Warning! Do not download before hiding your IP with a VPN!
Your IP Address is .   Location is
Your Internet Provider can see what you are downloading!  Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
We strongly recommend using a reliable VPN client to hide yourself on the Internet. It's just $2.91 with 31-day money-back guarantee!
Hide me now!
Releaselog

Tiny huge 1TB optical disc

It is called the TeraDisk and it is really small, like a ordinary CD/DVD. But it’s really huge in terms of space. 1 TB (1000 GB). How can this be done? The process is easy (or not). All existing optical media record data on semitransparent layers. A regular CD has 1 layer and a Blu-Ray disk has up to 8. The reason nobody can add more layers on a regular CD/DVD/Blu-Ray disk is because when the light passes through these layers it becomes distorted and by the time it reaches the final layers it becomes almost impossible to read/write on the disk.

TeraDisk achieved the 1TB limit by using 200 layers, each storing 5GB of data. So basically the data support stay the same (TeraDisk will be made out of the same plexiglas like material used in other disks) but the write/read laser technology is completely new. They say it’s going to be cheap and it will be available for the public in 2010.

For more info on how this is done visit here or here.

drive-optics-diagram-large.JPG

 

Source: The Tech Don

Comments

Feel free to post your torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, depositfiles, uploaded.net, rapidgator, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
  1. Hmm
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:32

    Still not enough for all my porn :/

  2. scorpion20
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:32

    wait and see, sounds good

  3. Andy123
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:32

    Wow. Thanks for the info man.

  4. March 9th, 2008 | 19:33

    just think about how long it will take to write a full disc at 2.4x speed

  5. dublitze
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:36

    was thinking of buying a new harddisc – but now – I will just buy a disc :)

  6. aaa
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:37

    holy ****, this does not bode well for us pirate types… imagine downloading a 1TB game :|

  7. silentace
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:38

    @4 LMAO

    Looks like blue ray may only be around for a couple years… then another format war maybe? All the 1TB disc means for me is a lot more data to be put on a false sense of comfort. Pop in the disc of 1TB of pictures/videos from years ago and then it doesn’t work, don’t have another version of the backup and your out of all your data. I wish there was some stone solid way to backup data… nothing so far has passed the test of time, tapes/dvd/cd/floppy/even pen drives die… RAIDing is the best way to guarantee but that requires maintenance.

  8. Graner316
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:39

    and BlueRay thought it was over. Well it is for a few years.

  9. Dorje
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:40

    Cool, this will be the necessary capacity when Super HD makes it here in 10 years.

  10. Moh
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:40

    and what if it’s damaged?

  11. Rich
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:42

    whatever, its pointless, its just another disk that noone will bea ble to use in a dvd player, they will have to buy a special, new expensive dvd player just to play it.

    a big fat waste of time and money

  12. William
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:42

    neat, although this will still cost a hell of a lot

  13. christof
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:43

    @10 what if it is, I get alot of damaged DVD’s etc. If its important you make enough backups so that the probability of all of them being damaged is atronomical. I personally maintain only 3 copies of importnat files but on 3 different formats. what this new tech will mean for people like me is that we will not have to split our data over several DVD’s if we want an optical backup of large video/audio files.

  14. Mr. Perv
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:44

    How long it takes for 1 disc to complete the burning process is a concern though. I hope they can solve this with multicore computing or whatever technology is already in place.

    But my biggest concern right now is Blu-Ray. The disc mentioned above will be available for public consumption in 2010. So will that mean that Blu-Ray only has 2-years to enjoy its reign? Will it replace or threaten Blu-Ray?

    This is indeed promising… a lot of storage space for my most important backups ————- pr0n.

  15. JDM
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:49

    neat. but surely this will be darn expensive. by the time this gets availble Blu-ray will be dirt cheap! :D

  16. traian
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:51

    the need is not for new cd/dvd/BD discs..it’s for a faster and bigger medium with no moving parts! they should put all that hard work in making cheaper SSD +1 TB usb/firewire/eSATA drives! and all distribution of movies via torrents…waaay faster and cheaper!!

