Beta
×

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!

Why Aren't SSD Prices Going Down?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the more-is-more dept.

Data Storage 249

Lucas123 writes "NAND flash memory makers took an economic beating from 2007 through the first quarter of 2009 due to supply outstripping demand. During that time, solid state drives dropped in price 60% year over year. But after the economic meltdown, fabricators pulled back on production and investment in new facilities and the price of SSDs have remained flat or increased over the past year, and that is not expected to change until 2011. Until that time, SSDs remain 10x more expensive than hard disk drives. SSD vendors, however, are using a few tricks to get sales up, including selling lower-capacity boot drives that hit a sweet spot in the techie/gamer market."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897918)

It's going to be really really hard to convince me that Asian electronics manufacturers aren't engaged in price fixing [slashdot.org] en masse against the rest of the world whenever a technology cost remains unnaturally high. Hell, after realizing how many times I was the victim of it with LCDs I pretty much expect it.

I mean, really, I feel like a moron for ever knowing that they allowed price fixing -- even promoted it [asiabizblog.com] -- inside their borders and then believing that stopped at the rim of the continent. Right now the only question is how many markets is this happening in [businessweek.com] ? They're obviously very good about it, little chance the regulators in other countries will catch it let alone the easily bribed authorities isntalled there.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897952)

I think their not going down since most people aren't that interested.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898312)

The practice of price fixing isn't limited to Asia. For example, how is that any different form oil prices being maintained at artificial levels?

Are SSDs cool? Sure. Are they a necessity? Absolutely not.

If you are unhappy about a company's (or a region's) business practices, then buy elsewhere or use a different technology.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898176)

It's going to be really really hard to convince me that Asian electronics manufacturers aren't engaged in price fixing en masse against the rest of the world whenever a technology cost remains unnaturally high. Hell, after realizing how many times I was the victim of it with LCDs I pretty much expect it.

The /. title is "Why Aren't SSD Prices Going Down?" and the summary quickly provides and answer with "But after the economic meltdown, fabricators pulled back on production and investment in new facilities".

There's a difference between price collusion in a mature market like LCDs versus a lack of capacity in a new market like SSDs.

But congrats on your semi-paranoid stance.
Why look at facts when you can just say "I'll never trust again".

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (3, Insightful)

d'fim (132296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898452)

Why look at facts when you can just say "I'll never trust again".

Why not both?
Historical facts tend to be more accurate than "gee I hope so" facts.
The past can be a useful tool, because that's where all of the experience is.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (3, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898482)

The old motto is "Trust but verify".

I use "Don't trust, verify, then trust."

Works pretty well for me.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898918)

Oh, it's even worse than that. If Newegg prices are a reasonable reflection of the market, Intel SSDs have fallen by quite a bit since October of last year:

http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16820167024 [camelegg.com]

So apparently the real problem is that SSD prices aren't falling fast enough.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899384)

But congrats on your semi-paranoid stance.

"In related new, tinfoil futures are trading up sharply today due to increased demand by hat makers."

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899420)

There's a difference between price collusion in a mature market like LCDs versus a lack of capacity in a new market like SSDs.

Perhaps you misspoke, perhaps I misunderstood, but doesn't forcing prices down by conspiring to "pull[ed] back on production and investment in new facilities" look very, very similar to merely fixing the prices in a mature market?

They have the capacity, but would rather make more per unit. So they make fewer units to push the supply/demand curve back into more favorable territory. Collusion by any other name would smell as sweet.


Why look at facts when you can just say "I'll never trust again".

You quoted the single most damning part of TFA! The facts in this case explicitly say that they could make more and bring prices crashing down, but have agreed not to solely to keep prices high. I trust, alright - Trust that the semiconductor industry rivals the RIAA in dirty underhanded tricks designed to maximally screw their customers (and even each other, when any one player momentarily gains enough of an upper hand to get away with it) in the name of profit. occasion) for the sake of profit

you're a filthy nigger (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899690)

go eat a bowl of hot dicks

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (3, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898200)

Intel's SSDs are made in the USA with Micron....

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (3, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898272)

I mean, really, I feel like a moron for ever knowing that they allowed price fixing -- even promoted it -- inside their borders and then believing that stopped at the rim of the continent. Right now the only question is how many markets is this happening in?

Yeah! We need them to stop artificially raising prices through fixing so we can artificially raise them through tariffs [nytimes.com] !

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898336)

your view is quote narrow here. How did you not realize they're doing it with non-SSD hard drives as well? They've been almost the same price for more than 2 years. It's 100% price fixing all around. Yes, densities are getting higher, yes its harder to make, but all these things actually drive the cost down. Meanwhile, 2 years ago? $70/TB. Today? $70/TB. That is no accident.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899984)

How did you not realize they're doing it with non-SSD hard drives as well? They've been almost the same price for more than 2 years. It's 100% price fixing all around.

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but I seriously have to wonder if mere (lack of) market pressure has kept HDD prices from falling over the past year or two.

