"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a1dc827.392515421@localhost...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 22:11:11 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a1cb918.388669125@localhost...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:22:49 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8060082.stm

The trouble is that the more you cram into less room, the more fragile
it all gets. It is starting to approach the point at which random
quantum tunnelling events and the like can change the state of a bit
here and there. So discs like this will need higher levels of error
correction than less dense ones. This will inevitably compromise read
and write speed.

And the idea of making it removable (hence handleable) just has to be
wrong. Remember the early days of the CD ROM, when you had to put the
thing in a caddy before it went in the drive?


It was only a year or two since we were handling double sided Panasonic
DVD-RAM disks (4.7 Gb?) that never left their caddy, but now I'm handling
'nude' 25 and 50 Gig BD-REDL disks on a daily basis - the technology rises
to match the technology (IYSWIM) - scratchproof layers...

If you want summat to nag away at your brain - think of the *2.1 MILLION*
mirrors on a 1080p DMMD chip twinkling away all the while you watch the
latest blockbuster:

http://www.dlp.com/includes/demo_flash.aspx


Bothers me - I'd sooner not be reminded of it....


You mean how much it's going to irritate when just one of them sticks.


Knock on wood, we've got two 720p PJs on the go with about 900,000 mirrors
on the chips and no sign of any failure yet...??

(And I suspect they'd be out of warranty now, or headed that way!)