited bandwidth options but even they've tightened the reins and reduced their plans to restricted bandwidth. In areas like this dsl is highly unlikely since it uses the phone lines and the lines here use several splices and extenders to the point it's unsuitable for dsl connections. They would have to go back and rewire all the telephone poles and that's not going to happen.
Good luck using a standard subscription cell service and paying through the nose for it since even those plans most have anti tethering clauses allowing them to shut down your service if they detect excessive activity. It's a real problem many people are facing. Tech can advance all it wants to but unless the infrastructure can handle it, it's null and void.
A decade or two ago people were raging over bloat in file sizes, web page graphics (slow loading, 56k warning types), applications - now they can't bloat everything up fast enough. Disc/disk capacity is ever increasing but we aren't really able to hold higher quantities of files. Photos have gone from 100's of KB to several MB's in size. Movies and games are multiple GB's. We went from games that fit on 1 cd to games that now require multiple dvd's to install and by the time they're expanded to a hard drive consume 30-40gb or more.
A lot of people live in regions like I do where broadband just doesn't exist. No cable, no dsl, no t1 - you're limited to 3g/4g mobile, dialup (enter the wayback machine) or satellite services typically bundled/advertised with satellite t.v. I'm not THAT far off the beaten path yet may as well be in the middle of a remote desert for service. Dialup is worthless, satellite has very low bandwidth allowances (not suitable for hd streaming much less 4k) - a couple movies and you'd be done for the month. Wireless used to have unlimited bandwidth options but even they've tightened the reins and reduced their plans to restricted bandwidth. In areas like this dsl is highly unlikely since it uses the phone lines and the lines here use several splices and extenders to the point it's unsuitable for dsl connections. They would have to go back and rewire all the telephone poles and that's not going to happen.
Good luck using a standard subscription cell service and paying through the nose for it since even those plans most have anti tethering clauses allowing them to shut down your service if they detect excessive activity. It's a real problem many people are facing. Tech can advance all it wants to but unless the infrastructure can handle it, it's null and void.
A decade or two ago people were raging over bloat in file sizes, web page graphics (slow loading, 56k warning types), applications - now they can't bloat everything up fast enough. Disc/disk capacity is ever increasing but we aren't really able to hold higher quantities of files. Photos have gone from 100's of KB to several MB's in size. Movies and games are multiple GB's. We went from games that fit on 1 cd to games that now require multiple dvd's to install and by the time they're expanded to a hard drive consume 30-40gb or more.
Ninjawithagun
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2007
- 747
- 16
- 19,165
@ ohim, the plain fact of the matter is that there is just not enough internet bandwidth yet to support 4K streaming on a broad scale - just like it originally was for 1080P streaming. The minimum bandwidth required for H265 4K streaming is ~25 Mbps. The average US home bandwidth is 3 to 5 Mbps, no kidding! Until the internet infrastructure is upgraded throughout the US, there will always be a need (unfortunately) for physical media.
JasonGilley
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
One thing nobody is thinking about is that we desperately need a much higher density backup media. Do you have something to back up even a 2TB drive? No, because it doesn't exist in a non-volatile media. And please don't bring up the joke of tape backup with its ridiculous cost, slowness & erasability.
2Be_or_Not2Be
Distinguished
- Aug 23, 2013
- 1,103
- 140
- 19,940
2Be_or_Not2Be
Distinguished
- Aug 23, 2013
- 1,103
- 140
- 19,940
I think everyone has their own anecdotes & opinions about the relative longevity of different storage mediums. I've had bad tapes, bad HDDs, and a few bad optical disks. So there are bad points about each - although I personally hate tape more because if you have a problem with it, sometimes it doesn't occur until way in the restore. Tape restores can be brutally slow!
The key point for anyone who wants long-term backup storage is simply to remember ALWAYS refresh the backups at decent intervals with a fresh copy of the backups! Also, testing/verifying a restore is a good practice as well.
The problem with all of this is that A/V technology evolves too fast for the masses to keep up. I'm not talking about enthusiasts, but about the masses. At retail, plain old regular DVDs are still selling better, and occupy more floor space, than Blu-Ray discs. And does that new UltraHD Blu-Ray standard comes with an HDCP2.0 requirement? If so, it means most people would not only need to upgrade their Blu-Ray player, but their home theatre system and TVs as well, as all elements in the chain needs to be HDCP2.0 compatible. And I don't see that happenning.
