Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Portables Data Storage Hardware

Dell Releases Flash-Based Laptops 230

joetheprogrammer writes "Dell has announced that they are going to offer a special configuration option with its Latitude D420 laptop that will allow users to swap clunky old HDs in favor of a 32GB SanDisk Flash hard drive. The only hitch comes with the price tag, which is set at a rather expensive price of $549. This will definitely ensure the laptop is set for a very high-profile consumer. 'The 1.8-inch 32GB SanDisk SSD, which SanDisk announced in January, increases performance by as much as 23 percent and is three and a half times less likely to fail when compared with HDDs currently available for the Latitude line, Dell said. The drive, currently available in North and South America, costs $549 -- on par with the 32GB drive Sony is offering exclusively in Japan for the Type-G Vaio. SanDisk will expand SSD availability to Europe and Asia in the near future.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Releases Flash-Based Laptops

Comments Filter:
  • yussss (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SuperStretchy ( 1018064 ) <acatzr800@gmail . c om> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:36PM (#18892443)
    is three and a half times less likely to fail when compared with HDDs currently available for the Latitude

    Ok... now seriously, how reliable are the normal hard drives to begin with? 2 days x 3.5 = a week. yay!
  • Less likely to fail? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:37PM (#18892467)
    "and is three and a half times less likely to fail when compared with HDDs currently available for the Latitude line" Dell said.

    I wonder how they tested that. I would think the failure rate of a flash hard drive would be much better. Basic anything you can to break it, would probably also damage components on the motherboard.
  • by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:39PM (#18892483) Homepage
    It'll be interesting to find out how much battery life is extended by replacing the hard drive with flash. The performance advantage doesn't seem that impressive given the high cost, but if replacing traditional hard drives with flash can improve battery life significantly then it could be worthwhile - not only for "traditional" productivity, but for mobile gaming which is severely hindered by power considerations.
  • Neat to see (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skadet ( 528657 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:42PM (#18892521) Homepage
    It's neat to see a consumer-level incarnation of this technology. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that solid-state storage will be the norm in portable devices where impact is a real liability -- after all, the iPod kind of pioneered that. Even with impact-protection devices like the ones Apple has for their hard drives, physical damage is still a real-world problem. The faster access times are a welcome benefit, but for now are not the main focus. So, kudos to Dell. The "rather expensive" price will fall, and it'll become the norm. It will be interesting to see how much more bloated apps become when access time isn't an issue.
  • Devils Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fishthegeek ( 943099 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:42PM (#18892531) Journal
    This is a long time coming, and I'm excited about this but has anyone really considered that one of the benefits of mechanical storage is that the data can still be pretty easily recovered if the hdd isn't bootable any longer. How easy or difficult would it be to recover data from an SSD drive if it isn't bootable? I'm thinking that putting it in the freezer just isn't going to work any more.
  • Re:I for one... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:45PM (#18892567) Homepage
    The cost is not very important. Whatever the drive costs today it will cost less in a years time.

    What is rather more interesting is what eliminating the hard drive will allow in terms of laptop design. A compact flash card is much smaller than a hard drive, the volume saved will be significant on compact format laptops.

    Another interesting difference is that it will be easier to make the drive easily removable on compact laptops. Today this tends to be a feature of the larger models which means that corporate IT depts are less willing to offer compact units.

  • two questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by free space ( 13714 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:46PM (#18892573)
    1- Why only 23% faster? I thought mechanical HDD's were the bottleneck in modern computers and that replacing them with purely electornic components would make the machine run many times faster.

    2- Must the users permenantly use the solid state drive, or can it be replaced/hotswapped with a normal hard drive when storage capacity is needed more than speed?
  • by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:51PM (#18892627)
    Don't flash drives crap out after a few hundred thousand writes? That may not be a problem for most people's data and apps, but it would play hell with a Windows swap file. (Can a swap file be load-balanced to different parts of the flash drive without overhead that would lose much of the advantages of replacing a hard disk?)
  • by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:53PM (#18892657) Homepage
    This would be REALLY good for a ruggidized laptop, as vibration + HDDs are not a pretty combination.

    Also, I'd assume this would help on the power budget, and really speed random-access workloads.
  • Re:Read/Write speed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@ ... om minus painter> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:03PM (#18892769) Homepage

    Swap file access will also be faster (arbuably, just installing 8 GB of RAM or whatever might be more economical and effective).
    Not to stray to far off-topic, but you got me thinking...

