SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say
-
For me, it is a moot question, because until the prices of SSDs falls drastically, I shall never own one...large or small.
For me the option isn't even listed but already put to use! Instead of memory driven internal drives I frequently use the larger mechanical internally which provides work space as well as OS and storage/backup.
For external the memory driven usb flash drives provide some other options besides being pocket sized. A 16gb or 32gb model allows me to run the "other guy's OS" or transfer data between machines and carry in a belt holder at the same time for far less while still seeing some interesting prices on the even larger flash drives no doubt.
I did have the x64 7 installed on one of two Sata 3 drives but ended using them for storage/backup while using a pair of Sata IIs for OS purposes for far less on all 4 HDs over what you would pay for just one larger capacity SSD. Yet I'm not suffering performance wise either.
-
-
I too use the option #1. I never thought of it in terms of price per GB, but for my 60GB SSD I paid significantly less money than for my previous 1 TB purchase. I put my OS on the SSD and the system is noticeably faster.
Now, the main problem with the SSD is not shrinking but limited lifetime. You can't simply overwrite the SSD over and over again. This is the reason why I put certain folders (not simply storage) on the usual HDD.
Shrinking however has a very natural limit that nobody is going to the break - a typical distance between atoms in a solid is 0.5 nm. So even if you figure out a way to make memory bits out of single atoms, you still would not be able to shrink your devices beyond that limit. 6.5 nm is not too far from it, so I don't see the point of that objection.
-
I just want a mechnical drive with huge amounts of cache storage such that writing huge files results in instant return to the app and destage at the device's relative leisure. I've never played with, for example, getting a large, let's say 30 MB file in word and hitting "save" and seeing how long it takes for the controller to get the data (i.e. cache policy allows asynchronous writing). Then make the file larger than disk controller cache storage and see how much mechanical delay is now introduced.
-
![]()
What I have to look at here is not something like gaining an edge as far as gaming performance having the OS running a little faster due to the two different types of drives but the need for drives that will handle loads like video capturing moving volumes of data and for a second identical drive the testing portion of multiple OS installs being likely for varying setups.
Wipe a test drive over and over again depending on need is what that would amount to as well as having plenry of drive space available for C is another factor to weigh in here. For testing the W8 Preview which will be here soon enough I would also look at the backup features which would include full system images being created from and restored to the test drive itself.
Drive wipe after drive wipe is what you wouldn't want for an SSD however from the information is pointing at. Durability over speed gain is what that comes down to. For someone else it would be an OS drive for performance with a mechanical for storage. Here I would compare that to a work horse drive where the mechanical drive will take the pounding over a lengthy period of time as opposed to an SSD failing from being overworked?
-
-
"it's not going to be viable to go past 6.5nm ... 2024 is the end."
hmm, there are a whole 12 years of technological development to go until then.
in three years time, someone will invent an ssd super-duperlizer, then in five years that will get superseded by a mega-wegalizer etc etc - probably.
would you have listened to hard drive manufacturers a dozen years ago if they had said "well, 5 gigs looks like the limit - we'll never get past that.", or ram manufacturers saying "we're never going to be able to make a 64 meg ram stick."
Exactly.
At my first computer job I remember my boss (who was a really sharp guy) saying that 4GB was the absolute top due to the limits of FAT drive structure.
Then some bright lads created a drive structure with two FAT tables. 
-
Stock Market Idiots
They may have been 4-5 years ago, the first batches were horrible with reliability, but today's SSDs have a metric crap ton of tricks and over commitment of ram to handle these very well known and understood problems. NO ONE knows about these problems more than the people manufacturing these drives.
That's probably true.
However given the current economic model (i.e. your assets are worthless, only your share price matters) there's no way that they could/would mention it, as the stock market idiots would instantly panic and destroy the company's share price. 
-
I think SSD will be supplanted by some new faster technology before HDD ever catch up in any way. So in that sense they are doomed.
-
-
And who said the drives have to get smaller? The drives are small enough now that manufacturers could revert back to the 3.5" format and easily quadruple the capacity with current technology. And think about what these drives could do if they had integrated RAID-type logic or multi-channel processing like RAM. The mechanical drives will never catch up in speed or rate of capacity increase. They have magnetic recording limitations similar to the SSD's electro-capacitive storage limits. 1TB HDDs were hitting the market about the same time as 20GB SSDs (About 5 years ago). Comparing rate of capacity increases in SSDs, how many 25TB HDDs do you see on the market?
There has always been a dividing line between workstations/desktops and laptops/netbooks and their usage. As long as this line remains, there's little reason for all SSD to become nano-drives. And 1 and 2TB SSDs have been around for quite a while. Just not within reach of the home crowd.
-
Excellent points, carwiz! 
-
![]()
"it's not going to be viable to go past 6.5nm ... 2024 is the end."
hmm, there are a whole 12 years of technological development to go until then.
in three years time, someone will invent an ssd super-duperlizer, then in five years that will get superseded by a mega-wegalizer etc etc - probably.
would you have listened to hard drive manufacturers a dozen years ago if they had said "well, 5 gigs looks like the limit - we'll never get past that.", or ram manufacturers saying "we're never going to be able to make a 64 meg ram stick."
Exactly.
At my first computer job I remember my boss (who was a really sharp guy) saying that 4GB was the absolute top due to the limits of FAT drive structure.
Then some bright lads created a drive structure with
two FAT tables.
MS originally went from 8bit to 16bit and then onto 32bit for the Dos factor. One old case while everyone was pointing out the 74gb limitations I ran a single 234gb primary on a 250gb drive for 98SE. Before that I had even used a bios overlay program you had to see go on first before a regular format.
The newer form of exFat is what you now see on many external hard drives to compensate for the increased capacity over the years. For strictly Windows use however the recommendation when buying a drive is simply to reformat to NTFS from the start since that is a more secure file system.
I think SSD will be supplanted by some new faster technology before HDD ever catch up in any way. So in that sense they are doomed.
I wouldn't be surprized in the least while lately someone had posted information on a PCIe type SSD drive showing how manufacturers are looking for any other available space that can be used for drives.
The high price tag for the newer technology is nothing new either while seeing prices remain high is a deterrent to seeing them adapted by the common user on a budget!
As far as ATA standards eventually there will be a peak where you wouldn't be able to go any further. That's been a known fact for years now and likely one reason why SSDs were developed as an alternative.
As far as increased capacities over time I know some who would simply run several small drives rather then going with a few large capacity drives. But 25tb is still off in the distance regardless of the drive technology used at this time.
For any phenomenal change in seeing super capacities you would have to expect a new technology to be introduced. That would need to be a performance orientated as well otherwise face drive access time problems for huge amounts of data. That's the main drawn with having too large a capacity and something manufacturers would have to overcome.
Quote