What keeps single memory modules from growing bigger?

Maybe somebody could enlight me by explaining to me why ddr ram gets stuck at 2 GB a card. Offcourse you can combine more 2 gb's together to make more so what's the use of this question you might think. Well, if they could make one memory card big enough to hold like 50 gb's would that not make a perfect and very fast replacement for the harddisk without combining memory to reach this amount?

gigabyte already has a device to where you can use ram modules to act as a hardrive. but it still not super fast because it has to be hooked up to sata ports.

they allready have 4gig modules, do you have $1800 a pop?

You're a little confused about the nature of Dynamic Ram, (That's the "D" in D-RAM) which is what DDR-RAM is: when you switch off the power, the memory loses whatever it held. This isn't a great feature for a hard drive.

No, to replace the HDD in your system you really do need Static Ram (S-RAM), which does NOT lose what is stored when power is stopped.

The thing that Gigabyte make is pretty useless in fact: xBitlabs did a really nice write up on it, and it is barely faster than a 10K Raptor, plus its capacity is tiny - and this for the price of about 4 raptors? Please - that's just silly.

The current problems with M-RAM are that it is expensive, and it is slow - when compared to normal D-RAM. In order for M-RAM to replace the Hard Drive (Something I have been waiting many years for, HDDs simply suck. Anything with moving parts is pretty crazy really!) the cost and performance have to decrease and increase dramatically (respectively).

Recently there have been some marked improvements in these areas (reported on Slashdot last week) but there is still quite a long way to go.

Eventually of course, we'll laugh at the suggestion of something that only stores half a Terabyte on a disc and which actually spins, with a motor, and platters and all that stuff. LUDICROUS! What a joke!

Until that time, we're stuck with 50's class technology tweaked to death by 21st century pragmatism.

CRT's are technology from the mid-1800's; people still use them .

I've seen CRT's and LCD monitors side by side, and I still like better CRT's Resolution, response time and color reproduction. Too bad they consume 4x times more power :S

Yes it's tru64. HDDs suck.

We need something better.

Drives using DRAM typically have battery backup so they can retain the data.

One could argue HDDs are roughly based on technology from the late 1800's :-(


Yes you are right, I was thinking too much about flash memory allthough I allready read that flash memory wont last that long in durability. It's pretty strange you know....I read on some site that they are allready experimenting with cristals and they are able to write unlimited data onto one cristal. Too bad that this will not be suitable for marketing sales as it will be one buy only for the rest of your life. But still I think they know more than they are willing to tell us. There are options plenty in this world of nano-technology.

People you cant imagine how wrong you are!!!
Static ram IS volatile. It doesnt have to be refreshed every couple microseconds as dynamic ram does but it does lose its content when the power goes down:

"Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) is a type of semiconductor memory. The word "static" indicates that the memory retains its contents as long as power remains applied, unlike dynamic RAM (DRAM) that needs to be periodically refreshed. (Nevertheless, SRAM should not be confused with read-only memory and flash memory, since it is volatile memory and preserves data only while power is continuously applied.) SRAM should not be confused with SDRAM, which stands for synchronous DRAM and is entirely different from SRAM, or with pseudostatic RAM (PSRAM), which is DRAM disguised as SRAM."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_RAM)

I'm sorry...I wish I had made a bookmark of this page where I read it but for sure it was not just some noncence site.


I don't doubt that holographic storage devices and other technologies can offer TB of storage in a reasonably small package. It's the unlimited storage claims I'm skeptical about.

It's all about physics.

:-D

ME: "LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
YOU:"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!"
ME: "YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE, SEARCH YOUR FEELINGS"
YOU: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"
ME: "congrats, jou just got punk'd"

Well if we're talking about sci-fi storage devices, then we should talk bout using not only the yes/no provided by charge, but the spin itself of the electron, so, a group of electrons charge a circuit with an 1 or 0 and at the same time hold more info on their spin, basically, you'd have 2x1 memory going on there.

Fiber optic could provide one hell of a system bus, some guys in Switzerland (I think...) were able to alter the speed of light in a fiber optic to increase it and decrease it to 1/3. Imagine 300000km/s+ of speed going on there!

Oh! and who needs double, quad, or oct cores? Neural nets will solve it all, one thousand processors working together!!...but I guess we're heading towards it a bit faster than the other choices

Finally, a nuclear power plant will be the PSU
PSU Plan B: use a lotta slaves to pour coal in the chambers with some fat guy pounding a drum to set the rythm.

"Why is always plan B better than A?" -Chair of Capcom (according to DOVG)



Holographic storage is not science fiction -- it's quite real.

We just can't be sure exactly when we'll have a practical device that can be mass produced.

There are other storage technologies under development as well.

I like my CRT, because I have a 120Hz refresh rate, and I'm considering keeping it, as opposed to getting an LCD, even tho they use way less power and don't give off radiation. Big screen LCD's strike me as grainy, I don't like them ONE BIT. I like medium sized CRT, or smaller LCD's (20 inch). (btw I'm talking about TV's here too)