Windows 7: Seagate CEO Explains Why Flash Won’t Replace Magnetic HDDs Soon

I think mechanicals will always have a home as massive storage devices.
The price difference for the foreseeable future makes that all too clear.
Want a 2 tb ssd, well you can get it. You'll just have to take out a second mortgage on your house to afford it.
I actually saw a 20tb ssd pci-e once I won't bother telling you the price.





...and a enteriprise level ssd of any significant size is well...
I think I'll replace my truck with something newer first.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227771

(also note from the reviews, it apparently doesn't work worth a damn)

Laughable. Mechanical drives are being slapped together now and aren't lasting as long as they should anymore. I've just had two mechanical drives die on us within the past six months and out of our total of 5. And guess what? Our 80GB drive (an OEM no less) that is 8 years old is the one reporting the best health and reliability attributes in S.M.A.R.T. And I for one find that to be atrocious. Drives that had less than 4 years of use aren't supposed to flame out and that used to be a rare enough thing back in the day, now it's more common than ever before. And we're supposedly buying drives today that have all of this much better and advanced technology?! Laughable.

As soon as the price drops to a more reasonable and affordable level, I think I will be phasing out our mechanical drives. The cost to keep replacing them, especially right now, equates to about what an SSD runs in the first place. So it just makes more sense financially to go straight for the SSD with a significantly less chance of failure straight off.

However, I for one believe the cost of both mechanical and SSD's is too much. Even SD cards and etc. are too expensive. Also, if they can cram 64GB into a tiny little SD card, they can cram a few TB into a SSD. There just wouldn't be a demand for it, as they would cost more than a brand new vehicle (gotta love that greed-or excuse me, that 'supply and demand')!

There are different types of ram , not just meaning different frequencies and timings, but there are drastically varied ways ram is physically put together.
That's the big difference you are looking at when comparing a ssd to a camera or phone card.
They are two completely different animals.

While there are undoubtedly differences in how each device is utilized, it is still flash memory on both devices. I fail to see how they could differ so much (physically) in that they can't shove as much storage into a significantly larger device when they've basically already accomplished it with a tiny card not even 1/10th the size of a credit card (a feat, as I recall, was also regarded as impossible - and the Nano iPods? Same thing, they said it was impossible but here they are).

But if you know something about it that I don't with these differences, feel free to pass it along. Learning is my hobby.

Personally, I'd like to see them create a massive SD-card type device that works exactly the same way, but which would be purely a data storage drive for documents, pictures, music, video etc. etc. leaving the present, evidently higher-functioning SSD's for the operating system and programs. That way, we really would not need 1TB and above in a single SSD to house the brunt of data, which is personal files rather than programs and games. And really, apart from with mobile systems that can only accommodate 1 drive, I've never seen the point or advantage of storing personal files on the same drive as the operating system and programs. Seems to me they are much more secure and less likely to be damaged, lost or corrupted on a separate drive in the first place.

If any of that makes sense anyway, sometimes I have a hard time communicating ideas to others... abstract minded.

For basically the same reason you can't get a Yugo around a track at the same speed as a Bugatti veyron even though they are both cars made with engines that run on gas...

...there is the obvious price difference there as well.

Interesting article. Page 5 states the economics of the problem. There is not enough manufacturing capacity in the Flash fabs to come even close to the volume of HDD, and the investment costs do not make it feasible to try and replace the HDD. The SSD is a special market and works great for OS and some programs but HDD will dominate the storage area for years to come.

Jim

There are several things wrong here.

1) SSDs do not HAVE to "replace" HDDs for them to be insanely useful so this whole argument or justification for his comments seems misplaced on the face of it..
2) Just because there is not enough silicon capacity TODAY does not mean there won't be within 5 years.
3) MOST people never use anywhere NEAR the full capacity of that 1TB drive that comes with their computer. Not even close. I bet 90% of all computers and laptops used today don't need more than 250 gig of storage, and the price on those sized SSDs will soon be at a point where the performance/cost increase and the marketing value will be plenty good to switch over.

So while segate may continue enjoy selling hard drives to huge data centers, corporate servers and the enthusiast home user, they could /easily/ lose a HUGE chunk of their drive market in the next few years because no one really needs a 4TB drive in their laptop, home or office computer...

SSD's will first take over HDDs in the home computer market. I have been running a SSD since November 2009 and am totally glad that I spent the $250.00 dollars for the unit (80 gigs). The home market will in the future start to drive the purchase of SSDs. This is in a way what happen in the 80's and 90's.

For those who remember back in the 70's and 80' we saw the influx of floppy disk. These disks ranged in size from 3.5" to 12". Those used for home use were 3.5" to 5.25". In a since it was again the home user who started pushing the HDD. I remember in 1988 buying a 20 meg HDD. The drive had a 5.25" platter, and was about the size of a bread box (may be a little smaller).

When SSD demand out reaches supply then manufactures will step up and meet those demands, albeit until that happens then yes HDDs will still be out in the for front.

A lot of people do need far more than 1 TB.

You need a lot of space, if you actually make backup HDD images, instead of relying on "the whims of the Gods" to protect your data.

My friend shoots lots of photos and video and he has multiple TB of external HDDs for storage.

If you are a compulsive hoarder (like me) you need stacks of storage space.
I've got 8 TB of storage (4.5 TB internal + 3.5 TB external).
There is about 2 TB 1 TB of empty space left, spread over 7 HDDs.

I need another large HDD, so that I can reorganise my backups, pictures, videos, VMs, etc.
I can probably get a TB back, if I can track down all the (excess) duplicate files.
I know that I have about 100 GB of duplicate VMs.

Yes, you and I do, we are "enthusiasts" as any regular poster here is. We are not the 90% that do NOT need anywhere near that amount of storage.