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!

32 GB Flash Storage Drive Announced

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the laptop-that-could-survive-for-more-than-30-mins dept.

381

Audrius writes to tell us TG Daily is reporting that Samsung has just announced a new 32 GB Flash storage device. The aim of this new solid state disk (SSD) drive is to completely replace the traditional hard drives in many laptops on the market. Some of the advantages offered are the 1.8" form factor, read speeds more than twice that of a normal hard drive, and the promise of 95% less power use.

cancel ×

381 comments

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

Digital Camcorders (5, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967357)

I could see this having a pretty big impact on digital video cameras, too. No moving parts to break while you're running around with a handheld. Very cool!

Re:Digital Camcorders (2, Insightful)

jessecurry (820286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967398)

That actually would be pretty nice, although I think that the price is still well above that of magnetic tape; maybe it would be a little more useful in a professional setting where the video could be pulled onto an editing station and then erased from the original flash media.

Re:Digital Camcorders (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967565)

Yes, but, don't 'flash drives' suffer from a more limited number of times you can read/write to them than a regular HD?

That wouldn't be too good for a camera or a laptop...

Re:Digital Camcorders (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967592)

Supposedly... From what i've heard, the actual limit is so high that it might as well be the same as a reg. HD... They "rate" them for a certain amount mainly for warranty purposes and they can (again: supposedly) do way beyond that.

Anyone with "yes or no" power around?

Re:Digital Camcorders (2, Interesting)

firl (907479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967404)

Not only that, think about an ipod that doesn't have the hard drive problems that it does today. or imagine a raid of these in a server for either a SAN or a Database, where the data i/o would surpass 1 gig per second, granted if they make it go beyond the normal pci bus. I personally am looking forward to this

Re:Digital Camcorders (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967415)

I could see this having a pretty big impact on digital video cameras, too. No moving parts to break while you're running around with a handheld. Very cool!

Definitely. I always thought those dvdburner camcorders were a bad idea.

or, an HD that works above 12,000 feet. (2, Interesting)

sampas (256178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967581)

It will be nice to have the additional capacity on GPS devices and tablets used for aircraft navigation. Traditional HD's have trouble above 12,000 feet because the head's "wings" don't produce enough lift at lower pressure.

My question is how many write operations is it rated for? Others list 300,000 -- is that a lot or a little?

Re:or, an HD that works above 12,000 feet. (1)

Echnin (607099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967620)

Aren't the HDDs in a compressed environment in the aircraft though?

Re:or, an HD that works above 12,000 feet. (1)

xerid (235598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967632)

You know too much about aircrafts, you damn terrorist!

Re:or, an HD that works above 12,000 feet. (1)

2443W (946731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967681)

Depends on the plane, airliners are compressed but a lot of other planes aren't, especially small general aviation aircraft.

ouch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967358)

$ 6400.00

Re:ouch (4, Informative)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967396)

If you RTFA you would see the target price is $750 and $1000 ... $6400 is the price of current flash hard drives in that size range.

Re:ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967507)

Actually, no.

If you RTFA you would see that $750-$1000 isn't the target price, it's an educated guess by the article's author.

Re:ouch (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967523)

$1000 == Ouch. Definatly a high end laptop feature. That's more than many people pay for their whole laptop.

Re:ouch (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967633)

Which,the article adds, are considerably more robust (at least in terms of temperature ranges) than what Samsung is shooting for - which might be part of the price difference. On the other hand, if you just took 32 1 GB CF cards you would be paying around $1100, which makes their target price sound very reasonable (although far too expensive to be widely adopted I would think - I could see possibly paying double or even triple the price for the advantages, but not ten times as much for something of questionable utility for most people).

RTFA! (4, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967474)

Price point on the 32gb drive is expected to be $750-$1000. The $6400 product is a currently available military grade drive. It'll take a wee bit more abuse and temperature range then the 'cheapest bidder' built one that will hit the commecial market.

-Rick

Re:ouch (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967501)

Ouch- keep in mind that my 6 megapixel camera, if available a few years ago, would have cost more than some cars....
Volume production will bring prices down. Remember the $2000 component CD burners in the late 90s?
I can't wait until I can afford all these GBs of flash tastiness!!!!

