Talk:Holographic data storage
|WikiProject Computing / Hardware||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated Start-class)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
RE: Holographic data storage is not the future. It is a modern-day laser disc.
"Let's get things straight from the get-go. Holographic data storage is not the future. It is a modern-day laser disc."
I found the above statement of opinion at the top of the article. Obviously that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, so I removed it, and I am copying it here.
I don't think the laserdisc is a very good example of a dead-end technology, because the technology of laserdiscs became used in CDs, CD-ROMs, and now DVDs, HD DVDs, and Blu-ray discs.
Holographic storage isn't a product like the laserdisc, it's a technology, like the internal combustion engine.
Changed the word "atom" in the electron hole paragraph to "vacancy" because electron holes are not atoms, they are merely spaces left by promoted electrons. Whiteknight521 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
'This article needs to be simplified and made more accessible to a non-technical audience. I am currently an undergraduate engineering student with experience in EE and optical physics and I still had only a dim idea of how holographic storage works. An analogy might be nice, along with some breaks in t
I agree with the above comment. What is the essential thing about holographic data storage that makes it different, and potentially more useful? What is the common media it's on? Simple, basic questions are not answered. From my brief readings, it seems that holographic data storage is a new ish way to store information on things that are like traditional CDs or DVDs, but are able to slow down the degradation of the data considerably. Why can't that be at the top of the article? A tech or business journalist would best be able to take care of that. Andaroocorp (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked the lead a bit recently to make it shorter and simplier. - RoyBoy 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I found some of the information in the current article to be a bit to technical, but for the most part it was understandable. Particularly the possible uses of the technology, the methods for writing, and media-types that can be used. It all seems just a bit "sci-fi" to me, what with the full Encyclopaedia Brittanica being stored in one or two 1-2 inch cubes... But I'm looking forward to seing it in stores several years from now. Grin.exe (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You say potato
Saying "terabits (1 terabyte = 1,000 gigabytes)" leaves me wondering if its 10s of terabits or terabytes being stored. Clarification is in order. TREKphiler 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) does anybody even care about this kind of disssk? be brutal(: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would you wonder? A terabit is a teraBIT. So how could that be confused with "teraBYTE"? Why is "-bit" vs. "bYtE" supposedly "not clarification enough" (according to you)?
And why would we *not* care about this kind of disk?
"The write-once, read many (WORM) approach to data storage would ensure content security, preventing the information from being overwritten or modified." "Like other media, holographic media is divided into write-once (where the storage medium undergoes some irreversible change), and rewritable media (where the change is reversible)." Which one is right? Is it optionally write-once? This should definiteley be cleared up. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) kuch ni aata 'Bold text'''''''
Why is that so hard to understand? Just like there were CD-R and and CD-RW discs and drives, and there are DVD Rs and DVD RWs, and there are BD-Rs and BD-REs, there will probably be HolD-Rs and HolD-RWs. Why is that so "unclear" to you? 22.214.171.124 (talk)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "holographic." Of course it would be nice to have porn as an hologram shown in the television shows by Gene Roddenberry named "Star Trek," but wouldn't it be better if it were movies or a long-distance live communication line between you and your family/friends/girlfriend? This technology has yet to be made. It's merely named wrongly(or not?) A Universal Remote Control for your television set can only work with Earth based television sets, a Universal Remote Control cannot control a native Marsian television set(if that exists). Why not call it Global Remote Control? Universal only sounds better, but is not entirely true. Everyone knows the term from Star Trek, a Hologram. When someone says the word Hologram everyone around thinks about Star Trek and the future of movies. By naming something with a familiar word, that has a fixed meaning within society, will immediately increase the number of people buying it. Just the way of marketing. It's just soon after, that people will realize that it's not (yet) possible what they "thought" they bought. (A very lucid comment on a clearly visible piece of spam, but just wanted to get rid of this confusion.)126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Amrodyrius(not logged in, too lazy for the moment)
- Holography is a technique whereby 3-dimensional information is approximated in two dimensions by changing the angle of the light reading/writing it. Thus "holographic" data storage is named correctly (it is no marketing ploy, they aren't even marketing it yet), as it uses 2D approximations of 3D data (e.g. the cone-shaped data pattern of an HVD) to increase the storage capacity of an optical disc. It can be contrasted with 3D data storage. Rather, it is Mr. Roddenberry who incorrectly used the term "hologram" to refer to a volumetric display. Like many technical and scientific terms, "hologram" has a popular meaning which differs greatly from its technical/encyclopedic meaning.188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Examples from fiction
There are countless examples of the possible uses for holographic data storage in the realm of fiction- why not have a section for examples from fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Diagrams on the right
I have no idea how any of this works, but someone might want to fix the captions on the diagrams to the right of this article. ~Casual Passer By — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
However, claimed longevity of storage has, in the past, proven to be a key indicator of
shorter-term reliability of storage media. Current optical formats – such as CD – have largely
lived up to the original longevity claims (where reputable media makes are used) and have
proved to be more reliable shorter-term data carriers than the floppy disk and DAT media they
The first sentence makes no sense. Is it saying that if someone claims a medium will last for a long time, it won't?
Secondly, CD-Rs (I assume that's what it means, people can't press their own CDs, CD-Rs are based on photochromism, not embossing.) have NOT been proven to reliable, quite the opposite. CD-Rs tend to fade over time. Their projected reliability has been shortened from 100 years to about 5. Moreover, CDs did not "replace" DAT/DDS. For one thing, the application domain is entirely different. Magnetic tape is several orders of magnitude more reliable, and is the preferred archival medium for long term backup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)