13 Jul
2004
13 Jul
'04
10:26 a.m.
Areal comparisons don't hold, thermal expansion alone prevents just
increasing capacity physically. It's not a coincidence the bigger drives
are physically smaller.
Encoding for modern data densities has long abandoned the simplistic
schemes used in the deep past, too, and require tons of logic and
software support to pull off.
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 06:15, David V. Corbin wrote:
Kind of off the wall, but the issue came up in a
discussion here, and want
to get some solid numbers...
June 2004 Disk Capacity [IDE 5.25] = 250 Gig [approx]
June 2004 Disk Surface Area (total) = ??? Sq inches
Average Capacity per Sq Inch = ???
RP06 Disk Capacity = ??? [100+ MB]
RP06 Disk Surface Area (total) = ??? Sq inches
Average Capacity per Sq Inch = ???
The above numbers would yield a hypothetical capacity for a disk (pack) this
size (and number of platter) of an RP06.....
This was brought up in part by seeing a row of 8 RP-06 drives and marveling
at the size [floor space] required for just about 1 Gig of disk....