SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say

[lehnerus2000]

Distorted Questions

Yes but you don't NEED a 1 TB SSD to get 90% of the benefit of having one. At least not in any machine that can have more than one drive... In fact SSDs may /never/ catch up to spinners in $$/GB. But that doesn't mean that they aren't insanely useful and can;t speed 90% of your daily operations up by 1000%!!!

And it is true that 99% of everyone poo-pooing SSDs are people that have never tried one and seen for themselves what a jaw dropping difference even a 120Gig can make on your system..

That's fair enough.

If I were to get an SSD, I would get a "small" one to install my operating systems on.

I still wouldn't pay more than $40 for a 120 GB SSD.
The cheapest SSD listed by my parts supplier is ~$160.
That's another 2 TB HDD (even at today's inflated prices).

A lot of SSD fans are proclaiming the end of HDDs.
If they are correct, then I'm going to have to spend thousands of dollars, to get storage equivalent to what I have now (which cost me less than $300).

I couldn't do it based on the equipment my supplier has in stock.
It would take 20 of their largest SSDs to equal my 3 HDDs.
It would cost over $8000 to buy the SSDs (even if I could attach them to my MB).

So how would the critics have phrased the questions?
...
I think I can guess where the two "ain't got/don't want" votes came from.

You'd probably be wrong.

You know what? You either have one, or you don't. You either like them, or you don't. If that seems dodgy to anyone, start your own stinkin' poll.

Survey results can easily be distorted by the wording of the question (from "Yes Minister").

Sir Humphrey Appleby: [demonstrating how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions] Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

 

[profdlp]

...Survey results can easily be distorted...

Trust me, it's an election year over here and there is plenty of evidence of that to be found.

Serious question: Do you think this poll was distorted? If so, how could it have been improved?

 

[jimbo45]

#1 is what virtually all SSD owners are currently using, including myself.

(In case my hastily composed list of choices wasn't clear, choice #1 is made up of two or more drives, like what I have listed in "My System Specs".)

I think the point of the article must be for Enterprise-type applications where big, fast and easily configurable is ideal and a multiple-drive solution (Boot SSD + Mechanical Storage) is undesirable. For home users, run everything off C: and store everything on D: . I used to do it that way pre-SSD using a single mechanical drive with two partitions. It's just as easy to set up with two separate drives, one of each type.

Hi there
People seem always to think "Enterprise" applications are large and complex.

Maybe so but on the USERS workstations usually people are runninng "Bog standard" Office type apps (EXCEL, Powerpoint etc) .

There ARE large enterprise applications --things like SAP etc but these are normally run on large server systems probably running UNIX or some variant of it or Ms SQL server -- the User connects to these via a front end GUI which isn't CPU heavy at all even though the Back end system is !!.

Home users are much more likely to be running intensive stuff --Video editing, Photoshop. Gaming etc etc.

However even in the workplace SSD's on the company laptops are fine -- and capacity doesn't matter because users don't store stuff on the laptop directly but on Network drives (oe external storage to take home etc).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[lehnerus2000]

Depends on what you wanted

...Survey results can easily be distorted...

Trust me, it's an election year over here and there is plenty of evidence of that to be found.

Serious question: Do you think this poll was distorted? If so, how could it have been improved?

I hope that "Yes Minister" scene (It is a funny show) indicated that the wording of the question you ask, determines the response you get.

IMO, the questions were asking for "yes" or "no" answers.
That is probably exactly what you intended.

3) How many people who do not have an SSD want one?

From my perspective that isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question.

Q - Do you want an SSD at $2/GB?
A - No.

Q - Do you want an SSD at $0.10/GB?
A - Where do I get it?

4) How many people who do not have an SSD have no plans to ever get one?

From my perspective this isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question, either.

Q - Will you ever buy an SSD, if they remain at $2/GB?
A - No.

Q - Will you ever buy an SSD, if they drop to $0.10/GB?
A - You bet!

* those were just example prices.

 

[fseal]

Once again it really isn't about the $$$/Gig

SSDs do NOT have to be data storage drives to have tremendous worth all on their own. In fact AS a simple data storage drive they really don't shine unless that data is a multi gig database file, or a movie server with 30 simultaneous streams running. It's as an OS and program/cache drive that they are most useful. Given that, anything above about 120/160 gig is probably NOT worth the $$$ but at 160 and down they very much are.

 

[Night Hawk]

For most any SSD wouldn't be in use for storage to start with being applied for host/boot/OS use. As for the price vs size factor that depends on the individual user there.

Some will only see a 120gb drive on a laptop where browsing and checking the mail is the general use. For others who run many programs or programs that tend to see large files or volumes of small to mid sized(depends on what you might refer to as) 160gb would be a bit cramped.

As for being a simple yes or no type question the answer to that would be no it isn't. The same could be said now for any USB 3.0 devices where you now have a pair of 3.0 ports on a new board but see the high prices on something like a 3.0 flash drive. A 16gb 2.0 model sells in a retail store for $40 and less online while an online vendor offering the same 16gb 2.0 flash drive for $30 or less even will charge $99- for the same 3.0 flash drive.

