SSDs the quiet future of HDDs?

[Engine]

yeah, you could probably drop a camera from far enough up to break its CF card

Regardless of what media is inside a camera, dropping it is threat enough to the myriad small delicate moving parts of the camera itself.

Certainly, dropping the camera is likely to break the camera itself, and thus a pretty poor idea! But if the camera is to be dropped, I would prefer not to lose the data that's on it, irrespective of what might happen to the device itself. You can always buy another camera; your images, however, may be irretrievable.

An mp3 player, of course, doesn't have all those moving parts.

No, although dropping one, depending on what sort you have, can certainly be as devastating. All around, your best plan is always not to drop your sensitive electronic device. Of course, with an MP3 player, irretrievability is generally less of an issue; the data on it came from somewhere, and unless you recorded it yourself - with a built-in mic, for instance - it's generally sitting somewhere else.

But personally, when the price difference is 10 percent or less, I'll take the added durability, capacity, and speed of a CF card over a microdrive...

Personally, I'm more interested in the other direction--I'm glad that hard drive cameras are moving away from microdrives in favor of larger 1.8" and 2.5" drives. In this application, durability is not the paramount concern--the camera mechanism itself is already inherently delicate.

Again, I feel that durability in the media is important; if I have to replace my camera because I was a fumblefingers, I'd rather not lose whatever is on it, as well.

What really matters are capacity and speed.

And the capacity of the [physically] larger drives certainly can't be beat! Of course, if you're still concerned about data integrity in the case of a fall, you can always simply carry a few CF cards with you. Personally, I seldom need to wander around with 60gb of images on my camera, but some people obviously will. The options are what's delightful; if you're concerned about speed and integrity, take the CF card. If you need serious capacity, take a camera with a 1.8 inch drive. If you just want to save a few bucks, take a camera with a microdrive.

much as I'd take an SSD in my computer, if the price difference were only 10 percent or less!

By "SSD", exactly which technology are you talking about? They're not all the same. For example, iRAM is based on dynamic RAM, and it's both very fast and relatively affordable.

Well, I'm certainly not talking about iRAM or USB drives; remember, I was talking about durability, capacity, and speed, versus the additional cost. Thumb drives aren't fast or large, and existing iRAM solutions are - in my opinion - uselessly small capacity and irrationally expensive.

For instance, the GigaByte solution would cost US$100+, and then the cost of the maximum 4gb of RAM. Obviously, you don't need ludicrously good RAM to populate it, but you're still looking at at least US$200. So you're looking at US$300 - at the very, very low end - for a 4gb SSD. That's certainly not within my "price difference [of] only 10 percent or less!" I'm pretty sure I can buy a 4gb drive for around US$10 new, much less used; I'm sure I could get one free, now that I think of it.

No, I was talking about the SSDs that started this conversation, such as the M-Systems and Samsungs, which I thought would be evident, but apparently wasn't. My apologies.

[IsaacKuo]

Certainly, dropping the camera is likely to break the camera itself, and thus a pretty poor idea! But if the camera is to be dropped, I would prefer not to lose the data that's on it, irrespective of what might happen to the device itself. You can always buy another camera; your images, however, may be irretrievable.

Yes, but still...I've learned to always be mentally prepared for data loss. The one time I lost data was when a compact flash card went bad. That sucked, of course. Well, there was nothing I could do about it. That's life. The only solution I've found is redundancy--meaning multiple cameras covering an event.

Personally, I'm more interested in the other direction--I'm glad that hard drive cameras are moving away from microdrives in favor of larger 1.8" and 2.5" drives. In this application, durability is not the paramount concern--the camera mechanism itself is already inherently delicate.

Again, I feel that durability in the media is important; if I have to replace my camera because I was a fumblefingers, I'd rather not lose whatever is on it, as well.

What really matters are capacity and speed.

And the capacity of the [physically] larger drives certainly can't be beat! Of course, if you're still concerned about data integrity in the case of a fall, you can always simply carry a few CF cards with you.

Early on, I used multiple 128meg CF cards (like most everyone else). But the hassle simply isn't worth it. There's no shot more irretrievable than the one which you didn't get in the first place because you ran out of space and needed to swap cards.

I actually travel with two hard drive based portable media players to ensure redundant storage--so I don't expect to lose more than a day's worth of photos. When someday I upgrade to a hard drive camera, then I'll still do daily backups to a portable media player; but this is still a reduction in equipment and time.

Personally, I seldom need to wander around with 60gb of images on my camera, but some people obviously will.

Hard drive cameras are more oriented toward video, rather than stills. Compared to compact flash, hard drives consume a lot of power, so you need to have a pretty big and bulky battery for decent battery life. Hard drive cameras compete with camcorders which already have big bulky batteries for the same reason.

By "SSD", exactly which technology are you talking about?

I was talking about the SSDs that started this conversation, such as the M-Systems and Samsungs, which I thought would be evident, but apparently wasn't. My apologies.

Oh, that's flash technology. There's a wide range of performance/price points for flash, of course.

Those particular flash drives aren't really so hot in terms of performance. They're meant to compete with relatively slow 2.5" laptop drives, not fast 3.5" drives. Still, I'll bet that a RAID0 of several of them could compete with a 3.5" drive.

The main benefit to those comparatively inexpensive SSD drives is that they have low power consumption. That means longer battery life for a laptop. The low seek times are a side benefit, but not necessarily noticeable in general use (outside of very heavy seek actitivy, like boot-up).

[Engine]

Certainly, dropping the camera is likely to break the camera itself, and thus a pretty poor idea! But if the camera is to be dropped, I would prefer not to lose the data that's on it, irrespective of what might happen to the device itself. You can always buy another camera; your images, however, may be irretrievable.

Yes, but still...I've learned to always be mentally prepared for data loss.

Well, I've learned to always be mentally prepared to die horribly in an auto accident, but when I have the option of wearing a seatbelt or not, I wear one. The converse is that I do have the option of driving a car with airbags, but don't, because the performance loss isn't worth the safety increase - to me, personally. That's, again, why it's nice to have options.

