backtop

Hardware Sony Launches 50GB Blu-ray Media
Purav Sanghani - August 16, 2006 6:42 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by kleinwl.. on Sep 5 at 3:24 PM
Sony jumps ahead in the Blu-ray media market with double the capacity

Sony Electronics announced today that it has launched 50GB, dual-layer Blu-ray media and has begun shipping the highest density optical media to date to US distributors.

Sony says the new 50GB dual-layer Blu-ray media has Sony's patented AccuCORE technology which includes scratch protection and helps the media maintain integrity in changes to temperature and humidity.

Pricing on the new 50GB write-once Blu-ray media is set at $48 retail. Sony has also confirmed that it will be shipping 50GB dual-layer rewritable media later this year.

Sony has a few products on its plate which will make use of the new high-density optical media. Sony is tentatively planning to launch its set-top Blu-ray player sometime this coming October while Sony's Playstation 3 console gaming system, which utilizes Blu-ray discs for its games and will be able to play Blu-ray movies, is set for a mid-November launch.

Verbatim recently launched its 2X BD-R media, but the media is still limitted to a single layer.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Let the flaming begin !
By retrospooty on 8/16/2006 7:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I hate Sony, and all of their closed minded proprietary products that serve to stifle the industry.




RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Knish on 8/16/2006 7:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
You know, not everything Sony does is *bad*. Where is the dual-layer HD DVD media?


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Xavian on 8/16/2006 7:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
its out and ready. All HD-DVD movies are on the dual layered 25GB discs, using VC-1 compression also.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Knish on 8/16/2006 7:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's printed media. I'm talking about recordable media.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Shadowself on 8/16/2006 7:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he was referring to recordable media -- not pre recorded media.

I know of no company shipping drives that record dual layer HD DVD or any shipping media that allows recording on dual layer HD DVD.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By retrospooty on 8/16/2006 7:30:06 PM , Rating: 5
So... Who needs it, certainly not me, and not at the terrible price premium... Throw on top of that the fact that HD-DVD would have been out 2 years ago and cheap as hell today if not for Sony and the blue ray group haggling over standards and slowing the entire industry down. Betamax, microstick, now Blue Ray. I am just glad they dont make CPU's or graphics ships. LOL.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Komplikato on 8/17/2006 4:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Toshiba Vardia HD-DVD Recorder (July 14, 2006)
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20060622/to...


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 8:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "All HD-DVD movies are on the dual layered 25GB discs..."

Not all...but most are. A few of the releases are in the BD-15 single-layer format.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Vertigo101 on 8/16/2006 8:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you notice, he said HD-DVD movies. Everyone know that Blu-Ray has been shipping movies on single-layer discs. All HD-DVD movies thus far have been Dual layer.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By MrDiSante on 8/16/2006 10:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm amazed no one's corrected this yet: it's 30 gigs not 25.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 11:22:46 PM , Rating: 3
> "If you notice, he said HD-DVD movies...All HD-DVD movies thus far have been Dual layer."

I noticed. All HD-DVD moves have *not* been dual layer. Firewall, 16 Blocks, Rumor Has It, and a few others have been released in single layer format on HD-DVD. They're "hybrid" discs, with the DVD version also included on the same side.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By arswihart on 8/16/2006 7:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
personally, I think BD is a better format than HD-DVD, too bad these companies couldn't settle on one format, but thats not surprising AT ALL, did you really think it would work out that way?


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By arswihart on 8/16/2006 7:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
you mean you missed the "buybarracuda" coupon at newegg, I guess you just gave up $5 you didn't have to, oh well it happens


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Komplikato on 8/17/2006 4:18:47 AM , Rating: 3
HD-DVD 15GB @ Akiba - July 08, 2006
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20060...
HD-DVD 30GB @ Akiba - August 12, 2006
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20060...

BluRay 25GB @ Akiba - April 22, 2006
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20060...
BluRay 50GB @ Akiba - April 29, 2006
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20060...

Welcome to the Real World ;)


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By PT2006 on 8/17/2006 11:29:47 AM , Rating: 1
Buying some sample that "fell off a truck" from an akhibara and buying it on the shelf at best buy are two different things. At least to me they are.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By kextyn on 8/16/2006 7:53:06 PM , Rating: 4
I think you need a history lesson.

DVD-Sony
Walkman-Sony
S/PDIF-Sony
3.5" disks-Sony
Discman-Sony
CD-Sony

You see where I'm going here?


