Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1833 comp.os.misc:618 comp.misc:3828 comp.arch:6676
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!fabscal!dorn
From: dorn@fabscal.UUCP (Alan Dorn Hetzel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.os.misc,comp.misc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: The NeXT machine has been announced! (long)
Keywords: 256 MB is a lot or not enough
Message-ID: <546@fabscal.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 88 03:19:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: fabscal.546
References: <360@elan.UUCP> <2070@cloud9.UUCP> <528@fabscal.UUCP> <1152@mmm.UUCP>
Reply-To: dorn@.UUCP (Alan Dorn Hetzel, Jr.)
Organization: Fabscal Systems
Lines: 45

In article <1152@mmm.UUCP> schultz@mmm.UUCP (John C Schultz) writes:
>Case A) - Software Distribution.
>It would seem that the best cost/performance ratio would occur if removable
>media were sized to typical distribution software.  I can just see people
>paying $50 media costs for 500 KB of data.  Even large programs such as GNU
>EMACS, TeX, and X11R2 fit on a 45 MB tape with room to spare.  WHAT TAKES 256
>MB to distribute??  It is easy to use 256 MB but not with one distribution. Oh
>I forgot about the complete works of Shakspeare to which I refer at least
>daily :-).
>

I understand the problem, but consider that not all that long ago, a box
of ten 3.5 inch floppies could set you back almost $50.  A 45Mb tape will
still set you back half that or so.  Yes, it may be a little bigger than
needed for most situations (at present), but it may be a good compromise
with future needs...  Making it hold less wouldn't necessarily have made
it any less expensive.  If you are familiar with WORM disks (Write Once,
Read Many Times), then you know that only quite recently, a 100Mb disk
could set you back $200.00, so $50 for 256Mb is pretty good.  I also feel
that as volume of usage (and therefore production) of these disks builds
up, the price will drop to about $10-$20.  (fingers crossed)  It does
seem very reasonable to expect, given historical price curves for removable
media of many sorts.

>Case B) - Backup
>If you have one 330 MB drive (which will not be enough - somebody's law), you
>need TWO disks to back it up.  A 660 MB is 3 disks, etc.  Why is the removable
>disk not a 1+ GB optical disk?  Cost?  Technology? Disk shuffling will still
>be a problem, escpecially if people implement 100+ networks of NeXT machines,
>each of which need to be backed up.
>

1) You don't always have to back up your ENTIRE disk.
2) Think how many 45-60Mb tapes it would take, and what THEY would cost.
3) Since it's a rotating media, backup files can be had very quickly and
   individually (as oppossed to the usual tape methods)
4) Again, media cost will fall.
5) Maybe compression during backup (assisted by the 56001?) can yield fewer
   output disks needed to store 330 or 660Mb  (maybe 1 for 330, 2 for 660)

6) Incremental backups are an option as well.
7) Backing up other 256Mb optical disks, it will always be big enough...!

Dorn
gatech.edu!fabscal!dorn