Early on, I used multiple 128meg CF cards (like most everyone else). But the hassle simply isn't worth it. There's no shot more irretrievable than the one which you didn't get in the first place because you ran out of space and needed to swap cards.

Well, I've a fine solution for you: use 6gb cards, and watch your capacity. There's really no excuse - particularly nowadays - for missing a shot because your CF is full. I mean, I'm sure that was a problem early on, but it's simply not a problem now.

By "SSD", exactly which technology are you talking about?

I was talking about the SSDs that started this conversation, such as the M-Systems and Samsungs, which I thought would be evident, but apparently wasn't. My apologies.

Oh, that's flash technology. There's a wide range of performance/price points for flash, of course.

...yes. And my point, which is either being lost or purposely ignored, is that I would use an SSD in my computer - one with better durability, [at least equivalent] capacity, and speed - if the price difference were not so great as it is today.

Those particular flash drives aren't really so hot in terms of performance.

The Samsungs are, indeed, only something like 80 percent the speed of today's hot drives - and that's if you believe Samsung themselves. And their write speed is even lower. However, I wasn't aware any real benchmarking had been done between the M-Systems SSDs and Samsung SSDs, compared to today's hard disks. Where did you see that? I would certainly be interested to read real-world comparisons of read/write speeds between "those particular flash drives" and some existing rotary magnetic drives.

The main benefit to those comparatively inexpensive SSD drives is that they have low power consumption.

I think their main benefit is that they don't make any noise. You do know this is a low-noise computing forum, right?

[IsaacKuo]

The main benefit to those comparatively inexpensive SSD drives is that they have low power consumption.

I think their main benefit is that they don't make any noise. You do know this is a low-noise computing forum, right?

That's not what they're marketed for, and not really anything to get excited about in terms of silent desktop computing. Not yet, and possibly not ever.

I'm actually one of the most sensitive SPCR'rs when it comes to hard drive noise--but I've figured out how to inexpensively silence a quiet 2.5" hard drive. Currently, my main challenge is dealing with electronics noises.

My interest in budget solid state storage is essentially academic. It's more of an ongoing experiment than a serious solution. For decent performance at a reasonable price with absolute silence, quiet 2.5" drives within custom enclosures are terribly hard to beat. If you want to spend extra for a massive boost in performance, iRAM looks pretty good. I'd be more interested in more products like iRAM than with flash based products.

[Engine]

That's not what they're marketed for, and not really anything to get excited about in terms of silent desktop computing. Not yet, and possibly not ever.

I'm...not certain I understand. Do they make noise? Then I think that's probably something to get excited about. Increase their performance a bit and drop the price - oh, that'll be the delay, right there - and you have something I think is, indeed, pretty damned exciting. Certainly more exciting than low-capacity iRAM drives. Doesn't do me much good to have a super-fast drive I can't fit anything on.

I'm actually one of the most sensitive SPCR'rs when it comes to hard drive noise...

I'm not even going to ask how you know that. I mean, was there a poll or something?

For decent performance at a reasonable price with absolute silence, quiet 2.5" drives within custom enclosures are terribly hard to beat.

How does the performance of a quiet 2.5" drive compare to the performance of the Samsung and M-Systems SSDs?

If you want to spend extra for a massive boost in performance, iRAM looks pretty good.

iRAM doesn't look good. iRAM looks spectacularly foolish. The performance is quite nice, certainly, but in terms of cost-per-capacity, it's actually much worse than the [projected cost of the] Samsung SSDs! At best, you're looking at US$75 or so per gig of drive space with iRAM. Even if the Samsung costs US$1,000 for a 32gb drive, it's only US$31.25 per gig. It'd have to retail for over US$2,000 to cost as much as the lowest price for a 4gb iRAM drive!

Now, the iRAM solution is faster, there's no doubt - although I don't think anyone here knows for certain how much faster, no matter how much posturing some might indulge in - but for more than twice the cost per capacity, it had better be! And only coming in 1/8th the capacity of the Samsung? 4 gig isn't even worth having as a storage device, for anything I'd use it for. 32 gig certainly would be, but I'm not willing to pay [probably well over] US$1,000 for it, whatever its speed might be.

Of course, both technologies will progress: iRAM can easily increase its capacity limits, for instance. The cost of high-capacity solid-state "flash" media will inevitably decrease. iRAM solutions will hopefully free themselves from the "shove some system memory in me!" limitations [although that's at least as much benefit as drawback, today]. "Flash" SSDs will improve their write speeds. At this point, it's absolutely impossible to tell which will prove superior, if, indeed, a single solution can ever be considered superior; as always, it's the opportunity to choose - price or performance, integrity or capacity, and so on - that makes technologies like this exciting.

I don't know why you'd be more interested in iRAM than flash SSDs, but, you know, good luck with that. When they make an iRAM drive that's 32gb and 10 percent more expensive than a hard disk, I'll be interested, too.

[Tibors]

You're obviously making stuff up as you go. First you said the MP3 player case/LCD would be destroyed with less than a 200G shock. Now you're saying that the player will take a much bigger shock before the drive sees 200G. The latter is probably true, but the fact that you were so far wrong on your initial response tells me you're talking out of your *ss.

I wrote "The plastic outer shell or the LCD display will break with less shock." In my opinion there is a fairly large difference in the meaning of the words break and destroy.

The fact that the player will take a much bigger shock before the drive sees one of 200G is not contradictory with what I wrote earlier at all, because I did not write the player will survive that shock intact.

Yet another example of how important it is to actually understand what the numbers mean...

It is nice to see that you agree with me that you shouldn't just look at the numbers, but that you should think.

[IsaacKuo]

That's not what they're marketed for, and not really anything to get excited about in terms of silent desktop computing. Not yet, and possibly not ever.