Re:ouch (3, Informative)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967635)

That's probably Taiwanese dollars, that's where the byline is.

0.0308676(Taiwan/US) * 6400(Taiwan) = 197.55264(US)

That's still $6.20 US/GB so still not very desirable, but if they can EoS down, and get the battery life trade off it may be worth it.

Re:ouch (1)

ClockN (534637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967639)

I am thinking the $6400 question relates to; My question is how many write operations is it rated for? Others list 300,000 -- is that a lot or a little?

Sounds Really Promising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967362)

But, so do most politicians.

Results is what I want. Deliver it to market at a reasonable price and I'm onboard. Else it's just more worthless talk.

Re:Sounds Really Promising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967579)

I am sure the CEO of Sony is taking your words to heart. :)

Interesting .... (4, Informative)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967363)

This will only work if they can get the prices of flash down.
$50.00~70.00 per gb is still nothing in comparison to $0.40~$0.80 you can get on hard drives.

Re:Interesting .... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967405)

Seagate 8 GB CompactFlash Photo HD $149.99 shipped free, Mar 20

amazon.com has the new Seagate 8GB CompactFlash Photo HD ST68022C-RK for a low $149.99. No rebates. Free shipping. Tax in KS, ND, WA.

4GB $74.09 shipped free.

from techbargains.com

$18.5 / GB -- and who here doesn't remember when a 100MB hard drive was $300+?

Re:Interesting .... (1, Informative)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967467)

Those are real hard drives, with flash memory interfaces. Good try though, and $6400 probably is too high anyway (4 GB CF flash cards can be found for approximately $300).

Re:Interesting .... (3, Interesting)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967481)

Ehh so my math is slightly off. Its still roughly 37x the cost of a hard drive.

Anyways you are right though. I can see solid state drives taking over hard drives in the future. The less moving parts the better.

All I was trying to point out was its to early now for widespread adoption.

Re:Interesting .... (4, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967477)

Oh, sure, but when you consider the power savings mentioned in the summary, those prices really start to pale! It costs me nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year to charge my Dell Inspiron 9100, with an old fashioned hard drive.

Data Integrity (4, Interesting)

jessecurry (820286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967365)

Will this still be useful for critical applications? What's the current failure rate of flash memory?

Re:Data Integrity (1)

Zemrec (158984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967488)

I'm far from an expert, but the failure rate for modern flash is much much better than for hard disks. Something like millions of write operations per bit before failure.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't lots of enterprise-class servers, routers, switches, etc. booted from PC-card style flash drives?

Re:Data Integrity (4, Informative)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967492)

Flash memory that works has a much longer MTBF than hard drives, but each cell fails at approximately 10000 writes. HDDs fail randomly, Flash fails predictably, so this can be a good thing. Just make sure your filesystem rarely does or needs defragging, and does not log every read.

Not relevant... (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967683)

Defragging isn't relevant for a flash memory based device... you can have data spread all over the place, and it shouldn't affect your read/write speed like it does on a hard drive. The physical seek time of the head is what causes fragmentation on a hard drive to be a problem. No head, no problem.

MadCow.

Re:Data Integrity (4, Insightful)

nbert (785663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967692)

Just make sure your filesystem rarely does or needs defragging, and does not log every read.
On a flash drive it's not really important into how many segments a file is split or where they are located since there's no head spinning back and forth. So there's only a problem if your fs does defraging automatically, but it's quite easy to switch this off (at least for developers)
Guess we have to reconsider some habits we've got accustomed to if traditional hds are replaced.

Re:Data Integrity (1)

Jordan Catalano (915885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967559)

I'd be more worried about bits getting "stuck" that reveal critical data that can no longer be securely erased.

Re:Data Integrity (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967647)

The solution to that issue is the same as it would be for disk based drives: thermite. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Data Integrity (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967589)

"critical applications"

Are you wondering too if the Porn collection will be safe? And does it suffer from wear if the same file is read over and over again?

Sorry, it's a standard Slashdot joke when storage is mentioned. Just be glad I didn't ask how many Libraries of Congress it can hold.

Reliability? (3, Interesting)

smoor (961352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967366)

It seems like a nice way to go (solid state). I wonder what the life of a unit like this would be. Flash drives might be droppable, but what else can kill them? Somehow I feel better imagining that my stuff is magnetically etched into a platter... I guess I'm just old...

