Nanotech To Replace Disk Drives Within Ten Years? 127
Ian Lamont writes "An Arizona State University researcher named Michael Kozicki claims that nanotechnology will replace disk drives in ten years. The article mentions three approaches: Nanowires (which replace electrons/capacitors), multiple memory layers on silicon (instead of a single layer), and a method that stores multiple pieces of information in the same space: 'Traditionally, each cell holds one bit of information. However, instead of storing simply a 0 or a 1, that cell could hold a 00 or a 01. Kozicki said the ability to double capacity that way — without increasing the number of cells — has already been proven. Now researchers are working to see how many pieces of data can be held by a single cell.'"
That's just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
That's meaningless.
I think "Nano-technology will double disk capacity in 10 years" would be better, but still pretty silly.
As apposed to those giant 1s and 0s we use now.
Possibly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Flash memory IS nano technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, the article is talking about science fiction solutions that have been demonstrated for single bits at universities, but nobody has any idea how to mass produce it.
Meanwhile flash memory in production is approaching feature sizes of 30 nanometers with 2 or even 4 bits stored per cell. Also stacking of several memory layers on the same die has been demonstrated.
nanotech will do [insert topic] (Score:2, Insightful)
And another one of the X will replace Y stories. (Score:3, Insightful)
When some manufacturer announces a product to be shipped within a month, that is of interest. This "story" is not.
Re:Possibly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I believe that was 3-5 years in the furture some time ago. Along with Exabyte-sized optical tape. None wver materialized.
Personally I believe for large-volume storage, magnetic media have at least 20 years ahead of them as dominat technology. For smaller storage, Flash will be there first. Even if they have a working prototype of nanotech storage in 10 years (by no means certain), getting it cheap, large and reliable enough for the market is an entire different thing and typically takes at least another 10 years. Look at any other mainstream technology. And computer stuff is already fast with its from working demo to widespread use in 10 years. Other technology takes 30-50 years. And by workind demo I mean not a single nano-thread, but a product that is already relatively close to the final product.
Re:4 times the storage (Score:1, Insightful)
It's still one bit v. two bits, but at the same time it's 2^1 vs 2^2 possible states.
Flash took ten years to take off (Score:5, Insightful)
By comparison, nano-blaah is a long way off being able to demonstrate even a 1Mbyte storage, yet alone making it cheaply enough to be a mass storage player. I figure flash has a long life yet.
nanowhat? The maliability of words (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like the term "robot" which now includes radio controlled toy cars which it specifically did not include 15 years ago, Nanotechnology is a word which has developed a broader and broader meaning over time.
Nanotechnology used to be specific to microscopic moving parts. Micromachines. As people started to work on it they began to attempt to create parts using techniques from the silicon chip industry. the silicon chip industry therefor became nanotechnology as well, which is how those "memory cells" got into the whole thing.
These days it just means really really small stuff. If this is true wouldn't modern disk drives be nanotech too since the memory blocks are microscopically small?
To take it even further, you cold even include some kinds of paint and adhesive tape due to the way the glue and pigment particles adhere to surfaces or reflect light.
The word nanotech when used in this way is becoming so broad as to stop being useful. The word nanotechnology originally meant nanobots and that is what the term is most popularly accociated with in the public mind. It is the flavor of wild over the horizon borderline magic technology. people like to attach the word to whatever they are working on because it associates thier work with these feelings. It's not science it's brand recognition.
To use another term which was the ultra hip over used buzz word word back in the 70's, a more accurate way to describe the content would be to substitute the term "solid state". This merely says containing no moving parts. That wouldn't be particularly cool thoroughly since anyone looking at the laptop and smartphone industry can tell this is already happening.
Re:That's just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Nanotechnology is just, well, a technology. They will use nanotechnology to create storage devices, sure. It's like saying
"Mass production will replace the buggy" in 1895.
Mass production of what?
or
"Are abiltiy to make things spin will be used to store vast amounts of data"
What will be created using nano-technology?
Stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
USB connected flash memory is called a flash disk even today... etc.
I really hate articles where they say "plastic will replace cars" or "prefab concrete will replace houses". They're incompatible nouns. Try "Cars will be made from plastic" or "Houses will be made from prefab concrete" or "Disk drives will be made using nanotechnology".
Re:That's just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the Kozicki quote is flawed when put out of context, but we all understand that he is talking about circuitry at nano levels. You are absolutely correct in your remarks, but don't get hung up on the first sentence of the news. Read the whole thing and get a grasp of it instead.
Having said that, I fully agree that hard drives are getting closer to an end. Mechanical components in a computer are not going to survive much longer - and that includes media players (DVD, BR, HDDVD, etc). Eventually, hard drives will be chips and media content will be streams or sources over the air and by wire.
Who needs storage anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Someday, I will mostly store software on my equivalent of an iPod, media will be stored by Google (who everyone hates by then, since microsoft has become insignificant) in a semi-p2p network based on both servers and users. My download speed will be good enough to stream anything I want.
Basically, there are two trends I see i personal computing: Computers are becoming smaller and more portable (duh) and internet services are in increasing demand. This means the optimal future computer will be a tiny device with an extremely high speed internet connection. That is the opposite of great amounts of storage. Who needs to have music, movies, photos and TV shows when you can just have good internet access? You still need that if you want the very latest of anything anyway.
Re:That's just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)