While the random read/write of small amounts of information is still a problem, I'm not aware of too many consumers who do a whole lot of .5kb reads/writes.
I'm looking forward to the day when SSDs are comparable in price to magnetic drives. When that day comes, there will never be a reason to use another magnetic drive.
The article is not about comparing other SSD's it's about how it compares to traditional magnetic notebook drives commonly found in today's notebooks. Also how will scoring response times add to the value of the article?
This isn't a very good SSD article. There aren't any comparisons to other SSD's, and you didn't score the response time.
Thanks for your input. I actually agree to an extent: I would very much have liked to compare this drive to other SSDs, but we have to start somewhere, and this is our first SSD. When we get more, I'll start comparing them to each other.
Aside from comparing against other SSDs, it would also help if you did a real-world kind of test of the drive, using it as the system drive for your main system for at least a couple of days (not just running benchmarks). If your system locks up like crazy all the time, or your system stops booting after a day, or you notice some other bad stuff, you should report it in your article. (It's great that you noted the noise issue, although why didn't you put that under cons? Wouldn't it disturb you if you bought one of these?)
I hate you so much right now, shwaip, because you know (or should know) that's not true.
The studies you're thinking of are failures by Tom's Hardware that said, indeed, that a laptop ran out of battery faster than a mechanical drive - but they failed because they did more than twice the work in the same time span. They ran a looped HDD read/write test - and the SSD did work so much faster, it kept the processor busy requesting more instructions until it drained. If they had done a logical test, such as watching a video or music on a loop, which streams data at the same rate on both, you'd have seen a battery life increase.
Not only that, the most recent SLC SSDs have an MTBF that vastly eclipses mechanical drives. You'd have to write more than 100GB of data per DAY for FIVE YEARS to approach the write failure threshold.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited December 2008
You'd have to write more than 100GB of data per DAY for FIVE YEARS to approach the write failure threshold.
You just answered the question I was about to post. Thanks.
What was the breakthrough? Just one year ago it was an unofficial consensus that the flash memory being used for SSDs would not hold up well.
CB
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄ƷDer Millionendorf- Icrontian
Comments
Great review CB
But as I said, I could easily be wrong on that.
Thanks for your input. I actually agree to an extent: I would very much have liked to compare this drive to other SSDs, but we have to start somewhere, and this is our first SSD. When we get more, I'll start comparing them to each other.
The studies you're thinking of are failures by Tom's Hardware that said, indeed, that a laptop ran out of battery faster than a mechanical drive - but they failed because they did more than twice the work in the same time span. They ran a looped HDD read/write test - and the SSD did work so much faster, it kept the processor busy requesting more instructions until it drained. If they had done a logical test, such as watching a video or music on a loop, which streams data at the same rate on both, you'd have seen a battery life increase.
What was the breakthrough? Just one year ago it was an unofficial consensus that the flash memory being used for SSDs would not hold up well.