Re:Reliability? (2, Insightful)

manifoldronin (827401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967420)

Somehow I feel better seeing that my stuff is physically etched into a piece of paper... I guess I am just old... 8-)

Re:Reliability? (1)

diskis (221264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967645)

When you forget your piece of paper in your pocket and wash your pants, what's left?
When I forget my SD card in my pocket it survives. I have a card here that's gone through a washing machine 3 times. Still works.

I guess you have to carve your stuff in stone tablets to get something you can see and which will also last. :)

Re:Reliability? (1)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967628)

If you were using this with the GDrive (Google's online unlimited storage thingy), maybe reliability is not so important because you could have backups made in real time to the GDrive. Also, you could do some sort of caching as well. Imagine a 32 gB local cache and storing the rest of your data on the network so that you can really have super fast unlimited memory capacity.

Re:Reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967630)

My question is one of security. If the memory can't be overwritten many times without wearing out the component, then how can you do a iterative secure wipe of data when it's deleted. Wouldn't this be defeated by both the lack of allowable writes and the components own measures to extend the life of the component?

Welcome to the future (1)

bcoff12 (584459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967368)

the future is now....

Re:Welcome to the future (2, Insightful)

Lispy (136512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967597)

hm. Where I come from the future seems to be always 5 years in the future. ;-/

Re:Welcome to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967658)

That's okay. I'm posting this from 10 years in the future.

Re:Welcome to the future (1)

manual_overide (134872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967671)

At least you are not in Cincinnati like me. Here, the present is 5 years into the future (at least Mark Twain seems to think so)

What about the limited number of writes? (4, Insightful)

jay2003 (668095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967373)

I have the understanding that flash memory has a finite number of writes and that conventional filesystems with their update of metadata even on file read could essentially wear out a flash drive quickly if it was used as the main disk drive (as opposed to digital camera use or the like where access is comparably infrequent)

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (3, Informative)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967416)

Hard drives also have the same limitation (You can only change the poll of a bit on the hard drive a certain amout of times). Its just you will never reach it before the mechanics of the drive fail.

Its just a matter of time for flash.

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967494)

pole



just thought you'd want to know

cheers

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967417)

Yeah, I thought so too - this is why portable Fx has a few changes to the settings to reduce the number of disk writes. Anyone care to clarify?

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (3, Informative)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967487)

The current number-of-writes for flash is somewhere in the 100,000-1,000,000 write cycle range. That's a lot of writes. Also, keep in mind that all flash chip controllers include logic that performs "write-leveling". This means that a specific chunk of data will 'jump' from one area of the memory to another in order to prevent one area from being worn out. Add to that the fact that flash chips contain some extra capacity to compensate for bad blocks.

With a careful configuration of Windows (no page file, no IE cache, no temporary files, use a RAM disk), this is certainly viable. In the absense of music/movie collections and monster games, even the 32GB size isn't that restrictive.

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967536)

I could certainly imagine using this on a laptop especially. What if you could make a laptop with this as the main drive and a iPod sized hard drive as a secondary drive that you put "media" (movies, music, etc.) on?

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967551)

With a careful configuration of Windows (no page file, no IE cache, no temporary files, use a RAM disk), this is certainly viable. In the absense of music/movie collections and monster games, even the 32GB size isn't that restrictive.
Something like this will most likly be used to store the OS and main programs essentially being a read only drive, while a second drive can be used to store data and temporary files. I really don't see the advantage here unless the flash memory is much faster though from my experience its slower, I guess they are using a new technology??

Re:What about the limited number of writes? (5, Informative)

kebes (861706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967526)

This is certainly a valid worry. As I understand it, however, modern flash memories have more or less dealt with this problem, because:
(1) The number of rewrites is now quite large (hundreds of thousands?)
(2) The writing-to-disk software/hardware implements "load balancing." If you rewrite the same file 1000 times, it won't use the same exact block on the flash disk for each of those writes. Instead it will move from block to block with various writes/deletes/modify actions. This, coupled with some "slack" (the actual disk size is a little bit bigger than the "useable" disk size) allows for the wear to be distributed over the whole device.
(3) The system uses conventional error-correction and flagging of bad blocks.

