Hard Disk Storage 1985

[rsjsouza]

And he also once said something to the effect that nobody would ever need a smartphone with a screen larger than 3.5" and that is was the perfect size. I laughed so hard when I heard that, at that time, because it made me realize how completely foolish he'd become, into thinking so narrowly that his personal view of a product was the only view. If there were a lot of people that also held his view, or a lot of people who didn't, but could be convinced to change their view to his view, then Apple could sell a lot of their products. But they could have sold a whole lot more if they (Steve Jobs) didn't have such a narrow view of the market for their products. The current management at Apple seems to be catching on to that point, whereas Steve Jobs never did.

I actually agree with him on that. Maybe not the part that nobody will ever need a larger screen, but it is the perfect size. I really hate the giant phones and "phablets" (*cringe*) that have been all the rage for years. I got my first iphone specifically because it was the only decent small smartphone I could find, and I got my SE for the same reason. I really do not understand the appeal of gigantic phones at all, I have laptops and tablets for when I want something larger, a phone is a pocket sized communication device that I always have on me, as long as it's large enough to type a text on, the smaller the better.

If they want to make bigger ones for people that desire those, great, but I really hope they keep offering something compact and support it well. Already I sometimes find apps that don't work right on it because needed buttons are off the edge of the screen.

It all comes down to each individual's use case, preferences, etc. Some people have bad eyes, and small fonts on a small screen simply won't work. Some people, even for texting like to see more than just two lines of the text they're replying to and two lines of the text they're typing. That one was one of my huge pet-peeves with those tiny screens, where I'd type a sentence, then go back to proofread it, and need to scroll due to such small screen real estate. The problem is further exasperated due to the need for the on-screen touch keypad, and which is difficult to type for someone with big hands but tiny touch areas, where you're always mistyping the keys next to what you intended. There just isn't enough space on a 3.5" screen for what some people need to be efficient. Of course some people watch videos on their smartphones and want a bigger screen for that (myself not included).

Anyways, as for the device easily fitting inside your pocket, the ability to easily hold the device, and swivel your thumb/fingers around to do the necessary actions, I would tend to agree that 3.5" is at or close to an optimal size. But depending on the app you're using, and how you use it, it might be far from optimal with regard to fitting everything on the screen so that it's easily usable. I agree they should continue to sell the smaller size phones, because for some people, it's exactly what they need. They also need to sell what other people need, which is a much bigger device. And that's my whole point, that Jobs couldn't see what were the needs of anyone beyond his narrow view. It wasn't that his view was bad. His view may have been and still is perfect for some. It's just that it's horrible for others.

That is the point; the use of screen realstate is much more limiting depending on the use you give to it. If you do everything on the smartphone, the more the merrier as the soft keyboard is one of the most used and most realstate hungry applet. Not only that, but a significant part of the population uses purses, which reduces the pressure to keep the devices as small as possible. As for me, give me a physical keyboard any day instead of soft keys, but that is long lost in the past.

As a personal communicator and phone, perhaps the 3.5'' (or whereabouts) is the perfect size as the keyboard use is somewhat less intense. As for me, I never liked the candybar form factor that much and preferred a flip form factor, but that is also long lost in the past. Yes, Samsung is coming with foldable screens, but after having kids I don't have the expenditure to be an early adopter anymore... 

[Alex Eisenhut]

As a personal communicator and phone, perhaps the 3.5'' (or whereabouts) is the perfect size as the keyboard use is somewhat less intense. As for me, I never liked the candybar form factor that much and preferred a flip form factor, but that is also long lost in the past. Yes, Samsung is coming with foldable screens, but after having kids I don't have the expenditure to be an early adopter anymore... 

You sound like a CommLock man!

[David Hess]

You sound like a CommLock man!

I got that reference!

[VK3DRB]

I'm old enough for 8 inch floppies, cassettes as storage and not quite old enough to have to toggle the boot loader in, thank goodness

In the mid-90's I worked for IBM in the test/repair/refurbishment department for the 3370 series hard disks. These beasties:

The controller for these was one of these big cabinet things and it took an 8" floppy and some toggling to get it up and running.

