I guess you don't remember paying $300 for a 30MB SCSI drive back in 1989. I do. The equivalent of $160,000 for 16GB of storage back then. I think I still have it, with a copy of System 7.6 on it. Of course, we could also boot our Mac and run software on a single 800kB diskette.
Ahhh SCSI... Brings back some good memories. I have a SCSI Iomega Zip drive floating around somewhere.
I'll never forget the day my Jaz cartridge drive overheated and caught on fire at work.
Still waiting on my holographic memory storage. It's been 5 years away from a commercial product since the 60s.
(Maybe when it gets here, it will be fusion powered!)
or use this: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3094864/data-storage/ibm-and-samsung-achieve-breakthrough-on-flash-killer-for-wearables-mobile-devices.html a bit higher current. Technology needs time to develop, discovery+tooling+inspection (a major part usually got ignored by some) testing and mess production - if volume requirement is not there to start with, you got problem (some technology too good for its own benefit, it just killed itself...). technology and method of production has to match to the demand (on going - not just one shot deal) in terms of application. One chip plant currently runs for Billon dollars. if the demand is not there or implemented too slow, or competing technology can somewhat do the same job, you would not see the new tech fly high (that is why took fiber optics so many years to take over the Cu wire in telecom). interesting for the dutch. but i like ibm better.
Comments
or use this: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3094864/data-storage/ibm-and-samsung-achieve-breakthrough-on-flash-killer-for-wearables-mobile-devices.html
a bit higher current. Technology needs time to develop, discovery+tooling+inspection (a major part usually got ignored by some) testing and mess production - if volume requirement is not there to start with, you got problem (some technology too good for its own benefit, it just killed itself...). technology and method of production has to match to the demand (on going - not just one shot deal) in terms of application. One chip plant currently runs for Billon dollars. if the demand is not there or implemented too slow, or competing technology can somewhat do the same job, you would not see the new tech fly high (that is why took fiber optics so many years to take over the Cu wire in telecom). interesting for the dutch. but i like ibm better.