As you point out, you can get a 1TB drive for $70. A terabyte. At the risk of pulling a "640k", very few typical users would even know how to begin filling 1TB. You have a few academic and corporate users who need that much (or much, much more), but they tend to have far larger budgets and buy more based on superstition than reality; case in point, SCSI still exists and commands a premium - Meanwhile, my home fileserver has 6x the (raw) capacity, gives better performance, and has more redundancy (fully mirrored with live daily snapshots, rather than RAID5 with "backups" in the form of crappy ol' tapes that took all night to create and literally failed about a third of the times we tried to recover something from them), than my last employer's NAS - For about a quarter of the total price. On the other end of the demand curve, you have home users, who have exactly one use for such high-capacity drives - Storing media files (I won't get into the issue of a legit home media server vs piracy). Personally, I own a LOT of CDs (in the thousands), rip them losslessly, and they still weigh in at under half a terabyte. Even ripping entire DVDs, you can fit 100-200 per terabyte.

Compare that with SSDs... Yes, SSDs have some serious advantages (and a few disadvantages) over HDDs. But the average user really does feel the pinch of the affordable sizes (32MB for under $100), and can't afford to blow two grand on a terabyte.

So, personally I don't see so much demand for larger cheap HDDs as to put pressure on manufacturers to lower the prices. At the same time, everyone would love to see larger, cheaper SSDs, so seeing the prices go up as the manufacturers deliberately cut capacity... that I'll call unkosher.

Chinese, but others? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898396)

The links talk about China and Japan respectively. But then there is Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Costa Rica, and I'm sure there are other countries where chip making is occurring. I really don't think the price fixing is that wide spread and even if it is, for the sake of argument, it cannot last. OPEC has tried for decades and always someone cheats - and I do mean always.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (4, Insightful)

Smauler (915644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898974)

Or it could be that _everyone_ wants solid state devices now, and they're difficult to manufacture en mass quickly? There's no need for a global conspiracy theory here, it's just boring old supply and demand.

Note that supply and demand looks a lot like collusion in many cases - When the demand rises, all suppliers automatically will increase prices at about the same time to reflect the market. The best answer is to wait until the product gets cheap, which _will_ happen soon(ish).

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (2, Insightful)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899516)

More like everyone wants a 2nd gen SSD, and distributors and retailers want to unload their stock of garbage-ass 1st gen drives. I know what MSRP is on some of these drives, and I can only come to the conclusion that retailers are trying to get consumers to pay for 1st gen shit that will never, EVER sell. Not me. I already paid the early adopter tax ($400 for 16GB), and got burned (drive controller chip has no cache, causing stuttering). A lot of people paid the early adopter tax, and got fucking burned. I'll be waiting for 2nd(or higher) gen drives with 80+GB for $100.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899470)

While I'm sure the geek here at /. will probably have their jaws drop at me saying this, I think there is an even simpler explanation, although price fixing may be adding to the equation. The simple reason is this....most folks don't want them, period.

While the geeks and gamers are probably having heart attacks at saying this, the simple fact is most PCs have gone waaaaay past good enough several years back, and for most have reached ludicrous speed. I offer SSDs as an option on my new builds, and even after explaining the speed benefits don't have any takers, why? Because folks want bigger more than they want faster, that's why. And frankly with 2 Windows 7 PCs sitting here the difference in wake from sleep between SSD and HDDs isn't enough to worry about. My own Windows 7 PC at home wakes from sleep in about 8 seconds from cold to desktop, how much faster do you want?

So I would say it is simply the fact that machines are crazy fast now, and with adequate RAM there simply isn't a need for SSDs unless your a gamer wanting the biggest ePeen. The smallest build I sell ATM is an AMD dual with 3Gb of RAM and Windows 7, and my customers just rave about how fast it is. For the same price as a 32Gb SSD they can get over a Tb of HDD space, and my customers would simply rather have bigger than faster. Plus with Windows 7 all you need is a fast 4-8Gb flash drive for Readyboost and you gain a lot of the SSD speed benefits without the SSD prices, at least in my experience. With games easily coming in at 5-7Gb a piece installed you really need at least 64Gb to see the benefits of SSD anyway.

So I'd say the simple fact is SSD simply isn't needed on the desktop. Mobile is another story, with the non volatile nature of SSDs making them a good choice, but since most of my customers are simply doing the basics on their laptops (word processing, surfing) they really don't need anything bigger than the basic bottom of the line SSDs, which means there isn't the demand driving prices down. Even my hardcore gamer customer decided to go RAID 0 with a couple of Raptors rather than give up space for an SSD. Most folks would just rather have more than faster at this point IMHO.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (4, Informative)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899586)

I offer SSDs as an option on my new builds, and even after explaining the speed benefits don't have any takers, why? Because folks want bigger more than they want faster, that's why.

I do the same, and 90% of the time, they want SSD. You're not explaining it right.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (2, Insightful)

ZFox (860519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899826)

Possibly, ya'll are selling to different markets.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899872)

That's not how you're currently supposed to use an SSD for gaming...

The optimal way is to load the OS onto a small 16-32gb SSD and then keep the games on a hard drive or RAID Array. Keeping the games on an SSD is silly since the only thing it will effect is loading times.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (1)

ceswiedler (165311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899880)

You're right, most people have a hard time saturating the CPUs on their new computers. But they have a very easy time saturating a physical hard disk. I think that 90% of the time a person is waiting on a computer to do something, it's because the processor is waiting on IO (either reading from the filesystem or from the page file). Making IO faster is by far the best way to make a PC feel faster and more responsive.

Re:Price Fixing, Oligopoly, Collusion, Etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899866)

Econ 101 definition of oligopoly: A market in which a few large firms produces all of the output. Reasons for oligopolies existing include high price of entry and that a few firms is more efficient than many firms all producing the same part. Electronics firms resemble this classical definition, since fabs are relatively expensive and cost of the fab per item produced is much lower if the fab produces a ton of output.