As another poster pointed out, magnetic hard disks also have a limited number of rewrite cycles. But in practical terms we usually don't reach this limit. For critical applications I imagine you'd use a RAID of flash disks just like a RAID of magnetic drives.

This is reasonably easy to cope with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967636)

DamnSmallLinux is designed to run off compact flash cards. Most operations happen in RAM with a backup to the flash happening infrequently. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ [damnsmalllinux.org] I've been using it for a thin client for a few months now with no problems. It amuses me to be able to have a spare drive that's cheap and easy to pop in if I mess something up.

Read yes, what about write? (0, Redundant)

MirgNave (710935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967375)

I can definitely see the advantages of moving to solid state. But if we're talking about using flash, don't we have write speed and quantity (limited amount of writes) to worry about?

Re:Read yes, what about write? (2, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967542)

RTFA- their write speed is reasonable (at about half that of current hard drives, supposedly, though see below for questions about this) and on a 32GB drive with a reasonable usage pattern- well, how often do you reformat an entire drive? With over a million writes on modern flash memory, it's going to take you a while to use up all the writes this drive has.

And now for that questionable bit, from the article: While the SSD's capacity of 32 GB cannot compete with traditional hard drives that currently offers up to 80 GB space,

I don't know abut you, but I've seen hard drives in this price range offering up to 500GB and one USB/Ethernet external that offers 1TB at less than 2x the price. Which throws the write speed into question- if 80GB drives are considered their max.

Re:Read yes, what about write? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967694)

You've seen 500 GB drives in the 1.8 inch form factor for the same price? Wow, we should talk. I've been looking to upgrade my PowerBook.

Re:Read yes, what about write? (1)

max99ted (192208) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967554)

From Imation's website


Flash memory has a write endurance limit. This limit is the number of times the flash memory cell can be written until it can not be restored to its initial condition. The industry refers to this as the erase cycles. The endurance is rated between 10,000 and 100,000 erase cycles for different types flash memories.

In my experience... (4, Insightful)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967384)

and the promise of 95% less power use

In my experience, promised things usually fall flat on their face. Microsoft springs immediately to mind.

And hopefully, Flash drives will replace the current magnetic platter ones. It's kind of odd for one of the most important devices in a computer to be the only moving one (And therefore the most susceptible to damage, especially in laptops).

Re:In my experience... (1)

snilloc (470200) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967623)

95% less power use means that the product engineers will just cram more volt-sucking crap in the laptop - Battery life will not be enhanced due to feature-creep.

I'd buy it (4, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967386)

I'd buy it. All that is needed is a wireless link to a network attatched file server. 32 GB holds a lot of non-multimedia files.

That guy would buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967517)

That guy would but it. Seriously.

Let me know when they come up with (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967389)

a 128 GB at an affordable price. I'm already near capacity on my 80 GB HD as it is...

Re:Let me know when they come up with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967475)

if you burned off some of your porn onto DVDs, you wouldn't be at capacity nearly so often. You could label the CDs things that people would never look at too, like "Celine Deon tour photos" or "Save games". Just tryin to help out.

Re:Let me know when they come up with (1)

xerid (235598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967611)

What is the physical size of your HD? If you're talking about a 3.5, you can fit a few 32GB flash drives in that space.

Warning... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967393)

These flash drives still have very low rotational speeds. I'd wait a few years until they get them spinning a little faster.

Re:Warning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967603)

I'd wait an additional few years so they can bring quantum computing into the equation. Imagine the benefits if they spin in two directions, at the same time.

Re:Warning... (0, Redundant)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967640)

These flash drives still have very low rotational speeds. I'd wait a few years until they get them spinning a little faster

Very low? The rotational speed is 0 rpms!

So, even if they got it to spin by a fraction, you will have INFINITE speed! I'm guessing they'll have it by next year.

What about burnout? (-1, Redundant)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967395)

Excuse me, but don't flash drives burn out after writing on them multiple times? Has this been resolved? If not, I would NOT put one in my laptop.

Re:What about burnout? (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967440)

Whats "Multiple Times"?!?!!?

Like 600? Or 600,000,000? If it were the later I don't think there is any reason for your post.