Contrary to enthusiasts, most people out there don't change their TVs every 3 or 4 years, and they "upgrade" their equipment when the old one breaks. Money isn't growing on trees.
And to those saying that physical formats are dead, they are still the most easiest way to actually get the best picture and sound quality out there. I'm sorry, but a Netflix stream at 5Mbps is no match for a Blu-Ray disc that is usually encoded at around 20Mbps, more or less, and sometimes even over 30Mbps...
But if that new "standard" isn't backward compatible with HDCP1.0, it's not going to impose itself anytime soon. I love movies, and I love having great image and sound quality, but if I need to change my whole setup just to be compatible with this, then, huh, no buy from me. And many others, I guess.
Contrary to enthusiasts, most people out there don't change their TVs every 3 or 4 years, and they "upgrade" their equipment when the old one breaks. Money isn't growing on trees.
And to those saying that physical formats are dead, they are still the most easiest way to actually get the best picture and sound quality out there. I'm sorry, but a Netflix stream at 5Mbps is no match for a Blu-Ray disc that is usually encoded at around 20Mbps, more or less, and sometimes even over 30Mbps...
But if that new "standard" isn't backward compatible with HDCP1.0, it's not going to impose itself anytime soon. I love movies, and I love having great image and sound quality, but if I need to change my whole setup just to be compatible with this, then, huh, no buy from me. And many others, I guess.
DRM, licensing fees for approved cables, double disk capacity for 4x bandwidth need, disk sales are going down, rental shops dying all over.
This'll be the next laserdisc.
A bunch of hobbyists will buy so they'll have something to feed their 100" srcreens, but the sales will be abysmally poor.
This'll be the next laserdisc.
A bunch of hobbyists will buy so they'll have something to feed their 100" srcreens, but the sales will be abysmally poor.
I can tell you now, from personal experience, Any big budget FX based film from the last 10-20 years will not scale up to 4k very well, since most vfx has not been rendered higher than around 2150x1105 since, well, forever. Old classic that have been filmed on celluloid will scale up to 4k, however.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
realnoize, that was some good stuff there about the way the masses get left behind, how often people upgrade, etc.
Modern tape tech (Ultrium) is expensive only from the point of view of a normal consumer, but it is definitely not slow. With compression, a peak of 400MB/sec is possible with LTO6 (160MB/sec peak native). In standard networks, the bottleneck will normally be a typical GigE port, not the tape unit. Speeds & capacities will jump again with LTO7, and there's already a roadmap out to 48TB native capacities with >1GB/sec native speeds.
In one LTO6 review I read, tested over a 10GigE link with a typical mix of files (documents, presentations, media, etc.), 165MB/sec was normal, rising to 243MB/sec with a larger 256KB block size (and better in both cases with highly compressible data).
One can also define a tape to have an LTFS (sic. file system) that allows it to present to the OS as a normal drive
so one can do drag & drop backup. Archive speed is reduced quite a bit (more like 65MB/sec), but restoration speed is quite good (over 140MB/sec, or 174MB/sec with highly compressible data), though exploiting LTFS requires the adoption of sensible usage/access policies, for obvious reasons.
LTO6 is 2.5TB native, 6.25TB compressed, and now has 90% of the archive market. There's also a new medium in use, Barium Ferrite, which will be the norm for LTO7 onwards.
Besides, what's totally missing from your argument about cost is the value of your data! That is often far more than the cost of any backup medium to the person or organisation in question. I talked to someone yesterday who lost over 800 movie files when his disk died, because he didn't have a backup. And I wonder how often already there have been ordinary families who've lost items such as wedding & holiday pictures/vids because of a failed disk & no backup.
It's too easy to get blinded by the upfront cost of a backup system & media, but like insurance, that's not remotely the point. Those who don't like the cost are probably the same who feel that the insurance cover they took out for a holiday was wasted after they safely return, but that's only because nothing happened, and misses the purpose of insurance (people who take out loan insurance often moan in the same way, which is dumb). When something bad does happen, medical holiday insurance really saves the day.