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By kextyn on 8/16/2006 7:54:27 PM , Rating: 3
Just noticed your title and realized you're probably being sarcastic. But my statement stands for all those Sony bashers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#1990s

Sony has done so much R&D work for the rest of the electronics world and they get bashed to hell and back.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By OddTSi on 8/16/2006 8:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think YOU are the one in need of a history lesson. DVD is almost entirely a Toshiba design.

quote:
Philips and Sony abandoned their MMCD format and agreed upon Toshiba's SD format (not to be confused with secure digital cards) with two modifications that are both related to the servo tracking technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd#History


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By Profyrion on 8/17/2006 11:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
The Compact Disc is a Sony/ PHILLIPS creation.


RE: Let the flaming begin !
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 8:26:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I hate Sony, and all of their closed minded proprietary products that serve to stifle the industry.

Nice start - I love it. Funny thing is that a few fell into your trap.


wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/16/2006 11:05:41 PM , Rating: 4
I love how you message board soldiers use wikipedia to argue against each other. why not just link to each other's blogs?




RE: wikipedia
By wuZheng on 8/17/2006 1:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Implying that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information to back up said arguments??? I thought it was already found out that Wikipedia's legitimacy/accuracy shares parallels with that of Britanica Encyclopedias??? I think you should think before comparing Wikipedia to some kid's MySpace... it'll just make you look like a dumbass.


RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 8:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia may be fairly reliable, but it is in no way as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Furthermore, it may be a good resource to learn about a concept of which you may have no prior knowledge, but try using it on a research paper, say your dissertation.

Also, to provide hyperlinks to wikipedia as a method of argumentation is not only poor form (not to mention invalid) but a method that will:
quote:
just make you look like a dumbass.


RE: wikipedia
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 9:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
Open mouth, insert foot.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1...

You should do some reseach before you make statements you have no evidence to back up.


RE: wikipedia
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 9:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, I've also had fairly famous college professors tell me wikipedia is acceptable as a source as long as some of the wikipedia source articles are also used to back it up. It shouldn't be your ONLY source, but for the sake of arguments on DailyTech, the accuracy is more than suitable.


RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 10:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously if the wikipedia source has its own sources than it is acceptable (and probably really better to just use those sources), this is no different than referencing someone's research paper (presumably who in turn used other sources). But I doubt a wikipedia article in itself would be useful, as this would be no different than sourcing a blog post.


RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 9:59:26 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not going to argue this to death (or am I?), but here are some critiques from a Wired article.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00....

quote:
Any member of the Wikipedia community can write an entry, which then can be edited by other members. Entries are never finished, given that anyone can make edits to any of them. But that also means there is no final authority who signs off on the accuracy of entries; veracity is assumed to come from the self-policing nature of the community.

quote:
Wikipedia, for all its breadth of coverage, cannot claim that each and every one of its entries meets any bottom-line standard for accuracy.

Furthermore, I read an article in Wired, which of course I can't, find where a biographical wikipedia entry for some guy was wholly incorrect. The actual person edited the entry and corrected it, only to find that a few days later it was restored to its incorretness.

Also, if you read the Nature article, it only compared the two regarding their coverage of science. A small sample, at best.
quote:
having experts compare 42 science-related articles
OK, so wikipedia's science to appears to be on par, what about everything else?

Regardless of these points, or wikipedia's usefulness as an encyclopedia, the point is that encyclopedias, and even dictionaries, cannnot be used to further arguments, it is poor form and usually invalid.

Speaking of which, it would be appreciated if you didn't treat my posts with such contempt. I enjoy a good argument or well-formed discussion, but calling people dumbasses and comments such as "think before you post" or "insert foot in mouth" don't help advance your claims, detract from what you are trying to say and are unappreciated.

- R. Nilla


RE: wikipedia
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "OK, so wikipedia's science to appears to be on par, what about everything else? "

You miss the point. Your blanket condemnation of Wiki as a source is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association". Some Wiki articles may have errors. That doesn't imply all do.

To refute a specific claim, you must counter it directly. The Wiki article I saw linked above seemed correct on its major points. Therefore its a valid source of information, regardless of the content of other, possibly incorrect articles.







RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
but I'm not trying to refute any specific claims, just make broad generalizations :)

I realize wikipedia is far more accurate than a blog post, but this whole thread started by me commenting on how I find it amusing that people just put up links to argue and don't even make any actual arguments. I still don't think wikipedia is the greatest source of information, however accurate or inaccurate it may be.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with you. If 90% of the articles on wikipedia were inaccurate, than my blanket condemnation would be warranted. In all likelihood, the perentage of entries that are actually inaccurate is probably small (although I'm sure it varies by content, such as science or biography or ancient history), but my point is that I'm not talking about any specific entries or even areas, I'm talking about wikipedia as a whole.