(1) Under the monopoly outcome with collusion price stabilizes at the revenue-maximizing price. Higher or lower prices will tend to make overall total revenue of all oligopolists decrease.This is typically accomplished by the use of output quotas to restrict supply such that willingness to pay in a competitive market for purchase is the actual determination of price.

(2) This monopoly level will continue until one of the oligopolists realizes that if they overproduce the quota (i.e., cheat) they can make more money. The increased supply will drop the price. This will have a negative impact on the other members of the cartel.

(3) Other members of the cartel ramp up their production levels to get more revenue from the market. Stuff becomes chaotic, the cartel model is abandoned, and each firm starts acting as a price taker instead of a price maker. The market more closely resembles a competitive market than a monopoly.

In short, cartel behavior in an oligopoly is unsustainable, since at some point one of the firms will "go rogue" and sell for less in order to make more money. Eventually everyone will be selling more and making less money, but they will be doing so at a point where if they scale production up or down, they'll make less money and everyone else will make more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium)

Because... (4, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897976)

SSD cost is limited by the cost to refine and turn Silicon into Flash Memory.

The price will only go down as the process size goes down, currently at 32nm with Intel's Latest drives. Once it reaches 8nm or the like then the cost will truly be comparable to Hard Drives. Until then, don't expect a miracle.

Re:Because... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898016)

At 8nm NAND will be lucky to function properly. MLC will be impossible.

SSDs will reach hard disk prices eventually, but not quite so soon. Rotating media isn't going anywhere for the time being, simply due to the capacity and how cheaply it can be had.

Re:Because... (1)

Firkragg14 (992271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898372)

Especially since as we wait for SSD prices to drop and capacities to increase the size and price of rotating media is going to improve at the same time. The way i see it SSDs will eventually become what people use for their os and on portable devices and rotating drives will remain as large mass storage devices.

Re:Because... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898970)

To an extent. There are a lot of people who will never fill a 500 GB drive, so once 500 GB SSDs get to their 'reasonable', they won't use spinning media anymore.

Rotating media to stumble on 4kb sector migration (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899882)

SSDs will probably see a slight boost in the next year or two due to rotating hard disks finally getting around to migrating to 4kb sector sizes (which still poses compatibility and performance challenges for Windows XP, and even many Linux utilities aren't quite prepared yet)

2TB drives have just started to come out, which is actually the limit to the 512b sector sizes hard coded into many OSs for the past couple of decades. Here's a good explanation:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/why-new-hard-disks-might-not-be-much-fun-for-xp-users.ars/ [arstechnica.com]

So the SSD manufacturers could do well to advertise that people still running older systems may run into a fair amount of trouble upgrading to newer hard disks with 4kb sectors. Even in compatibility mode, they've found 3x-4x slowdowns in write performance if the file systems aren't aligned with the sectors just right. Makes the decision to upgrade with SSDs sound that much better if they can really increase their performance and not have to plop down a few hundred $$ and time on OS upgrades.

(yes, of course there are similar write performance gotchas with aligning file systems to the 128k SSD erase blocks, but those shouldn't bite quite as much)

Re:Because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898058)

Samsung has reached the 20nm mark for flash! Yippeee!

Re:Because... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898290)

I assume that the cost amortisation of the fab plants comes into it somewhat, and presumably other factors too (not least the 'whatever the market will bear' coefficient).

Of course, there is a finite manufacturing cost floor and when you hit that you're only going to improve by altering the technology, but I was under the impression that we're still a decent way off from that point.

Re:Because... (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898464)

A lot of the cost is the raw cost of the processed silicon wafers. Making the pure crystals and then slicing/cutting/polishing them to a workable state takes a lot of time.

Where the processing technology comes in is the ability to make more chips for a given wafer size.

Because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898894)

...I'm too lazy to come up with a real subject, like "Cost limited by silicon and Flash price". There, that wasn't so hard.

Re:Because... (0, Offtopic)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898930)

QQ

Re:Because... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898932)

The price will only go down as the process size goes down, currently at 32nm with Intel's Latest drives. Once it reaches 8nm or the like then the cost will truly be comparable to Hard Drives. Until then, don't expect a miracle.

Really, that's just re-stating the matter. According to Moore's law, the process size decreases like clockwork, like the sun rising in the east every morning, and end-user pricing decreases correspondingly. Well, it turns out the predictive value of a single-parameter model like Moore's law is pretty weak over the short term. Process size reductions don't just appear like manna from heaven. Market dynamics, including the "great recession" of the last couple years can and do get in the way of progress, even if there's no underlying physical barrier in the way (as we saw when clock speeds topped out).

Re:Because... (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899038)

even if there's no underlying physical barrier in the way (as we saw when clock speeds topped out).

Hrmm? There is indeed an underlying physical barrier, you know, the size of the atoms that make up the darn things. It can only get so small.

Moore's law has held up for the past few decades because we've been picking the low hanging fruit, it's going to be really hard to shrink the process size in the near future. Besides the fact that Moore's law states nothing on the processing technology and only on the fact that feature(transistor) count will double every 2 years.

Re:Because... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899112)

SSD cost is limited by the cost to refine and turn Silicon into Flash Memory.

The price will only go down as the process size goes down, currently at 32nm with Intel's Latest drives. Once it reaches 8nm or the like then the cost will truly be comparable to Hard Drives. Until then, don't expect a miracle.

