×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will 2009 Be the Turning Point For SSDs?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the year-of-something-on-the-something dept.

Data Storage 290

Iddo Genuth writes "Since first entering the consumer market about two years ago, solid state drives (SSDs) have improved significantly. While prices remain substantially higher than conventional magnetic storage, it is predicted that in 2009 SSDs will finally make an impact on both the consumer and business markets bringing blazing fast speeds at reasonable prices for the first time — will it finally happen?" It seems likely, as Samsung began mass-producing both 128GB and 256GB SSDs this year. Intel and Micron have also posted recent breakthroughs which will help to bring the technology into the mainstream.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

2009 will be the year of the SALINE SCROTUM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101453)

I buy my saline kits from Chase Union Ltd in Movi, Michigan. The cost of a 1000 cc bag of sterile saline, drip tubing, sterile wipes (to wipe down your sac and all around) and catheter needle is with shipping around $25.
You can call them at +01 (248) 348-8191 and ask for item "MF 100" a scrotal inflation kit.

To do the saline, take the bag of saline and put in a microwave for about 5.5 minutes at low heat to warm to a bit above body temperature;about 100 degrees or so. Unwrap the outer plastic packaging and put the saline bag aside. Unwrap the drip tubing which comes with the kit and move the clamping system down toward the end opposite the vial type thing and CLOSE IT SHUT. Take the larger end of the drip tubing and uncap the protective cap........open the warmed bag of saline and remove the clear cap. Insert the drip tubing nozzle into the saline bag opening. Find a curtain rod, pot rack (which i have and use in the kitchen) shower rod or something elevated above you. Hang the bag of saline with the tubing attached and shut off. THEN VERY IMPORTANT. SQUEEZE SOME OF THE SALINE INTO THE VIAL ABOUT HALF WAY -THEN OPEN THE CLAMPING DEVICE AND BLEED ALL AIR OUT OF THE TUBING. YEAH YOU LOOSE A LITTLE BIT OF SALINE BUT THIS IS A MUST. YOU DON'T WANT ANY AIR OR AIR BUBBLES IN THE DRIP TUBING! REPLACE THE CAP ON THE WORKING END OF THE TUBING.

Before hand, while the bag of saline is warming either take a hot shower, or fill a basin or kitchen sink with very warm water sit in it for 4-7 minutes. The idea is to warm your ballsac skin up and let it get loose and hang.

When you have finished warming your sac, and you have the bag of saline (BLED FROM AIR), you are ready to grow.

With your sac still very warm use the wipes provided with the kit to wipe down your cock and ballsac. By the way, you will want an adjustable leather cock ring , nylon rope, or other type of removable cock/ball ring to wrap around cock and ballsac after inserting the catheter needle.

With you sac still warm and wiped down with antiseptics, sit in a chair with a towel underneath. Open the catheter needle don't get pansy here but with one hand, take the catheter needle and the teflon sheath that covers it and WITH THE OTHER HAND TAKE YOUR BALLSAC MOVING YOUR COCK OUT OF THE WAY AND DECIDE ON THE LOCATION OF THE INTENDED CATHETER NEEDLE. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AREA EITHER TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC AND UP CLOSE TO WHERE THE COCK CONNECTS. YOU PLACE THE CATHETER NEEDLE RIGHT BELOW THE COCK OR A LITTLE LOWER BUT TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE DARKER SKIN DIVIDING SKIN WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SAC.

DON'T GET SQUEEMISH BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT HURT. BUT INSERT THE CATHETER STRAIGHT DOWN CAUTIOUSLY INTO YOUR SAC. MOVE YOUR TESTICLE ASIDE YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE BALLSAC CAVITY NOT THE TESTICLE.

YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A PRICK SENSATION,THEN A POP SENSATION AS THE CATHETER NEEDLE PIERCES THE MUSCLE TISSUE OF THE SCROTUM.

KEEP PUSHING THE CATHETER NEEDLE IN. IF IT GOES IN AND YOU FEEL FROM THE OTHER/OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC THAT THE NEEDLE IS THERE, THEN STOP.

Pull out the needle itself leaving the teflon sheath inserted into you sac. Tie yourself (cock and balls) off with some sort of removable cock ring or rope or robe tie or whatever.

Sit down, don' t plan to move around too much for the next 30 minutes - hour. Have your beers/soft drinks or whatever already out of the fridge. You will want to stay idle and focused while you do this.

While sitting, and close to the hanging bag of saline and the drip tubing, remove the protective cover of the end of the drip tubing, connect the drip tubing to the catheter sheath in you sac. THEN START ADJUSTING THE CLAMPING DEVICE OPEN TO ALLOW SALINE DRIPPING TO APPEAR IN THE VIAL UP BY THE BAG OF SALINE. ADJUST FOR AN EVEN DRIP DRIP DRIP FLOW AND NOT A STEADY STREAM OF SALINE.

If the saline doesn't drip at first, try pulling the catheter sheath out a bit until you at first experience a small burning sensation;it goes away almost immediately.
Work on the sheath depth and the clamp until you get a good flow of saline going into your sac.

Don't move around too much......or be cognizant of how much you move around while the saline drips into and starts to bloat out your sac. You can always shut off the flow of saline with the clamp, disconnect and move around take a p, whatever......
If you disconnect, take the small stopper thing that is still attached to the needle and plug the teflon sheath to prevent leakage.