I have been condemning it, although admittedly I realize it is not as bad as I like to try and make it out to be, but the only counter arguement that has been given to me is that 42 of its science articles are as accurate, if not more, than that many articles from the Britannica. This is only a small portion of wikipedia and therefore does little to counter my initial condemning.

Bottom line, wikipedia is great tool for personal research, but is probably not the best source (at least not alone or primarily) for a dissertation or major philosophical argument. In DailyTech it works just fine, although I still find it a little silly.


RE: wikipedia
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 10:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "I find it amusing that people just put up links to argue and don't even make any actual arguments"

As amusing as you putting up a link to Wired magazine to argue your point for you?

> "This is only a small portion of wikipedia and therefore does little to counter my initial condemning."

I think a research sampling of scientific articles with the end results published in Nature, does far more than a "little" to counter your claim...especially when your only argument has been a link to an even more dubious source, and a statement that, boiled down, amounts to nothing but "it sucks just because its Wiki".

When contrasted with a layman's source like Encyclopedia Britannica, Wiki just isn't "up to snuff". It exceeds it, especially in highly topical material that changes frequenty. There are far more eyes viewing Wiki material than your average encyclopedia, and errors tend to be pointed out much quicker.

Furthermore, your Wired source is incorrect when it states that "any article can be changed by anyone at any time". Most articles are locked for editing once they reach a certain standard of completeness and accuracy.

> "Bottom line, wikipedia is...probably not the best source [for] a dissertation or major philosophical argument. In DailyTech it works just fine...

True enough...though this statement runs counter to your first posting, does it not? :)




RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As amusing as you putting up a link to Wired magazine to argue your point for you?


If you read my post, you'll see I elaborate (it's quite a long post), make arguments and explain myself---I didn't just put "you're wrong [or other contempt-filled statement]" followed by a link.

quote:
it sucks just because its Wiki.


This is hardly the jist of my claim. Although I've done a poor job making it (because it started as a flame-baited insult), I was trying to point out that it is a fallible internet source whose accuracy is affected by the nature of its community-based structure. I think we have adequately driven the invalidity of this point into the ground at this juncture.

quote:
True enough...though this statement runs counter to your first posting, does it not? :)
of course it does, but I had no idea my first post would turn into an actual well-formed discussion. Therefore I have no choice but to concede that wikipedia is indeed generally a decent source, especially for pointing out the origins of the DVD. I still don't hold it high on my list of good sources for research works, but as I said, for DailyTech it is fine, albeit amusing.


RE: wikipedia
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 10:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your original post had contempt for those who use wikipedia. I was expressing similar contempt for your idea comparing wikipedia to blogs, which is totally off-base.

You can't make a blanket statement like that with no evidence and not expect some contempt!


RE: wikipedia
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
very true, I forgot how flame-baited my original post was... but look how nice of a dicussion/argument this thread has become, very nicely done.


Your better off to buy...
By mendocinosummit on 8/16/2006 7:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather buy another 320 gig HD for $95. Any predictions on price drop over the next two years. I think maybe half, maybe.




RE: Your better off to buy...
By bunnyfubbles on 8/16/2006 7:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
you're, not your - and there's ALWAYS a huge price gouge for being an early adopter for this kind of stuff.

We’ll have our 25GB single layer BD discs in $40 100 packs in a few years just as we have them now for DVD (with sales/deals getting them to you for around $20). It’ll be even less time before we have our terra byte packs of 40 discs out for fairly reasonable prices.

Of course you might have a point. If all this new protection and what not means there is no way to back up our BD movies like there is for our current DVD stock, BDs might not be so appealing as a storage device as we’ll have TB out soon enough which will be a lot easier to store data too as well as access it (as opposed to fumbling around with dozens of discs...)


RE: Your better off to buy...
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 8:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're, not your - and there's ALWAYS a huge price gouge for being an early adopter for this kind of stuff.

Yes, because you have to pay for poor initial yields, plus the companies trying to pay for their R&D in the initial volumes.


RE: Your better off to buy...
By Qtax on 8/16/2006 9:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
tera, not terra


RE: Your better off to buy...
By Steve Guilliot on 8/16/2006 9:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
Touche. Its funny how poeple can't seam to get words right. Bad spelling and imporper word usage should be througly criticised.