Mind you, the 3370 series was introduced in 1979 and had a capacity of over 500MB. later models had over 700MB.

Agree with grey beard icon

+1

I also worked on them in Australia when I worked at IBM too. I remember there was a problem with stiction, especially if the drives were powered off over a long weekend.

But I go back further than that, to the System/32 HDD. 3.1MB or 5MB HDD that took two blokes to lift and it cost a fortune.

But I go back ever further than that to the Stringy Floppy!!!! I am sure few people here would have ever heard of a stringy floppy.

[Alex Eisenhut]

But I go back ever further than that to the Stringy Floppy!!!! I am sure few people here would have ever heard of a stringy floppy.

What? I have one in my closet.

[VK3DRB]

But I go back ever further than that to the Stringy Floppy!!!! I am sure few people here would have ever heard of a stringy floppy.

What? I have one in my closet.

It might be quite valuable to a collector or as a museum piece. Certainly beat cassette tapes in the day. It could be fun in getting it going, even if you have to design an interface.

All my old stuff is long gone except my FRG-7 (1977); and my Farad-80 scientific calculator (1976) which is on my desk and I still use it.

I adopt the "If in doubt, throw it out" guideline to uncluttered living. That being said, my son's friend threw out an old hard disk that had 20 bitcoins that he mined on it. At the time they were worth about $4. He is kicking himself.

[Alex Eisenhut]

It might be quite valuable to a collector or as a museum piece.

I know. Wafer drives or stringy floppies are just a endless loop tape in a tiny cartridge.

https://computersmuseum.com/technical/reviews/quick-data-drive/

They fail. My drive could be a shelf queen, right now it's a closet pig.

[ferdieCX]

In 1969, Olivetti introduced the Auditronic 770 account machine.
It also used a cyclic tape drive

Link in italian

http://museo.dagomari.prato.it/singolo.php?cod=167&ord=1

[helius]

The 1980s "stringy floppy" was a miniaturized endless-reel (like an 8 Track cart) tape device, a cheaper alternative to 5.25" floppy drives for home computers like ZX Spectrums. A similar process led to Mitsui's QuickDisk (QD) format, which could not seek, but simply scanned the whole surface in an endless spiral as it turned.


Long before that, there was an IBM system called the 2321 Data Cell (1964) that used strips of magnetic tape that it fished out of a barrel (it was called "the noodle snatcher" by field service).

[Neper]

My first contact with data storage was during my apprenticeship in the offices of a German glass factory, around 1974. Their computer system was an IBM 360 and the head of the computer department let me put the lists of my music tapes on punch cards, so I could sort and print them out in various ways. The cards themselves made a very convenient card file. 

Years later, the first hard drive I didn't buy was an optional one for my DEC Rainbow 100 computer: 7000 deutschmarks for 5 MB. Thanks but no, thanks.

The first one I actually bought was a 20 MB 5 1/4" "half-height" MFM drive (or was it RLL?) for my Amiga 2000: 1200 deutschmarks at the time. Never thought I'd be able to fill that drive. A few months later, it had magically filled up and a 50 MB 3 1/2" hard drive soon followed. Five years later, lightning struck and killed my then Amiga 3000. The insurance kindly paid for a Amiga 3000T with a drive of mind-boggling capacity: 1 GB! Never thought I'd be able to fill that. A few months later...

Today, I couldn't even say how many drives with how much capacity are running in this place. Yet, I'll need a few more soon.

[Alex Eisenhut]

Do you still have that A3000T? Asking for a friend.

[Neper]

No. Had to go to contribute to the purchase of a Mac G3.

[GlennSprigg]

I once backed up a whole IBM Main-Frame computer onto a Streamer-Tape, and re-formatted it. (Re-installed again, OK).
It was a central computer for a certain Prison. It was slow to respond to certain field equipment/panels & trigger points.
This was the equivalent to doing a 'defrag' on some later systems, and took 2 secs off the alarm times!   
The boss was surprised that I did it, but was happy that it worked!!