    At first I thought that you were correct about it being better to use more RAM, but the numbers just don't add up...

    DRAM is just a capacitor and a transistor per cell. Any sort of flash memory is more complicated, as you have to provide programming voltages, floating gates, etc.

    So, why is it that 1GB of DDR ram will cost about $40 and up, while you can easily get a 1GB USB drive for $10 or less.

    Why the price difference? I thought that since DRAM is the densest possible memory, that it would also be cheaper per bit, but the prices on Newegg tell me differently.

    I do realize that flash memory is a LOT slower and will wear out after a few years, but using flash for swap space seems like a very cost-effective way of doing things. As first I scoffed as Vista for doing this, but now I am not so sure.
  • flash is not so bad (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:05PM (#18892791)
    Back in the 80's that was true. Modern flash designs last longer and are more reliable -- more on the order of 10 million writes (actually, 10 million block erases---you can change 1's to 0's in an individual byte any time you want, but you can't change them back without erasing a rather large chunk at once, usually like 64K). And even then, your OS might be able to detect the bad blocks and avoid using them, allowing the other 98% of the blocks, that haven't had as many writes, to keep being used.

    Conventional hard drives wear out and break too. I'm guessing these flash drives last longer than today's conventional hard drives.
  • Works like a charm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by emj ( 15659 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:05PM (#18892799) Journal
    I have been doing this on and of for two years, I first bought a 1GB CF and placed it in my PC CARD port so I could use my basic stuff with out using the harddrive. It was very nice, but sadly a bit slow, I think it was the PC-CARD -> IDE converter that was the problem. Then a year ago I bought a IDE 2.5" -> CF converter and a 2GB flash, and it works wonderfullly. The 2 GB is enough for most things, and I get no HD heat, nor noise from it. Wonderfull.

    Though the CF converter or CF card I have doesn't support UDMA, which still makes things slow, but it's ok.

    Current setup:
    X40 + 1GB DRAM + 4GB CF
  • by bcat24 ( 914105 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:16PM (#18892903) Homepage Journal
    You may have been joking, but I'd be seriously interested in knowing this. How exactly does flash memory behave when it fails? The last thing anyone wants is for their drive to silently corrupt data.
  • Re:Read/Write speed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@ ... om minus painter> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:28PM (#18893065) Homepage
    True enough. However, the speed is a by-product of the design. The important factors in silicon production is:
    * Raw silicon area (die size)
    * Geometry (smaller features = more money)
    * Process yield
    * Wafer size
    * Number of metal layers

    Speed is more like a side-effect of the geometry, and the geometry affects the silicon area and yield.

    It is just confusing to me how 1GB of SDRAM is a lot more expensive that 1GB of flash memory, when SDRAM should be smaller and cheaper to make.
  • by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:34PM (#18893141)
    A 32gb flash HD is a GREAT idea. Seems to me, one could make a laptop with a REALY small form factor and spend time protecting other things (Screen, keyboard) then worries about drive saftey. 32gb is plenty for the opsys and a few files. As to other stuff (movies, music); get a external 2.5 enclosure preferably with a firewire port. Firewire needs no external power support on a 2.5 enclosure and, you can get up to a good 100gb using regular tech. Most times you don't need the external anyway so why lug it around; stash the class notes on the flash and head towards the dorm to finish the paper and store permanant on the normal drive. best of both worlds...
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:05PM (#18894761) Journal
    Sooner or later, one of the companies is going to get bright and drop the battery and replace it with a capacitor. So what if it only has 1/2 hour charge. That would serve 98% of the times that I am off the power grid. If I can recharge it in under 1 minute AND I never have to replace the battery, I will take it. Then the company needs to offer a snap-on battery for the bottom that allows LONG trips (say 4-6 hours).
  • Re:Read/Write speed? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sulimma ( 796805 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @07:59AM (#18898503)
    DRAM used to use the single transistor as capacitor. But with shrinking feature sizes the capacitance of these became smaller and smaller. To still be able to store and read out the value reliably special chip features called "stacked capacitors" or "trenches" were implemented. These are extremely dificult to manufacture.
    Stacked capcitors essentially are huge cirular towers on top of each transistor.

    Additionaly, to achieve high speeds with the very small amount of charge in each cell you need to have short bitlines which result in a large amount of sense amplifiers adding to the area of the chip.

    Also, non volatile memories like FLASH inherently make it simple to have redundant memory blocks that are mapped over defective blocks: The factory just stores the mapping table in a hidden memory block. This increases yield significantly.

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...