RE: Your better off to buy...
By MrDiSante on 8/16/2006 10:31:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Touche [...] seam [...] imporper [...]throughly

Er... need I comment on the spelling of the above words and the hipocrisy of the author?


RE: Your better off to buy...
By tmp8000 on 8/16/2006 10:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think your sarcasm/joke detector is broken today.


RE: Your better off to buy...
By PrinceGaz on 8/17/2006 7:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
You missed "Its" (should be "It's"). Also you yourself misspelled "hipocrisy". Thought as someone else pointed out, he obviously delibrately made those errors.


Price
By Nocturnal on 8/16/2006 7:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
$48 for one disc is not that bad. I had honestly expected that it would cost around $100+.




RE: Price
By Lega Nord on 8/16/2006 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 3
They have had these in Japan since April-May. Both the 25 and 50 GB discs. Kinda weird since there was nothing to burn them on at the time. The HD-DVD player has been out since New Year and I haven’t seen any media for that.


RE: Price
By shabby on 8/16/2006 8:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting strategy for both companies, release the burner but no media or release the media but no burner.


RE: Price
By Teletran1 on 8/16/2006 9:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
Both of these formats have problems. Neither of them are very favorable to the consumer at this point unless you have more money than brains. I honestly dont understand these people making hardline stands about one format or the other. I guess they were actually stupid or rich enough to by one or the other and are defending thier purchase. I havent seen too many reviews of these products that are blown away by anything offered.

Sony has made some good products so lay off the anti $ony flamebait everyone. I swear if I hear betamax again in a forum about Blu-Ray I am going to puke. There is no earth shattering difference between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray like the old VHS/Beta rivalry. Sony was never able to overcome the disadvantage of the 1 hour recording limit when Beta was introduced and it was mostly responsible for the demise of Beta even though the recording limit was increased to 5 hours near its home electronics death.

It just comes down to 2 equally greedy and stubborn camps fighting it out where we all come out the loser until they have a player/recorder that will play/record both formats since it is too late to converge the formats into 1.


Priced not to sell!
By frobizzle on 8/16/2006 10:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see...Blue Ray 50GB write once disk: $48
NewEgg WD 80GB hard drive: $48

I think I see which one I would be inclined to purchase!





RE: Priced not to sell!
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 11:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
When you have 5 TB of data to archive, and a choice between half a shelf full of discs vs. ten shelves full of hard drives, you might think differently. Especially when it comes time to read the data back, and you have to plug in each of those drives.

Tape would be about as compact, and even cheaper...but then you give up random access if you ever need to read it.



RE: Priced not to sell!
By Fenixgoon on 8/17/2006 12:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
given that hitachi is about to release a 1TB drive, and seagate already has their 750 out... 5-6 drives would certainly outdo a stack of 100 BD-roms :)


RE: Priced not to sell!
By Pandamonium on 8/17/2006 1:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone "backing up" 5TB of data to optical media is a fool. You don't back anything up on a medium with as short a shelf life as optical media.

Besides, what end user has 5TB of mission-critical data anyway? The only users I can conceive of are large corporations, which should ostensibly have a salaried employee making sure that their mission-critical data is truly backed up. For these situations, ten shelves of space is really no big deal.


RE: Priced not to sell!
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "Besides, what end user has 5TB of mission-critical data anyway? "

Who said anything about "end-users"? Or mission-critical?

I get a monthly shipment of data...it spans 18 DVDs at present. Getting that shipment on a couple BD disks is certainly a lot more convenient, and well worth an extra $200 a month for the media.

The fact is, these drives will sell. At these prices, it'll be a niche market certainly. But anyone trying to compare them to fixed hard drives is missing the point.

> "You don't back anything up on a medium with as short a shelf life as optical media."

Now this is just silly. There are countless applications where the required life of the backup are much shorter than the 30-year of optical discs.


You guys take to long in your comments....
By rushfan2006 on 8/17/2006 10:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
Blah blah.....you guys are way to nerdy about DVD formats here....who cares....it all comes down to price, availability and widespread adoption in the end. The overwhelming bulk of consumers don't give a rat's arse what layering a disc has, what format it supports as related to codecs/compression/etc....they just care -- "dude is it affordable, is it available, is it better than "regular" dvds and is it widely adopted by the movie industry".

On the wiki thing, I back the guy saying its not a good idea EVER to use wiki as a main or sole source for any serious debate. For less important stuff or entertainment purposes yes.

Btw, I'm not impressed that some college professors stamped approved on wiki either....who gives a shit? Just because they are professors that means their word is law on the entire volume of what wiki contains? LMAO...oooooook.

