DVD-like optical disc could store 1.6 petabits (or 200 terabytes) on 100 layersWilshire@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 380 points – 4 months agotechspot.com76Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentOh, is that what those multiples meant? I never realized.It's the number of times faster it can read or burn compared to the original speed of reading and burningDoes the 'original speed' mean what the natural playback would have been? So 60 minutes of audio burned by a x60 drive would take one minute?Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
Oh, is that what those multiples meant? I never realized.It's the number of times faster it can read or burn compared to the original speed of reading and burningDoes the 'original speed' mean what the natural playback would have been? So 60 minutes of audio burned by a x60 drive would take one minute?Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
It's the number of times faster it can read or burn compared to the original speed of reading and burningDoes the 'original speed' mean what the natural playback would have been? So 60 minutes of audio burned by a x60 drive would take one minute?Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
Does the 'original speed' mean what the natural playback would have been? So 60 minutes of audio burned by a x60 drive would take one minute?Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 maxYou are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
You are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.
Oh, is that what those multiples meant? I never realized.
It's the number of times faster it can read or burn compared to the original speed of reading and burning
Does the 'original speed' mean what the natural playback would have been? So 60 minutes of audio burned by a x60 drive would take one minute?
Yes, but I think there was some overhead in the process that was slower.
Memory limitations. Back then RAM was like 512 max
You are correct. However, I mean initialization and finalizing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R Looks like a 52x wrote at 7.8 MB/s. Things have changed.