  17. Stealthy Turd
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:53

    And to think I actually thought a 4 gig hard drive was big once (long ago). Forget external hard drives, in 2010 I can just have a stack of these on my desk.

    One day, when I’m an old codger (god willing), if I ever have grandkids, they’ll be laughing at my storage space stories running around with tiny Exabyte discs.

  18. name
    March 9th, 2008 | 19:53

    I can’t imagine this to be a practical solution for masses in near future. Unless you consider having a huge pron collection on just one disc — THAT’s practical.

  19. johhn
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:00

    just bought a LaCie 1TB,hopefully it can last untill 2010.

  20. March 9th, 2008 | 20:02

    I think a solution to solve the disc scratching problem would be to sell movies and stuff on tiny sd memory cards. You could just insert it into an SD card reader (which act as a future dvd player) and play from there. except the costs might be more expensive to create them but once they mass produce it, it should be cheaper than say producing a blu ray disc

  21. jm
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:03

    they say it will be cheap. I hope so, you still can’t find a bluray recordable for under $10. I have not uprgraded any of my players to HD and maybe might not for a while if it’s gonna be obsolete that soon. Hell, I’m not that picky, regular DVDs are clear enough for me. I think I’ll wait it out and see what happens with this format. Maybe Sony will pick it up so it will be backward compatible with bluray.

  22. cmsr
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:07

    This is extremely bad news for piracy.

    Imaging having to download 1TB image files for your games or movies. It’s gonna be a new measure for companies to act against piracy, they’ll simply put their 8GB big games on 1TB discs and pirates ain’t gonna want to bother downloading 125 times more then what they’d actually get.

  23. captainkremmen
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:09

    If BluRay does become mass market, which is highly likely now, I think it goes without saying that any consumer player/recorder in this new format will be backwards compatible. Data drives for PCs can probably be sold at consumer friendly prices within the next 2-3 years but I would think video player/recorders will be many years away. First of all the guys developing this will have to involve the MPAA and various hollywood studios to decide on new copy protection methods (especially now that BluRay protection has been broken). That process alone will take a couple of years.

    I always thought the future for consumer movie purchases in stores would be via solid state devices such as SD cards but it is looking like this isn’t the case. Maybe we consumers just love that shiny 5 inch disc rather than a fingernail sized tiny card.

  24. lequory
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:11

    This is insane. If I downloaded at 700kb/s I dont think I’d make 1TB in a year. Although using this as a storage medium is useful. I dont know where i actually stand on this. I’ll have to wait and see whats going on with it once its actually released.

  25. ripper
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:12

    @ cmsr

    That’s why people rip and compress movies and games. 200GB –> 50GB after compression. Compression algorithms are only going to get better and better combined with powerful multicore CPUs.

  26. n00b
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:13

    woot… now i can have a disc full of porno LOL

  27. March 9th, 2008 | 20:15

    This isnt bad news for piracy as movie production companies cant fill a 1TB disc with one 1080p movie. Mabe if it was something around 5000p but thats just crazy. They wont back this format for a while as they can just do with the 50GB Blu Ray. By the time something like this becomes mainstream fios will be available everywhere. I bet you people were worried about dvds when they had dialup but now dsl and cable modems solved that issue. Im just waiting for verizon to get that fios in my area and raise its speeds beyond 50mbps ;)

  28. WOW
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:15

    Hey Marceli, this is some good info. I had heard about this before, but I thought it was just some dumb rumor which arised when Blu Ray was introduced. But it seems logical, thanks for the article bro.

  29. onfire
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:18

    @25..Not really..I download at 2mb/s per second (20mb) It takes me 1 hour to download around 6gb so it would take me around 7 days to download 1 TB..So around 3 weeks for you.

  30. HitMan
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:33

    tera disk > blu ray > hd dvd

    so basically blu ray too is on its way out !

    althou i have a question …will regular dvd players
    support tera disk ?…since its basically same as dvd but instead of 1 layer…its 200….will it ?…or it wont ?

