Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@jayhawk11 owns property now!!!: Hello, my name is dumbass. I put thin laptop hard drives in spaces made for larger ones, and use screws to screw them down so they don't vibrate/rattle. I'm from 2000 when some still-usable laptops used thicker hard drives that needed to be upgraded to thinner ones. I seem to be doing just fine, thank you for the concern!
This is not accurate at all. It is full of mistakes. For example look at the Dual Layer DVD, Blu-ray, DL Bluray and Flash drive of the data section are in red squares, while they should be with green ones. The 4000 photos on the microSD is also 1600 according to the number and type of blocks next to it, probably a lot other mistakes exist but I'm kinda lazy to check them all.
Good and amusing but as others point out, still room for improvement. Surely film came before the photo....and there were more before the flloppy....starting with punchcards and magnetic reels, tapes. Still, good effort though!
The constant change of units makes the chart much less informative than it could have been.
The same goes for using the same color for a minute of music, one photo (what size?) and one MB.
Plus the size of the Flash-drive compared to ... is that a CD, DVD or Blu-ray? One or two layers?
And at first glance it looks like a 2.5" 500GB HD only contains 50 GB. Same for 3.5" 2TB HD.
All because the 'headers' for these suddenly is the size of each unit/colored square, and not the to total capacity, as it is on the rest of the chart.
It's not enough to make a chart that looks nice. It has to present the information in a way that makes more sense than just listing the data.
back when we used floppies we had to be much more selective about what we were going to save. i, too, like that we can store anything and everything we'd ever need to, however i still think there was something to be said for just saving the essentials (even without this crazy amount of personal storage we'd still have ways of accessing any information we'd need; it just wouldn't be on our personal machines). i'll go so far as to say that massive personal data storage capabilities (like multi-terabyte hds) are the reason cloud computing is still only in its infancy.
@witeowl: Cloud computing sounds great to everyone who lives in a big developed area. But for those of us out in the sticks who have to deal with spotty wireless coverage, no land-based options for broadband, and the data caps of satellite the idea of relying on a data connection for our computing isn't the most pleasant prospect.
Then you've got the issue of your data being subject to someone else' mistakes. See the recent Sidekick debacle for a textbook example of why people want to avoid it.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
Does. Not. Compute.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
I always assumed that, since desktops are bigger and tend to use 3.5" drives... it was referring to height.
12/14/09
12/14/09
11/30/09
11/29/09
11/29/09
11/29/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
That took a lot of getting, being dial-up an' all.
11/29/09
11/29/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/29/09
11/28/09
11/29/09
11/29/09
11/28/09
The same goes for using the same color for a minute of music, one photo (what size?) and one MB.
Plus the size of the Flash-drive compared to ... is that a CD, DVD or Blu-ray? One or two layers?
And at first glance it looks like a 2.5" 500GB HD only contains 50 GB. Same for 3.5" 2TB HD.
All because the 'headers' for these suddenly is the size of each unit/colored square, and not the to total capacity, as it is on the rest of the chart.
It's not enough to make a chart that looks nice. It has to present the information in a way that makes more sense than just listing the data.
11/28/09
11/28/09
Obviously, I need to clean out that closet more often.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Anything that you send back in time will blow the recipients minds.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/29/09
Then you've got the issue of your data being subject to someone else' mistakes. See the recent Sidekick debacle for a textbook example of why people want to avoid it.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
I've still got a copy of Windows 2.0 on 5.25" floppies :)
11/28/09