SSDs Approaching Price Parity With HDDs (computerworld.com) 272
Lucas123 writes: Hard disk drive per-gigabyte pricing has remained relatively stagnant over the past three years, and prices are expected to be completely flat over at least the next two, allowing SSDs to significantly close the cost gap, according to a new report. The report, from DRAMeXchange, stated that this marks the fourth straight quarter that the SSD price decline has exceeded 10%. Over the past three years, SSDs have dropped from 31 to 13 cents per gig annually. In contrast, from 2012 to 2015, per gigabyte pricing for HDDs dropped just one cent per year from 9 cents in 2012 to 6 cents this year. However, through 2017, the per-gigabyte price of HDDs is expected to remain flat: 6 cents per gigabyte. Consumer SSDs were on average were selling for 99 cents a gigabyte in 2012. From 2013 to 2015, the price dropped from 68 cents to 39 cents per gig, meaning the average 1TB SSD sells for about $390 today. Next year, SSD prices will decline to 24 cents per gig and in 2017, they're expected to drop to 17 cents per gig. That means a 1TB SSD on average would retail for $170, though online prices are often much lower than average vendor retail prices. DRAMeXchange also stated that SSDs are expected to be in 31% of new consumer laptops next year, and by 2017 they'll be in 41%.
It's time to let the HDD's go. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen multiple deals in the last 4 weeks of 1TB (well, 960GB) SSD's ranging near the $200 US mark.
I'm gonna guess that $350 is the new "expensive" 1TB SSD in 2016, Q1/Q2 and then $200 becomes standard place for the cheapies by end of Q1.
Multiple articles, quoting multiple manufacturers seem to claim we'll be seeing, VERY large SSD's in less than 24 months and within 5 years, ridiculously big SSD's (in the 80->120TB mark, iirc)
I'd just like to see an SSD in the 10TB mark, "cheapie" or not, under $300 US within 24 months. My FreeNAs machine is spinning 6x5TB Toshiba 7200RPM disks and it's just gross. The heat, the noise, the failures. Just not fun.
In other news, Seagate made an interesting announcement, which went under the radar. They announced a plethora of different HDD models (I'm so sick of all the sub-product dilution, but I digress) one of which though was an 8TB NON Helium, NON SMR, NON HAMR tech.
It's plain, old, regular HDD - no read / re-write / write trickery, no obscure elements required. It's actually a bit of a shock, how long it's taken to release a larger than 6TB disk which works 'normally' The fact this announcement occured in the last month or two and how long ago it was the first 6TB HDD was announced (which didn't require fancy tech) I would have to surprisingly admit that the storage industry is indeed as speculated, moving incredibly rapidly towards ending magnetic drives, they see the writing on the wall and appear to be paying close attention to it.
(hence stagnated HDD price reductions at the top end, also)
FWIW: I've hated (and loved) hard disks since my first machine, with a 20MB MFM disk. I still recall the benchmarks. 18ms track to track, 80 or 90ms random reads, 640kb/s sustained (under DOS 6.22)
I purchased the first consumer 7200RPM disk, I think it was a 9gb or 18gb (?) version of the WD Expert, $600 at the time
I'll miss HDD's, SSD's have had some real bad stuff go on with them in the past 5 years but considering I plan to utilise them in a NAS eventually, with some redundancy, I'm looking forward to my server cupboard running a bit cooler, quieter and cheaper on electricity
I still don't understand how 3D Nand works or why it's so much cheaper but I'm glad it exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A 256G drive won't even hold my Steam folder and I'm a Linux user.
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought a 250GB drive for $55 on Black Friday so expect this to happen by the end of next year.
Even with that pricing being common, I still think most store bought PCs will continue to using traditional HDDs. Self builds, sure go SSD, but manufactures will try to cut every corner so even if they are a penny cheaper HDDs will be around for a long time.
That SSD I bought is going into a new Laptop. While shopping the vast majority of them have come at with a sub 1080p display. My 2.5 year old smart ph
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with SSDs, for me personally, is their catastrophic failure mode. It has to do with the controllers rather than the storage technology, but all the same, when an SSD fails your data is gone - all of it, and you can't retrieve it in any way unless you are a three-letter agency.
Re: (Score:3)
From my experience with Desktop based drives. HDD seem to be more fragile, So they will have errors and crash after any little detail. Sure you may be able to recover your data and replace the drive, but once it starts going downhill it goes downhill fast and most of the time, it is isn't worth it to try to get the data out of it.