Re:What about burnout? (2, Informative)

Soporific (595477) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967458)

Someone had posted this on another flash drive story here but it basically went that if you reserved 10% or so of the drive simply to keep rotating blocks it would last as long as a hard disk, more or less.

~S

Re:What about burnout? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967469)

They do, but modern flash has something in the range of ~100000 writes per sector. Magnetic hard disks get about 10 times as many before they fail, but given the average hard disk is running a Windows OS which needs defragging the difference isn't all that big.

Re:What about burnout? (4, Informative)

jnd3 (116181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967482)

Most flash can handle something like 100,000 erase cycles. And most flash file systems have wear-leveling algorithms to ensure you're not hitting the same sectors over and over. Even with standard usage they should be good for several years at the very least.

Old news (2, Funny)

VlartBlart (948166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967401)

I had one of these years ago.

Ohhh, G i g a b y t e s - thougt it said megaby...

Re:Old news (-1, Troll)

Alias777 (841435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967497)

Was this an attempt at humor? Or just an attempt to showcase your redundant stupidity?

WTF? (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967500)

They ought to put the number 14967401 in the dictionary definition of 'tanking'. I certainly hope you won't be here all week :-)

Re:Old news (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967663)

Booooooooooo!!!!!!!! Get off the stage!

Current drives only up to 80GB? (0, Redundant)

oculuses (862948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967403)

From TFA, "While the SSD's capacity of 32 GB cannot compete with traditional hard drives that currently offers up to 80 GB space..." So if the author does not know how big current drives Really are, how accurate could we expect the other numbers to be?

Re:Current drives only up to 80GB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967418)

Author was referring to small form factor laptop drives

Re:Current drives only up to 80GB? (2, Informative)

MirgNave (710935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967431)

I believe he was probably talking about the upper range of commonly available laptop form-factor drives.

Re:Current drives only up to 80GB? (5, Informative)

joeygb (530333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967470)

The author is talking about 1.8" hard drives like what is used in the iPod. I don't know about you but I have seen Apple selling any 400gb iPods yet...

Re:Current drives only up to 80GB? (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967670)

While many of us have drives > 200 gb in our desktops, laptop drives are still (on average) around 60 / 80.

Um Guys? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967422)

http://www.simpletech.com/oem/zeus/index.php [simpletech.com]

256GB, SATA, 60MB/Sec, 7 year warrantee.

this is way old news, and while it was amusing to see this "article" on digg.com, it's just plain sad to see it here.

Re:Um Guys? (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967504)

The device you link to has only 2.5" and 3.5" form factors available. This device fits in a 1.8" form factor. Nice try, though. I can see why you post as an AC.

Re:Um Guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967515)

Those are 2.5" and 3.5" drives. The one in TFA is 1.5". Just noting the difference.

I know this is going to be asked-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967438)

Flash drives have come a long way, and can stand up to millions of rewrites now (if not indefinite.) The lifespan and reliability is just as good, if not better than standard hard drives.

I'm also excited about the possibility of flash drive-based camcorders so we can get rid of DV tapes altogether... And 32 gigs is just about the point where that's a possibility (hard drive camcorders exist today, but so far with less than stellar results... One problem being a tendency to hear drive chatter on the audio.)

A step in the right direction... (1)

Zemrec (158984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967441)

...but still too expensive for the common user. $750-1000 for 32 GB...I think not. And while the performance numbers they quoted are better than the average laptop sized HDD and about on-par with desktop dized ones, 57/32 MB/s still isn't even saturating the bandwidth of modern hard disk interfaces.

When are we going to see flash type drives that are cheap AND super fast? After all, secondary storage is perhaps the only remaining perfomance bottleneck in computers these days (well, that and crappy ISPs that don't/can't give you more than a few mips up and a little more down, but I digress.)

Not the biggest power eater (5, Informative)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967444)

During heavy disk read activity, the HD is only uses 15% of all the power. (source [uiuc.edu] ) The real key to decreasing laptop power consumption is dimming the screen, which can reduce power consumption percentage from 26% down to 7%.

Technology currently in use already (4, Informative)

Furp (935063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967449)

This technology has already been put to use in a commercial environment, and has given outstanding performance from what I've seen. The game EVE Online http://www.eve-online.com/ [eve-online.com] has already done this with their clustered servers and greatly reduced the lag. Keep in mind that this is a game where there is only a single universe (No shards or other servers) and they quite often push over 20,000 simultaneously logged in accounts at a time.