I like to use liquid vitamin E on my sac while it stretching and expanding;you should / can put oil or handcream on your sac while it is expanding. The sac is very stretchable but to expand up to 18-20 inches within an hour or so stresses the tissues,so things need to be lubricated somewhat..

GO SLOWLY.DON'T TRY TO REACH A MAX THE FIRST TIME. GO WITH WHAT YOUR BODY/SAC IS FEELING THEN STOP.

When you have finished doing the amount of saline you want to, feel comfortable with, can accept, close off the saline bag with the clamp, and disconnect.

Over filling/stress of the sac can cause osmosis leaking/sweating.. Do an amount of saline at first that is comfortable and not stressfull/hurting by all means. I have over done before and.you don't want to walk around with your sac dripping water out of it.and the after results cause chapping etc which takes a few days to peel and recover from.

Some of the saline is going to migrate into your cock. Your cock girth is going to become much larger than you have ever experienced.

AFTER YOU DISCONNECT FROM THE SALINE BAG, SIT AND WITH "SUPER GLUE", YES SUPER GLUE ON HAND, WITHDRAW THE CATHETER SHEATH.
AND WITH A TOWEL, PLACE SOME PRESSURE OVER THE HOLE THE NEEDLE CREATED......YOU MAY HAVE SOME BLOOD OR BLOOD MIXED WITH SALINE TRYING TO EXIT YOUR SAC! THEREFORE THE TOWELS

DON'T WORRY KEEP PRESSURE OVER AND DOWN ONTO THE HOLE FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO LET THINGS REST AND ANY BLOOD COAGULATE.

REMOVE THE "PRESSURE" TOWEL AND WITH SUPER GLUE, PLACE A FEW DROPS ON THE HOLE TO HOPEFULLY SEAL IT UP QUICKLY. KEEP THE COCK RING OR EQUIVALENT ON DURING THIS AND CONTINE TO LUBE YOUR SAC.

IF ALL IS GOING VERY WELL, IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, YOUR SAC AND THE HOLE IS SEALED AND YOU ARE DONE.

IF ALL THINGS ARE NOT GOING WELL, YOU MIGHT NOT GET A GOOD SEAL THE FIRST TIME JUST PEAL OFF THE SUPER GLUE RESIDUE AND START OVER.

At first your sac will be very tight,but over the next few hours or over night, keeping the cock ring on less tightly or without a cock ring your sac will relax and begin to stretch.

The saline will take a couple of days or more to absorb into you body. That is okay,Saline is sterile water adjusted to normal body PH.

Enjoy it, flaunt it if you are inclined, watch the perm stretch and sac tissue growth that happens over time.

You will need to p a little more often than regular as the saline absorbs into your body, but just enjoy the weight and feel of what is between your legs.

I hope this helps....If your nuts and sac are normally pretty big or even small and you want more, this will blow you away with the results.

Take care
Read the rest of this comment...

Will 2009 be the year of the Linux Desktop? (0, Troll)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101461)

It's the same answer to the article title.

Re:Will 2009 be the year of the Linux Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101489)

What if it will be? Wanna bet?

I think SSD will take off (3, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101481)

For laptops at least. There is no reason to not to have an SSD in your laptop.

No, they won't (5, Insightful)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101543)

Money. HDD's will keep getting cheaper. I'm betting on 2010.

Re:No, they won't (5, Interesting)

bob8766 (1075053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101641)

It won't be long before SSD drives are cheaper than conventional drives. An SSD drive is mostly a bunch of memory sandwiched together. A conventional drive has complex precision moving parts with motors, platters, heads, etc. Manufacturing costs on SSDs will be almost nothing when the scales get a bit smaller and they go into mass production.

Re:No, they won't (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101787)

"It won't be long before SSD drives are cheaper than conventional drives."

The current evidence doesn't support this idea. For the next year or two, it looks like shops are adding far more cost to SSD, plus all flash memory chips are far higher cost than HDD costs. (Plus give it 3 or more years and Flash is also likely to be made obsolite).

Cost per byte of all flash based memory is far higher than cost per byte of all HDD, so HDD will get a lot of the sales.

For example, (Im just picking example HDD and memory chips)
1.0TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
cost about $120
So thats $0.12 per Gb

Compare that HDD cost per byte with the following example costs...

OCZ SSD SATA II 64GB
Cost about $250
so thats $3.9 per Gb (32.5 times more expensive than example HDD)

Kingston DataTraveler USB 8GB Flash Drive
Cost about $12
So thats $1.5 per Gb (12.5 times more expensive than example HDD)

These are just quick googled examples. But it shows very clearly how HDD are so much cheaper per byte than any flash chip based memory.
(These prices also show the current very high extra markup cost for SSD even compared with USB flash drives).

Re:No, they won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101661)

"Money. HDD's will keep getting cheaper. I'm betting on 2010."

Cost is a big factor for me as well. While cost per byte is greater than 2-3 times as much, then I don't see its worth getting SSD. (Currently is > 15+ times as much!).

Also current HD have served me well for nearly two decades.

I also don't like current flash memory technology. (Both common forms have a too low lifespan). When we start getting better memory (technology), that is also much cheap than current SSD, then I would be happy to move from HDD.

My money (longer term in say 3-5 years) is on Memristors winning over flash. Memristors can be made very small, they are also easy to design with and easy to make (on existing production lines) and they have better speed and better lifespan than Flash.