I'm...not certain I understand. Do they make noise? Then I think that's probably something to get excited about.

For desktop computing, they don't really offer anything over normal 2.5" drives. When properly enclosed, quiet 2.5" drives are already silent.

Certainly more exciting than low-capacity iRAM drives. Doesn't do me much good to have a super-fast drive I can't fit anything on.

Well, that's your problem. Like many others, I use a file server for my data. That means all that's needed for my workstations is enough space for the OS and applications. If I make zero effort at optimization, I can comfortably dual boot Windows/Linux from a 4gig drive. If I actually make some effort to keep things clean, I can dual boot Windows/Linux from a 1gig drive. That's assuming I even want to bother with dual booting.

I'm actually one of the most sensitive SPCR'rs when it comes to hard drive noise...

I'm not even going to ask how you know that. I mean, was there a poll or something?

Believe it or not, SPCR is a community and we get to know each other. The topic of silent hard drives comes up rather often, shockingly enough. I'm the only one around here who finds non-enclosed 2.5" drive whine unacceptable even for the quietest models. Stick around, and you'll notice that not many SPCR'rs even bother with enclosing 2.5" drives.

If you want to spend extra for a massive boost in performance, iRAM looks pretty good.

iRAM doesn't look good. iRAM looks spectacularly foolish. The performance is quite nice, certainly, but in terms of cost-per-capacity, it's actually much worse than the [projected cost of the] Samsung SSDs!

How much capacity do you need for an OS drive? For me, 512K would be a good minimum; I'd probably go with 1gig to be comfortable. It's really only the base cost of the iRAM which is keeping me from using it. I'd really love it if a version of iRAM which used 168 pin DRAM came out--then I wouldn't even have to sacrifice some of my system RAM for it.

In comparison, a quiet model 2.5" drive really can't be had for much less than $60. That's better than iRAM, but it's in the ballpark.

Now, the iRAM solution is faster, there's no doubt - although I don't think anyone here knows for certain how much faster,

Note that there are actual people actually using iRAM here on SPCR. They've posted speed results here...and oh, there's also the official SPCR review with its results. Essentially, its performance maxes out the SATA interface.

I don't know why you'd be more interested in iRAM than flash SSDs, but, you know, good luck with that. When they make an iRAM drive that's 32gb and 10 percent more expensive than a hard disk, I'll be interested, too.

I'm interested in it because it's on the verge of being cheap enough for me. I'm famously cheap here on SPCR. I rescue tons of computer equipment from the dumpster, including lots of 168pin SDRAM and even some 184pin DDR. The cost of the RAM is a minor consideration for me. It's the main card itself which I have to buy new.

Of course, I really wish that there were a budget version of iRAM which used 168pin SDRAM. Then I wouldn't even have to make a tradeoff between system RAM and iRAM capacity.

[Engine]

For desktop computing, they don't really offer anything over normal 2.5" drives. When properly enclosed, quiet 2.5" drives are already silent.

0db? That must be a fascinating enclosure.

Certainly more exciting than low-capacity iRAM drives. Doesn't do me much good to have a super-fast drive I can't fit anything on.

Well, that's your problem.

Well...yes. When I say, "Doesn't do me much good," I am, indeed, talking about myself. And, no, 4gb is not large enough for me to fit my OS and applications; it's not even close. In fact, I don't think I could fit my OS and my two most often used applications - and those which, not coincidentally, would benefit most from a fast disk - to be on 4gb. Therefore, the iRAM drives currently on the market simply aren't large enough for me. Therefore, I would be better served with the additional capacity of a flash-based SSD. Therefore, I would like to have a fast, high-capacity SSD for not much more money than I can currently buy a hard disk for, and iRAM is utterly useless for me.

That means all that's needed for my workstations is enough space for the OS and applications.

And your Photoshop scratch file, of course, because that's where something like iRAM becomes useful, not having Firefox run off it. And your sampler banks, so you don't have to wait for those to load. And it'd be nice to have your FPS of choice stuck on there, so you don't have to wait for maps to load...oh, damn. Your 4gb is full.

iRAM drives may work for you. They will not be useful for most people, and their cost-per-capacity is worse than that of the flash-based Samsung.

Now, the iRAM solution is faster, there's no doubt - although I don't think anyone here knows for certain how much faster,

Note that there are actual people actually using iRAM here on SPCR. They've posted speed results here...and oh, there's also the official SPCR review with its results. Essentially, its performance maxes out the SATA interface.

Yes. And yet my statement, "I don't think anyone here knows for certain how much faster," remains true. I didn't say, "I don't think anyone here knows for certain how fast iRAM drives are," because there are about 872 billion benchmarks for the quasi-recently-released GigaByte drive. [snip: keeping it civil.] Rather, it was the speed of flash SSDs - in regards to which I had requested some of the benchmarks you must have read to be able to accurately assess the relative performance of flash SSDs and hard disks - to which I was specifically referring.

Let me stop dancing: you seem to think flash SSDs are slower than hard disks. If this is true, please provide the numbers to back it up. If you don't, please correct me so I can better understand your point.

[IsaacKuo]

For desktop computing, they don't really offer anything over normal 2.5" drives. When properly enclosed, quiet 2.5" drives are already silent.

0db? That must be a fascinating enclosure.

I don't think "0db" means what you think it means. It doesn't mean silent, if that's what you're thinking.

Anyway, those of us here on SPCR who have cared to try have had plenty of success with enclosing 2.5" drives. I'll take our direct experience over your baseless innuendo.

Certainly more exciting than low-capacity iRAM drives. Doesn't do me much good to have a super-fast drive I can't fit anything on.

Well, that's your problem.

Well...yes. When I say, "Doesn't do me much good," I am, indeed, talking about myself. And, no, 4gb is not large enough for me to fit my OS and applications; it's not even close. In fact, I don't think I could fit my OS and my two most often used applications - and those which, not coincidentally, would benefit most from a fast disk - to be on 4gb. Therefore, the iRAM drives currently on the market simply aren't large enough for me.