  31. noone
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:34

    doesn’t seem to be very practical, either way i guess what counts here is the new technology, but i still expect new developments in the area of harddiscs and pens because increasing the storage capacity of a “cd” doesn’t means anything if you don’t increase the speed too..

  32. Fizzycakes
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:34

    Pure amazing! Hopefully they’ll actually manufacture these so they won;t scratch easily and prevent disc-rot (which I don’t know anyone that’s actually had issues with disc-rot). It’d be really sweet to see them make a hard-drive like device using one of these.

  33. requiredname
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:41

    this is insane / g4y

  34. Bringo
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:42

    1TB only??

    What about a 4 TERABYTE DISK HVD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

  35. smalldrive
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:43

    who has a big enough harddrive that can store a 1TB file in the first place…i only own a 60gb on right now! :(

  36. HitMan
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:45

    yup..it wont be used as an evryday thng…but for storage purposes …its WOW !..gr8 for backup !

    since standard spinning hdd’s aint that reliable !

  37. KING
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:46

    ever heard of Protein-coated disc
    in theory.. it can store upto 50 TB
    but since other factors are involved like focusing light..
    its Practical capacity wud be around 250 GB…

    BTW, BluRay is OLD… HVD is coming..
    they demonstrated maximum of 3.9 TB on 12cm disc..
    it uses green laser..

    some interesting info..

    Storage capacity..

    * It has been estimated that the books in the U.S. Library of Congress, one of the largest libraries in the world, would contain a total of about 20 terabytes if scanned in text format. Not including images from the books, the content could be stored with capacity to spare on six 3.9 TB discs.

    * At 15 meter resolution and 32-bit color (about the resolution found in unpopulated areas on Google Earth), a map of the land masses of Earth would occupy just over 2 TB.

    * Using MPEG4 ASP encoding, a 3.9 TB HVD could hold 4,600–11,900 hours of video—just over one year of uninterrupted video at usual encoding rates.[4]

    * Using typical satellite radio encoding (CT-aacPlus at 40 kbit/s), a 3.9 TB HVD could hold over 26.5 years of uninterrupted stereo audio.

    @Marceli
    now beat that…… :P

  38. Drksoul
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:46

    @25 Actually i have about 1,3 mb/s now and downloaded 26 gigs in 6 hours at full speed wich would be 104 gigs in 24 hours and over 1TB in about 10 days :P in a year that would be about 38TB

  39. new guy
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:47

    I don’t understand why people think they have to fill the disc? 100GB on a 1TB disc would be fine if the discs were affordable.

  40. Lakai
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:47

    Hella tight i cant wait but that is alot of memory and i dont have a burner that is hella fast but owell cant wait to see what they can put on it? maybe way better graphics? on xbox or ps3? we will see, thanks rlslog for the info

  41. rex
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:51

    people come on in 2010 they will be already new types of dvd-players and will support this format.. so no worries about blu-ray or dvd this is just news on how the disks will be in the future…

  42. diana
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:53

    200 layers?
    I doubt that there will be any burner for this,
    maybe they just glued those 200 layers in lab, one by one :P

  43. Bosefasaurus
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:54

    This really poses no threat to the BluRay format if you think about it. First, 2010 is two years off. And if it does come out Jan. 2010(that’s a big if) then BR will have been around for 4 years. Plenty of time to soak up the market with HDDVD out of the way. Also you need to take into account that today’s films at 1080p don’t even fill up an entire BluRay disc. That’s only 50gb at dual layer. These Terradiscs are WAY bigger than Hollywood needs them to be. You can only be putting so many Peter Jackson audio commentaries on a LotR disc…These will serve a purpose, no doubt, but BluRay will reign for years to come as far as home video entertainment is concerned. IMHO of course

  44. Notn4
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:55

    @23

    if companies would start making 1tb games just to prevent ppl from DLing it then no 1 would buy it …just think about having to instal something that PACKED on a disc and then it could be up to 2tb on ur hard drive…then u need a 10tb HD just to have 5 games!

