Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1788 comp.os.misc:584 comp.misc:3784 comp.arch:6608
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!umn-d-ub!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!ems!mmm!schultz
From: schultz@mmm.UUCP (John C Schultz)
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: <1152@mmm.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 88 02:54:51 GMT
References: <360@elan.UUCP> <2070@cloud9.UUCP> <528@fabscal.UUCP>
Reply-To: schultz@mmm.UUCP (John C Schultz)
Organization: 3M Company - ES&T; St. Paul, MN
Lines: 26

A couple points about the 256 MB optical drive I have not seen mentioned.
Summarizing my opinions, a 256 MB optical disk drive seems a tad too large or
too small to be a really useful media system.

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 :-).

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.

-- 
   john c. schultz         schultz@mmm.3m.UUCP          (612) 733-4047
           3M Center, Bldg 518-1-1, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
  The opinions expressed herein are, as always, my own and not 3M's.