Yes, it's your problem if you can't fit Windows and those two applications within 4gigs. I have no problem fitting Windows and a decent software suite within 2gigs or less. And since I build and maintain quite a few computers for friends/family, I have some idea of what "typical" users need.

That means all that's needed for my workstations is enough space for the OS and applications.

And your Photoshop scratch file, of course, because that's where something like iRAM becomes useful, not having Firefox run off it. And your sampler banks, so you don't have to wait for those to load. And it'd be nice to have your FPS of choice stuck on there, so you don't have to wait for maps to load...oh, damn. Your 4gb is full.

iRAM drives may work for you. They will not be useful for most people, and their cost-per-capacity is worse than that of the flash-based Samsung.

Most people don't even need 2gigs worth of space on the main OS drive.

Let me stop dancing: you seem to think flash SSDs are slower than hard disks. If this is true, please provide the numbers to back it up. If you don't, please correct me so I can better understand your point.

That's rich, considering you don't back up your claims with the numbers.

How much effort does it take for you to find these numbers, anyway? Obviously, there's a lot of variation in the performance of various solid state disc technologies, so I had to specifically ask which ones you were talking about. So...you want to talk about Samsung's not-yet-released 2.5" format SSDs? Hmm...what if I just do a Google search on "Samsung SSD performance"? Here's what I get from the first link:

"The storage disk reads data at 57 MegaBytes per second (MBps) and writes it at 32MBps."

That's according to Samsung, anyway. This makes puts its performance below a single 3.5" drive or a RAID0 of two 2.5" drives. Either option would be much less expensive and have far more capacity. The latter is more interesting in terms of silent computing, but perhaps surprisingly the plain old 3.5" route is far more popular here on SPCR.

[peteamer]

Excuse the off-topic here:

The converse is that I do have the option of driving a car with airbags, but don't, because the performance loss isn't worth the safety increase - to me, personally. That's, again, why it's nice to have options.

Are you saying:

1. you can specify whether or not to have airbags on a specific model? If so I would love to see some data on the performance difference between the two variants...

2. that mean faster/quicker sports cars have less/no airbags?

[Engine]

The converse is that I do have the option of driving a car with airbags, but don't, because the performance loss isn't worth the safety increase - to me, personally. That's, again, why it's nice to have options.

Are you saying:
1. you can specify whether or not to have airbags on a specific model? If so I would love to see some data on the performance difference between the two variants...

Gods, I wish! No, no, I mean I have the option of buying a car that has airbags, or a similar car without. Specifically, I bought a car from before airbags were required; this means not only that it doesn't have airbags, but it doesn't have a lot of the additional weight that has come from [semi-] recent safety legislation. The power shortfall of driving an older car is easier to overcome than buying a [more expensive] newer car and stripping it of everything I consider non-essential.

2. that mean faster/quicker sports cars have less/no airbags?

Well, to some degree, that's going to be true. If you take two identical cars, one without airbags, and one with, the one with will be slower and have lower fuel economy...but the difference is going to be extremely marginal, mind you! Tenths of a second. But airbags - and all this modern safety stuff - are heavy, and I prefer to take the additional economy and performance* over the additional safety. Some people might find that choice dubious, or the benefits marginal in comparison to the drawback of reduced safety. Fortunately, those people don't have to drive my car.

*Remembering, of course, that any weight effects not just acceleration, but also braking and cornering: any change in velocity is affected by greater mass. Volkswagon tried to make up for the fact that the older Golf GTi weighed twice as much as the Mark 1 GTi by giving the newer ones an engine twice as powerful, but that doesn't alter the fact that when you need to corner, you now have twice as much mass to delta-V.

[Engine]

I don't think "0db" means what you think it means. It doesn't mean silent, if that's what you're thinking.

Then I need you to be more specific: what is your definition, in this context, of silence? Inaudible? From what distance? "Silent" is a term that gets used pretty loosely, and I personally have yet to see any hard disk, in any enclosure, that I would consider "silent." "Inaudible under normal use," certainly, but not "silent."

Anyway, those of us here on SPCR who have cared to try have had plenty of success with enclosing 2.5" drives. I'll take our direct experience over your baseless innuendo.

You know, you keep saying things like this, but it's just shorthand for "I don't have a useful reply, so I'll try to deflect the issue."

Yes, it's your problem if you can't fit Windows and those two applications within 4gigs. I have no problem fitting Windows and a decent software suite within 2gigs or less. And since I build and maintain quite a few computers for friends/family, I have some idea of what "typical" users need.

Hey, Isaac? I do, too. And I would wager I have more experience building computers than you do, although that's certainly assumption. And given my experience, I wouldn't ever consider giving someone a 4gb partition for their OS and applications, particularly if that 4gb limit were in place for performance reasons, because the first game they install is going to fill it.

Look, if 4gb is enough for you and yours, great. Best of luck to you. Buy an iRAM drive. But it will not work for me and mine, so the iRAM simply isn't a useful choice for us.

That's rich, considering you don't back up your claims with the numbers.

Isaac, you never asked me to. Neither of us threw out numbers, both of us made claims, I requested benchmark numbers, and you ignored those requests. Now, if you want me to throw out benchmark numbers, I have a whole pack of them sitting and waiting for your request, because your assertion that "Those particular flash drives aren't really so hot in terms of performance," simply isn't true. Now, if by "those particular," you mean "the new Samsung," yes, the Samsung is about 80 percent the read speed of today's hot drives - actually, that is a number I provided, come to think of it. But "those particular" also should have included the M-Systems drive, and you don't have any benchmarking numbers for those. More significantly, it sure looks to me as if you were talking about flash SSDs in general, and if you were, your statement is completely inaccurate, as flash SSDs come much, much faster than any 2.5 inch drive ever made.