I agree with this. Most of the price drops for SSDs was Flash memory suddenly going from 50 to 40 to 30nm as they quickly caught up with chip sizes. Now that SSDs are caught up with current fabrication processes, the prices will stagnate until a new better fabrication comes out.

There will obviously be price drops as the cost of initial investments are covered and when a slightly newer more competitive model comes out and they need to clear old-stock. But overall, they're like CPUs now. Expensive when they first come out, drop sharply shortly after and level out with a minor decline until the next big thing.

Re:Because... (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899156)

o'rlly? So, the cost of silicon is so astronomically high that a inch by inch wafer costs several hundred to manufacture. Only if we could get it down to a .1 inch by .1 inch our problems would be solved?

I sincerely doubt that the cost is proportional to the amount of silicon used. I'm sure the materials play a factor, but lets not kid ourselves here. And i'm also positive that retooling the fabs is a major cost that has to be recouped.

Re:Because... (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899414)

SSD cost is limited by the cost to refine and turn Silicon into Flash Memory.

Yeah, because turning that silicon into flash memory has nothing to do with tooling costs. That's the magical fairy step.

Yeah, why hasn't the price gone down? (3, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897990)

fabricators pulled back on production and investment in new facilities

Joseph Smith once said that a man with one wife was blessed, but a man with more than one was cursed. I guess he meant that as the supply goes down, the more profit can be realized per unit.

Joseph Smith and the diminishing value of wives (3, Funny)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898378)

Well, he'd know.

Re:Yeah, why hasn't the price gone down? (2)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898592)

I guess he meant that as the supply goes down, the more profit can be realized per unit.

Or maybe he just didn't count on m = (b + g - x) ^ n (where m= misery factor, b=bitching factor, g = carryoutthegarbage factor, x = (take a guess) and n = number of wives).

Re:Yeah, why hasn't the price gone down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899466)

That's a bad analogy, guy...

You answered your own question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898076)

There is a little tidbit about supply and demand in the middle of your own writeup.

Life isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898142)

Don't buy it if you think the prices are too high. If you think you can manufacture it in a less expensive manner, go for it. If you don't run a manufacturing business, quit whining about a manufacturer (or manufacturers) choose to run their businesses to keep their profit margins at a point that their investors are happy. That's capitalism folks.

Nuff said.

Give it time (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898152)

Give it time.. the $/GB price will go down.. SSDs are only a few years old and they are still working on achieving density comparable to spinning-disks, instead of focusing on cost reduction.

If you're in a tizzy because SSDs are expensive, then continue to use tried-and-true conventional disk until they meet your price point.

I'm sure there are other considerations.. prob some monopoly on NAND manufacturing or something.. but that'll eventually sort itself out and cost will go down. Not like you can open a new NAND fab overnight or anything.

Patents (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898284)

I'm sure there are other considerations.. prob some monopoly on NAND manufacturing or something.. but that'll eventually sort itself out

Monopolies tend to take 20 years to sort themselves out.

Re:Give it time (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898438)

and that is not expected to change until 2011.

But 2011 is so far away! OMG!

Maybe I'm getting old, but 2011 doesn't seem like an inordinate amount of time to wait. It's roughly 8-20 months to wait. While it's not going to enthuse those looking to upgrade this year, it's not like the world will end if SSDs don't take off in a month.

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898174)

So almost a month ago, there's a story [slashdot.org] about SSD prices dropping and how they hit a critical $100 point.

Now today, an article about how SSD prices aren't going down.

WTF? Did people expect them to drop to hard drive prices in less than 4 weeks?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899398)

It depends on what you mean by SSD prices dropping.

Some manufacturers introduced some drives below the $100 mark but they were very low capacity. So the minimum price of entry dropped by the cost per gigabyte stayed about the same.

They'll go down eventually (3, Insightful)

mr_flea (776124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898180)

They'll go down eventually if you give it time. SSDs are now just getting popular. Larger LCDs are finally affordable now, and how many years did that take? They just need more time to get the manufacturing procedure and the like down. I'm sure advances in SSD manufacturing will bring them down in price eventually. Just be patient.

Re:They'll go down eventually (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898586)

I think how long it will take is a valid question; the impact on the industry will be *huge* when these things become mainstream.

Part of the problem is that unlike LCDs, SSDs are hidden from view. Average Joe doesn't demand it because he doesn't know the impact it will have on him.

Re:They'll go down eventually (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898688)

> Part of the problem is that unlike LCDs, SSDs are hidden from view. Average Joe doesn't demand it because he doesn't know the impact it will have on him.

Another part of the problem is the fact that Average Joe won't notice and won't care.

The problem is that quality went down too. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898802)


Larger LCDs are finally affordable now, and how many years did that take

The problem with that is that they cut out more than a few pixels and certainly a lot of of the quality in the panels.

Re:They'll go down eventually (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898940)

Well, the LCD screens really dropped in price, right after a bunch of manufacturers were busted for Price Fixing their products. So I'm thinking you're not too far off...

They have... (5, Insightful)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898246)

The same 60GB drive I paid $230 for 6 months ago is now $130 after rebates and $160 before.

Re:They have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898814)

[/thread]

Mod parent up.

Re:They have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898886)

Was it just-released when you bought it?
If so, you paid the early adopter penalty and it's not indicative of an actual decrease in $/GB.

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899304)

The new price is $160. Rebates don't count unless they happen at the point of sale. Why don't they count? Because nothing is final until that money is in your hand (or more likely, not in your hand).

If you're not willing to give me the sale price at the point of sale, then common sense tells me you don't really want me to get the sale price in the first place, and that's exactly why you made it difficult.

Re:They have... (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899458)

But flash in general seems to be holding steady, or even going up a bit. The same 16bg SDHC card I bought a year ago from Newegg for $30 is right now around $34. That could be explained by a combination of reduced capacity & larger SSDs taking up more of the reduced production.

Question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898250)

I know this topic is about SSDs, but I remember back in the day we had full height 5.25" drives that sounded like jet engines and had several platters. Why hasn't anyone made bigger platters- are we really constrained to the 3.5" form factor? I'd think they could make big platters with some extra ECC, have several platters, or even have internal platter mirroring or something l like hardware raid6 at the platter level?

Re:Question (2, Informative)

HFXPro (581079) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898340)

A 5.25" drive would have significantly higher stresses placed upon the platter. There would also be more area to have to physically move the head across.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898558)

but couldn't the 5.25" get away with a slower rotational speed end up having the same angular velocity as a 3.5" at the outer parts of the disk?
Having slower head moves could be compensated by multiple platters. Quadruple your throughput with 4 platters on the 5.25" per 1 3.5"?

Re:Question (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898936)

Throughput isn't the only thing that makes a desktop feel slow. It's the random access. Given your scenario, putting a larger drive (i.e. more dense) but spinning it slower could result in similar if not better sequential transfer times. However, you go to seek and if the data is 1/2 or more way around the other side of the platter relative to the current head position, you're screwed.

Re:Question (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899476)

but couldn't the 5.25" get away with a slower rotational speed end up having the same angular velocity as a 3.5" at the outer parts of the disk?
The angular velocity is by definition the same across the disk. The linear velocity increases the further you move from the center (assuming a constant motor speed). So a larger disk can in principle get higher transfer rates from the same spin speed.

However transfer rate is not the dominant issue in many applications. Total request time is made up of

1: time to move to the right track (seek time)
2: time to wait for the sector to come under the head (rotational latency)
3: time to actually read the data

For the small reads that are common in many desktop applications 1 and 2 dominate on a hard disk. Making the disk bigger will increase the time to move to the right track while slowing the rotation speed (needed to physically realise a larger platter) will increase the time waiting for the right sector to come under the head.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898536)

I know this topic is about SSDs, but I remember back in the day we had full height 5.25" drives that sounded like jet engines and had several platters. Why hasn't anyone made bigger platters- are we really constrained to the 3.5" form factor? I'd think they could make big platters with some extra ECC, have several platters, or even have internal platter mirroring or something l like hardware raid6 at the platter level?

Putting RAID inside the drive doesn't buy as much (from a Redundancy perspective) as putting multiple drives into the same space does.

With multiple drives you can:
- use different manufacturers
- replace each independently

With RAID in a drive, you are probably using the same circuitry for those whole enclosure (comparable to the Disk Controller now), and you do not have the option of replacing a failed platter (without a new HDD architecture of some sort).

Add to that the limited number of environments willing to spend the extra money on RAID, and the non-techie obsession with "smaller is better tech" being seen in NetBooks, and NetTops, leaving less room for this sort of thing, and you're left with a limited market that could alternatively be served by existing RAID controllers/setups, using "standardized" components (3.5" drives), that can be mass produced due to the large demand for them in non-RAID applications.

Re:Question (1)

kingofwaldos (645744) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898690)

I had a friend that had a 5.25" drive about 10 years ago and it was absolute trash. I think Maxtor made it. Everything that is good about a SSD is terrible about a drive with huge platters like that. First, you can't spin them very fast -- his was 3600 rpm. Second, slow rotation + long distances traveled by the read/write arm = horrific latency. His computer took forever to boot up and word might take a minute to start. Be glad they're gone.

Re:Question (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898780)

When you have something spinning, the smaller the better.

Let's do some simple Math:

For a 7200RPM Hard Drive@ 3.5" Diameter or .0889 meters you have a velocity of
V = Pi*D*RPM = 3.14*.0889*7200 = 2009m/min or 33.5m/s.
Now the centripetal acceleration:
a = v^2/r = (33.5m/s)^2/.04445m = 25243m/s^2.

Or in other words: 2573g

Yeah, that's a hell of a lot of acceleration at the outer edges. The smaller the better.

Re:Question (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898850)

Larger platters means more centrifugal force. Too much force and the magnetic emulsion starts to come off the platters, so you either need to find a better way to make the emulsion stick (which does not appear forthcoming. They have to shrink the platters for higher speed 10k and 15k drives) or run the drive slower, which will clobber performance.

Re:Question (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898884)

my guess is that several issues scale exponentially with diameter:
- spin up torque and strain on the motor
- precision required for heads placement
- vibrations
- vertical tolerances (head positionning, platter warp...)
Solving those is probably too complicated and expensive to make sense when most people aren't even buying today's top-ine 3.5", 2TB drives.

Internal raid and platter mirroring doesn't make much sense either: eveything remains dependent on a single motor and head mechanism: waht's left must not be a very large proportion of HD dysfunctions.

Re:Question (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899598)

I like your thinking, just how much data could we cram in one of those old full height scsi drive bays!

Gartner is wrong (3, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898282)

OK, I think this bit from Gartner

Garnter analyst Joseph Unsworth [says] "...The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte."

is wrong. Flash is simpler than drives. The manufacturing requires less machining, materials, and human labor. I'm not saying next year or even five years out, but as SOME POINT, I am sure that memory devices like flash will be cheaper than disk drives on a per bit basis, or at least close enough that innovation on spinning drives will stop and that will allow flash/memory devices to pass them.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898398)

Bearing in mind that perhaps 2 years ago, a 256MB USB Keydisk cost me $10, and today, I can get a 16GB for the same price, yes, I'd say it's just a matter of time.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898820)

Yeah... but that 16GB USB drive still doesn't have enough room for a single HD movie on it.

Meanwhile, I can get 2TB 3.5" spinny disks and a 250GB 2.5" spinny disk is $60.

It will still be a bit before I can cheaply turn my EEE PC 900 into an Archos 5 knockoff.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899022)

I have 3 HD movies on a 16 gig thumb drive here. They all look fantastic on a 42" set. Mpeg4 compression done the right way from a clean source works GREAT. Oh and I downconverted the audio to 5.1 AC3 audio... I have yet to find a person that can hear and see the difference from the original and the ripped version. Quantum of Solace, Transformers and Watchmen are what I used for testing ripped directly from bluray discs.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898512)

Agree, but for no more reason that you state. Eventually we won't be able to tweak bits on a metal platter easier than on silicon, nano-tubes or whatever else seems to be coming down the line. I think it's more a lack of patience that this story was posted.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

Antimatter3009 (886953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898516)

To put it simply, never is a long time. Saying "never" in regards to technology is always a stupid thing to do.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898554)

I neither agree or disagree.

Re:Gartner is wrong (2, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898636)

Wouldn't it be more newsworthy if Gartner was right?

They're generally the most reliable source: bet on the opposite of whatever Gartner is saying.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898774)

I respectfully disagree, even though your theory is sound. You fail to account for the likely possibility that before we reach the point where SSD is cheaper than HDD in practice we will have moved on to the next breakthrough technology (holographic, or even molecular or genetic storage). Especially when new breakthroughs like optical and quantum computing change the computing world both SSD and HDD will become obsolete around the same time.

Re:Gartner is wrong (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898980)

Whether he is right or wrong really depends on how large a disk you want.

Barring truly revolutionary advances in silicon device fabrication, and(I'm not sufficiently up on my physics to know for sure) possibly a change in physics, sputtering a thin metallic film with the appropriate magnetic properties will always be cheaper, per square centimeter, than fabbing a complex integrated circuit. Further, it is quite likely that the smallest possible magnetic domains will continue to be smaller than the smallest possible flash cells, so you get more bits per square centimeter, and you pay less per square centimeter with the magnetic stuff.

However, as you note, Flash is pretty much ready-to-go. Virtually all the cost is the silicon. Packaging and soldering are relatively cheap(and, since every HDD also has a controller board, both technologies pay the "assemble a PCB" cost). With magnetic storage, though, whether HDD or tape, you have to build a fairly complex and expensive machine to enclose the cheap magnetic medium, and read/write, and keep dust off, and so forth.

If you adopt the naive strategy of comparing each technology's "sweet spot cost"(ie. the cost/GB of the device with the lowest cost/GB of each tech), I suspect that Mr. Unsworth is correct, if not forever, at least for a long time. However, a great many applications don't actually care about that metric. If you know how many GB you need, you don't care about "what is the lowest cost/GB?" you care about "how can I most cheaply get X GB?"

In the case of HDDs, the "sweet spot price" is somewhere between 5 and 10 cents a GB. However, the sweet spot is measured in 1-2 TB devices. If you, say, only needed 20GB, you would be unable to find anybody to sell you a 20GB drive for $1-$2. A quick look a newegg suggests that the cheapest retail HDDs are around $30-$35. You do get 80GB to 160GB for your $35; but you basically can't spend any less. The cost of a machined housing, hiqh quality spindle motor, packing, shipping, etc. just make that impossible. For the same $30-$35, retail, you are looking at around 16GB of flash(less if you want AES encryption and stuff, a little more if it is on sale). Thus, for any application that needs 16GB or less, SSDs are, in absolute $/GB terms, actually cheaper than HDDs(in addition to their other virtues: quiet, low power, shock resistant, small size, etc.)

I suspect that, over time, HDDs will be cheaper than SSDs in "sweet spot price" more or less forever; but the capacity(currently around 16GB, was more like 8GB the last time I wrote something like this) below which the absolute cost advantage lies with SSDs will continue to creep up. If it manages to creep up faster than software bloats, we may reach the dramatic tipping point where an SSD is cheaper, as well as better, than an HDD for the boot volume of a "normal computer", as opposed to just embedded systems, the occasional netbook, and space/power constrained devices.

Re:Gartner is wrong (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899456)

Gartner is most likely right.

Your main error is that you assume flash is simpler than HDs. The opposite is true. You cannot even imagine how complicated 32nm semiconductor fabrication is. And every step down will be worse. If it were easy, it wouldnt cost billions to get a manufacturing plant up. And they would not need Phds for process control.

  Storage cells on a HD surface are not that much bigger than flash bits on a chip. Maybe an order of magnitude. On the other hand, flash requires a HUGE amount of processing to make the chips, and scaling the structure size down will only increase the investment cost required for fabs. Yes, they will more than break even, but 15nm will not be 25% of the price of 30nm.

Also, scaling is limited for flash. There will never be a point were a 3nm process gets shrunk to a 2nm process. While it is true that HDs are closer to the scaling brick wall, currently the price difference is still about a factor of 40. And HDs wont stop dropping in price.

The only way I see FLASH ever getting cheaper than HDs is that if at some point of time it will be cheap enough for most people.

- In one scenario, the $20-30 mechanical parts base cost of an HD could make the difference. A 2TB drive might be not much more expensive than a 300GB, but if you only need the 300GB, flash might be cheaper.

- Similar, if production rates of HDs go down because of flash being "cheap enough" for most people, economy of scale can drop. This may end in a scenario where HDs are still cheaper per GB if you need 500TB of storage, but you will only find them in media servers or in datacenters, similar to streamer tapes in the past.

The main point is that you can get huge densities in flash, you can stack dies many times beacuse of the low power, it should be no problem to fit 10TB in the volume of a 3.5" drive even today, etc.

But in the end, for every GB, a certain size of silicon has to be processed in some of the most expensive and complicated production processes the world has ever seen. While for HDs, (simplified) you just do some vacuum sputtering.
They WILL stay cheaper.
But maybe at some point they will die out because they are big, sensitive and slow.

SSD are not more expensive (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898362)

If your doing cost per gig, okay. If your doing cost per I/O, SSD is actually a tad cheaper. Typical 300g 10k RPM drive will net you about 150-180 IOPs. SSD will be ~70X.

Re:SSD are not more expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898576)

If your doing cost per gig, okay. If your doing cost per I/O, SSD is actually a tad cheaper.

And if your doing English, it's "you're."

Cheap competition? Niche benefit? Paredo Optimal.. (1)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898368)

When platter HD's were coming out we didn't have much of an alternative to look at, today Solid State drives have a well established competitor. As TFA states, people benefiting from these drives are a niche, the general person spending all day on facebook, youtube doesn't really see any benefit from spending extra money on a SSD. And when people do even care about performance.. well it's coming at a hefty price. I build my own pc's but while I'd like a SSD I'd rather spend the extra 100's of dollars on a much superior CPU and/or RAM that that money could spent on. Prices will take a long time to come down imo because the demand simply isn't there to push it forward. The mass majority of the marketplace just don't store MASSIVE files that need super fast access.

News from the Future (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898382)

April 19, 2011 - PC World Magazine

The Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation of price fixing among manufacturers of solid-state drives. A spokesman for the FTC says that the top hard drive manufactures "have colluded to keep the prices of SSD drives artificially high." A representative from Western Digital has stated that his company takes the charges seriously and that it will fully cooperate with the investigation.

All electronics have stayed/increased in price (4, Informative)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898386)

Thanks to everyone shutting down factories during the recession, there is a severe shortage of analog parts, electrolytic capacitors, and some FET's. It is typical to see a 4-8 week lead time on an order of 20k. A 16 week lead time makes you Very uncomfortable and you start looking for second sources or redesigns.

Some analog/digital companies are shipping at 16-24 week lead times.
Some electrolytic capacitors are at a 40 week lead time.
And at least one major company stopped accepting new orders.
In the mean time, some distributors are starting bidding wars on parts that they do have.

Right now, demand is far greater than the supply. It is going to be at least another year before prices start to come down.

Re:All electronics have stayed/increased in price (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900058)

It does seem that the price of magnetic drives has been on a plateau for a while too.

Two things. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898388)

While the question of whether prices aren't being competed further down because of collusion, or just because of inescapable production costs is an interesting one(and hopefully somebody has their forensic accountants on it, just to be sure), it seems reasonably obvious why SSDs have settled into the niche that they have, and why the manufacturers are making the size/price decisions that they are.

Now that the initial round of epically bad JMicron controllers are mostly gone, and the boring Samsung reference ones are confined mostly to build-to-order options on corporate laptops, all but the ghastliest SSDs are embarrassingly superior to HDDs for the sort of random mixed read/write that makes such a difference for desktop responsiveness. At the same time, though, nothing short of alien nanotech is going to allow them to touch HDDs in price/GB. That being so, you would expect to see SSD capacities largely cluster around "enough for a Windows boot volume, with a few key applications on it; but not much more". Anything less is largely useless to the target market(or, more accurately, anything less is aimed at the embedded devices market, and probably uses entirely different connectors and isn't sold at retail) and anything more gets very expensive very fast. This is, also, the reason why a lot of the high capacity (512GB to 1TB+) SSDs that you see are actually 2 or 4 of the vendor's lower capacity boards stuck together behind a cheap RAID chip. The market for the super high capacity ones just isn't all that big, at least among systems that use SATA as a storage connection bus, so the high capacity drives being sold are practically low-volume engineering samples, just polished enough to be sold for the usual early-adopter premium.

The only real forces supporting the existence of SSDs larger than that are high-end laptops(if you only have one drive slot, you can't adopt the mixed SSD/HDD strategy), a few loony enthusiasts(if you are the sort of person who buys every highest-end video card on release day, you can probably be convinced to go for a couple of 512GB SSDs, in RAID of course, for your gaming machine) and some truly titanic databases run by the deep-pocketed(though it isn't clear how much of that is SATA connected, and how much is the directly PCIe attached stuff, which is even faster).

Echon 101. (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898434)

If supply goes up and demand stays the same prices will go down. If demand goes up and supply stays the same prices will rise. What happened was the economy dropped so they lowered their supply otherwise what could happen is the Supply/Demand curve would fall under making profit. Now as we recover demand is rising again but they are unsure about the longterm projections so they are keeping supply still low for a while.

This isn't necessarily greed unless they are bean counters. Sure you may make more per unit but if you sell more units for less then you can make more money.

Spelling 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899448)

Don't misspell important words in the subject of your post. :D

You know what is going down? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31898478)

Apple fanbois on Jobs. Hey-O!

SSDs on the desktop: ReadyBooSSD anyone ? (1, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898744)

SSDs improve performance only in very specific scenarii: small random reads are their forte, large reads are OK, writes are bad, especially small random ones. On the desktop, that makes them good system drives, OK Apps drives, bad data drives, terrible log drives. On the desktop, basically, SSD are useful when booting, launching an app, loading a level or other ressources. Nowadays, I boot my PC twice a month, launch apps at most once a day, and don't really play anymore.

To complicate matters, most OSes and apps are made up of a good 50% "dead" files that are very rarely used, and also have log files that get written to frequently. Installing a whole OS, app or game to an SSD is majorly wasteful because of that. Manually segregating "frequently-read" from "frequently-written" and from "dead weight" files within an OS or app is at best cumbersome and difficult, at worst, impossible.

I'm wondering why OSes don't yet support some king of SSD ReadyBoost: it would make a whole lot of sense to use a smallish SSD as a cache for frequently-read (not written) files. One SSD maker has released a thingy that clones the first x sectors of an HD to a SSD. Though automatic and easy, that is very crude, as caches go. I seem to remember one of Linux's filesystem allows to easily use an SSD as an intelligent cache, but that filesystem is fairly marginal ( ZFS ? not sure). MS has not adapted ReadyBoost.

With an adapted ReadyBoost, I'm sure I could get 90% of the benefit of a large (64 Megs) SSD in a much smaller (16 Megs ?) one. I'm waiting for that, or, if MS doesn't wake up, for prices to go way down.

Re:SSDs on the desktop: ReadyBooSSD anyone ? (1)

thue (121682) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899632)

> writes are bad, especially small random ones

Some of the first SSDs had big trouble with random writes. The good new ones handle them much better than a mechanical hard disk.

See for example http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1022/6/ [legitreviews.com] . While a few SSD have 20KB/s random write speed, the good ones like Intel's x25-m have 60MB/s, way better than a hard disk.

Re:SSDs on the desktop: ReadyBooSSD anyone ? (5, Informative)

viper66 (412839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900062)

I think your facts are out of date. The latest SSDs beat hard drives in every category, sequential reads/writes and random reads/writes. SSD random write performance has been superior to the fastest hard drives for quite a while now. Performance is even better with TRIM and 4K alignment in Windows 7. It is sequential write performance that has typically been weak, but even that is no longer the case.

Same reason LCD TV prices aren't "going down" (2, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898914)

It's bubblegum feature creep, the same tactic Microsoft used for years to justify prices for Windows. In the case of LCD TVs, they're using extra "Hertz" and LED backlighting (never mind the misleading marketing leads some people to mistakenly believe that the display itself is actually LEDs) to keep the prices artificially high. It's these industries' version of the fast food industry's coke-and-fries tactic: upsell the product with low-cost features or add-ons that add almost nothing to cost but add a mountain to profits. In the case of magnetic-media disk drives, they're adding more cache and tweaking this or that, which ultimately changes the total cost of production very little but helps the manufacturers stave off the price drops that SHOULD occur due to savings from mass production. In the case of SSDs, I duuno what the specific feature creep is, but you can bet that is what's taking place.

This is what manufacturers do to keep the full benefits of mass production from actually "trickling down" to consumers.

LCD TV prices *are* going down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899740)

Two years ago I bought a 40" LCD TV for about $1200 retail. Now I can easily find one of at least the same size of similar brand and feature sets for $700 retail. What you describe certainly happens, but it just works to keep the high end of TV prices high; the low end is still getting lower.

Someone is buying massive quantities of them (4, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899108)

Someone is buying massive quantities of them. That's the only explanation. The enterprise is only now catching up to the benefits of low latency SSD access. You can use fewer servers and serve data with much better latency and throughput for IO bound tasks. Anyone who needs low latency random access to data (ads, search, data warehousing, OLAP, content distribution networks, hotspots in map data serving, etc, etc) are switching to SSDs right now as quickly as their budget allows.

Hybrid drives (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899394)

Using a mix of flash and spinning disk technology you could build a single hybrid drive that supports fast operation by optimizing what uses flash and what uses the older tech; this would increase the perceived speed of a machine while keeping costs lower. The OS would need to support such a drive; but it would result in faster machines with reasonably large storage capacities at a lower price point. It's not really a new idea, variations of the solid state / hard drive memory mix use have been around a while.

I realize you could use two drives; but shoe horning it into one laptop form factor would make it a lot easier to incorporate into existing laptop form factors; as well as add backwards compatibility via an OS update.

Terrible Windows OS development paradigm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899418)

I've been (casually) looking for a way to set up windows such that I can use my SSD for programs and an HDD for all the data which it uses. Sadly, so many programs, all the way back to Windows, don't let you easily separate your data (and thus data drive) from your program (and thus OS/executable drive).

Linux has always had this problem solved, but Windows doesn't have an easy way of going about this.

Sell me some fucking SAS SSDs already! (0, Flamebait)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900010)

Where are they, you useless fucks!

SATA is for losers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?