Re:No, they won't (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101845)

They will probably keep performing better on the cost/memory scale, but you also have to remember that an HDD is also a fairly expensive piece of equipment. For low capacity requirements, Flash beats HDDs all the way.
Today, for the price of the cheapest Laptop HDDs, you can get roughly 20-30 GB of Flash (In the form of SD cards).
Just one or two years ago this would have seemed rediculous.

Re:No, they won't (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102269)

"For low capacity requirements, Flash beats HDDs all the way"

Not all flash. Flash drives are often still very slow for writes. Often a lot slower! There was one hyped drive (fast reads etc) that turned out to only be able to manage 4 write transactions a second! That's TERRIBLE!

If there were a 128GB flash drive that was really fast for writes (and reads) and cost as much as a 500GB hard drive, and was as reliable, it would really sell.

Intel is doing something about that. But at the moment it's still early, so I'm just going to wait and see for now.

What I wonder about is the failure, failure detection and recovery mode for flash drives.

Hard drives often give you a hint before they die. Once you see stuff like "reallocated sector count" go from zero to something else, it's time to buy a new drive. Or the make funny noises, or start getting rather slower (many retries to read).

With hard drives a decent data recovery company may have chance of recovering your data if your drive died. What's it like for flash drives?

Re:No, they won't (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102197)

"I'm betting on 2010."

I'm betting on the year of SSDs in the computer will the same as the year of Linux on the desktop!

Re:I think SSD will take off (3, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101545)

Riiiight. And the Playstation 4 and Nintendo Wii part 2 will abandon discs in favor of cartridges again. Just our of curiosity I looked-up how much it would cost to replace my standard disk drive:

300 GB disk drive - I spent $90.

256 GB solid state - $7,426 to $9,125 online

Ouch.

This is why Nintendo 64 and Nintendo DS cartridges never grew larger than 0.3 gigabytes, and why for the Cube and Wii they abandoned the solid state cartridge in favor of discs. Discs are simpler and therefore cheaper.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101599)

BR isn't cutting it on the PS3. Yes, lot's of storage, but access times are way too slow. That's why some developers mandate a HD install.

The memory used in games cartridges are way cheaper than SLC or "high-speed" MLC.

But even the "lower-speed" memories outpace current discs.

Hell, it's already happening now: http://www.pspfanboy.com/2008/02/08/monster-hunter-2nd-g-has-installation-option/

One of the advantages of disc based (as in CD-DVD-BR) is that you can press them. But nowadays you see USB sticks pre-installed with software, so it seems the added cost of loading them with software is getting close to negligable.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101603)

So... SSD's won't become price competitive next year for they weren't last year?

Yeah. Right.

Btw, who actually cares about the size of Nintendo 64 cartridges in this day and age, really?

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101643)

If you want to bring up games you should also bring up the fact that the PSX generation was really the only generation to see any real benefit in cost by using discs. Game prices have already made their way back up to N64 costs. Just because you can save in one area doesn't mean another area won't bring the price back up.

The reason an N64 cart cost $20-$25 was the fact that Nintendo and their developers were the only ones using them and most games sold in small numbers. SSDs have the ability to potentially be in every laptop if not every computer and the product will have a longer life than the 5 or so years the N64 had.

Think about the cost of every computer component in the 80's and their cost now. Everything comes down.

In less than a year consumers have been offered SSD based computer with a small amount of memory like 4 to 10 gb all the way to 256gb. SSD will catch up to HDs.

I do think SSD will probably always be a bit more expensive but I think the cost will be close enough that decisions on which one to get will come down to performance and portability rather than cost.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101765)

Only the PSX? You realize that in PURE disk cost not counting actual game development SSD carts would STILL be as expensive or moreso than a PS3 disk?

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101913)

>>>Game prices have already made their way back up to N64 costs.

No prices have dropped. A $60 DVD in 2008 dollars is only $45 in 1996 dollars, so real cost to the consumer has come down by about fifteen bucks. ----- PLUS I challenge you to build a cartridge ROM that is 8500 megabytes and still only charge sixty dollars for it. It can't be done.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102105)

I'd be a little careful about the 80's comparison. In terms of manufacture costs, for many components looking at the same volumes the costs have actually gone up. What has happened is that the sales volumes have gone up so amazingly that methods and practices which were unthinkable in the 80s are employed today.

The costs in the 1980s would have been a lot lower if the industry were gearing up for computers in hundreds of millions of households and workplaces that needed to be flipped every 4 years or so.

Re:I think SSD will take off (5, Informative)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101653)

300 GB disk drive - I spent $90.

256 GB solid state - $7,426 to $9,125 online

Ouch.

This is why Nintendo 64 and Nintendo DS cartridges never grew larger than 0.3 gigabytes, and why for the Cube and Wii they abandoned the solid state cartridge in favor of discs.

Nintendo cartridges were ROM chips. I don't think they have much relation to SSDs.
--
  Find your ip address [ipfinding.com]

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101925)

ROM, Flash, Solid State..... it's all still integrated circuitry and more-complicated to build than pressing a disc. Complication drives up manufacturing cost which is why discs will always be cheaper than ICs.

(Yes I stand behind that statement.)

Re:I think SSD will take off (5, Informative)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101817)

256 GB solid state - $7,426 to $9,125 online

When were you looking? I do not dispute that SSDs cost more than regular HDDs, but your quoted prices are way too high. For instance, the OCZ 250GB SSD [newegg.com] costs US$699 (less than a tenth of your lowest price)

Re:I think SSD will take off (1, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101949)

When? About 1 minute prior to posting my message I did a search for costs. I'm glad to see there's now a $700 option, but that's still about ten times more expensive than the $90 disk drive I bought last year.

