@Xeno wishes there was a preview button: You could get the iPhone SCUM emulator and play Monkey Island ;c) I don't know what I like better Space Quest or Monkey Island.
Here's the problem with SSD. First they are expensive. While they can be 30X faster than a Fiber Channel drive they cost 20X as much. So, that's a pretty good price/performance ratio but they are still $$$$$.
Second problem is useable life. SSD has limitations on write cycles which means that you'll be replacing those SSD drives much sooner than a standard drive.
Last but not least while the drives may be wicked fast, the interfaces are still too slow to take full advantage of the increase in speed.
As the technology matures most of these issues will go away but for now I don't really see the cost-benefit for the typical home user.
@cowboyshootist: Show me some proof on #2. Everything I have heard was that they were extremely rugged and have STUPID high MTBF (mean time before failure) numbers....something like having it on 24/7 for like 20 years type of numbers or something.
What makes them not last that long? No moving parts...and it's just like memory...and memory changes write data ALL the bloody time.
@phoenix27: Flash memory has a finite number of write cycles to it. There's a reason why Intel has developed controller software to spread out where writes occur on the unit to help spread this out.
Rugged has nothing to do with the maximum number of writes one can perform to flash memory.
Maybe you should learn more about the technology involved before demanding proof.
Yes, you're right. ssd's haave a finite number of write cycles to it. but as phoenix27 said, it's pretty damn high. Its really only a problem for the parts of the drive containing the FATs, so that might require some ingenuity right there (again phoenix has a good point; RAM is flash memory that's being written to fuckloads), but the point is that this limit will without any doubt be pushed higher and higher as ssd technology is developed.
@Alfonzo: Flash and RAM are not the same thing at all.
Secondly, it's not just FAT tables but caching, temporary file storage for web browsing, and anything else that writes to your drive over and over and over again.
What I want to know is how many raptor 300 gig drives you can purchase for the same amount of money as the 24 SSD drives, and if placed in a large SATA array which would have a faster throughput.
@Lite's Posse: Is on Broadway: You couldn't do that on a single SATA bus. The throughput limit on a SATA port is 300MB/s. I'm curious what RAID controller they used for this to get 2GB/s.
Yes folks. We New Yorkers are passive-aggressive shitheads. Not one of these toolbags had the cajones to confront them.
It's real simple. You walk up. You say, "Hey. How's it going? I guess you think you're doing some cool guerrilla style State humor? Cute. Clever. Inconsiderate, but clever."
Never be afraid to confront jackassery. Trust me. When jackasses are confronted with a challenge to their antics, they scatter.
Unless Johnny Marr is going to teach me how to play the Queen is Dead front to back...I'm sure Ultimate Guitar and a good ear will teach me everything else I need to know.
Thanks for the info, Mark. Appreciate it! This'll help me explain it to customers without me actually purchasing one and fumbling through it with my many thumbs.
Nice, If my powerbook G4 12" can handle this new garage band ill download this lesson from sting ASAP. If it can't then ill wait till I put OSX on my dell optiplex or buy a mac pro...
10/22/09
05/04/09
oxxoxoxx
xoxoooxx
xooxooxx
xxooxxoo
xxxxxoxo
05/04/09
05/04/09
That an SimCity2K
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
I was personally very interested in Space Quest IX, the latex babes of estros. Ah well.
05/04/09
03/26/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
Second problem is useable life. SSD has limitations on write cycles which means that you'll be replacing those SSD drives much sooner than a standard drive.
Last but not least while the drives may be wicked fast, the interfaces are still too slow to take full advantage of the increase in speed.
As the technology matures most of these issues will go away but for now I don't really see the cost-benefit for the typical home user.
03/09/09
What makes them not last that long? No moving parts...and it's just like memory...and memory changes write data ALL the bloody time.
Screenshot or it didn't happen!
03/09/09
Rugged has nothing to do with the maximum number of writes one can perform to flash memory.
Maybe you should learn more about the technology involved before demanding proof.
03/09/09
Yes, you're right. ssd's haave a finite number of write cycles to it. but as phoenix27 said, it's pretty damn high. Its really only a problem for the parts of the drive containing the FATs, so that might require some ingenuity right there (again phoenix has a good point; RAM is flash memory that's being written to fuckloads), but the point is that this limit will without any doubt be pushed higher and higher as ssd technology is developed.
03/09/09
Secondly, it's not just FAT tables but caching, temporary file storage for web browsing, and anything else that writes to your drive over and over and over again.
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
03/09/09
02/12/09
It's real simple. You walk up. You say, "Hey. How's it going? I guess you think you're doing some cool guerrilla style State humor? Cute. Clever. Inconsiderate, but clever."
Never be afraid to confront jackassery. Trust me. When jackasses are confronted with a challenge to their antics, they scatter.
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09