  45. Wycked.Ninja
    March 9th, 2008 | 20:58

    get 1 crc and every thing gone in the blue

  46. GrooveStepper
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:02

    Imagine the HVD up to 3,9TB. The good thing about it, is that they already sell this kind of discs, which means they work of course. 300GB/1.6TB/3.9TB. Only the first one is for sale right now and 120-180$ for disc isn’t that much for 300GB if the prices are falling down… Great news for the future!

    BluRay is actually worthless since the next-gen is already on the market.

  47. neiko
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:03

    @ 21

    No, the proper way to safeguard the scratching problem is to only utilize 1/3 or 1/2 of the disk and use the MOD(3) or MOD(2) layers as Parity or Mirroring layers respectively. CDs already do CRC checking, but it’s hardly ample. If you offset the location of the parity data by 1/2 rotation of the disk, I think you’d have a much better time dealing with scratches. Software could warn you of the problem so you could make a new back-up before there was a failure.

  48. Atlas
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:12

    I hope this tech gets ported to more robust HD’s so that I can have a 10TB HD for $100.

    You could have %90 of the enire web on 100 discs.

    Rural areas with no internet connections can get wikipedia, all news sources, plus months of TV and movies. OLPC project, anyone?

    Imagine a tiny 1cm version of this… it would hold 80gb. You can put it in a watch or a phone and use it for hundreds of different things.

    Don’t worry about movies being 1TB, you forget the amount of processing power you’d need. A 50gb B-RD needs what? 1 ghz? 1.5ghz to run? You’d need, 12-18ghz to process that mofo. Your box would heat up like a radiator and sound like a lawnmower with all the fans/liquid cooling it would take. we are NOT ready, so relax.

  49. craigjkb
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:15

    :) hey i have fill up my 500gb hard drive of just dvd movies tv shows now thinking of getting a 1 or 2 tb hard drive lol

  50. Hawking - Master Of The Universe
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:15

    Sounds Excellent but what is the life expectancy for one of these discs because dvd+r discs only have a 5 year life expectancy. Plus if the lining is the same then it could be easily scratched and losing a terabyte of data could be quite harsh. I wouldn’t trust a disc like this unless i knew it was properly encased and protected. The amount of discs ive written on and have gotten scratched is ridiculous imagine losing 200. Ouch

  51. 2Thousand IIIWRX
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:16

    this is going to be awesome, so far away yet so close!

  52. donkey?
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:17

    old news

  53. tt3
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:23

    At 2010 our harddrives would be a lot more bigger so its almost useless.

  54. klark kent
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:25

    bullcrap, just like xray specs, sea monkeys, hovercrafts and “500 cable channels”

    200 layers? OMFG, hope it’s in a solid steel shell. One tiny bend and that data’s fhacked!

  55. Hawking - Master Of The Universe
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:30

    I’ll wait for affordable terabyte storage cards until then i’ll stick with the 2 synchronised external 1TB hard drives on the offline computer.

  56. marvalcus
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:33

    If you want to protect the disks, any disks, use low tech. Each disk should come in an accessible sealed jewelcase. The case could be inserted into the optical reader and a window on the case would open inside the reader. The disk would never be touched by human hands. Should the case drop and get scratched the disk would be protected and should the case crack the disk could be transferred to another case. Right now all disks are vulnerable to scratches exposed as they are. My first optical reader from macintosh had a box to insert a disk then the box would be inserted into the reader, that idea was dropped because of cost. A 1tb. disk with mechanical protection would be worth the extra cost.

  57. Hawking - Master Of The Universe
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:34

    @tt3 (54) so where did you read or find that out

  58. dent
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:48

    Only 1 TB…

    Bah

    :D

  59. Æ
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:49

    Who needs this???solid state is the future.

  60. Hawking - Master Of The Universe
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:52

    Maybe they should bring out technology that would turn multiple lasers and not the disc. Makes more sense for data protection.