Nowadays I can buy a 1000 gigabyte disk drive for around $250. Can I buy a flash solid-state drive for the same cost? No.

Re:I think SSD will take off (3, Insightful)

Netsplitter (983360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102171)

It's not all about the cost per byte. A lot of people are willing to pay that sort of money for the benefits. People already spend big on RAID and fast disks because they need the performance. Others probably want silence and battery life, or resistance to bumps and other movements, and (probably, not sure) lower or more predictable failure rates. Whatever the reason, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will buy them. $700 is "affordable" even though it's a lot of money. And once these early adopters buy them, they will be cheaper and better for us the next year.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102183)

Nowadays I can buy a 1000 gigabyte disk drive for around $250.

Where the fuck are you getting your prices? A 1TB drive (Samsung or WD) costs less than half that.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102213)

Nowadays I can buy a 1000 gigabyte disk drive for around $250

Its much better prices than that. For example, for a 1000 gigabyte disk, e.g. Seagate ST31000340AS 1TB Barracuda Sata 7200 Rpm 32MB Cache 8.5MS Hard Drive

Amazon $109.99
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000UC3CN0/ref=nosim/ [amazon.com]

Dell $128.99
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A1307909&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=30322&lid=680413 [dell.com]

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

Valtor (34080) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102033)

It's not even a question of cost. It's a question of performance, especially multi-tasking performance. As soon as the cost of SSD is 4 times that of HD or lower for the same space, it will take over for much of us.

You can still have a 1.5 TB HD for slow storage and an SSD for the OS and the soft.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102239)

I don't push my computer real hard, but I am probably above the 50th percentile when you start dealing with all the people who use their computers for browsing and card games, and with 2 gigabytes of ram (that's $30 these days), the disk doesn't enter into task switching performance. I wait for things to load into memory now and then, but a big chunk of that wait is because I am too paranoid to turn off my antivirus software.

-1, Disingenuous (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101829)

How many people need (or even have) 250GB+ in their laptops?!

In capacities from 30-60gb there is overlap in price ranges between SSD and HDD. Below that you can't get an HD drive, but SSD drives are available. SSD pricing has nowhere to go but down. HDD can drop relative prices, but only by adding more and more GB relative to your dollar.

That will keep HDDs alive for awhile in higher capacity drives, but the low low end is already ruled by SSDs (4GB, 8GB, etc as only options for netbooks). As time goes on SSD will move up from there, out-competing larger and larger capacity HDD until "boom" - they are produced more cheaply per GB regardless of total capacity.

I think that "boom" mark is sometime in 2010, but certainly the GP's point about laptops stands. Unless you are the rare person who needs a large capacity laptop drive, there is no reason not to have an SSD in your laptop now.

Re:I think SSD will take off (4, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101885)

300 GB disk drive - I spent $90.

256 GB solid state - $7,426 to $9,125 online

That's unfair for two reasons:

-hard drives grew like crazy earlier this decade, but that growth has dramatically slowed lately, with 750GB being the largest in 2006, 1TB early in 2007, and 1.5 late in 2008

-looking up 256GB solid state disks now is like looking for 2TB regular drives, if you find any, they'll be crazy expensive as they aren't mass produced yet

-that said, on pricewatch, a 64GB and 128GB ssd is going for $136 and $328 respectively. Not so bad, eh? I suspect SSDs will take over within 5 years on notebooks and spinning platters will become more as a archive

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101989)

Slow??? In 1986 I wanted to buy a 20 megabyte drive (but being a teen, lacked funds). In 2006 I could have bought 750,000 megabytes. That's a growth rate of about 35 gig per year.

You say in 2008 we can get 1500 gigabytes, so that's a growth rate of 250 gig per year. From 35 gig average to 250 gig average. I call that a "speed up" not a slowdown.

>>>a 64GB and 128GB ssd is going for $136 and $328

I still wouldn't buy them. $136 would buy me a nice 500 gig disk drive, and $328 is about how much a 1000 gig disk drive costs.

Re:I think SSD will take off (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102135)

You want to think about this exponentially not linearly. Take logs and look at the trends.

Re:I think SSD will take off (3, Informative)

daoine_sidhe (619572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101941)

You're missing the point. I don't need (or even really want) 250+ GB in my notebook. I'm running an Asus EEE 900A these days. I replaced the internal 4GB mini PCI-E SSD with a 16GB drive manufactured by a company called runcore for about ~$70 shipped. Even this is expense I wouldn't have bothered with except that 4GB is a little too slim, even for me. If I need hundreds of GB of storage, I use a 2.5" USB or my desktop beast at home or at the office.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102113)

As we moved from: 14" -> 8" -> 5 1/4" -> 3 1/2" -> 2 1/2...
has been a long series of slower hard drives with much larger cost per byte replacing its predecessor.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101555)

There is no reason to not to have an SSD in your laptop.

Vista.

Re:I think SSD will take off (5, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101597)

There's no reason to have Vista on any computer.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

davepermen (998198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101717)

Actually, Vista IS a reason to get an SSD. It performs much much better. I have an HP 2710p tablet pc, with core2duo at 1.2ghz and a 4200rpm hdd in. Now that I have the 32gb SSD from MTron in instead, the system is much faster. Full cold boot around 40sec, Firefox from 1min (!!) down to 2sec, everything everytime snappy. SSD + Vista == awesome performing systems. Ram, CPU, gpu, all doesn't really matter. And i think the impact is similar (if not as dramatic) in all OSs. Don't look at it as a storage purchase. Look at it as a performance enhancement purchase. Like a new cpu, or gpu, or more ram. SSD have a much bigger impact on the system snappiness and performance, thus worth paying a bit more.

yes, but still there is no reason to use Vista (3, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101749)

It will be phased out (by Windows 7 or something similar) before XP will be phased out, so why bother.

Re:yes, but still there is no reason to use Vista (-1, Offtopic)

davepermen (998198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101771)

Because I have it, and it's much better than XP. I know, posting that on slashdot is suicide. But it's still true.

Re:I think SSD will take off (4, Interesting)

shirai (42309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101685)

Using an SSD in a desktop is an affordable fantastic upgrade if you configure it like this:

* A small 32 GB SSD as your main drive for software
* A larger (perhaps terabyte) hard drive as your data drive
* Configure My Documents (or your home directory) to the terabyte drive.

I found a good performing MOBI SSD driving for $220 for 32 GB. My computer boots in 30 seconds from power on. Everything is snappier and starts faster (especially Eclipse) and as a bonus, my data drive is nice and clean.

As a bonus, OS reinstalls can be done without affecting any of your data because it sits on a separate drive. This wasn't the intended reason for splitting the data but it has a nice organizational side effect.

Actually, I've only used around 14 GB of space on my SSD but I wanted at least 32 GB so I didn't have to worry about it.

One thing I did notice though was that writes were slower. The specs on the drive didn't show that to be the case but for some reason my database writes happened at half the speed during my test units. Random reads on the other hand (e.g. bootup and software loading) happen incredibly fast. For this reason, the split between installed software and data makes even more sense since loading software is made mostly of random reads and no writes.

Will we see the return of Stacker? (5, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101919)

In the mid 1990s 'disk doubler' programs were popular, compressing data on the fly as it was saved to disk. After a few years, however, disk sizes increased sharply and the relationship between price and disk size is much steeper than linear (a 1Gibyte disk does not cost twice as much as a 500Gibyte disk). So hardly anyone bothers with dynamic compression any more. It is much easier to spend $40 more and get a drive that's twice as big.

However, with SSDs, even when the price falls, there is still an almost linear relationship between capacity and cost (since to get twice the capacity you need twice as many flash memory chips). And while the transfer speed is fast, it's still not keeping pace with the increase in CPU speeds. Compressing on-disk data with a fast compression scheme such as LZO is often faster than reading or writing to disk uncompressed. With SSDs you need much less complexity in the filesystem to get good performance, since minimizing seek time is no longer as important. Perhaps, then, adding file compression can be done more straightforwardly than the earlier compressed filesystems designed for rotating disks.

It won't do anything for your movie collection, but for virtual machine images and other bloat we put on our disks nowadays it could make quite a difference.

Re:Will we see the return of Stacker? (5, Informative)

gabebear (251933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101991)

Disk doublers were much more effective in the 1990s because a lower percentage of the data was already compressed. Disk doublers will do little but add overhead if you are storing movies, music, and pictures. Even some executable code is stored with compression now (JARs come to mind).

Re:Will we see the return of Stacker? (2, Informative)

Briareos (21163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102021)

Disk doublers were much more effective in the 1990s because a lower percentage of the data was already compressed.

Not to mention that all modern OSes can do file system compression by themselves nowadays...

np: Surf City - Canned Food (Surf City)

Re:Will we see the return of Stacker? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102221)

Not to mention that all modern OSes can do file system compression by themselves nowadays...

What definition of "modern OS" are you using ?

Windows can, Solaris can, FreeBSD is a maybe.

OS X cannot. Linux cannot (at least not with any of its mainstream filesystems).

Re:Will we see the return of Stacker? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102009)

In the mid 1990s 'disk doubler' programs were popular, compressing data on the fly as it was saved to disk. After a few years, however, disk sizes increased sharply and the relationship between price and disk size is much steeper than linear (a 1Gibyte disk does not cost twice as much as a 500Gibyte disk). So hardly anyone bothers with dynamic compression any more. It is much easier to spend $40 more and get a drive that's twice as big.

What's really stopping on disk compression is the fact that the big files on a consumer's hard drive are already heavily compressed. Tons of h.264, divx, mpeg, jpeg, mp3, AAC and so on that can't be compressed any more. In my home directory, about four percent of all storage is used for files that are not music, videos or photos and might be compressible.

Stacker? NTFS COMPRESSION DOES THE JOB! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102013)

I use Windows' native NTFS compression on an SSD, & it works out just fine, for how I use SSD's & what for, in both HOME usage & CORPORATE ENVIRONS...

(Especially for logging, webpage caching, + %temp% ops occurring on the SSD type I use (a good one for performance on READ & WRITE I/O, not just reads (like Flash is best @ but, poorer on WRITES)):

Via the CENATEK "RocketDrive" PCI 2.2 133mb/sec bus, 4gb of PC-133 SDRAM!

----

FOR "END-USER" TYPE USE PATTERNS ON FILES THAT ARE BOTH OF READ/WRITE NATURE & CONSTANTLY ONGOING TASKS:

1gb Partition #1 = pagefile.sys placement...

1gb Partition #2 has folders on it for:

1.) %temp% & %tmp% ops to take place on it, via the environment "in memory .ini file" every app gets
2.) Webbrowser caches
3.) Logging by the OS (event logs, easily moveable via registry edits/reg file merges) + apps' logs

----

Does it make a diff., even for "end-user use patterns" of that nature?

Sure, those things which go on, ALL THE TIME mind you, of BOTH read/write nature no less (where FLASH based SSD's take a beating is writes, wear levelling notwithstanding, that's just for longevity more than performance) get F A S T E R... access/seek is MILES above std. mechanical HDD's alone!

Yes - you notice it.

Large & noticeable improvements to overall system performance results, by your std. mechanical HDD's even, in them NOT being burdened w/ constant ongoing head movements that impede program + data loads mind you (that are incurred from paging, logging, & temporary operations by the OS & apps!)

(Also, a SMALLER, but, "long-term" performance gain results, too (not huge, but present nevertheless), of less fragmentation on your main OS & Programs bearing HDD(1000x slower than SSD) from fragmentation webpage caches, logs, & paging files cause in themselves AND other files)...

Fast on my type of system for that kind of data (most of which I could care less if I lose or not mind you, even though it has a UPS backing it), because it's smallish files I move for webpage caching & SSD's are good for this, but also pagefiles, & %temp% ops, all of which are READ/WRITE I-O... because I don't use a FLASH based SSD (weaker on writes typically/historically @ least).

Especially on a rig like mine, w/ only 512mb DDR-400 RAM, now running Windows Server 2003 SP#2 as a workstation (default install), tuned & trimmed "to-the-max" has been running setup like that since 2003, solid as a rock stable, & fast.

(Thus - I use SSD's to speed-up the SLOWEST part of any system - it's HDDs!)

Bottom-line here? Well:

WANT MORE SPEED? SPEED UP THE SLOWEST THING ANY PC CONTENDS WITH - DISKBOUND I/O.."

----

FOR COMMERCIAL/ENTERPRISE-CLASS/MULTIUSER/TRANSACTION-BASED ENVIRONS (take your pick)??

Take a read:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/9312/7 [techreport.com] [techreport.com]

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

"Wow. Seriously.

The i-RAM is in another league in IOMeter, offering transaction rates that are an order of magnitude higher than its closest competition. It doesn't take long for the i-RAM to get revved up, either. The card hits its peak transaction rate with just two simultaneous I/O requests."

APK

P.S.=> Nuff said... apk

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101931)

My computer boots in 30 seconds from power on.

And that's good? It sounds terrible to me. Computers booted in thirty seconds fifteen years ago. By now it should be almost instant. How long did it take before the SSD?

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102311)

Meh. We're starting *much* more software now than we were fifteen years ago, boss. (Not that most folks are doing anything with that software...)

It'd be a better comparison if we were asking how long it took a mainframe from fifteen years ago to boot up.

30 sec boot time is fast? (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102215)

My Mac Pro cold boots in 20 sec on a 7200 RPM hard drive. So I would expect that to go down to less than 10 seconds on really fast SSD.

Re:I think SSD will take off (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102297)

Try using 10,000 or 15,000 rpm drives.

My old XP editing station boots in 17 seconds. My OSX editor boots in 8 (Although the 15,000 rpm SATA drives are expensive as hell, it makes that old G5 faster than hell)

When SSD can touch the speeds of the 10,000 and 15,000 RPM drives.... I'll pay attention.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

karstux (681641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101703)

I'd love to have two small, fast SSDs in my desktop in a RAID-0 as a system volume. That should noticeably reduce boot and program startup times.

As soon as they are not outrageously expensive any more, I'll buy a few...

Re:I think SSD will take off (3, Funny)

Cally (10873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101837)

Personally I think 2009's going to be the year of the Linux desktop. Seriously.

Re:I think SSD will take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101953)

+5 Interesting? Really? Mods, seppuku is your only honorable option at this point.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101977)

A 500 GB hard drive that fits into a MacBook can be had for less than £100. For me, the most important thing is storage capacity. If copying takes time, there is a cheap workaround: Waiting. If copying takes space that isn't there, there is no workaround.

So for me, SSD would have to offer about 500 GB at not more than maybe £160-£170 today to be anywhere near competitive. I don't think it will be competitive in 2009.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

popo (107611) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102119)

Speed is the issue here. There will never be a hard drive (especially a laptop hd) which comes close to the speed of a SSD.

I'm not sure why people feel this is an exclusive choice though. Hybrid systems consisting of both hd's and ssd's could be what we see first.

Maybe the OS lives on the ssd, etc.

Re:I think SSD will take off (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102273)

Really? I use laptops in the field to collect 80-200 gigabytes of data at a fast streaming rate.

Ok I'm using them for HD video capture. Along with the Camera I have the firewire patched in and I am doing a secondary capture to the laptop plus using it at a field monitor/scope to make stationary point recordings perfect.

SSD would be a mistake for my use. SSD's are a long way away from meeting the speeds of 7200 rpm drives when writing sustained long data transfers.

So there IS a reason to not have it in my laptop. It would make my laptop useless for my task, and tens of thousands of other Video pros do the same thing, so it would be useless for them as well.

SSDs are great for clumsy fools (5, Insightful)

size8 (1067704) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101487)

I own an Asus Eee PC, which has a 4GB SSD. I take it with me everywhere and, being a butter-fingered oaf, I tend to drop it everywhere too. If the Eee had a conventional HDD I'm sure it would have given up the ghost long ago. But the Eee bounces along quite happily with no damage to the SSD. Solid state is great, especially for children and folk like me!

