Blue-ray retail writer first test

[DereX888]

Yesterday there has been published first test info on Samsung's SH-B022 blue-ray disc writer.
Its in German:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68839
but here is google's translation to the more international language:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldu...language_tools

[Xylob the Destroyer]

Sehr gut!

[painkiller]

Vielen Danke.

[DereX888]

yeah, right...
Ich nicht verstehen! :P


[playing Trio - "da da da" song ]

[waheed]

Discs are 22.23GB (not as the marketing buffs use of 25GB). Thats a chunk.

Price is too expensive at (US) $500.

[DereX888]

waheed, its a novelty!
The price is right ATM (and I can't believe it *I* say it... but considering I've paid much more for my first CD-R writer... lol )
True with the size, I was surprised too. 10% less really *is* a chunk :/
At least they didn't 'miscalculate' it in 'halfbytes' or something, you never know (harddrive manufacturer's old trick )

Someone pls post some link where to order it online if you find it, coz I couldn't go to CES and I can't go to any other shows probably until summer

[OldAmateur]

$500 for the drive would be accepable if the media were reasonably priced and available. I'm guessing that neither is the case now, nor will be for some time to come.

[waheed]

Yes, I know the price is right. Thats how much the first dvd writers were when they appeared. What I meant to say is; too pay to pay for, going to hold on a few years till they drop to a reasonable level.

Notice how much of the chuck of memory you lose as capacity increases. With dvds, at 4.37GB wasn't too bad from 4.7GB, but at 22.23GB from 25GB seems alot.

Where going to get alot of questions like "Why cant I burn 24GB onto my 25GB disc..."

I think there should be a LAW forcing manufacturers to state the discs TRUE capacity and avoid confusions.

Wait till the double layer arrives, I bet there will hold approx 40GB as opposed to 50GB which will be stated on all discs.

[OldAmateur]

Is it overkill to point out once again that most of the apparent discrepancies in storage quantities come from comparing binary with decimal expressions?

A "gigabyte" may be 1,000,000,000 bytes (decimal) or 1,073,741,824 bytes (binary, equal to 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024). Storage manufacturers tend to quote sizes in decimal -- obviously in order to maximize the number quoted, but it's a legitimate number. Computers tend to report quantities in binary.

Doing a little arithmetic here, it seems that 4.37 binary gigabytes =~ 4.692251770 decimal gigabytes. or 4.7 when rounded to the nearest tenth of a billion. In other words, you would expect a computer to report the size of a 4.7 Gb (decimal) disk as 4.37 Gb. No cheating involved, just confusion of notation.

Similarly, 22.23 binary gigabytes = 23.87 decimal gigabytes. The dfference between that and 25 gigabytes (decimal) is probably partly rounding and partly space required on a disk for indexing and similar housekeeping data.

[DereX888]

we already went through such discussion not long ago...
This whole "decimal gigabyte" is just a hoax concocted by bastards harddrive makers to fool the less-brain-active buyers.
1 bit consists of 2 numbers, 1byte = 8 bits, and so on, and one gigabyte equals 2 to the 30th power, or 1,073,741,824 bytes.. Its a binary system, not decimal, no bit or byte consists of 10 of anything - because there is no decimal multiplies at any point.

Until we will use some kind of "decimal bytes" consisting of 10 bits instead of 8 (you never know what future brings) until then there is no reason to use such imaginary foul business practice's byproduct as "decimal gigabyte" equal to 1,000,000,000 bytes.
Its impossible to have i.e. memory chip in capacity of 1,000,00,000 bytes, i can't even imagine how it would work

So: no, youre wrong, a gigabyte is exactly 1,073,741,824 bytes - and never 1,000,000,000 bytes.