My point, I guess, is this: you keep dismissing an entire technology not on the basis of facts, but on the basis that you like to disagree. You insist iRAM is totally sweet, when its cost-per-capacity and its tiny little partition size makes it utterly useless, and will continue to do so. So then you have to insist 4gb is plenty of system partition for anyone, even though it simply and plainly isn't. You denegrate the speed of flash SSDs, but then choose one of the slowest of them to "prove" your point. You don't care what technology is better, or more interesting: you just want to fight. It's annoying, and it brings out the worst in me.

[IsaacKuo]

I don't think "0db" means what you think it means. It doesn't mean silent, if that's what you're thinking.

Then I need you to be more specific: what is your definition, in this context, of silence? Inaudible? From what distance?

I mean inaudible from the distance of put-your-ear-right-up-against-it. This really isn't all that hard to acheive with a 2.5" drive within an adequate enclosure. I speak from the direct practical experience of myself and others here on SPCR.

Anyway, those of us here on SPCR who have cared to try have had plenty of success with enclosing 2.5" drives. I'll take our direct experience over your baseless innuendo.

You know, you keep saying things like this, but it's just shorthand for "I don't have a useful reply, so I'll try to deflect the issue."

No, your contentless reply is longhand for "I don't have a useful reply, so I'll try to deflect the issue."

Here on SPCR, we put the highest stock in practical experience over theory. I offered practical experience. You haven't offered either.

Yes, it's your problem if you can't fit Windows and those two applications within 4gigs. I have no problem fitting Windows and a decent software suite within 2gigs or less. And since I build and maintain quite a few computers for friends/family, I have some idea of what "typical" users need.

Hey, Isaac? I do, too. And I would wager I have more experience building computers than you do, although that's certainly assumption.

I'm experienced with dealing with and maintaining older computers with old leftover parts. When the only hard drive left over is 1.3gigs in size, you figure out how to make everything fit (normally, 1.3gigs isn't much of a challenge but it gets fun when you're cramming in both Windows and Debian).

I find that getting rid of that criminally wasteful system snapshot crud is typically enough. Going through Add/Remove Windows Components is another easy way to eliminate a ton of waste.

And given my experience, I wouldn't ever consider giving someone a 4gb partition for their OS and applications, particularly if that 4gb limit were in place for performance reasons, because the first game they install is going to fill it.

In my experience, most people have absolutely zero interest in computer games outside of Solitaire and Minesweeper. Of my friends/family, only one of them is a computer gamer (although many of them play console games). He can fit his games onto the D: partition.

That's rich, considering you don't back up your claims with the numbers.

Isaac, you never asked me to.

Well, that's a convincing argument.

My point, I guess, is this: you keep dismissing an entire technology not on the basis of facts, but on the basis that you like to disagree.

I think you're simply seeing yourself in others, accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing.

You insist iRAM is totally sweet, when its cost-per-capacity and its tiny little partition size makes it utterly useless, and will continue to do so.

You say it's utterly useless. And yet there are several people here on SPCR who are using it, and very happy with the results. That right there means it's not utterly useless.

So then you have to insist 4gb is plenty of system partition for anyone, even though it simply and plainly isn't.

I've put together plenty of systems with less than 4gigs for the system/applications partition. Of the ones I've put together in the last year, only TWO of them have a system/applications partitions bigger than 4gigs. In both cases, it wasn't because I needed to but rather because of other considerations. For one system, the main drive was 6gigs and there really wasn't a point in partitioning it. For the other, the OS was on a RAID and I wanted each RAID segment to be large enough for the full OS if the need ever came up.

Even when the system drive is very large, I always put the OS and applications into a small partition and partition the rest into a bulk data partition. This makes it simple to make full backup images of the OS/applications. I never make the C: partition larger than 4gigs. This has never been a problem.

My standard size for the C: partition was once ~5gigs, but I reduced that after gaining more experience about how much space was actually used. Currently, my standard C: partition size is ~3gigs--that gives a comfortable amount of space for if the user wants to install more software. My standard size for Linux OS/apps partition is ~2.5gigs.

The majority of systems I work on for friend/family/myself have system drives of 20gigs or less. An extra gig or two of space devoted to the OS/application partition is a gig or two taken from the bulk data partition--a sizable loss in such small drives. Thus, I don't like leaving more than a gig of expansion space on the main OS/application partition.

[Engine]

I mean inaudible from the distance of put-your-ear-right-up-against-it.

That's great. Where can I find something about that? I'm not certain I'm willing to step down to a 2.5 inch drive - it's that performance/silence balance - but I'd certainly be interested to benefit from your experience.

You know, you keep saying things like this, but it's just shorthand for "I don't have a useful reply, so I'll try to deflect the issue."

No, your contentless reply is longhand for "I don't have a useful reply, so I'll try to deflect the issue."

...I'm rubber, and you're glue? I mean, really.

I'm experienced with dealing with and maintaining older computers with old leftover parts. When the only hard drive left over is 1.3gigs in size, you figure out how to make everything fit (normally, 1.3gigs isn't much of a challenge but it gets fun when you're cramming in both Windows and Debian).

Yeah, I stopped putting 1.3gb drives in computers many years ago. I guess the people I build machines for are looking for something a little more...full-featured? I don't know.

Now, I'm not saying, I should note, that you can't put Windows and some apps - hell, Office, Photoshop, Firefox, and XP - on a 1.3gb disk. I am saying you'd be seriously comprimising the useability of such a system, and it wouldn't work for 90 percent of the people I build computers for. I'm glad it works for you and yours, though.

In my experience, most people have absolutely zero interest in computer games outside of Solitaire and Minesweeper.

Ah. Very different groups, then. Well, if they're just looking for word processing, Windows games, and other basic tools, I guess they could use a 4gb system drive...but then you'd have to wonder, what use would the iRAM drive be? The people who need the speed of iRAM need more than 4gb of capacity. You see what I mean?

That's rich, considering you don't back up your claims with the numbers.

Isaac, you never asked me to.

Well, that's a convincing argument.