So an LTO6 is 1500 and the carts are 60 each (UKP I mean), but really that's diddly squat to a typical company in terms of potential damage from lost data or down time. Backup is a worthwhile investment. Last month I was able to keep a small clothing company going with no down time because I'd setup a backup disk clone system. At the extreme fail end of the spectrum, I once heard from a large confectionary company (which shall remain nameless) that was losing 250K/day in lost production because of a failed server for which they didn't have backups of the original 8" installation floppies (the admin told me if I had a very specific ancient IBM 8" floppy, they'd buy it for 25K immediately; I didn't, but I guess someone got lucky that day).
What would be good for consumers is some kind of lesser version of LTO that's cheaper by way of not having many of the Enterprise features, connects just via eSATA or USB3(.1), etc.
Ian.
Modern tape tech (Ultrium) is expensive only from the point of view of a normal consumer, but it is definitely not slow. With compression, a peak of 400MB/sec is possible with LTO6 (160MB/sec peak native). In standard networks, the bottleneck will normally be a typical GigE port, not the tape unit. Speeds & capacities will jump again with LTO7, and there's already a roadmap out to 48TB native capacities with >1GB/sec native speeds.
In one LTO6 review I read, tested over a 10GigE link with a typical mix of files (documents, presentations, media, etc.), 165MB/sec was normal, rising to 243MB/sec with a larger 256KB block size (and better in both cases with highly compressible data).
One can also define a tape to have an LTFS (sic. file system) that allows it to present to the OS as a normal drive
so one can do drag & drop backup. Archive speed is reduced quite a bit (more like 65MB/sec), but restoration speed is quite good (over 140MB/sec, or 174MB/sec with highly compressible data), though exploiting LTFS requires the adoption of sensible usage/access policies, for obvious reasons.
LTO6 is 2.5TB native, 6.25TB compressed, and now has 90% of the archive market. There's also a new medium in use, Barium Ferrite, which will be the norm for LTO7 onwards.
Besides, what's totally missing from your argument about cost is the value of your data! That is often far more than the cost of any backup medium to the person or organisation in question. I talked to someone yesterday who lost over 800 movie files when his disk died, because he didn't have a backup. And I wonder how often already there have been ordinary families who've lost items such as wedding & holiday pictures/vids because of a failed disk & no backup.
It's too easy to get blinded by the upfront cost of a backup system & media, but like insurance, that's not remotely the point. Those who don't like the cost are probably the same who feel that the insurance cover they took out for a holiday was wasted after they safely return, but that's only because nothing happened, and misses the purpose of insurance (people who take out loan insurance often moan in the same way, which is dumb). When something bad does happen, medical holiday insurance really saves the day.
So an LTO6 is 1500 and the carts are 60 each (UKP I mean), but really that's diddly squat to a typical company in terms of potential damage from lost data or down time. Backup is a worthwhile investment. Last month I was able to keep a small clothing company going with no down time because I'd setup a backup disk clone system. At the extreme fail end of the spectrum, I once heard from a large confectionary company (which shall remain nameless) that was losing 250K/day in lost production because of a failed server for which they didn't have backups of the original 8" installation floppies (the admin told me if I had a very specific ancient IBM 8" floppy, they'd buy it for 25K immediately; I didn't, but I guess someone got lucky that day).
What would be good for consumers is some kind of lesser version of LTO that's cheaper by way of not having many of the Enterprise features, connects just via eSATA or USB3(.1), etc.
Ian.
tdenton1138
Distinguished
- Nov 1, 2007
- 36
- 0
- 18,530
Hopefully, they'll mandate that internet access is free too! And maybe a $50,000/yr minimum wage. How about a free mansion while you're at it. Where are all the tech libertarians I keep hearing about? In the past few years, gov't took over/regulated school loans, healthcare, the internet... why do so many of you really seem to trust the Gov't that much?
If you need to backup 2TBytes of data, then TAPE is probably not for you, what you need is annother 2 TBytes HDD. But you shouldn't consider tape a joke. Tape is still the ideal backup media for LARGE amounts of data. I just happen to have a computer with 2 PETABytes of disk storage at work (yes 2 PETA, this is one thousand 2 TByte HDDS). Tape was the most cost effective back-up solution (actually tape was the only solution).
