ssd

[Arno]

You might as well say having gobs of RAM is a great improvement over
rotating storage. Without context and some technical and economic
analysis either statement is unsupportable.

SSDs are a solution looking for a problem. The problem they seem to
have settled on is time to boot and/or load programs. That's not worth
the money, IMHO.

They're not a solution to bulk storage problems. Nor are they a
solution to swapping.

Basically thay have two things going for them: Fast access
and mechnically sturdy. Thats it. For small file access,
or if you put a (hash-)table on disk, SSDs give tremenduous
improvements. That table/database aspect will not matter for
most normal users. The small file access can, depending
on what they do, but it is more a convenience than a necessity
in most cases. Resistance to mechanical shock is a real advantage
in mobile devices.

But at the end of the day, most people buying SSDs today
will not get their money's worth. I do, but it is for
non-mainstream usage in the case where I do.

Arno

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

They're not a solution to bulk storage problems.

I agree. I reckon holographic storage is going to be the way forward
for storing massive amounts of data.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Besides being slow as molasses?

And an unreliable piece of shit, totally unsuited for large-capacity
storage devices?

 

[Jim Brown]

I agree. I reckon holographic storage is going to be the way forward
for storing massive amounts of data.

More fool you.

Clowns like you have been pig ignorantly claiming that for decades now.

 

[GT]

mm wrote



And nothing like what I can get for the same price with rotating storage.

SSDs are typically faster than hard discs. Hard discs area available with
greater storage and are cheaper. Neither are outright *better*. There's no
point arguing about it - no one can win that argument.

 

[Rod Speed]

GT wrote

SSDs are typically faster than hard discs. Hard discs area available
with greater storage and are cheaper. Neither are outright *better*.

What I said in different words.

There's no point arguing about it - no one can win that argument.

No one is trying to win any argument.

 

[mike]

gotta rave about my new ssd. For anyone who's um'ing and ar'ing about
whether to go for an ssd I would say go for it. I've just fitted a new
Intel
X-25 160Gb drive, bit pricey but the speed increase is noticeable. My win7
pc boots up and shuts down in less than half the time of a normal sata
drive
and programs load really quick. Everything is faster with an ssd
resulting a
whole new computing experience.

The reviews I read suggested that the performance of a NEW SSD was great,
but that the performance degrades SIGNIFICANTLY over time. Something
to do with the wear leveling algorithm. If you reformat the drive, you
get the speed back for a while. Intel drives were significantly
better in that regard than some others.
I didn't take the time to understand it, but it put me squarely into
the "not yet worth the expense" category.

 

[mm]

mm wrote



And nothing like what I can get for the same price with rotating storage.



It isnt for me, because I want to watch documentarys etc even when I'm travelling.

When I'm travelling, all I do is email and checking the web for things
related to traveling. Hours that tourist spots are open, bus
schedules, rent-a-car sites, maps. And only a couple pages a day.

Anything important I can email home, including links to any file I'll
want to use when I get home.

The main problem for me is lack of storage.

I think 16 gig would be enough with XP -- I don't know how much more 7
uses -- but I think I should take a flash drive with me in case I'm
wrong or something big shows up. I don't think I'd use such file more
than a couple times a month.

Cjt said it woudl be slow as molasses. Because it's external? I
think I coudl move frequent files to the internal SSD and move others
to the flashdrive.

Does that solve the problems?

 

[mm]

The reviews I read suggested that the performance of a NEW SSD was great,
but that the performance degrades SIGNIFICANTLY over time. Something

One of the tremendous defects of the web is how few pages are dated,
including most pages that are date-critical. I've even looked in the
source code and there's almost never a date there either.

So, was this a recent webpage or an old one. I've read this used to
be the problem, but it's been fixed.


**I once wanted to know what date was a particular hamfest. I found 8
urls for it, and the only way I could tell which date was this years
was which date was on a Sunday. Other pages are just plain
impossible.

Email when quoted also suffers from this. People should put the date
in the body of the email.

This post also suffers from this, but I guess I don't care. No one
eveyr quotes me for more than a week anyhow.

 

[Rod Speed]

mm wrote

When I'm travelling, all I do is email and checking the web for things related to traveling.

Hours that tourist spots are open, bus schedules,
rent-a-car sites, maps. And only a couple pages a day.

Anything important I can email home, including links to any file I'll want to use when I get home.

I also want to watch documentarys and read books as well.

I think 16 gig would be enough with XP

Thats nothing like enough for me.

-- I don't know how much more 7 uses -- but I think I should take
a flash drive with me in case I'm wrong or something big shows up.
I don't think I'd use such file more than a couple times a month.

Cjt said it woudl be slow as molasses. Because it's external?
I think I coudl move frequent files to the internal SSD and
move others to the flashdrive.

Does that solve the problems?

Not for me.

I want to watch decent documentarys even when I am travelling and dont
want to have to put up with the sort of shit that shows up on TV etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

One of the tremendous defects of the web is how few pages are dated,
including most pages that are date-critical. I've even looked in the
source code and there's almost never a date there either.

So, was this a recent webpage or an old one. I've read this used to
be the problem, but it's been fixed.

**I once wanted to know what date was a particular hamfest. I found
8 urls for it, and the only way I could tell which date was this years
was which date was on a Sunday. Other pages are just plain impossible.

Email when quoted also suffers from this.
People should put the date in the body of the email.

There is a time stamp in the header.

This post also suffers from this,

Nope, usenet posts are time stamped.

 

[mm]

mm wrote




I also want to watch documentarys and read books as well.



Thats nothing like enough for me.




Not for me.

I've already read what you say about your situation.

I was trying to get advice for myself.

 

[mm]

There is a time stamp in the header.

Yes, but people select excerpts, and without the date in the body of
the email, they don't even think to include it.

Nope, usenet posts are time stamped.

Again, people select parts and excerpt them.

But I agree that these are smaller problems than webpages, where even
the original usually gives no indication of the date it was written.

 

[Jon Danniken]

One of the tremendous defects of the web is how few pages are dated,
including most pages that are date-critical. I've even looked in the
source code and there's almost never a date there either.

So, was this a recent webpage or an old one. I've read this used to
be the problem, but it's been fixed.


**I once wanted to know what date was a particular hamfest. I found 8
urls for it, and the only way I could tell which date was this years
was which date was on a Sunday. Other pages are just plain
impossible.

Make an internet shortcut (favorite), and put the following line in the
"URL" field under the "Web Document" tab:

javascript:alert(document.lastModified)

Save it somewhere (like Favorites), and call it something you can remember
(I call mine datetime).

Now go to a webpage, and invoke that internet shortcut from the address bar.
The result will be an announcement box with the requested information.

Note, on some ad-laden pages, it will show the current time/date, and not
the date that the actual information was given.

Jon

 

[Rod Speed]

mm wrote
Thats not true of comments in forums.

Yes, but people select excerpts,

Plenty dont, just quote the whole thing.

and without the date in the body of the
email, they don't even think to include it.

Again, people select parts and excerpt them.

Doesnt matter with usenet, you just look at the post they quoted.

But I agree that these are smaller problems than webpages, where
even the original usually gives no indication of the date it was written.

Thats not true of forums and isnt true of many blogs either.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Clowns like you have been pig ignorantly claiming that for decades now.

Full of shit as usual, Rod, you know ****-all. Product available now
and development actively ongoing by several firms.

Example: http://www.inphase-tech.com/products/default15b9.html?tnn=3

Stick to what you know best, ****ing your relatives.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mike Tomlinson wrote

Full of shit as usual, Rod, you know ****-all.

We'll see...

Product available now

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'

and development actively ongoing by several firms.

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'

Example: http://www.inphase-tech.com/products/default15b9.html?tnn=3

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[John McGaw]

The reviews I read suggested that the performance of a NEW SSD was great,
but that the performance degrades SIGNIFICANTLY over time. Something
to do with the wear leveling algorithm. If you reformat the drive, you
get the speed back for a while. Intel drives were significantly
better in that regard than some others.
I didn't take the time to understand it, but it put me squarely into
the "not yet worth the expense" category.

Ancient history, at least where the major SSD makers are concerned. If the
OS on the computer is not modern enough to support TRIM then the drive
maker will at least provide a program which restores the drive's original
speed. With TRIM even that is not needed as it will happen continuously and
automatically.

 

[John Turco]

Mike Tomlinson wrote


We'll see...


Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'


Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'


Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that they are 'going
to be the way forward for storing massive amounts of data'

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead
flushed where it belongs>

Furthermore, did you see what was stated, on InPhase Technologies Inc.'s
"Products/Overview" Web page (under the "Features" heading)?

"Standard SCSI, FC, Ethernet interfaces supported"

It sounds like the company is aiming squarely at the enterprise market,
exclusively...lowly "end users" be damned!