SSD having no moving parts tend to run a bit better over a longer period of time. But when they go they are gone.
Either way, if your data is that important you should have a backu
Re: (Score:3)
When was the last time you recovered the data from an actual failed hard drive?
When spinning rust fails, it is pretty catastrophic to your data as the head crashes into the platter and gouges out the data and the head.
Re: (Score:2)
And your house can catch fire and destroy your HDD, or you could have a head crash that takes out a bunch of data.
If your computer has information you don't want to lose, you have to back it up. You should always have three copies in two different physical locations of data you don't want to lose. If all three were SSD it's very unlikely all of the drives would fail at the same time.
I've had HDDs fail in the past where they then failed to be recognized by the BIOS. I might have been able to swap in a new
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's time to let the HDD's go. (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the days of CP/M my dad splurged on a RAM disk. A 1 MByte RAM disk, no less, with a Ni-Cd battery backup on a daughtercard. The disk was visible to the OS as 4 256kB disks. It was sheer joy to work using that thing - think instant WordStar saves and menu switches (overlays had to load from disk!). When we moved to a PC/XT clone, I re-interfaced that disk and had "instant" boot-ups, much faster than even the half-height 20MB NEC hard drive would give. I'm awaiting for the future to catch up with the past where we'll be able to get rid of mechanical drives. It's about time. I got spoiled in my youth, you see.
Side note: This thing was a work of art, with properly engineered battery charger where each cell was individually charged using a flying capacitor kind of a set-up - the cells lasted for almost a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile you can get a 4tb for half that price and a 1tb 4 a quarter of that price using mechanical hard drives
add in the 2 SSD's I have bought shit the bed 3 years into their life and I still have maxtors and quantiums from the late 80's still working fine, still the only advantage is speed, which is a moot point considering a properly setup amd A-X2 can still boot to a windows desktop before my cheap ass acer screen turns off its logo and my i7 loads everything except the largest of games instantly
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand how 3D Nand works or why it's so much cheaper but I'm glad it exists.
Why, you know, your bits can just Get Perpendicular! [youtube.com]
(Actually, 3D Nand doesn't work this way at all. But this Hitachi video still has to go down as one of the most entertaining and ridiculous explanations of new ways to cram bits in. It's common to do stuff like this today, I suppose, but in 2005, this kind of video release was pretty awesome.)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really need to store your porn stash on a RAID array?
Re:It's time to let the HDD's go. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but this is a huge Apples / Oranges comparison if ever I've seen one.
In 18 months your link would be as foolish as someone advocating a tape drive, instead of a hard disk for a desktop computer.
Also: nothing stopping you using magnetic disks, I have 6 of them in my house operating right now - but 0 of them in my laptop, PS4, PS4, desktop, HTPC.
Re:It's time to let the HDD's go. (Score:4, Insightful)
$200 for only 1 TB of storage is far from impressive.
I think you're missing a major point here. SSD owners do not simply gain the benefit of "storage". The access speed is the important part. Read/Write speeds increase in proportion to drive size on platter drives. Cache helps a bit with this. Increasing the number of heads helps a bit. But that's the major problem. I switched to SSD years ago and I would never, ever own a platter drive again simply because I couldn't take the slow access speed. Storage capacity is fixed by simply buying more SSD drives. Yes it means I have to keep track of what I put where but that's not a big deal.
So if you go around quoting a 5TB drive at $200 as if it was a "good thing" I still wouldn't touch it. I can just imagine how long it would take me to manipulate TB's of data on that drive, let alone copy sizeable chunks to/from that drive. Like someone else said, it would be comparing apples to oranges, or a boat to an airplane. Yeah, you can fit a lot of cargo on a ship, if you don't mind the 2-3 weeks it takes to get to your destination. Or you could pay more and make many, many plane trips in 1/10th of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
What do most consumers need a 5TB worth of storage for besides storing media like ripped videos, music, etc? In that case SSD is overkill. I have no problem streaming 3 videos (with transcoding) over WIFI from a regular hard drive over USB 3. Sure SSD for primary work but a
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to feel very strongly about this, but frankly your ideal that spinning magnets are outdated technology are misplaced. I am an SSD owner. Every computer in the house has an SSD in it. Every computer also has a classic HDD too. You talk about slow access speeds, unless you're running a cache, application, OS or database on it the access speed is really not much of a problem. A movie won't load up magically faster. Yeah you may be able to do a lightning fast MD5 has of it but that's not what most peop
Re:It's time to let the HDD's go. (Score:4, Informative)
and how many times can you read and write the SSD? Indexing?
You're out of date. SSD MTBF's are now better than platter drives. Not the same. BETTER. You think your 7200rpm drive is perfect and will never fail?
Re: (Score:2)
SSDs are already viable for the "I don't really use much" use case. They have been for awhile. Those of us that don't fall into the "I don't really use much" use case are still not impressed as many of us are hard pressed to be satisfied with what spinning rust still offers. This includes capacity as well as price.
SSDs are still expensive and small and vaporware is just that.
There's been similar vaporware for spinning rust too.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'm not sure how that post should be classed as flamebait? The guy is quite clearly being a complete troll in the thread, deliberately comparing apples and oranges? ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, one can find external drives cheaper than internals, especially this time of year for the same capacity.
Caveat: The drive quality in an external drive may not be as good as an internal (as you know 100% what you are buying for an internal drive.) However, there are applications where that is fine, such as a NAS with RAID 1, 5, 6, or other redundancy. However, sometimes you can luck out. I shucked an external HDD I bought, found a WD Red inside (which can't be found by hdparm because the US
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives alone. It's possible for a household to have more than one gamer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what Amazon Glacier is for.
https://aws.amazon.com/glacier... [amazon.com]
On another note, is it really valid to compare a 3.5" drive to a 2.5" drive in price and talk about how expensive the smaller drive is? The comparison should be to a laptop drive, not a full sized spinning rust.
This http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
Or this http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
Compared to this http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
or this http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
Incidentally, I paid $250 for a 1TB SSD just last week, and no
Re: (Score:3)
That is what Amazon Glacier is for.
The upload times for 5TB of data are a bit excessive. The download times for recovery are better, but not really usable.
Local copy then take the disks to a friend's house. Or pay for a secure site of some form.
No they're not. (Score:3, Informative)
I had to replace my computer's failing spinning HD recently, and a trip to Microcenter cost me this:
$100 for a 250GB SSD
and $40 for a 1TB spinning HD.
Same manufacturer, and both were best in class prices. I think parity is a ways off yet...
BS (Score:5, Informative)
Retail pricing for HDD's is already below $.03/GB, 8TB drives can be had for $230.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I rarely (never?) purchase HD space at retail. External 4/5/6 TB hard drives are hovering around $25/terabyte when on sale (which is fairly frequently). 8s, as you noted, are getting close to that. There's a limit to how low the price for a new drive can go - they typically bottom out at $40-50 no matter how small the capacity is. The 2-4TB drives are falling quickly toward that range, which means the 8s will start taking the low-$100 spot next year (Though perhaps late
Re: (Score:2)
rapidly in a very short time. We also have a huge variance in display technology now.
A sample png image with the dimensions 1600x900 takes up ~350KB on disk and 4.12MB in Memory.
An image that fits the new screens will be at least 3.5MB. Camera resolutions are also up around that 5K monitor size.
To display an image that w
Re: (Score:2)
You can now get hybrid SSD / spinning hard disk drives. There's an onboard SSD that caches the most commonly used disk blocks. From what I've read just now that goes from 8 GB to 24 GB. It seems a cool idea, but to me this has the mechanical fragility of a spinning disk drive combined with the electrical sensitivity of a flash memory device.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought one of those, had to hold my nose, as it was a Samsung, I pretty much stick to WD Black for my "spinning rust".. But I wanted to see kind of an increase in boot speed I would get on my Dell Precision M4400 over the WD 320GB drive the SSD hybrid replaced.. Haven't actually benchmarked the difference, but frankly I don't see much difference.. I need a LOT of space on the laptop as I have a flock of 20-30GB Virtualbox VMs, so any SSD I bought would have to be at least as big as the replaced 320GB spin
Re: (Score:2)
Derp... Said Samsung... Meant Seagate... Don't care for either of em... WD FTW!!!
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you never god burned by the Deathstars?
All the manufacturers have their bad disks, holding Seagate out over WD is silly.
My Lenovo Y50-70 came with a WD Black 1TB SSHD, which never worked properly (10MB/sec max transfer rate), just replaced it with a 1TB SSD for $250, which is apparently now sold out on Newegg.
It looks like WD never released a driver for the SSHD that came with the Lenovo, but their disks require a driver to manage the SSD portion of the disk, so it was totally ignoring the SSD an
Re: (Score:2)
50GB after installing windows is more like 15GB (seriously, my Windows folder is 36GB) and that'll get eaten up fast with photos and music.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is what you do not realize.
As economies of scale cheapen SSD's the same economies of scale raise the price of HDD's as less people purchase them.
There will come a time when a new R&D investment will not make much business sense anymore. True today they are still cheaper but if we had a graph showing the trends you will see a point.
editing (Score:3, Interesting)
> Over the past three years, SSDs have dropped from 31 to 13 cents per gig annually
What in the fuck does this mean? Does anyone even read these or is a bot posting them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what it means, it isn't what it says.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, we are really seeing about a 10X price disparity, and it has been about the same for several years now.
"approaching" (Score:5, Insightful)
... not in the sense that they are close, only that they're getting less far. Current retail price for TBish HDDs is on the order of $0.06/GB; TFA for SSD is $0.39/GB, about six times as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes exactly. Prices have been approaching for a few years, and will continue to approach for a few years. I don't get why this is a story right now. This is interesting when the difference really is close to parity. Right now a 2TB HDD is cheap, and a 2TB SSD is not.
Poorly written story too, just quoting numbers left, right, and centre.
Re:"approaching" (Score:5, Insightful)
Poorly written story too, just quoting numbers left, right, and centre.
And would it fucking kill them to put a graph there? this line is the price per gig for HDD and this line is for SSD. See, they are getting closer. That's the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah no kidding... from this we might easily be able to visualise or interpolate the point/time where SSD and HDD pricing does actually approach parity.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a picture is worth 1000 words, showing graphs would mean the the article wasn't necessary. How would the poor writer ever get paid?
Wrong title (Score:2)
Should have been: SSD parity still long way: HDD expected to be still 3X cheaper in 2017!
(The post speaks of 17 cent/GB for SSD and 6 cents/GB for HDD)
Re: (Score:2)
3x more expensive? Does that mean that you will be able 4 HDDs for the price of 1 SSD?
What's the MTBF? (Score:5, Interesting)
How long do SDDs last now? That's basically all that keeps them from replacing HDDs by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My old Intel X25-m SSD is 6 years old, and the Intel SSD utility says that it has 99% of its life remaining. I have not had a single SSD fail on me yet. My 4 year old Samsung 830 pro also says it has 99% of its lifetime remaining. Those two drives combined have written well over 20 TB of data. Even my Samsung 840 pro which is only 2 years old has written 7.3 TB of data. I have had many platter hard drives fail on me, some within a week or two of purchase. I trust SSDs more for continual use, but my backup d
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple, how much data has been written to the drive. Outside of under provisioning tricks etc every drive is rated for a specific amount of writes. With consumer use you pretty much never get close, you need a database pegging the thing with writes 24/7 or similar to wear them out quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a poor wear leveling algorithm, crappy controller chip...stuff like that.
Agreed fully on reliability of SSDs, I still have a fully functional 32GB Intel SSD with SLC chips that is still going after 6 years. I bought it for like $350, but yeah, it still runs and runs and runs. Unfortunately, it is so small, I just use it as a very large USB Flash drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
It is all about buying a brand you trust, or not trusting your important data to an SSD (use good backups...).
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Compared to a USB Flash drive of the key form factor, a 2.5" drive is enormous.
Re: (Score:3)
That hasn't been my experience. I'm considering them for backup storage, and I've had SSD's die without warning, apparently from being removed from power for too long. Not acceptable for a backup.
OTOH, what I'm talking about were thumb drives. But why should I think other removable SSDs would be different?
Re: (Score:2)
Was MTBF actually a problem with SSDs? I've heard people worry about write endurance and crappy firmware but I was under the impression that MTBF - essentially mechanical/electrical failures - were heavily in SSDs favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and the price difference.
Want a 500gb SSD? Can't get one for below £100 here. Want a 500Gb HDD? Can't get one for over £40.
They're "approaching" parity like Antarctica is approaching South America.
in 2017, they're expected to drop to 17 cents per gig
which is still 3x higher than current HDD prices.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For most users, there is no warning. They absolutely can't recognize the behavior of their failing hard drive. My neighbors, two very wonderful ladies, have an iMac with a hard drive that has been failing and getting worse over the last year or so. They don't see a problem, while I cringe every time I visit them and hear the poor thing do a head cycle if they happen to be using it. The error counts are off the rails, I'm surprised it still works.
So, well, in practice, for 99% of the market, the progressive
Re: (Score:2)
For most users, there is no warning
There was a study from Google a while ago looking at hard disk failure modes. Very short summary: SMART errors generally indicate that a drive is about to fail, lack of SMART errors in no way indicates that a drive is not about to fail. Large numbers of spinning rust drives fail abruptly with no warning. Some do give warnings, but often it's too late for anything other than recovering the data from a RAID array - by the time you see user errors, the drive is likely to already have stored corrupted sector
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just hard disk drives. On any digital camera or smartphone forum, you'll find hundreds of questions about how to recover data from a blown flash memory card.
There were problems back in the 1990's with Ethernet boards using flash memory for the MAC address. These cost around $1000, and had the MAC address stored on a flash chip that was written to by a DOS utility program when the PC started up. The only problem was that these flash chips burnt out quickly after 10,000 power up cycles. In theory, ev
Re: (Score:3)
SSD endurance is fine. All good brands last a long time [techreport.com] and even the supposedly cheap and short lifespan Samsung TLC drives last well beyond what most people will ever get out of them. [anandtech.com]
SSDs don't see to be any worse than HDDs, and for laptops that get moved around a lot are probably even more durable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you said is true for hard drives as much as SSDs. When hard drives fail, it can be catastrophic (as can SSDs). Most times when they fail, both will have all the data still there, but some times it isn't accessible anymore. SSDs have raw reliability figured in the range of 10x as good as HD, but people have this feeling that SSDs are unreliable. There have been bad HD models, just as there have been bad SSD models.
No not really.... (Score:5, Informative)
1TB SSD $400.00
1TB HDD $89.00
Call me when a 1TB SSD is $98.00 a REAL one from a reputable brand not the remarked B stock crap from ADATA or Happy-Fun SSD
Re: (Score:2)
1TB SSD $400.00
There must be a mistake, Apple charged me +$300.00 for +256GB SSB in a Macbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$377 [macsales.com], and that's from OWC, not exactly the cheapest outfit out there. The cheapest 1TB SSD currently runs for $323 [newegg.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
I bought this http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com] for $250 just last week. 1TB SSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Price is one thing. Suitability is another. I'm willing to accept that SSDs are excellent cache storage, and in that application their increased speed justifies the larger price. But what I'm looking for is durable backup capability, and so far SSDs don't seem to fit the picture even at half or less the price of usb HDs. Their failure is to sudden and too complete. If DVDs weren't so small I wouldn't even be looking at them.
FWIW, I was told at one point that SSDs tend to loose their contents over time
A factor of 3 by 2017 is not "parity" at all (Score:2)
What kind of moron writes these articles?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Morons that work for a magazine that sells advert space as its business model. Or in today's world, a clickbait site.
Way cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know where these guys get their disks but my last one cost me 4 cents per gigabyte (converted from euros) and prices down to 3 cents per gigabyte can easily be found. My disk was a 6tb one for 240 euros. Equivalent SSD storage capacity would cost me about 2000 to 4000 euros depending on how many SSD drives I am prepared to fit in my computer case. We're nowhere near price parity.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that's not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the past three years, SSDs have dropped from 31 to 13 cents per gig annually.
How exactly does it drop from 31 to 13 cents every year? Does the price go back up every Jan 1st?
Re:Wait, that's not right! (Score:4, Informative)
They meant to say:
Over the past three years, SSD prices have dropped between 31 cents per gig annually and 13 cents per gig annually.
They mean that the amount of the drop varies. The maximum drop seen was 31 cents, and the minimum drop seen was 13 cents. I had to read the summary 3 times to figure out what they meant.
Re: (Score:2)
They were providing rates of change, not starting and ending positions. It took me several re-reads before I understood that too, since my first thought was "If SSDs dropped to $0.13/GB, I'd have thought I'd have noticed, because they've been slowly pushing past the $0.30/GB mark for most of this last year".
Write cycle and SSD vs HDD? (Score:2)
Even with the price coming down, have SSDs managed the same write cycle count as HDDs? I am asking, since I was last recommended to keep with HDDs for jobs which required a lot of disk writes. Has this changed?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of at least two endurance tests of SSDs that showed write endurance greatly exceeding expectations:
http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]
This one was widely reported on Slashdot and other sites.
http://packet.company/blog/?ca... [packet.company]
This one was more recent and I haven't seen it show up here or elsewhere, but it's moderately more interesting because it's a newer Samsung 850 Pro 1 TB and it didn't fail until after 7 PB of writes.
Now, there's all kinds of problems with these tests as being not exactly definiti
Re: (Score:2)
One other thing, would putting an SSD into an external enclosure, connected via USB3, still outperform an HDD in the same enclosure?
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
There are SSDs that have worse IOPS than a HDD, but in most cases HDDs cann't touch SSD IOPS specs.
On the other side: A great SSD might have a better lifetime (IO operation total) than a cheap HDD; however it is still to be proven that an SSD could match a quality HDD in lifetime.
Whenever these price comparisons come up, I get the feeling that there is a huge bias in favour of the statement that article wants to make. i.e. If its about the falling price of SSDs, then compare a low spec SSD with a high spec HDD. If you want to argue for HDD, do the reverse.
As things stands both have their place, and you should be careful about what you buy in both cases. e.g. WD-Green for laptop, but WD-Red for a NAS (yes there is a difference). For SSDs only my budget would force me to buy an EVO instaed of an EVO Pro. (I only mention WD and Samsung to be able to give concrete examples).
In my (humble) opinion neither SSD nor HDD will be able to replace the other, before some other storage technology comes along and blows them both away. Although that tech might be a descendant of one or the other (memristor? crystal/optical?).
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. WD-Green for laptop, but WD-Red for a NAS (yes there is a difference)
In firmware. Variable RPM, head parking/load cycles, read or write optimized caching/buffering, etc...? All set in the firmware. Platters of spinning metal and heads are platters of spinning metal and heads.
How's about selling me a drive and providing an fscking utility to tweak the settings as needed for whatever application the end-user deems fit. I don't care if they sell a bunch of drives with preconfigured settings for common usage, but let me tweak them as I desire for my use case.
They really were (Score:2)
"Consumer SSDs were on average were selling"
No excuse for boot drives (Score:2)
"Cents per gigabyte" (Score:2)
The mind still boggles at that phrase. The first disk drive I ever bought was in 1986, when prices first broke the $10 per *megabyte* barrier.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Windows 7 runs well on both my 2006 era Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz with 2GB of RAM and my 2009 era Pentium Dual Core Dell laptop with 4GB of RAM. I've heard reports that Windows 10 should also run well on at least the 2009 era Dell if not the Mac Mini.
Before SSDs can replace HDs (Score:4, Insightful)
The Big Switchover will occur when, and only when, we can get SSDs to fail read-only.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion-io did that 5 years ago with their pci-e flash cards. The drives were very vocal about any trauma they might have suffered and would drop into a reduced write mode if you didn't heed the warnings in order to get your attention... if you still ignored them, they would go read only and you'd be forced to copy your data off.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't understand Intel's attitude to this. When the write counter gets to a certain level the drive goes read-only, and after a power cycle is bricked. You can't even read it any more. It's stupid because it's not based on running out of spare sectors or anything like that, just a counter that tracks how many bytes were written to it.
I can appreciate that Intel no longer has faith in the drive after a certain number of TB written, and wants to put the drive into read-only mode. Fine, but why brick
6 cents per Gig for HDD? (Score:2)
I can buy a 3T drive on Amazon for $85. That is less than 3 cents per Gig.
Security? (Score:2)
But on that same subject: an SSD is more tim
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Firssd? (Score:2)
And in infinite time everything is inevitable, heat death of the universe not withstanding.
Re: (Score:3)
Because he thinks the data in SSDs magically disappears? Or because he thinks SSDs spin? Both errors indicate a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.
SSDs when they fail can be recovered in a clean room, HOWEVER, if the controller chip loses everything, if the SSD uses encryption, it is toast. Just as with a hard disk head crash, all the data is gone (from under the head at least).
Re: (Score:2)
They already have. My first PATA laptop hard disk drive had 6 Gb of storage. Upgraded to 40 Gb, then 60 Gb, 80 Gb, 250 Gb. With SATA that went up to 500 Gbytes and then now 2 Gb. 1 Gb is the minimum size.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you find 1 Gb hard disks?
Perhaps you meant 1 TB (notice the upper case B, that means Byte, the lower case b means bit, T means Tera, while G means Giga).
Re: (Score:2)
This is relevant to your interests: http://events.linuxfoundation.... [linuxfoundation.org] - Open-channel SSD support to Linux.