Topic: Disc sizes

[Berny]

Ok. Nintendo's li'l mini–donuts can store 1.5 GB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sony and M$'s  discs I think are somewhere in the range of 9 GB. Does anyone know how much of our mini–donuts are taken up in a game on average? Resident Evil takes up a lotta space  and I think the Matrix also had two discs. Would this have happened on PS2 or XB? If not why did Nintendo decide to go with mini–discs? Are they harder to pirate? Or are they trying to make others jealous of our incredibly compact discs (iCD ) which we can fit in our pocketses? Tune in next post to find out! Or maybe the next, next post in case someone just feels like venting their rage at Nintendo's loss of Acclaim.

[Grey Ninja]

Nintendo's discs are 1.5GB.  Sony's discs range anywhere from 650MB to 9GB.  MS's discs are 9GB.  Size isn't really an issue unless you want to pack a whole whack of FMV on your disc.  The only game that really needs the 9GB is Xenosaga, due to an insane amount of poorly compressed FMV.  

Nintendo chose the mini discs for several reasons.
1)  Faster loading times
2)  Difficulty in piracy
3)  Easier portability

[Big_Pimp]

Easier portability?  Not with the big DVD case, it's the same thing as XBox's and PS2'S cases.

[Yenko]

"Nintendo chose the mini discs for several reasons.
1) Faster loading times
2) Difficulty in piracy
3) Easier portability"


Please...Nintendo went with the mini DVDs just to be different.

If the mini DVDs alone provided faster load times then you wouldn't have games that where both on the Xbox and the GC have faster load times on the Xbox. Not to mention Nintendo shot themselves in the foot using a CAV drive with the smaller discs.

There are 8cm DVD-Rs on the market. The only reason the GC hasn't been pirated yet is the encryption used on the game discs, which could have very well been carried over to standard sized DVDs.

Portability? I don't know anyone stupid enough to carry a GC disc in their pocket without some kind of cover.

There you go, the only reason Nintendo went with the mini DVDs is to be different. You can argue all you want about the advantages of the discs but in the end it's just a marketing gimmick - a "game only system". Why do you think Nintendo avoids labeling their game discs as DVD so hard?

The only people who believe there's something special about the GC discs are the same people who think the "Quality Over Quantity" slogan meant something more than Nintendo didn't have any games ready for the N64 launch.

[TheYoungerPlumber]

Don’t be so sure of yourself , Yenko.

Quote
If the mini DVDs alone provided faster load times then you wouldn't have games that where both on the Xbox and the GC have faster load times on the Xbox. Not to mention Nintendo shot themselves in the foot using a CAV drive with the smaller discs.

I was once talking with a programmer for a well-known multiplatform developer that shall remain nameless, and the issue of disc size came up.  I asked him just how much of a pain Nintendo's smaller discs are.  He responded by admitting that 1.5 GB is annoying in situations, but he highly complimented the GC drive's excellent load times.  He admitted he preferred more space over a faster drive, but most certainly did NOT put it off as some sort of gimmick.  It's great for loading things on the fly.

Your logic on GC versus Xbox loading times is HIGHLY flawed: the GameCube's mini-discs alone ARE faster than a DVD-ROM.  However, the Xbox has a hard drive games can load from while the GC does things the old-fashioned way.  And what's this about CAV being a horribly bad thing?  Having a constant angular velocity says nothing about that constant's value!  Perhaps the GC drive's speed isn't anything special, I don't know, but my GameCube games load pretty damn fast.

Quote
Portability? I don't know anyone stupid enough to carry a GC disc in their pocket without some kind of cover.

That's why many gamers went to their local electronic stores and bought standard mini-CD/DVD cases!  GC discs are extremely portable, Yenko, and can disappear into virtually any suitcase.  And don't go blaming Nintendo for the DVD cases either--I'm pretty sure retailers insisted on those.

There's no denying part of the reason for the disc was to be different and market the GameCube as such.  But it isn't all smoke and mirrors.

[Yenko]

That's the thing, the drive and the overall design of the hardware is what provides the great load times, not the discs. The only advantage I've ever heard attributed to the smaller discs is seek times. With the smaller surface area that makes sense, but I can't see how the smaller discs help access times or transfer rates - both of which contribute more to faster load times than seek times. I'm just tired of everyone attributing the GC's load times to the discs rather than Nintendo producing a well thought out and designed piece of hardware.  

The CAV drive comes into play when you take into account the size of the discs. A smaller disc (8cm) will have a lower maximum transfer rate than a regular size disc (12cm) when used with a drive rated at the same speed. Using a CAV drive with the smaller discs isn't a advantage considering both the PS2 and the Xbox use CAV drives. That's why I say Nintendo shot themselves in the foot.

You can argue the advantages of the smaller discs all you want but it won't change the fact that it's nothing more than Nintendo's attempt to seperate itself from the other consoles. In the end though, the discs work so who really cares?

[BigJim]

All systems are CAV... all systems have an inner 8 cm to put data on. Advantage? nobody... except that Xbox and PS2 have more storage beyond 8 cm as well.

[Berny]

Yenko, you keep bashing the mini–discs for being different (which Nintendo has pledged they'd do and I'm not necissarily saying its working fabulously), yet you haven't given any disadvantages of using them. They seem practical to me. I guess they could go either way on GCN2, right? I mean even if they did switch to regular (12cm I believe someone said) sized discs, it could still conceivably be backwards compatable w/GCN1, right?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The Mini-discs seem more practical in a GBA successor.

Then provided that the GameCube successor also uses the same disc medium as the GBA successor, you could have a GB player-enabled GameCube2 system out of the box at launch.

[Yenko]

Berny,

I'm not bashing either the GC or the discs. I'm simply pointing out what most people claim as advantages of the smaller discs really aren't advantages. My whole point is the discs are just part of Nintendo's marketing of the GC as a game only system and don't provide any clear advantage over a standard size DVD.

BigJim,

A stardard size DVD has more data on the outer most tracks than a mini DVD. With a CAV drive that extra data means higher maximum transfer rates. That's why using the smaller discs with a CAV drive is a disadvantage.

[AngusPodgorny]

Quote
Originally posted by: Yenko
Berny,

A stardard size DVD has more data on the outer most tracks than a mini DVD. With a CAV drive that extra data means higher maximum transfer rates. That's why using the smaller discs with a CAV drive is a disadvantage.

As YoungerPlumber pointed out, what you say is true only if you assume the angular velocity to be the same on both systems.  Since the GCN has smaller, lighter discs, it's not unreasonable to surmise that it spins them faster.

-Angus

[Yenko]

Quote
Originally posted by: AngusPodgorny

Quote
Originally posted by: Yenko
Berny,

A stardard size DVD has more data on the outer most tracks than a mini DVD. With a CAV drive that extra data means higher maximum transfer rates. That's why using the smaller discs with a CAV drive is a disadvantage.

As YoungerPlumber pointed out, what you say is true only if you assume the angular velocity to be the same on both systems.  Since the GCN has smaller, lighter discs, it's not unreasonable to surmise that it spins them faster.

-Angus

You can spin the smaller disc as fast as you want but it won't change the fact that a larger disc will provide a higher maximum transfer rate at the same speed.

Again, like I said at the end of my second post, the discs work fine so none of this really matters. I'm simply trying to make the point that the smaller discs are given way too much credit.

[enigma487]

[Yenko]

Quote
Originally posted by: enigma487
Well Yenko.  None of this really matters anyway.  but let me just add to the fact that smaller discs are better.

First of all:  CAV drives (just to restate: CONSTANT ANGULAR VELOCITY)  this means that the discs are spinning at the same rate no matter where on the disc data is being read.  this actually doesn't lead to faster transfer rates.  this causes data to be slightly more spread out the further to the outer edge of the disc you get.  which kinda smashes your piont.  sorry.  but no matter.  this is not my main point.

The big thing that is going to get you faster read/seek times is getting the disc up to speed.  the bigger the disc, the more torgue required.  so, by using a smaller disc, they can get it up to read speed faster than a traditional 12cm disc.  ADVANTAGE NINTENDO

but basically, what my whole point boils down to:  I'm a Computer Science major, my brother is a Physics major, and i'm smarter than you.

Edit:  and i love my mini cd cases to toss my games around in!

And i also believe they are given not hardly enough credit !

Well, first let's get some of the technical issues out of the way.

Data on a CD or DVD is not spread out more towards the outer part of the disc. It's spaced evenly across the entire disc. Both types of media use a single spiral used to record data that starts from the inner part of the disc and continues to the outer part of the disk. The length of spiral it takes to complete one revolution on the inner part of the disc is shorter than on the outer part of the disc so more data can be stored on the outer part of the disc.

CD and DVD ROM drives are given an X speed rating based on how much data can be transfered in one second. For CD 1X is 150Kb and DVD 1X is 1353Kb. A 4X CD ROM drive would provide 600Kb/sec transfer rates even though it may not spin four times faster than a 1X drive. The same holds true for DVD ROM drives.

The earliest CD ROM drives accounted for the differences in the amount of data passing by the reader in one revolution by changing the rotational speed of the disc. It speeds up while reading the inner part of the disc, then slows down while reading the outer part of the disc (which has more data passing by the reader per revolution). These drives are know as CLV drives. Their X speed ratings are consistent throughout the entire disc because the transfer rate remains constant by speeding up and slowing down the disc depending on where the reader is on the disc.

The next incartion of CD and DVD ROM drives spin the disc at a constant rate regardless of where the reader is at on the disc. This means less data is transfered when reading the inner tracks and more data transfered when reading the outer tracks. These drives are called CAV drives. Their given X speed ratings are the maximum transfer rates which can only be obtained when reading the outer most part of the disc. If the disc is only half filled with data it's impossible for the drive to reach it's maximum X speed rating.

Now, take all this and apply it to the GC. By simply implementing a 12cm disc, Nintendo could have increased the maximum transfer rates the GC is capable of. Of course, if there's no data on the outer most tracks there would be no increase in performance, but that also holds true for the smaller discs as well. It's a relatively simple concept. I'm surprised someone as smart as yourself can't grasp it.

As for your theory about torque and the smaller discs; if you and your brother come up with the mathematical equation that shows the smaller, lighter discs contribute to lower load times and get it published, I'll consider giving it some consideration. As it stands now though, it's just a theory by someone that thinks he's smart but has yet to do or say anything to substantiate it.

At any rate, I'm done with this whole subject and I apologize for saying anything negative about the almighty Nintendo.

[enigma487]

[Yenko]

Forget it. You don't even know enough about the subject to carry on any kind of debate. Insults and sarcastic comments are the best you can come up with so there's no need carrying this on any longer.  

[ReallyScrued]

enigma, sry for the acronyms but stfu. yenko is making total more sence than u do. what does less torque have to do with anything? if u spin it too fast, it will actually try to list off, since the gc disc is also lighter, it would make more sence. And yes more data is writen on the outer edges. if you look at cd burners these days, a 48x and a 52x does not have a REAL actual performance gap of 4x. Practically the same as 32x. Any cd-rw drive over 16x burns quicker after it gets to the middle. it bumps up it speeds as it gets to the mid, 22,24,32,48 at the very outter edge. Just take nero and see. Larger discs have more data being spun on the outter edges so the transfer rate does actually increase. u can also do this. Take a regular sized cd-r and burn 700 megs of anything on it. Take nero and use the graph to see ur maximum read/transfer rate that ur cd-rom is doing while ur trying to read the same disc that u just burned. I bet u it starts at about 16x and workx its way to maximum by the time it reaches the end of the disc. now take a mini cd-r and do the same test with 185 megs of data. it would again start out at 16 but stop half way of ur full maximum read/transfer rate and not maximum, ur losing half the speed of ur drive. just someeting to point out.

all in the end, none of this matters, as long hard solid programming, like whats implemented in metroid prime, all of this to point out is realy nothing. just something i wanted to say, its not what it can do, its what u can do with it.
                                                                                                                                         -----

hahaha couldnt find the underlining thingy or italic. o well...  

[ReallyScrued]

oh and one last forgotten point, yenko, nintendo did not shoot themselves in the foot. if they had used a CLV, then extra performance wouda gone to waste, at least with a CAV drive, they have higher transfer rates at the outside of the disc. with a CLV, if it chaged speeds....wouldnt the game stutter as its slowing down? its just some expierence i had with my cd-rom. as im playing quake 3, it needs to load stuff and when i go into the player menu, it loads the player model to show myself. it just sits there making the same sound over and over again till the cd drive spun up and loaded the player menu.....  

[enigma487]

i removed my prior posts because there doesn't seem to be enough intelligence in this thread to understand the physics behind a rotating disc, which is the basis of the smaller disc argument.  there will be no further posts from me on this topic/thread.  while i may be back to read, i will refrain from comment.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The trouble with this discussion here is we don't have specific numbers for the angular velocities of the GC disc drive and its contemporary DVD drives.  Basically, apples and oranges again -- we can't decide which fruit and/or how many of each fruit we're trying to compare.

But to TYP's, enigma's, and Angus' credit,

under these specific conditions:
1) The GC drive and a similarly dated DVD drive are both Constant Angular Veloctiy drives.
2) Each drive is fed the SAME specific AMOUNT of electrical energy to get their motors spinning (like here's 1 Gal of gasoline for each of 2 cars, so we can see how far they'll each go with just that amount).

result: GC drive will spin the disc faster (greater constant angular velocity), (and of course faster spin speeds lead to faster data transfers which lead to faster load times).

why: given a specific amount of energy, the top speed will be determined by the mass of the spinning object.  A light pendullum is easier to push than a heavy pendullum; In Mario64, if Bowser was lighter, Mario would have an easier time spinning his spikey A$$ at the beginning of the rotation; likewise, it's easier to spin the less massive GC disc than the more massive DVD.  Given the amount of energy we're allowing, the DVD will eventually only spin "so fast" while the GC disc will manage to spin faster.

To go into greater numerical detail would mean writing out a Conservation of Rotational Kinetic Energy equation, showing how less mass would yield greater constant angular velocity, and more mass would yield smaller constant angular velocity, given a specific amount of energy.

Again, this result is only valid under the above-stated conditions.

HULKAMANIACS,

BANZAI!!