Tape cartridges can store up to 6.25TB on a single tape (vs only 100 Gb for BD). High bandwidth with speeds over 1TB/hour (existing BD are rated at about 100 GB/hour). Low cost, at aprox $0.01/GB, tape storage is the most affordable option for storing massive amounts of data (BDs have an estimated cost of about $0.20/GB). Tape drives use less power and generate less heat than HDDs, resulting in energy costs that are 1/15th that of disk. Contrary to HDD, you can reliably store data on TAPE and move it offsite for disaster recovery purposes.
And yes tapes fail too. That is why you need several copies of your backups, with at least one of them stored in a security vault located in a different citty.
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,926
- 269
- 21,190
It does require, but same thing as always. Some people buy something when they need, some when they want, some when they can...
It will takes years until UltraHD Blue-Ray is popular, but 4K tv are not so common in these days anyway. So when peoples buy new TV (in 1-7 years from now) it most propably is 4K tv. And it will have HDCP2.0 (or something like that). It may be possible that they allso think that their old DVD player is getting granky and it would be nice to see something in 4K resolution (the tv-broadcast are going to remain 1080p or even worse for some time due bandwidth limitations).
So sooner or later peoples are going to get there. Those new player can show old DVD (up-scaled) and old Blue-rays (up-scaled) so they are not going to buy new movies just for 4K (if they are not movie freaks like I am...)
DVD is like winXP people don't move on until it is necessary! Same in here. I have very good Blue ray player at this moment, but still buy DVD:s some times, because they are cheaper and the original is not so good. Now when Blue ray movies has become cheaper, I mostly buy only Blue-ray versions.
In the beginning of Ultra HD Blue-ray era. I mostly will buy normal blue rays, buy new player, when the new is cheap enough, or my old does not work any more and eventually move on to Ultra HD... Why not!
nukemaster
Titan
- Nov 23, 2004
- 19,623
- 6
- 74,965
Could not have said it better my self.
Bluray movies look great compared to streaming. I am not saying streaming is not going to be the future once the internet catches up(speed/capacity)
I DO hate the DRM nature of all this crap however. When was the last time someone ripped a bluray movie with a player when the disc can be ripped in the computer.
People ask why use disks, it is simple, it is because that is the only medium we have to get content out to the masses. Most people don't have a fast enough internet connection for true 1080p content, so h265 compressed 4k is not going to happen anytime soon and the average home being able to support uncompressed 4k is a fairytale. Satellite/local cable might be able to support a few movie channels in compressed 4k, but its not like they will just flip a switch and have your 100+ HD channels now in 4k/UHD.
This is why I am in no rush to get anything 4k. Let all the standards be finalized and wait until there is actual infrastructure for the content.
This is why I am in no rush to get anything 4k. Let all the standards be finalized and wait until there is actual infrastructure for the content.
troger5troger5
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2009
- 44
- 0
- 18,540
ps4 and xbox bla bla will not be able to play the media 4k media via blu ray player. that's like playing a dvd in a cd play, or a blu ray in a dvd play. As far as legal streaming, here is a quote from Forbes
"In short, it’s hard not to share Netflix’s apparent view that the current PS4s and Xbox Ones need hardware rather than software upgrades to handle serious 4K streaming.
So what hardware changes might we expect to see from the predicted new consoles? First and foremost a chip for decoding the HEVC 4K UHD streaming format employed by both Netflix and Amazon. Also likely needed, as pointed out after my initial publication of this article by some readers, would be a chipset capable of handling the HDCP 2.2 copy protection protocols required for playback of many 4K video sources."
"In short, it’s hard not to share Netflix’s apparent view that the current PS4s and Xbox Ones need hardware rather than software upgrades to handle serious 4K streaming.
So what hardware changes might we expect to see from the predicted new consoles? First and foremost a chip for decoding the HEVC 4K UHD streaming format employed by both Netflix and Amazon. Also likely needed, as pointed out after my initial publication of this article by some readers, would be a chipset capable of handling the HDCP 2.2 copy protection protocols required for playback of many 4K video sources."
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 25
-
Question Debit card compromised, paranoid about malware
- Started by royrichard1290
- Replies: 3
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram