3 ms·

The SSD taking over the HDD is based on the preposition that everything stays the same, but the game is going to change and we all know that. Digital distributi

The SSD taking over the HDD is based on the preposition that everything stays the same, but the game is going to change and we all know that. Digital distribution is beginning to hit big, I mean look at NetFlix on Xbox 360 and iTunes. I haven't bought a CD in over a year and when I did it was because it was one of my favorite bands. How long is it before I'm saying the same thing with DVD? SSD might pick up some niche uses, but there's a reason people have wanted mass storage, which is that programs are progressively getting bigger and so are all the files we store. I remember thinking a 400x300 pixel image was big, now I think a photo smaller than like 2000x1500 as small. In 5-10 years I'm going to think anything smaller than like 10,000x7,500 as pathetically small. Equally, I'm going to think any video that's not at least 720p isn't worth having, because by 2015 companies want UHDV to be released displaying at 4320p. When my video is taking up 32MB per frame I don't want, I'll need maximum capacity still.

pchristensen 18y ago
10,000x7,500 as pathetically small Ok, that's 75 megapixels. Ken Rockwell estimates that 35mm film is about 175 mp (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm), so that is a technically realistic number. But you need an outstanding camera and photographer to make all those megapixels matter, and most people won't pay for and won't even notice the extra detail. Resolution bigger than the biggest computer doesn't matter much for mainstream users, and even a 6.1mp image from my DSLR looks good printed out at 8x10". Now a hard drive full of HD movies would take up tons of space, but do you want to carry that around with you? Not to mention that movie studios will do whatever than can to prevent persistent files from being the digital format of choice. They would much rather stream on demand and charge per viewing or per rental. We've always wanted more space, but computers are getting to the point where they're fast enough and big enough to satisfy common users. The fact that you're here on HN means that you're by definition not a common user.

pchristensen 18y ago

10,000x7,500 as pathetically small Ok, that's 75 megapixels. Ken Rockwell estimates that 35mm film is about 175 mp (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm), so that is a technically realistic number. But you need an outstanding camera and photographer to make all those megapixels matter, and most people won't pay for and won't even notice the extra detail. Resolution bigger than the biggest computer doesn't matter much for mainstream users, and even a 6.1mp image from my DSLR looks good printed out at 8x10". Now a hard drive full of HD movies would take up tons of space, but do you want to carry that around with you? Not to mention that movie studios will do whatever than can to prevent persistent files from being the digital format of choice. They would much rather stream on demand and charge per viewing or per rental. We've always wanted more space, but computers are getting to the point where they're fast enough and big enough to satisfy common users. The fact that you're here on HN means that you're by definition not a common user.