  61. Disc
    March 9th, 2008 | 21:54

    There is better quality DVD-R that lasts 100 years if you are careful enough.
    A scientist said that on TV.

    If a DVD-R has five years life then it must be a cheap mass produced brand you have.

  62. Disc
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:02

    Scientists experiments with human brain cells on microchips trying to create a chip that could store like our brains.. Infinite storage.
    A chip that is half brain cells and half chip.
    Cyborg memory anyone?

  63. bop
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:03

    this is really sick!!1 TB for optical disc..what the hell was happening!!

  64. Disc
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:07

    Once upon a time i was amazzed by that i could store Tetris on a 1Mb diskette.
    LoL

  65. meh
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:12

    I don’t get it, the article says

    “The reason nobody can add more layers almost impossible to read/write on the disk.”

    “TeraDisk achieved the 1TB limit by using 200 layers”

    So how did they add more layers without running into the same problem?

  66. March 9th, 2008 | 22:14

    @ 68

    read the two links i included above the pic

  67. Mad Man Muntz
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:15

    Golly!

  68. meh
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:16

    “read the two links i included above the pic”

    Pffft, I don’t surf teh intarwebs to read! Reading is old school man.

    Than stop asking questions when the answer is right there.

  69. Poppa!
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:19

    Another issue would be of keeping track of your huuuuuge collection if each disk is of 1TB. Imagine another case, say if u wanna access an info which is in the 175th layer but there is a problem at that spot at the 6th layer that either blocks the laser beam or deflects it away somewhere else… then what you have is a lot (almost 1TB) of trash in 1 Disk! :D

  70. Koga
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:24

    on the seccond hand company Mempile = Israel , the disc will possible have a backdoor to aquire sensible foregin secrets to sell to north korea or someone else as they did with the states nuclear tech.

  71. Cromwell
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:24

    I’d rather have a fast tiny 500GB solid state device than a 1TB optical disc. High transfer rates usually require the disc to spin at a high rate of speed, often generating way too much noise. The Xbox 360 is a great example of how annoying that noise can become. Motor wear also becomes an issue.

  72. captainkremmen
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:27

    True, BluRay is already big enough to store HD movies at full quality with extras so there’s probably a very limited market for this type of ultra high capacity disc. I expect these will be used for backup purposes on computers more than anything and may not even break through into the home movie market at all.

  73. b00n
    March 9th, 2008 | 22:46

    Finally I can make backups of my Spectrum 48K game tapes!

  74. t00tsie
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:01

    Get with the plan man, you’ve got to think bigger than 48K. You can now capture a complete core dump of you commodore 64!

  75. Flo
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:37

    what you “experts” all forget: when a new format enters the market, the old ones become cheaper. this means bluray players will finally be affordable for cheap a*s students like me

    and yeah, its about damn time we increase the storage capacity of the cd, because 50gb of blu ray cannot be the answer at times where harddrives store up to 1TB, which means in 2 years the will be able to store at least 1,5TB in avarage! saving all your data on puny 4,5 gb or even 50gb disks then really becomes painfull

  76. Kim
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:47

    Ha Ha Ha, that was a short lived victory for Blu-Ray!
    To all you Blu-Ray fans that are gonna comment on this, I know I’m egsadurating but your whole campaign against HD-DVD was based on its larger capacity and now this will come out with 1TB of space, ha.

  77. blizzy
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:49

    THATS A FAKE, MY DAD WORKS THERE AND HE SAID THATS NOT EVEN BEENING DEVELOPED.

    STOP BELEAVING EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET, SHOOP DA WHOOP mAN!!!!

    BEAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    100 – ça -çional

  78. sk0undr3l
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:53

    first of all high capacity flash drives would be good but they have low data transfer rate – about 10mb/s now and its nod enough for high resolution movies. btw imagine that high definition pr0n – now u can see all red spots on girls shaved ass ;D

  79. superaktieboy
    March 9th, 2008 | 23:59

    @79
    was just about to say: “Bye Bye, BluRay” xD

    so anyways.. when will they create a 100 TB SDD which is cheap produced :D

  80. Deus
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:12

    Bluray and HDdvd were supposed to be the same, cheap and massive. but £25 for a single blank disc two years after the launch… hmm, i’m going to be sceptical until i’m proven otherwise.