When placed in the right environment, this technology just screams. A good example would be for huge database operations that have hundreds if not thousands of concurrent accesses. The databases that maintain the pay information for the US Military come to mind easily.

Fp MHare (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14967461)

fear the reaper WASTE OF BITS AND in eterNity...Romeo rules are This

Nice estimated price... (4, Informative)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967473)

It estimated to cost$700 - $1000. While this may seem like a lot, for something new, this isn't. I remember reading how much a hardrive would have cost for an old IIGS that had maybe 8 disks worth of storage space I think. And although expensive, $700 isn't expensive enough to be out of the reach for consumers. Just expensive enough to be out of the reach for most sane typical consumers.

With compression you might get 50 gig (2, Interesting)

ScrewTivo (458228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967479)

and with the speed increase not see a difference. I have wanted this since my first 286.

This is big news. (3, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967480)

Only price is the barrier now for the slllloooooooowest parts of a computer.

a little outdated? (0, Flamebait)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967483)

the SSD's capacity of 32 GB cannot compete with traditional hard drives that currently offers up to 80 GB space

In the other news, this journalist can't compete with modern journalists who have been known to use "Computers."

Man the RPM of these SSDäs are slower than my (1)

mOOzilla (962027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967499)

These wont burn the palm of me with my 7200 RPM 100GB drive I have in here at present. Problem I worry about is reweite lifetime. We wont have to defrag would we as the read time from any location is constant from any memory address, correct? Its a great step however I can see HYBRID drives being big news rather than 100% SSD except on "web tablets comebacks" and Viao type devices. For the power munchers here with Ferrari's Hybrids would be welcome.

NO NO NO NO NO! (4, Funny)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967516)

I'm trying to close on buying a house! And Samsung, Apple's iPod Nano flash supplier comes out with this?

APPLE, please PLEASE do not come out with an Intel Mac portable featuring a flash drive (with its tasty power consumption, lower power and low low low seek times) after I clean out my savings! I would have been exceptionally happy to have a PowerPC flash computer a year ago or 6 months ago, or even maybe 3 months ago, but I'm cleaning out my savings here for the part of a house that the bank won't cover!

Wait 6-12 months for a flash based portable and I'll forgive you for going to Intel.

Amazing... (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967532)

32GB? That's a LOT of pr0n...

Star Trek (5, Funny)

orty78 (707288) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967556)

I'm reminded of Star Trek. We all know that Star Trek is the way of the future. Talk about beating a dead horse. But this story made me think back on the episode where Cmdr. Data is swapping all of those USB flash drives into a different order to overcome some technical problem. USB and Flash memory are therefor, conclusively, here to stay for good.

FlashBelt (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967595)

How about a "FlashBelt" which can take 10+ flash chips, a flat rechargeable battery, and Bluetooth for storage accessible by mobile phones and visited terminals? $100 32GB chips would be great, but even just forcing down the price of 10GB chips below $10 would make personal storage more "intimate".

Where I see SSDs in laptops being used most. (2, Insightful)

Demon-Xanth (100910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967602)

Ruggedized applications.

Example: a mechanic using it to interface with a car's OBD port.
He's not going to be writing to the HD a while lot, but you know damned well that it's not going to be treated lightly. 32GB is pleanty large to put and OS and the diagnostic/tuning apps on.

Make that laptop low enough power to plug into a cigarette lighter and you got a nice tool.

Another example: Some geologist needs to take data off of some geophones in the middle of places with names like "Desolation Wilderness". A laptop with a longer battery life and a HD that is going to survive being in a backpack is going to make things alot easier. Hiking out 10 miles to the middle of nowhere isn't something that you want to have to re-do because something broke or you ran out of battery life.

I don't forsee anyone having one at the next LAN party. Though given the number of people with hilarious setups, it could happen. Afterall, who'd buy a 150GB HD that cost $350? (WD Raptor)

That's a feature? (1)

pingus (542585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14967688)

"Some of the advantages offered are ... read speeds more than twice that of a normal hard drive.."

I'm sorry, is this some kind of new feature I was unaware of?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>