3 ms·
I'm not sure why they'd bother, 200TB is extremely impressive on its own. I just wish these would be a real thing that I could really buy one day.
by nullsmack 3y ago
I'm not sure why they'd bother, 200TB is extremely impressive on its own. I just wish these would be a real thing that I could really buy one day.
- LoganDark 3y agoI guess being able to use petabytes as a unit was important to them. And ditto. Even if it's write-only, I have tons of data (i.e. disk images of childhood computers) that I would love to preserve forever, but don't currently have the disk space to store.
- earthling8118 3y agoBut that's the issue: they aren't using petabytes as a unit, they are using petabits
- LoganDark 3y agosorry I was more referring to the peta- prefix, the bytes/bits thing is exactly why I'm upset about this. They shouldn't have inflated the figure to bits just so they could put peta in front of it. This is a 200TB storage medium. It shouldn't ever be called peta-anything.