  81. sfpavel
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:20

    not even close to what this guy is developing

    http://www.storextechnologies.com

  82. Hawking -Master Of The Universe
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:25

    I think the links above the pic have been slightly overloaded lmao

  83. mike
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:31

    Optical drives are taking to much space on my laptop. It will be nice to replace these drives with an SD card a flash drive or anything else which dont need as much time as burning a disc and you can write /erase faster(thing 1 TB how long it will take at the current faster speed of bluray or dvd-rw or cd-rw). As an example i ll mention the new apple air . Wouldn’t be nice to have such a thin/small laptop without the need of any optical drives?

  84. Hawking -Master Of The Universe
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:35

    @ sfpavel (84) cheers for the link. nice to see a link on here that’s not rapidshare and is actually useful. 100 TB disc now thats jaw dropping

  85. Hawking -Master Of The Universe
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:41

    following on from 87 omg that discs enough for 20,000 dvds is that surely possible. retorical

  86. bojangles
    March 10th, 2008 | 00:53

    If you keep up with tech news, you’d know that this is just another rehashed prototype/concept product that has been talked about in one form or another for about ten years or more. Optical discs with multiple translucent layers, nothing new here. While this is not vaporware, it’s a conceptr that has been explored time and time again over the years, but costs are still quite high and the manufacturing process is difficult. As the article says, even BluRay supports up to 8 layers in theory, however it’s irrelevant as they don’t even exist and their costs would be astronomical, not to metion the high cost of the burner itself. I’d rather see them concentrate on rewriteable optical media with greater density and only using a few layers, such as a disc using a green laser w/100gb+ per layer and 4 layers, something like that would probably be both cheaper to produce and more reliable than something with dozens of layers. While I do expect optical disc technology to continue to grow in density and number of layers, solid state storage will gradually replace more and more of the traditional uses for optical storage.

  87. LSD
    March 10th, 2008 | 01:17

    i think it’s safe to say these won’t hit mass market in the next 4-5 years.
    also there won’t be any HD format to fill a 1TB disk by then
    BUT
    studios may use the 1TB for control information or whatever obfuscation method, aimed at making ripping next-to impossible. imagine a normal size BDVD on a 1TB disk, obfuscated so ripping it would take 1 month. of course this would drive the player’s price higher, but dont think that will stop the studios & co

    on a different topic, i hope that 1tb will be use for redundancy

  88. billlumberg
    March 10th, 2008 | 01:53

    If it’s fast and a truly workable solution then I will be picking one up just for backups alone. Whats their stock doing???

  89. music
    March 10th, 2008 | 02:13

    im more worried about corrosion. very few of my CDs work much longer than 2 years, and I dont have any working DVDs from when I brought ~50 nearly 6 years ago.

    The glue between the layers has shifted, on my old cdrs bacteria has eaten away at the metal, and a lot of my CDs are looking slightly too warped to run at 52x without breaking under their own centripetal force.

    :(

    Then there’s the “how much do you risk loosing in one go” aspect – the reason I dont own a 4Gb flash disk is actually that: I could put all my documents on it, just to loose them.

    Maybe manufactures will start to look to redundancy? A lot of XBox games have utilized the spare HD-DVD space through redundant data (extra copies), and optimised read-head asset loading to prevent stalls (and Blu-ray practically mandates it, its so slow).

    Matt

  90. CoMP1eX
    March 10th, 2008 | 03:48

    What type of burner would you need to burn a TeraDisk(1000 GB) Disc or do you just need a DVD burner?

  91. QBert
    March 10th, 2008 | 04:32

    The problem with any of these disks is that a small scratch or some dirt can screw up reading them or even ruin them.

    Eventually, they’ll be using small cubes or spheres, which will hold significantly more data.

