> Comparing a 12 TB tape with an 18 TB 3.5" HDD, the volume of the cartridge is about a half or less, so the tape still has better density.
The volume of a tape is very close to 60% of a hard drive. So 12TB tape and 20TB drive are very close. If we use 18TB then it's still close.
But I wasn't even making an argument about the current tech. I was talking about if things were nudged just a bit. If we go back to imagining the world where the huge areal density gap is made slightly larger, then hard drives would crush tapes in both price and density. Despite tapes having a far bigger working area.
So the analysis is not "simply" that tapes have a far bigger working area. If it was, we'd have hundreds of terabytes in a tape right now.
> Moreover the tape cartridge is many times lighter, if you carry in your pocket a tape cartridge vs a 3.5" HDD, the difference is very significant. You would not notice the tape cartridge, while the HDD would be like having a stone in your pocket.
That's such a niche use it would barely affect sales. Effectively nobody carries around pocket tapes, because if you can afford a drive then you have stacks and stacks of tapes.
> Experimental tapes have already been demonstrated at volumic densities much better than what HDDs hope to achieve in the future.
That's cool but I'll wait to see when/if they're practical to make into a product, and whether something else has come along to make both of them blush.
The volume of a tape is very close to 60% of a hard drive. So 12TB tape and 20TB drive are very close. If we use 18TB then it's still close.
But I wasn't even making an argument about the current tech. I was talking about if things were nudged just a bit. If we go back to imagining the world where the huge areal density gap is made slightly larger, then hard drives would crush tapes in both price and density. Despite tapes having a far bigger working area.
So the analysis is not "simply" that tapes have a far bigger working area. If it was, we'd have hundreds of terabytes in a tape right now.
> Moreover the tape cartridge is many times lighter, if you carry in your pocket a tape cartridge vs a 3.5" HDD, the difference is very significant. You would not notice the tape cartridge, while the HDD would be like having a stone in your pocket.
That's such a niche use it would barely affect sales. Effectively nobody carries around pocket tapes, because if you can afford a drive then you have stacks and stacks of tapes.
> Experimental tapes have already been demonstrated at volumic densities much better than what HDDs hope to achieve in the future.
That's cool but I'll wait to see when/if they're practical to make into a product, and whether something else has come along to make both of them blush.