Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Oct 2010 17:26 UTC
Apple In this day and age of iOS this and iPad that you'd nearly forget it, but the gadget maker from Cupertino actually makes personal computers and an accompanying operating system as well. It's been nearly three years since the last substantial release, so it's about time: Apple has just announced a press event titled 'Back to Mac', with a lion on the invite.
Thread beginning with comment 444953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis
by Neolander on Wed 13th Oct 2010 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by drcouzelis"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I'd like to see no hard drives. They're hot, slow, bulky and unreliable. Storage should be solid state.

Unreliable ? I'm genuinely curious about this claim : have SSD finally got past mechanical hard drives in terms of reliability ?

Because yes, I know, no mechanical parts and everything, but every storage medium lasting more than 30 years which I know of (paper, clay, marble, tapes, optical disks if stored with extreme care, records, MiniDisc) requires mechanical parts somewhere in the writing or reading process.

In the specific case of SSD, last time I heard about them, they had some serious issues : sudden death by cremation after a few months in a way that's similar to early low-end USB pen drives was still common, and the ones who did survive had an issue that only let them issue a very limited number of writes per NAND chip, requiring complex algorithms at the OS level to make them live reasonably long (like the strange filesystem of the EEEPC 701). Are these now fixed ?

Edited 2010-10-13 19:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis
by jackeebleu on Wed 13th Oct 2010 20:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

Using an OCZ Vertex Turbo for more than a year and still slick as snot! NO cremation here!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis
by Morgan on Wed 13th Oct 2010 22:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

...still slick as snot!


That's a nasty simile.

The problem with SSDs today is the price/performance and price/storage ratios suck. An affordable SSD is slow, small and prone to early failure. And by affordable, I mean they are still twice the cost of a faster, larger mechanical drive. A model like yours, at $150 for 30GB it is just plain silly. Sure it may live almost as long as a cheap HDD, and I'm sure it's a good deal faster, but for $150 I can buy three 250GB HDDs and RAID them for speed or redundancy.

Granted, that's a desktop solution; for a laptop SSD makes a little more sense, though again I can't seem to justify the price vs. performance gain. I guess it all comes down to whether you've got money to waste on incremental gains.

As to the longevity issue, I don't see it as that big of a deal. By the time a decent SSD starts dropping capacity, the replacement cost will have gone down significantly.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis
by nt_jerkface on Wed 13th Oct 2010 22:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

There are have been numerous SSD drives that had higher than average fail rates.

I put my SSD on ebay after being unimpressed with the speed boost. With Win7 and Vista common programs are already cached to the memory and cold boots are rare. I felt much safer after putting my Scorpio blue back in. I've seen 5400 RPM drives go 10 years and the power draw isn't much different.

So yea SSDs are overrated for typical use. A 5400RPM Scorpio can read at over 50mb/sec. They are not the same drives that laptops came with 5 years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

So yea SSDs are overrated for typical use. A 5400RPM Scorpio can read at over 50mb/sec.


Yea, if you are using a ssd for a boost in peak transfer io rates, you'll always be disappointed. SSD is awesome for reducing seek times. I don't blame anyone from being confused however, there were and still are some ssd manufacturers that don't understand this. There have been some SSD's sold that are tuned so much for peak transfer that the seek times are actually worse than traditional drives.

Edited 2010-10-14 18:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis
by Phloptical on Wed 13th Oct 2010 23:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

If you get more than 5 or 6 years out a platter-based hard drive, you're doing good....and lucky.

Solid state is where it's at, and where it needs to go. And they need to leave the SATA interface behind, or seriously pump the limit past the theoretical and into the nominal.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis
by nt_jerkface on Thu 14th Oct 2010 00:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

5 years isn't abnormal for a brand name 5400RPM drive.

There are after all 7200RPM server hard drives that have a 5 year warranty.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis
by aliquis on Thu 14th Oct 2010 01:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

So far I haven't had any HDD crash on me.

Sisters laptop did though, after getting dropped onto the table.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I've had plenty of drives, and I mean plenty, that have lasted more than 10 years. it's easily in the dozens. Hard drives aren't that fragile. I have 80G drives around here that I bought in 2003, ticking right along, I have given away dozens of machines with old 40s and 60s and 100s as boot drives that are still going strong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that 5 or 6 years is not unrealistic.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis
by Neolander on Thu 14th Oct 2010 05:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If you get more than 5 or 6 years out a platter-based hard drive, you're doing good....and lucky.

Solid state is where it's at, and where it needs to go. And they need to leave the SATA interface behind, or seriously pump the limit past the theoretical and into the nominal.

There's something missing here : for a good lifetime comparison, you need to specify the lifetime of the two compared elements. Again, apart the mechanical part thing (which is not yet proven right), I've yet to see an argument about why SSDs should last longer.

Though maybe affordable SSDs are a bit young for having good statistical data about that already.

Also, all the hard drives I've owned until now have lasted more than 5 years. The latest one started to fail episodically after 6 years of heavy use. The old one in the Amstrad PC1512 of my youth still works after more than 15 years, but well... It's not been used for some times.

Edited 2010-10-14 05:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2