  92. melvin
    March 10th, 2008 | 05:25

    i personally think this sort of tech will slowly fall by the wayside as external/portable hard drives and flash drives get smaller and smaller while their capacity gets higher and higher. hopefully that means data transfer rate will increase over time too. but optical storage/physical media like this is a waste of natural and human resources. improvements and advances in digital distrubution is the way to go in my opinion.

  93. MoSigma
    March 10th, 2008 | 07:02

    Now I can download and archive the entire internet. I will make available the more popular areas on a limited edition 20 TeraDisk set for a low low price of $1,995.00

  94. epiquestions
    March 10th, 2008 | 07:06

    Solid State drives would be a better option, more robust(no mechanical parts) since the possibility of mechanical failure is reduced to nothing and yet the read write speed is not compromised.

    Imagine burning your data into a 1TB optical disk. Burning @ 2.4x speed (for this drive) would be a lot faster than 2.4x for dvd drives but still 1tb is 1tb

  95. busdriver
    March 10th, 2008 | 08:57

    I want to scratch it.

  96. eee
    March 10th, 2008 | 09:12

    I havent burned any optical media in a very long time. HDDs are much better option, they are so cheap these days with huge capacity and i have all the data on-line… no need to search bags full of discs or anything :)

  97. BRO
    March 10th, 2008 | 09:36

    I hope we live to see a storage device that holds a petabyte!

  98. Jimblebub
    March 10th, 2008 | 10:08

    Ok I put a whole lifetime’s worth of movie collection in a single terabyte disc, then i misplace it.

    Sayonara lifetime worth of movie collection!

  99. HobbitThrower
    March 10th, 2008 | 11:29

    Since games, and media (music, movies etc) quality is getting better, and collections getting bigger, the inception of such a disc becomes more practical than “sea-change” in my view. File sizes are growing as old compression methods give way to the demand for higher quality. Larger data storage methods should be expected. The only variable I see being a speedbump to progression is actual download speeds, which have yet to keep up with file size evolution.

    As it is now though, should movies stay around 1.4 to 4 gigz in size, and mp3′s transition to lossless audio, or finally mp4, the sheer size of these discs can be viewed as a boon to the consumer loathe to dumping in excess of $ 300-500 bucks on an external harddrive for backup storage.

  100. Playos
    March 10th, 2008 | 11:43

    The write speeds will be IDENTICAL to the speeds found on your current DVD. I’ve yet to see a burner that does multiple layers in the same pass…

    Napkin Math:
    Average 1x burn time… for a CD or DVD = 1 hour per layer
    The burner would have to write: 10 layers @ 2x
    JUST TO BURN A DISC IN ABOUT A DAY… @ 1 layer that works over 4 days

    SSD Hard Drives have just now emerged, and already are comming into afforable cost ranges.

    250GB SSD for whats downloading/playing… long term storage on your 2TB RAID 5 NAS (with smarter spin down controls to extend the life of your drives, but when a 1TB drive costs about $80 do you really care?)… “buy” your content with downloading (which were already doing)… thats what it will look like in 2010.

    Why do we need optical again? oh ya to install an OS… kind of like how I only need a floppy drive to install a RAID driver

  101. cw
    March 10th, 2008 | 12:13

    Old technology thats on the downhill.
    Really,who wants to have this one scratched?
    Imagine all the problems.
    Im using hd:s instead,much faster..

  102. Dj BooSt
    March 10th, 2008 | 12:21

    it must take several days to burn 1000gb lol

  103. hfghdfgh
    March 10th, 2008 | 13:21

    Who cares about discs? Discs are old now. Leave them for the dinosaurs like Sony.

  104. GhostGum
    March 10th, 2008 | 18:12

    didnt read most the comments, but as #8ish says, just more data to loose when the disc failes & corrupts… i want data security more than more storage.

  105. jon
    March 10th, 2008 | 20:24

    Funniest comment #99.

    haha!! Class – come and scratch my 22,000 movies with one single strike! :-)

  106. costa200
    March 10th, 2008 | 21:04

    basically having your data in a single disk then your kiddie brother uses it as a frisbee…

  107. Rekrul
    March 11th, 2008 | 01:12

    While they’re always working to increase the storage capacity of optical formats, do any of these companies put any effort into making the burning process more reliable?

    Practically every DVD I’ve ever burned has given me trouble reading back the data on the same drive. Some have real errors, but most make the drive “grind” 5-6 times before the speed drops down and it’s able to finish reading the file. CD burning used to fail about 5% of the time.

  108. too
    March 11th, 2008 | 02:05

    Well, Cheyenne Mountain Complex finally revealed Ancient’s crystals technology. Just about time.

  109. bojangles
    March 11th, 2008 | 03:57

    @92 – if nearly your entire collection of CD and DVD media is unreadable after just a couple of years, there is no other excuse except for poor storage and/or handling conditions.

    To those expressing concerns about a single scratch having a major impact on the disc, it is appropriate to be concerned but there are certainly solutions. One is to use a hard coating on the discs, coatings exist already for some optical media that makes scratches a non-issue except under very rough handling, in which case you have earned the right to lose that data. Another option is enclosing them similar to older DVD-RAM discs or floppy discs – not the most elegant answer and it increases costs, but it’s certainly one solution.

    To all of the comments about burning speeds, sure it’s not going to match a good Hard Drive for read/write speeds, but they’re certainly not slow. Why anyone is thinking in terms of time to burn a full disc, I don’t really understand. Think simply in terms of data rate, a disc as large as 1TB is not something that will commonly be burned fully in one step, it will more often be filled incrementally/multi-session/packet/etc. over time such as a hard drive. Think of it as something like a USB 2.0 HD, you can expect performance somewhere near that or better. Being rewriteable should be a given IMO for such a large medium, so hopefully that’s the case.

  110. Edyy
    March 13th, 2008 | 13:58

    @84 A romanian invented the basic principal for the 10 TB hyper – CD, I`m so proud :)

  111. doe
    March 15th, 2008 | 03:58

    i dont think this wuld be jused by privat consumers, not right away enyway, but take like cameras. they are all over the place now and storing all the video in and around one building is a enormus amount of space needed, one of thes discs culd hold real time video (not the one frame every sek as ther is in meny places now) of up to 4 cameras for weeks, the burning speed do not becom a factor in that case as it wuld take the same amount of time recording the disk. ofc, this may not be a good thing depending on how you look at it! (the number of cameras wuld skyrocket
    oh, and to the guy talking about storage devices with braincells in them, i wuld not want one of those! you save somthing inportant and 10 min later you try to find it and you get ”ERROR, WAS WATCHING PORN AND WAS NOT PAYING ATENTION AT THE TIME YOU SAVED THAT!”
    thers somthing wrong with your internet and you get, ”Good bye cruel world! format:/c” … but it culd be worse, what if the braincells came from a woman! you get home from a long day of work, begg your wife for 45min for sex befor you give up and go to surf the web for porn, and you end up spending 45min begging the pc to give you internet porn befor you give up and go to bed…
    and your calculator show 43 x 92 is ”thats like 1000 or somthing!”

  112. duh
    July 9th, 2008 | 14:43

    They dont care about speed YOU can record on this disk. When cd or dvd came out nobody was thinking about personal recorders. Those cd-s are designed to be pressed, all data at fraction of a second!
    And that why movies will not be distibuted on pendrives. It takes hundrets of seconds to write to pendrive, while to dvd/blue ray it takes fraction of a second to press 20 GB.

  113. duh
    July 9th, 2008 | 14:46

    if it takes >4min to write 4GB onto pendrive it would require 27 days to make 10 000 copies for the market. Get real ppl.

  114. James. Braselton
    May 22nd, 2009 | 03:03

    hi. There. I. Can't. Wait. 160. Terabyte. Game. And. Ssd. At. 160. Times. Faster. Then. Light. Speed