Self-fulfilling prophecy (-1, Troll)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101519)

I wonder what effect it would have on McDonalds to say to everyone in the US, "Is 2009 finally the year people stop stuffing themselves with fattening poison?"

Re:Self-fulfilling prophecy (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101799)

I wonder what effect it would have on McDonalds to say to everyone in the US, "Is 2009 finally the year people stop stuffing themselves with fattening poison?"

I doubt it would have any effect unless you made it explicit what the fattening poison was.

When it happens, it'll be quick (5, Insightful)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101527)

Just like the iPods suddenly being introduced as solid state units, things for SSD's will soon pass the threshold where it's suddenly viable for everyone. Only Samsung knows exactly when, but it seems clear that in the next six to eighteen months widespread SSD availability will trickle down from elite systems to mid-range.

Not this year either (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101529)

No no no, people have too big an investment in Windows to switch over to Linu.... what? SSD? Sorry, carry on...

Wrong question (4, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101537)

The question should be "is this the year that SSDs will be price competitive with hard drives?" Until that day comes, SSDs will only sell in small quantities.

Re:Wrong question (4, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101577)

You are thinking to monolithical.

There are two aspects to consider:

A) Most computers dont need a lot of storage. At least compared to that fact that the smallest HDs now would be 160Gbyte (only one side of one platter used). There is just no way to reduce costs with HD beyond that point, you always get a 20-30$ minimum. While with SSDs, you can scale down very far (a $5 drive would not be impossible).

B) Tiered Storage will be the future, imho. There is just too much a discripancy between the storage needed for media and for OS/Programms/etc. While i cannot see the first going SSD anytime soon, the latter is already well within reach, if you sensibly seperate.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101627)

There is just no way to reduce costs with HD beyond that point

Well, you can split them and boot machines over PXE/iSCSI and/or virtualize. I'll admit tho, if I hadn't taken the pain to learn and setup such an environment several years ago, today I would most likely have chosen to implement flash based systems for simplicity.

Tiered Storage will be the future, imho.

I'd love to see a block-based HSM device-mapper layer. Keep copies of frequently accessed blocks in flash, and migrate stuff in and out as needed.

Re:Wrong question (3, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101761)

I'd love to see a block-based HSM device-mapper layer. Keep copies of frequently accessed blocks in flash, and migrate stuff in and out as needed.

ZFS will do that quite nicely.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101979)

Interesting, but it looks like it's implemented mostly as a read cache, similar to ReadyBoost. Not quite as flexible as a genuine block level HSM that could be stacked and layered over multiple device types in an extensible hierarchy.

Most people go for bigger numbers (4, Insightful)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101759)

When comparing two computers, consumers go for the one with best numbers most of the time. They have no clue what harddrive throughput is, and even less clue about seek time. Capitalism provides the goods that sell, not the best-engineered goods (unless they sell better.. )

I bet the worldwide consumerist harddisk space utilization is about 15%, but most people don't realize this. Unless people have magically wised up, we won't see widespread SSD in laptops until they catch up pricewise.

Re:define price competitive (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101623)

If by "price competitive" you mean "equal $/GB," that day is far off. But if you mean "reasonable size and comparable write speed for less than $200," then that day will come in 2009 or 2010 for a lot of people, since many of us can get by fine with only 128GB.

I need quantity not speed/power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101633)

While I respect that some people need speed (not as many as they think) and many more need the power savings that come from SSDs, many others are more concerned with storage space.

All those TiVos and media players need a lot of storage space.
Or if you're like me, a librarian at heart, who wants to acquire data, nicely label it, and store it away for future use and preservation (really am a data pack rat).
One of the main reasons Blu-Ray isn't as widely pirated as DVD, is the massive amount of space it takes, both in storage and in transmission.

While I see SSDs being used in high end data centers (were money is little object) and laptops (where battery is key), I think that they are going to be backed up or supplemented by some type of home server.
Especially now that Hamachi allows me access to my home server where ever I go (with a connection). Although, it is slow enough that my most used files are synched as "offline files".

Re:I need quantity not speed/power (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102189)

Speed, heat and power consumption are nifty talking points for those hyping SSDs, but SSDs aren't always very fast, and for the most part, the heat and power consumption savings are usually less significant than people assume.

I think Amdahl had a rule where you try to apply your resources to reduce the most significant piece of the puzzle, and in most notebooks, that's the CPU. Conventional notebook computers have a max consumption of 25-35W, notebook hard drives max out at about 3W. Even if SSDs were zero, your battery life in that situation might extend by 9%, not factoring in other parts of the computer, maybe reducing that figure to 6%. But SSDs do consume power, the charts I looked at was 30-40% savings, so a 3% savings might be a generous estimate. Things are a different with netbooks, because they usually do use much lower power CPUs.

Re:Wrong question (1)

beh (4759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101663)

Agreed - especially given the current economic climate, the price issue will be an even bigger factor than normal... All those people who don't know whether their jobs will still be there at the end of 2009 won't be too likely to spend an extra US$100 or more on something like a smaller SSD over a larger harddrive...

So, the question is:

Will 2009 Be the Turning Point For SSDs -- or will we, 12 months from now, see the new post 'Will 2010 Be the Turning Point For SSDs?'...? ;-)

Limited writes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101581)

What would bother me more than the high price is the limited number of writes.
Sure, there are ways to limit writes to the disk, like disable swapping and delaying writes whenever possible, but I would still rather go with a reliable HDD over a SDD.
I never dropped one of my notebooks until today, but then again I never had one that looked like a toy...