On wiki's side though I must say they have some AWESOME resources for some games....the WoW one (which I mentioned before) is incredibly well done for instance. :)

And any home user buying these discs....

A) you have more money than sense

B) you are just so "geekified" you have to have the latest for the sake of having it

C) you are just silly


business use is the only valid reason I see for this.




RE: You guys take to long in your comments....
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 11:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
The best use of wiki's IMHO is the sources, you can find out almost anything with high accuracy by using the wiki itself and verifying, or getting more in-depth information, by using the articles sources.


By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 11:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
don't even get me started on "IMO" and "IMHO" ...


By myrmecoid on 8/19/2006 2:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Btw, I'm not impressed that some college professors stamped approved on wiki either....who gives a shit? Just because they are professors that means their word is law on the entire volume of what wiki contains? LMAO...oooooook.


Actually, if anyone implied that, it was R Nilla (the guy you're agreeing with), as one of his central arguments was that Wikipedia would be an unsuitable source for a dissertation or research paper. The comment about professors was simply a response to that assertion. Professors, by the way, are the sort of people who decide what is and isn't suitable for a dissertation or research paper.


And the benefit over a hard disk is....
By splines on 8/20/2006 8:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
- That's at least twice the price per GB of a hard drive.
- It's slower. Much slower.
- It's more likely to go wrong during copying (can you imagine the size of the buffers for these things?)
- The media is far more likely to be damaged.
- It's not a proven technology, and it might not even be here in a few years.
- It doesn't allow for proper redundancy, unless your backup budget is pretty damn stellar.
- The drives will be hilariously expensive, just like the media.
- And if the take up isn't what Sony expect, it's going to bomb, and the prices won't budge - remember the minidisc? Still gloriously expensive as if anybody but hardened audiophiles would be impressed.

I can see why everyone's so excited.




RE: And the benefit over a hard disk is....
By AKhandyman on 8/21/2006 12:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact so far, the HD-DVD/BD burners for computers are using IDE interface not SATA, (Pioneer, OTH are switching)... geeeez, is any optical disc manufacturer gonna get it right?


RE: And the benefit over a hard disk is....
By splines on 8/21/2006 9:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm unclear as to what the problem is with SATA on optical drives. Are they designed to run specifically in a parallel environment or what? They haven't even done a cheap internal PATA - SATA conversion ala the early Western Digital SATA hard drives (which, incidentally, would be a great way to budge some stock, explaining why WD did it).

I'm not holding my breath for these things, even though the single PATA port restriction on my new nforce 570 mobo bites..


By kleinwl on 9/5/2006 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
There was a long discussion with Benq over at Anandtech about this. Basically, the Dells of the world don't want SATA optical drives because they can cause conflicts... so the optical drive manufactures don't make SATA. This is slowly changing. Benq Expected that by 2007 more than 50% of optical drives would be native SATA.


2x speed?
By ProsperoLT on 8/16/2006 10:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
wow, 92 MINUTES to burn a CD!!!

as always it's marketing, start out at 2x, next year it'll be 4x, then 8x, then 16x, then a new media will come out... brilliant.





RE: 2x speed?
By MrDiSante on 8/16/2006 10:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
Optical disk would be a better name for it, but yeah... 92 minutes is brutal.


Screw the next gen DVD's
By Hypernova on 8/17/2006 5:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile...
Since all 3 pritty much all start at early next year in turns of realistic product availability they will decay in cost equally by the time they reach 100 disk drum-pack media level.




RE: Screw the next gen DVD's
By michal1980 on 8/17/06, Rating: -1
RE: Screw the next gen DVD's
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 9:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
I like how in one breath you take shots at the anti-sony crowd here, yet in the next you call Microsoft "M$".

This also isn't anandtech. Hasn't been for a while now.


Haven't you guys seen this?
By xFlankerx on 8/16/2006 9:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
1 x Philips 25GB Single-layer 2x Blu-Ray disc. Supposedly, it's writeable. $16.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...




By Assimilator87 on 8/16/2006 11:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wow imagine burning a $48 coaster! =O




pricing?
By miekedmr on 8/17/2006 9:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
for the cost of two blank discs you can get a ~300GB hard disk from newegg!




$500 or $1000....
By samuraiBX on 8/17/2006 12:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.... I don't seem to have either on hand right now. I think I, with a bunch of other people, will be stuck in "this doesn't matter to me" land until it gets waaaay down in price... $48 for a disc??? That's my lunch money for two weeks!! :-P




TDK was way ahead
By GhandiInstinct on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki