F**k Hard drives.

[silent1mezzo]

I'd love to see a 64GB come under $80. At that point I'd pick one up for my OS. My data will always live on HDDs.

[gingerbee]

A-Data s592 raid performance

ME HAPPY

[JimboToronto]

Originally Posted by bissa

if they started making 3.5 SSDs than they could probably get higher capacity for the same or slightly higher price since the components dont need to be nearly as compact.

As LowFat stated, it wouldn't lower costs, but it would allow for another layer of parallelism, in that several controllers could be put into internal RAID-0 in 3.5" SSDs and then several SSDs could be put in RAID-0.

Of course you'd be bottlenecked by SATA at the top end, but small-file performance would be amazing.

[JimboToronto]

Originally Posted by Squeetard

Say goodbye to the last bottleneck in your system, and the last moving parts. Hard disks need to go the way of punch cards. what an amazing difference. So snappy, can't wait to get 3 in Raid0 at home.

Amen. Slowly but surely we relegate wax cylinders, shellac, vinyl and polycarbonate disks, mylar and acetate tapes and films, and other mechanical media back to the second millenium with typewriters, inkwells, punchcards and floppies.

Once you've experienced the response of SSDs you'll never go back. They're faster, consume less power, and are more durable. Capacities have caught up with or surpassed HDDs. The only problem is the present cost.

In the long run, they'll be cheaper too. HDDs are precision mechanical devices. SSDs are a few chips soldered on a PCB. The technology is developing so fast now that R&D costs are high that each new generation has to bear this cost. Once the technology is mature, and all the R&D is paid for, prices will plummet. Look at the price of DDR2 SDRAM.

Unfortunately most of us still have other moving parts in our computers, mostly fans. Having to occasionally connect an optical drive to my EeePC901 is a minor annoyance like needing a FDD for F6 drivers in XP. Otherwise it's dead still except during heavy gaming, when the fan finally kicks in.

[DarKStar]

Originally Posted by enaberif

When I spend $400 on a drive for my computer is the day I shoot myself.

ROTFL - Brings me a years back when I think I spent that much (close to $350) for my Maxtor DiamondMax what was it 120GB? or 80GB ? or something like that - and now my 500 GB seagate that I spent less than $65 on !

I agree with you - now I would not spend that much on a hard drive at such small size - I mean why ? for what ? I still think SSD are not immune from failing, eventhough they have no mechanical parts, something can go wrong (controller ? corruption ? wear ?) ok some might say much less than a HD - I assume that also SSD use wear leveling too, but anyways, the day I will move to SSD is the day they will have 500GB on it and cost me $70 tops....... I can buy multiple HDDs for the price of 1 SSD a fraction of the size, at least with those multiple HDDs I can make 1:1 backups.

As to speed - lol my Seagate 7200.12 500GB is plenty fast for me :D

[rjbarker]

Decent SSD 64 GB = $250
WD Black 640 GB = $80

F**ck SSD's at this point in time!

[ToXic]

i had a few i found them fast, but i found the amount of space i required (1 TB basic system, 5 TB HD Storage ) is way to impractical based on the price. i happen to be one of those people who rip their Blu-Rays lol...

[rjbarker]

one of those people who rip their Blu-Rays lol...

At $25 per blank Blue Ray disc....?

[lowfat]

Originally Posted by ToXic

i had a few i found them fast, but i found the amount of space i required (1 TB basic system, 5 TB HD Storage ) is way to impractical based on the price. i happen to be one of those people who rip their Blu-Rays lol...

you don't use SSD's for mass storage. You use them for a boot drive Then HDD's for stoage.

[lowfat]

Originally Posted by rjbarker

At $25 per blank Blue Ray disc....?

rip blurays. Not burn them. You just copy them to your HDD.