Re:Limited writes (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101601)

Actually, HDDs also have limited writes.

Re:Limited writes (1)

Elledan (582730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101647)

Actually, HDDs also have limited writes.

Oh sure, but when one type of media wears out after 6 months of 24/7 writes and the other still keeps happily writing along after 5-10 years of 24/7 writes, I'll go with the latter, thank you very much.

Re:Limited writes (5, Insightful)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101751)

I prefer reliability.
With good wear-leveling algorithms, the life expectancy of an SSD is comparable or even higher than a standard magnetic HD. The area for wear leveling increases as the HD gets larger as the relative part of the HD that is constantly written gets smaller and more areas are only read. If an area is "close to death", the algorithm can move these less written files there and use their less used areas for files which are written more.

The SSD knows when one of its cells is about to go bad and can mark it unusable. Compare that to a random bit dying on your HD and the only way to know is through a scandisk of sorts.

Sure SSDs might have a life expectancy of 10 years, but by that time the only thing you'd want to do with it is copy its contents to your 64TB SSD and throw it away.

Re:Limited writes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102091)

Failure mode is at least as important to me as mean time to failure. When flash memory fails, you can still read the contents. When a hard drive fails you cannot.

Re:Limited writes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102209)

It's good that you bring that on, because it also illustrates a security problem: You can not wipe your drive anymore... All your data will be readable by anyone.

Re:Limited writes (1)

neonux (1000992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102277)

You can not wipe your drive anymore... All your data will be readable by anyone.

Yeah! Especially by these old people in South Korea!

that myth needs to die already (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101659)

it's not a problem anymore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling

Re:that myth needs to die already (2, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101777)

Actually it's not a problem if you use SLC chips. This paper works out the life with wear levelling at 51 years

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html [storagesearch.com]

Cheap MLC disks don't have a long lifespan if you write to them flat out. Using the same formula the same guy works out a lifetime of 6 months for an MLC disk.

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-slc-mlc-notes.html [storagesearch.com]

What happened to Fusion-IO ? (1)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101611)

http://www.fusionio.com/ [fusionio.com] - why are we not hearing so much of them any more, or is there some other reason why nobody seems to mention them?

Re:What happened to Fusion-IO ? (1)

Gorgonzolanoid (1394311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101721)

I think $30 per GB is why nobody mentions them.
With a starting price of $2400 per card, I don't extect to find them on desktops any time soon.

Ok, those figures are a year old - they may have dropped a bit since, I don't know.
This is where I got them (the numbers, not the iodrive ;):
http://www.gadgettastic.com/2007/10/05/fusion-io-launches-the-iodrive-640gb-pcie-hard-drive/ [gadgettastic.com]
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/28/more-info-on-fusions-iodrive-the-pcie-card-with-massive-flash/ [engadget.com]

Re:What happened to Fusion-IO ? (1)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102245)

It got recently benchmarked [tweaktown.com], quite unusually as they put it on a "general purpose computing review site".

And there's obviously a market for such devices since Intel/Micron are trying to compete with them.

Offtopic but related: SSD HD Cache driver (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26101683)

I'm looking for a SSD cache driver for windows. I would like to have a hd-driver for vista which uses another harddisc (SSD) as a cache for other (spinning) harddiscs. My working set (including the OS) is probably below 32GByte, so a fast 64GByte SSD driver should be enough for general use. As I still have a lot of data (around 1TBype) which is only occasioaly used, a caching driver which usses a SSD would be the ideal solution.

Does anybody know such a software(driver)? I'm willing to pay, no need for open source...

Re:Offtopic but related: SSD HD Cache driver (2, Informative)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101723)

I would like to have a hd-driver for vista which uses another harddisc (SSD) as a cache for other (spinning) harddiscs.

If only something like that came with the OS [microsoft.com] that would be so convenient.

Re:Offtopic but related: SSD HD Cache driver (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102321)

Why??

RAM is far faster. simply pump your system up to 4-16 Gigs of ram and call it done. Why do you want a kludge like a second drive?

SSDs still don't cut it (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26101951)

Last I saw a performance and power consumption test, SSDs did no better than mechanical HDs. Seek performance was much better, read performance not so much, and write performance was much worse, resulting in equivalent real-life desktop performance, at a much higher price.

A smart OS might be able to optimally split files between a SSD and a HD depending on usage patterns. I'm still waiting for a smart OS though, and somewhat object to an OS that has to span 2 partitions.

As for setting up your OS on a separate partition... about time you did it. It does not even require distinct physical HDs. I personally have been doing it since Win98 days, if not before.

Doesn't Solve Problems (4, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102127)

When the helical fluorescent tubes that screw into regular lamp sockets came out, they were a flop. They cost $15 to $20. Despite being longer lasting than the equivalent dollar amount of incandescent bulbs, people didn't see them as a significant improvement. In one study group, a subject gave a remark that summed up their reticence: "This solves a problem I don't have."

So it is with SSD. It'll have to be enough cheaper than magentic storage and appear to be long lived enough so that people can overcome their unwillingness to switch from something that works just fine. Specs don't matter to the average user. Not getting stuck with an orphan matters far more. That point remains unproven. Thus SSDs do not solve a problem, but present one of their own. If and when both of these change, they'll be accepted.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102319)

More likely to be the year of the 1.5TB disk. With capacities so large and prices so cheap there's no reason not to have a huge disk to replace all those 80Gb and 120Gb external drives you have - for your downloaded videos and mp3, of course.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...