I think it is. You blame me for not giving you something I had no reason to give you, while dismissing your responsibility for giving me the same thing, even though I'd asked you to! You can't say, "You should have given benchmarks even without being asked," without accepting responsibility for doing the same yourself. It's specious and unproductive.

My point, I guess, is this: you keep dismissing an entire technology not on the basis of facts, but on the basis that you like to disagree.

I think you're simply seeing yourself in others, accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing.

Ah, now there's the "I'm rubber and you're glue." Thanks.

[IsaacKuo]

I mean inaudible from the distance of put-your-ear-right-up-against-it.

That's great. Where can I find something about that? I'm not certain I'm willing to step down to a 2.5 inch drive - it's that performance/silence balance - but I'd certainly be interested to benefit from your experience.

I'm cheap, so I homebrew them. I wrote up a how-to on my cheap PSP case based enclosure. Others like to place them in Smartdrive enclosures (normally designed for 3.5" drives). I'm too cheap to buy a Smartdrive, so I can't offer first-hand testimony on their effectiveness.

Now, I'm not saying, I should note, that you can't put Windows and some apps - hell, Office, Photoshop, Firefox, and XP - on a 1.3gb disk. I am saying you'd be seriously comprimising the useability of such a system, and it wouldn't work for 90 percent of the people I build computers for. I'm glad it works for you and yours, though.

The 1.3gig disc computer was made out of leftover parts for my personal use. I had to be conscious of its limitations. For others, my standard OS partition size is ~3gigs, as I said.

In my experience, most people have absolutely zero interest in computer games outside of Solitaire and Minesweeper.

Ah. Very different groups, then. Well, if they're just looking for word processing, Windows games, and other basic tools, I guess they could use a 4gb system drive...but then you'd have to wonder, what use would the iRAM drive be? The people who need the speed of iRAM need more than 4gb of capacity. You see what I mean?

I see the speed of iRAM being most useful for software developers and graphic designers--the former for fast compile times and the latter for fast image manipulation.

I suppose you're thinking of computer gaming, but the speed of iRAM wouldn't really be used much by gamers. It's a popular but well debunked myth that RAID0 drive speeds have a big effect on gaming load times.

There are plenty of computer gamers here on SPCR, and the general consensus is that you can't combine maximum gaming performance with absolute silence anyway. High performance video cards are too difficult to keep cool with a true passive computer (one with no fans at all). Besides, what's the point of absolute silence when music and sound effects drown out a quiet computer?

[Engine]

I'm cheap, so I homebrew them.

That's great. I've got questions, but I'll ask them over in the other thread. Awesome value-for-money, though!

I see the speed of iRAM being most useful for software developers and graphic designers--the former for fast compile times and the latter for fast image manipulation.

I think that's probably true; when your machine is used exclusively - or even just primarily - for a single thing, you can do some pretty astonishing things with iRAM. For me - scattered my priorities being - it just doesn't work. Not that it wouldn't be useful, but it wouldn't be useful enough to justify the cost. I mean, I have this lovely fantasy of having an iRAM disk with the OS on it, and a couple basic apps, and then running everything else over the network, but when I actually look at the installed size of the "basic apps" I'd want...*sigh* I suppose the 2gb of sample banks I need [well, want] local doesn't help.

I suppose you're thinking of computer gaming, but the speed of iRAM wouldn't really be used much by gamers.

Being able to install only a couple of games wouldn't help much, either. Disk speed can be a bottleneck, depending on the game, at certain points, but overall, the bottleneck isn't in drive speed. Again, not that it wouldn't be useful, but it wouldn't be useful enough. On the other hand, I do like the idea of running an iRAM drive for only my OS, and then a marginally slower but still silent drive for my apps, then putting mass storage where it belongs: in the basement, on my server.

There are plenty of computer gamers here on SPCR, and the general consensus is that you can't combine maximum gaming performance with absolute silence anyway. High performance video cards are too difficult to keep cool with a true passive computer (one with no fans at all). Besides, what's the point of absolute silence when music and sound effects drown out a quiet computer?

I think that sort of answers itself: for maximum gaming potential - if you're a guy who wants to play BF2 widescreen at 30 fps or whatever - a silent computer is not only prohibitively expensive - possible, but ludicrous to the budget-conscious - but unnecessary. What counts at that point is getting it quiet enough that it doesn't detract from your gaming experience.

Now, for guys like me, who can only afford one top-end PC, which has to game periodically, do video and image editing often, and work as the heart of a recording studio always, the balance you seek is near-silence with gaming performance capable of not being annoyingly slow. I don't need a 7900GTX, because I rarely game and don't care if I'm not running 1600x1200 with 8x AA and HDR at high quality or whatever; I'm willing to comprimise maximum gaming with the needs of a recording studio, and my preference for some peace and quiet. For me, lower-performance GPU and CPU are acceptable, and a couple of quiet Nexus fans are tolerable if properly enclosed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like a totally silent PC - and it's possible, if I really want to haul out the wallet - but it just isn't necessary. Everyone has different priorities, and thus different requirements...but most of us have fantasies, too.

[Happy Hopping]

I have a few questions on that M system, Sony, and samsung:

1) Samsung is clearly the leader on R&D, how come they can't even come up w/ that 128 GB solid state drive that M sys have?

2) Who on earth is M system? And can their invention w/ ATA interface works the same way as a real hard drive? Has anyone try out one of those baby and install xp pro w/ applications and it runs like any other hard drive?

3) I thought there is write limitation on these solid state drive to be like 100K write. So how can Sony run it as a hard drive w/ so few write? It doesn't take much for xp pro to write on the drive as it does it every few seconds.

And how can m sys has their flash drive at 5 M write?

4) How expensive is M system 64 GB or 128 GB solution anyway?

[Engine]

I have a few questions on that M system, Sony, and samsung:

Well, I'm not sure where Sony's coming from on this, but I'll shoot for the rest.

1) Samsung is clearly the leader on R&D, how come they can't even come up w/ that 128 GB solid state drive that M sys have?

Because they're not the leader in R&D; they're just the most visible manufacturer, and thus the one that gets the most press. There are tons of companies making SSDs that you've never heard of: Texas Memory Systems, Solid Access, Silicon Systems, SimpleTech/Memtech, Nextcom, and my favorite, BiTMICRO, who make an SSD with a "400MB/sec duplex burst rate." There are at least 20 flash SSD manufacturers, but other than Samsung, you've never heard of any of them.

2) Who on earth is M system? And can their invention w/ ATA interface works the same way as a real hard drive? Has anyone try out one of those baby and install xp pro w/ applications and it runs like any other hard drive?

I haven't tried one, but yeah, it works just like a hard disk.

3) I thought there is write limitation on these solid state drive to be like 100K write. So how can Sony run it as a hard drive w/ so few write? It doesn't take much for xp pro to write on the drive as it does it every few seconds.

The number of writes possible on any given flash media depends on the quality of the flash media. It also depends on the capability for the storage device to reallocate portions of the memory that have already been written to too many times; nearly all of them do this transparently by now.

4) How expensive is M system 64 GB or 128 GB solution anyway?

Expensive. "The 128GB commercial temperature [read: not "extreme temperature"] SSD is a paltry US$19,278. US$8,256 for the 64GB version, and US$$4,613 for the 32GB version." These are per-unit prices from their distributor, and thinking back, they may actually be in Canadian dollars and not US, but...well, at that price, does it matter?

That's okay; I've set my sights on this baby anyway. I mean, if you're going to dream, dream big!

[Happy Hopping]

I mentioned SOny because in their latest laptop, they bundled w/ SSD from Samsung in 32 GB capacity. Which is why I asked the question because I was convinced the "flash" will wear off from over 100K write.

But if their 32 GB is that expensive, why would anyone buy them? Samsung is release the above bundle w/ Sony's laptop. And the price tag w/ just the 32 GB is $960 list price.

They are both flash drive, there is no reason that M system one are so much more expensive than the Samsung. As to 64 GB, I can easily buy 2 from Samsung.

Anyhoo, if you were to use the M system drive as a boot up C drive, do you need to modify the setting by regedit? I read in another thread that in order to boot up from a flash drive, there is some changes needed.

Unless M system drive is not consider as a flash drive, but rather a hard drive.

While I'm at this, it's odd to have 2.5" SSD HD, I can see they obviously don't need to have a big 3.5" hard drive, but I don't recall there is conversion bay from 2.5" to 5.25" bay, or from 2.5" to 3.5" bay, is there?

[Engine]

I mentioned SOny because in their latest laptop, they bundled w/ SSD from Samsung in 32 GB capacity. Which is why I asked the question because I was convinced the "flash" will wear off from over 100K write.

Now, see, I didn't know that. Which laptop is that?

But if their 32 GB is that expensive, why would anyone buy them? Samsung is release the above bundle w/ Sony's laptop. And the price tag w/ just the 32 GB is $960 list price.

Well, people will buy them because it's new, it's different, it's quieter, and it'll use a lot less electricity, rather an important concern in the world of laptops. It won't generate as much heat, and is probably somewhat faster. And won't lose all your data if you drop it. Is that worth US$960? Well, not to me.

They are both flash drive, there is no reason that M system one are so much more expensive than the Samsung.

The M-System drives are enterprise-level drives with all sorts of features the Samsung doesn't have, intended primarily for use in enterprise servers and military applications where features like "one-button erasure of all data" are a selling point. They're also rather faster.

Anyhoo, if you were to use the M system drive as a boot up C drive, do you need to modify the setting by regedit? I read in another thread that in order to boot up from a flash drive, there is some changes needed.

To my knowledge, these drives look exactly like any other mass storage device to Windows.

Unless M system drive is not consider as a flash drive, but rather a hard drive.

No, it's a flash drive, or solid state drive, or flash SSD. You could call it a hard drive, but it would only be accurate colloquially.

While I'm at this, it's odd to have 2.5" SSD HD, I can see they obviously don't need to have a big 3.5" hard drive, but I don't recall there is conversion bay from 2.5" to 5.25" bay, or from 2.5" to 3.5" bay, is there?

Well, you could certainly buy one: I've seen them. Also, many SSD manufacturers make 2.5 and 3.5 inch drives, depending on their intended usage.

[highlandsun]

I wonder how much this will cost when it goes on sale
http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060605VL204.html

64GB is a usable size, anyway. 25MB/sec is a bit lame, but if it's continuous then I guess that's still pretty good. They just need to add a bit more DRAM to it, to get the peak transfer rates up to full 66 or 100MB/sec.

[highlandsun]

I have a few questions on that M system, Sony, and samsung:

Well, I'm not sure where Sony's coming from on this, but I'll shoot for the rest.

1) Samsung is clearly the leader on R&D, how come they can't even come up w/ that 128 GB solid state drive that M sys have?

Because they're not the leader in R&D; they're just the most visible manufacturer, and thus the one that gets the most press. There are tons of companies making SSDs that you've never heard of: Texas Memory Systems, Solid Access, Silicon Systems, SimpleTech/Memtech, Nextcom, and my favorite, BiTMICRO, who make an SSD with a "400MB/sec duplex burst rate." There are at least 20 flash SSD manufacturers, but other than Samsung, you've never heard of any of them.

Well, Samsung appears to be the world leader in Flash memory production. Texas Memory and a lot of the other companies you quote sell DRAM-based drives. They're in an entirely different league - high speed, high power consumption, massive cost.

[Happy Hopping]

http://handhelds.engadget.com/2006/03/1 ... -at-cebit/

I can't remember where I see that Sony laptop although it's in the engadget.com But the above link essentially said the same thing. 32 GB SSD on Samsung laptop.

Looking at those prices you typed out, you know, for $19278, I can live w/ the noise. And for that matter, for a co. that sells drives in that level of price tag, there is something wrong as to how cheap the management is to have those products made in Israel. That's like saying for a $300K Ferrari, it's made in China. If they want cheap labor, they should just aim at India.

I don't need those fancy features like 10 sec. erase, what I need is a silent SSD with reliable data storage. So it seems M system is not a co. I should go with.

With all those co. you listed, only Memtech, M system and BitMicro sells regular shape 2.5", 3.5" drive, the other co. sells server class drives such as hot plug type or fiber chnl. which doesn't fit my purpose. here's what is wrong w/ ea. co.:

Bit Micro -- cheap 1 yr. warranty,
No SATA, IDE and EIDE 66 is 7 yr. old technology, but I can live w/ Ultra 320 if they offer 7 yr. warranty

Memtech -- their SCSI ver. is use 50 Pin SCSI 2, that's over 10 year only technology.

Their SATA only c/w 64 GB capacity

refuse to state on their PDF or HTML spec. sheet as to how many write their drive can handle. As such, I don't have much faith in the write cycle dept.

M system -- cheap management, at least the above 2 co. product is made in USA, most of their product is made in Israel, I don't trust their quality just like I had it w/ Seagate having their hard drive made in China.

For a co. that sells a $19K SSD and decide to cut corner on labor, makes me wonder what other corner was cut to make that product

[Engine]

Looking at those prices you typed out, you know, for $19278, I can live w/ the noise.

Absolutely! As highlandsun points out, those drives are in an entirely different market segment, and beyond all but the most wealthy, dedicated, and slightly mad PC silencers.

And for that matter, for a co. that sells drives in that level of price tag, there is something wrong as to how cheap the management is to have those products made in Israel.

I don't think "cheap labor" is why those products are made in Israel. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but it should be noted Israel has a high level of industrial and technological capacity.

That's like saying for a $300K Ferrari, it's made in China.

Better than being made in Italy! Ahem. Sorry.

refuse to state on their PDF or HTML spec. sheet as to how many write their drive can handle. As such, I don't have much faith in the write cycle dept.

Well, I wouldn't hold too much weight with that; companies fail to put all sorts of things on spec sheets. Instead of rejecting it out of hand, ask them.

[Buddabing]

I thought the problem with flash SSDs was not the cost, speed, reliablity, or durablility, but the longevity. Don't flash memories wear out after x number of write cycles?

[Engine]

I thought the problem with flash SSDs was not the cost, speed, reliablity, or durablility, but the longevity. Don't flash memories wear out after x number of write cycles?

Yep. But since the write cycle limit on most of these drives is something like 5 million writes, and since the drives reallocate portions of the disk which have been written to too many times, the actual lifespan of most of these drives is at least that of their rotary magnetic counterparts. Not all of them will be, which is one reason you want to check with the manufacturer before you throw down your hard-earned cash; it depends on the media used in the drive.

It also depends on how many writes you do: I've seen a few manufacturers specifically recommend against math departments using them, for instance, because the applications they're using them for have many more writes than reads, and would wear out the drive more quickly than would be practical.

I keep forgetting another reason to recommend flash drives, besides being faster, more durable, more efficient, and so on: they're lighter. In mobile applications, that's a nice side benefit. Not worth the price, if you ask me, but if you've got the money...

[Happy Hopping]

Yep. But since the write cycle limit on most of these drives is something like 5 million writes, and since the drives reallocate portions of the disk which have been written to too many times,

I read that from those web site. But how? There is no moving parts on the drive. So how does these "too many write" part being moved?

And how does the drive know which spot has been written too many times? Does the drive has a way of keep tracking how many write on each sector?

It also depends on how many writes you do: I've seen a few manufacturers specifically recommend against math departments using them, for instance, because the applications they're using them for have many more writes than reads, and would wear out the drive more quickly than would be practical.

Can you clarify that? whose math dept.? Are you trying to say the manufacturer's math dept. has a theoretical figure, and the manufacturer use it, eventhough the drive cannot really do that many write?

I don't think "cheap labor" is why those products are made in Israel. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but it should be noted Israel has a high level of industrial and technological capacity

I notice M sys made their highest end capacity drive, 352 GB SCSI, to be made in USA, and all the lower end drive to be made in Israel.

[/quote]

[highlandsun]

I wonder how much this will cost when it goes on sale
http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060605VL204.html

64GB is a usable size, anyway. 25MB/sec is a bit lame, but if it's continuous then I guess that's still pretty good. They just need to add a bit more DRAM to it, to get the peak transfer rates up to full 66 or 100MB/sec.

The Inquirer has a bit http://theinquirer.net/?article=32315 more info on this drive. 64GB for $1000. You could buy a second laptop computer for that price, but so it goes...

[highlandsun]

And how does the drive know which spot has been written too many times? Does the drive has a way of keep tracking how many write on each sector?

Yes. There's always a chunk of memory reserved for bookkeeping, including counters to record the number of writes per block.

[Engine]

It also depends on how many writes you do: I've seen a few manufacturers specifically recommend against math departments using them, for instance, because the applications they're using them for have many more writes than reads, and would wear out the drive more quickly than would be practical.

Can you clarify that? whose math dept.? Are you trying to say the manufacturer's math dept. has a theoretical figure, and the manufacturer use it, eventhough the drive cannot really do that many write?

No. The manufacturer recommends that university math departments not use SSDs, because many of the applications for which mathematicians use drives require many more writes than reads, because it is calculation-intensive and not retrieval-intensive.

I don't think "cheap labor" is why those products are made in Israel. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but it should be noted Israel has a high level of industrial and technological capacity

I notice M sys made their highest end capacity drive, 352 GB SCSI, to be made in USA, and all the lower end drive to be made in Israel.

Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into that. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because the largest drive is made in one country, the other drives are low-quality cut-rate devices because they're made in another country. Toyota makes several of their most expensive cars in the US; that doesn't make the US a better auto manufacturer than Japan.