Toshiba To Launch First 512GB Solid State Drive 256
designperfection9 writes "Toshiba said Thursday that it will show off a new line up of NAND-flash-based solid state drives with the industry's first 2.5-inch 512GB SSD.
The drive is based on a 43 nanometer Multi-Level Cell NAND and claims to offer a high level of performance and endurance for use in notebooks as well as gaming and home entertainment systems."
Re:Random read/write? (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless the design is broken (they did not add cache features for accesses), the numbers will be still fast enough to saturate the capabilities of most of the crappy'n'cheap notebook and desktop sata-2 controllers.
Terrible Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Who wrote this garbage? The article repeats itself about 3 times on one page.
Re:Random read/write? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MythTV (Score:4, Insightful)
It may say 512GB now (Score:3, Insightful)
It may say 512GB now, but we all know that once marketing gets a hold of it, it'll be
Tosiba's Brand New 550GB* drive.
*1GB = 1,000 MB
Re:And the cost is what? (Score:3, Insightful)
$1200?
If so I'm not going to go run and buy one. I can buy a USB disk drive that has twice as much for 1/10th the price.
I think this is like many other computing/electronics items in that the early adopters pay a lot more than the rest of us are willing to pay until the prices come down. Remember how expensive the earliest CD burners were? Really I'm glad that there is more interest in non-volatile solid-state storage. Over the years I've seen so much vaporware (like the 3D gelatin cubes that are written to and read from with lasers, like a hologram) in this area that it's good to see something that is actually going to be available. Even if solid-state drives are expensive as hell and not much better than current mechanical/magnetic hard drives right now, I don't expect them to stay that way so this is a step in the right direction.
Re:And the cost is what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Early adopters are just paying more early(unless its someone/thing that needs cutting edge technology). They aren't paying the way to make it cheaper for us. It's just an early indicator of interest and a short-term way to start recouping costs. When people make more than the cost it is profit, not discounts that we see. This would be because the MFR makes the same profit either way.
In reality the cost of something is generally (not completely, but generally) far lower than the original price...this is because they know that most things start expensive and get cheaper. Competition brings it down.
When manufacturing costs find a way to make the same item cheaper, do you really think that cost savings is passed on to retail or the consumer? Absolutely not. Consumer's don't even know, for the most part.
Re:It may say 512GB now (Score:1, Insightful)
So you mean that product specs get reported more accurately, using internationally recognized and consistent units, once they have been vetted by marketing.
Then more power to marketing, I say!
Just give me a cheap fast 64GB already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MythTV (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a huge difference though ... you'd be better off spending the price difference elsewhere in terms of wattage. Buy a more expensive power saving cpu or display and you'll save way more than the 1-2 watt difference between a conventional hard drive and an SSD. Though I suppose if money is no object, you do both.
But if money is no object, why not just buy a few more solar panels?
Re:FS's made for rotating platters (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Newegg Special Price! (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that God is a lawyer who is easily kept happy through the use of legal technicalities.
Re:Newegg Special Price! (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you love it when people get really clever at following the words of a law for the purpose of evading the spirit of a law?
Yeah, it's especially funny when you try to get people to explain. Seriously though, it's very hard to understand the spirit of the law when there is no justification whatsoever. In cases like these, we have to either `interpret' the law in context or take it as the word of god. The former is hard to justify without discrediting the source, and the latter is impossible simply because the bible contradicts itself.
While I'm sure that there are also moral reasons for it, the prohibitions against lending money at interest found in various religions really seem to be designed to prevent a house-of-cards situation like what the USA currently has with the Federal Reserve, [...]
Dunno, charging interest isn't the problem of World Wide Depression II, quite the opposite actually, the lack of interest fueled much of it. In any case, you'd think there would be better solutions than simply outlawing interest. Let's do some highly selective quoting, and try to infer the author's motivation.
Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. [Deuteronomy 23:19] [biblegateway.com]
The word 'brother' is probably one of those words that can be translated and interpreted in a million ways. If we take it literal, it would explain a lot. I for one wouldn't charge interest to money I lend to my brother. I guess the author was just an honest, hard working family man.
But let's assume it was god's foresight into our financial derivatives that motivated Him to forbid interest. Maybe even He couldn't make sense of them either, so he decided to outlaw all of it. Funny thing that all the Christian leaders did not heed His Word. I suppose that's why He decided to punish that one nation under god the most, although that remains to be seen.
One thing I'm sure of. The 'eat no pork' rule has definitely been written by a chicken or cow farmer. Nothing has changed in that respect, the farm lobby is strong as ever.
Re:Newegg Special Price! (Score:4, Insightful)
the speculative imaginings in other sci-fi works generally focus exclusively on future technological advancements while the world's sociopolitical climate remains relatively unchanged
I suggest you improve your sci-fi diet. There are literally thousands of far better fleshed out, better thought out and more interesting and realistic portrayals of the ramifications of potential technological, social and political changes in the future, they're just mostly in the form of books, not crappy TV shows or movies, which are developed using a process that seems designed to filter out most of what's actually good about science fiction.
i mean, the Federation is basically a pan-galactic egalitarian communist utopia. but this isn't just a random utopian fantasy; everything is thoughtfully reasoned and explained in a way that actually makes sense
Not particularly; the technology doesn't make sense, the portrayed capabilities aren't taken anywhere near their logical conclusions, and frankly most of the universe is left completely untouched; let's face it, most of Star Trek takes place on at least semi-military spaceships, of course it looks like a communist utopia; they're mostly crew. The day to day lives of ordinary citizens is handwaved away with a few soundbites like:
once replicator technology is invented, a capitalistic economy and consumer culture no longer make any sense, and want & poverty are also eradicated
But that's bollocks; it simply shifts your economy from being driven by materials to being driven by (utterly humungous amounts of) energy and knowledge. You want the latest and greatest hovercar? Well, those engines didn't develop themselves, the 50 petawatt hours of energy for a small 2 tonne vehicle didn't magic itself into existance, and the replicators sure don't maintain themselves, the software to run them doesn't write itself, even the sleek fashionable bodywork doesn't spring into existance out of thin air. Replicators can't even make everything, so chances are you'll need to pay for some good old fashioned non-magic manufacturing to go with it; if nothing else, some assembly might be required, since replicators seem to have some upper limit on practical size.
But no, Star Trek goes with "replicators solve everything and everyone lives happily ever after, so let's go and do another stupid holodeck episode because the reality we made was too boring to make another show about".
and with nation-states similarly abolished (and without people fighting for resources), a military serves no purpose
Right, making a cup of tea involves generating and moving around the energy of 475 Fat Man nuclear bombs (assuming 100% effeciency at all points) and there's no longer any problem of resources. That sure does make for interesting social commentary. Also, people no longer have any real ideologies, and certainly don't disagree with anyone over them; there's no terrorism or politics, except out in space, where the implications of these sort of energies being thrown about are never really considered, even at times of war.
likewise, religion would be a cultural anachronism in an advanced spacefaring civilization with extensive scientific knowledge
Again, unlikely oversimplification. We have pretty extensive scientific knowledge *now* and still 90% of the planet is still rather religious, and much of the rest have some pretty strange ideas. Commenting on social and cultural progress should typically involve a little more than some just-so stories which completely ignore most of the issues involved.
Re:Newegg Special Price! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's more subtle than that.
While one can equate a rent/own arrangement to a mortgage in financial terms, and arrive at an equivalent payment stream, when one considers the ownership differences between the two arrangements, there are major differences.
Using the "infidel" concept of interest, the purchaser owns the property and is ultimately responsible for property taxes, upkeep of grounds, and generally ensuring the property does not become a danger or menace to neighbors, in the rent/own arrangement: both the "seller" and "purchaser" retain an ownership interest, and therefore responsiblilty until the property is fully paid for.
One could argue that the "seller" does not use any utilities (if these are covered by property taxes as they are some places), but s/he certainly is partly responsible for their share of roads, etc., adjoining the property and their upkeep. Further, s/he is partly responsible for ensuring the property does not present a hazard, nuisance, or eyesore. While this responsibility can be contractually transferred to the "purchaser", someone has to be held accountable if the "purchaser" defaults in this matter. Ultimately, the city could excercise eminent domain, but generally the "seller" will likely have to guarantee the "purchaser's" performance in this regard.
Of course, it is in both parties interest to maintain the value of the property, but their respective interests change over time (similarly, a high-ratio mortgage becomes less of a risk to the lender over time, and this is reflected in the freedom to eventually drop morgtage insurange (PMI in the U.S. In Canada, the cost of such insurance is paid as a lump sum of the purchase price, and added to the loan, so is paid until the property is sold).
Where the real difference comes in is in the case of foreclosure.
In an "infidel" foreclosure, the lender gets first dibs at any monies obtained to satisfy the loan, after expenses, and the owner gets what's left over (though tax liens have precedence even over first position lenders).
In this foreclosure, both "seller", and "purchaser" have an interest in the property, and therefore, proceeds of sale would be split between them. This is not the same as an "infidel" arrangement, where the owner assumes all risk (and reward) of fluctuating property values, and the lender assumes the risk of the property value falling below the selling price (against which the lender can insure at the owner's expense).
Furthermore, the "seller" could sell an interest in his/her remaining part of the property in exchange for the income stream from the "purchaser". Of course, who would want to buy a property where the existing occupant is in arrears in payments? I suppose someone (family member?) might. But, more likely might be a contractual arrangement requiring the "purchaser" to either sell their share if they become in arrears in rent, or a "reverse purchase" arrangement whereby the "purchaser" compensates the "seller" by giving back some of their ownership share.
The striking thing, though, is that if the property is, indeed sold, in the equivalent to a foreclosure, the "purchaser" will get something back, even if the property has depreciated significantly. For example, if a $200k home was purchased with the "purchaser" taking a 20% inital share, and the "seller" retaining an 80% share (so purchaser: $40k interest, seller: $160k interest), and the property value drops by 1/4 to $150k, the "purchaser's" interest is $30k, and the "sellers" is $120k. With an "infidel" arrangement, the owner's share would be -$10k, and the lender's interest remain at $160k.
This makes the financial interests of "purchaser" and "seller" much more closely related than in an "infidel" arrangement, and far less likely for their interests to be conflicted. For example, many people in the U.S. might be