The other factor that comes into play and why most would wait to see prices fall sharply would reliability ad durability. Who will eventually start manufacturing them besides... mostly companies already manufacturing pc memory with exceptions like Hitachi. How about the leading drive manufacturers like Seagate, WD, and others? Seagate has been focused lately on a change of the coating used on drive platters for their mechanical drives to see a vast increase in drive capacity.

 

[carwiz]

Every user is different. I can't imagine storing video, recorded TV, audio files and massive amounts of photos on a SSD. Recorded TV files can range for 3-12GB each. It wouldn't take long to fill a pricey SSD with a night of recording. For the most part, speed is of no concern for these files and don't warrant a SSD. That's why I'll never be without a spinner or two. But I'll never be without a SSD for a system disk either.

 

[Night Hawk]

Well for the tuner card here also used for capturing video from external input onto the host/OS drive even while being temporarily seen chewing up drive space fast what would you do with a 160gb SSD installed? The files wouldn't be directed to the host drive by any means but a secondary storage.

Now start adding in a few other "biggies" like VMs(several at times), an increasing collection of image files you maintain, etc. and what happened to that 160gb? Long gone is the obvious answer! Even a 250gb drive could be filled rather fast thus the need for a larger OS drive.

Gee now you are looking at a 512gb SSD?! Ready to spend the "do re' me" for the larger SSD? Not really!

Are you now starting to get the bigger picture? The type of build and daily use by the user can make or break the idea of rushing at the latest when it simply wouldn't work out. For the geek who has the "must have that edge" performance gain and runs a small machine to begin with the SDD holds the benefit there for that higher price tag.

For the novice first time user buying the OEM machine the drive it comes with is all they would use. And for those dealing with large files or large volumes of files where drive space is the essential the SSD poses limitations. High prices and availability of larger capacity drives especially the often needed larger OS drive simply places the SSD in the unsuitable catagory there regardless of any performance edge. Practicality vs Performance weighs in.

 

[windude99]

Well for the tuner card here also used for capturing video from external input onto the host/OS drive even while being temporarily seen chewing up drive space fast what would you do with a 160gb SSD installed? The files wouldn't be directed to the host drive by any means but a secondary storage.

Now start adding in a few other "biggies" like VMs(several at times), an increasing collection of image files you maintain, etc. and what happened to that 160gb? Long gone is the obvious answer! Even a 250gb drive could be filled rather fast thus the need for a larger OS drive.

Gee now you are looking at a 512gb SSD?! Ready to spend the "do re' me" for the larger SSD? Not really!

Are you now starting to get the bigger picture? The type of build and daily use by the user can make or break the idea of rushing at the latest when it simply wouldn't work out. For the geek who has the "must have that edge" performance gain and runs a small machine to begin with the SDD holds the benefit there for that higher price tag.

For the novice first time user buying the OEM machine the drive it comes with is all they would use. And for those dealing with large files or large volumes of files where drive space is the essential the SSD poses limitations. High prices and availability of larger capacity drives especially the often needed larger OS drive simply places the SSD in the unsuitable catagory there regardless of any performance edge. Practicality vs Performance weighs in.

On my pc, I have a 120GB ssd for OS, programs, and user data. I have 2 1tb hard drives for vms and backups. It does depend on the usage. My setup is perfet for me, but may not be perfect for someone else.

 

[Night Hawk]

I can easily agree with that. Here I manage two Sata II 1tb drives for Host and Beta OS application and testing system image backups made with the second to insure integrity.

The other two Sata 3 drives are the primary storage and system image, VM, and other odd storage which could include storing an image from one of the laptops as well as the desktop. The problem now seen of course with the two S3 drives is running out of room where a 3rd external 1tb drive can be used to pick up the slack there a bit.

Now for someone contemplating whether to or not to buy an SSD, and not actually so new a technology as you might think but has been around for decades in fact, you may to look over the latest article on SSDs seen at ZDNet. Is it time to buy that SSD? | ZDNet

 

[lehnerus2000]

Horses for Courses

Once again it really isn't about the $$$/Gig

For me it is.
I have to save up for a year, to be able to afford to "blow" $100 on my PC.

I bought an external HDD for my PC (in January) because I had $70 in vouchers.
Without the vouchers, I couldn't justify spending the money ($119).

If a brand new 120 GB SSD cost $30, I'd be taking the bus, right now, to my parts suppliers shop.
At $240 $180, it can stay on the shelf.

I can't justify spending that sort of money to make Word start in 1 second, as opposed to 5 seconds.

My 20" CRT takes more time to start, than Windows XP(!) takes to boot up.
I spend hours looking at my monitor everyday.
I spend almost no time booting up, or starting programs.
A new high quality monitor is a higher priority for me, than an SSD.

 

[C32C3]

I haven’t heard someone mention CRT’s in a long time. I have a 19” Philips CRT stuck away in a LARGE box in a storage room. I remember I paid a few hundred euros for it, ‘back in the day’, and because it never gave me a problem I just could not part with it.
Besides, it gives me a secure feeling to know that I have a backup monitor. I also have two computers that use single processors!

As for SSD’s my opinion is that they are purposefully over priced to generate profits and that they are intended to be only an interim step to whatever will shortly replace them. Hard drive manufacturers are not thinking one step at a time; they already know what will replace the SSD. When the demand and newness of the SSD is on the wane accompanied by falling sales they will introduce the SSD replacement; but make no mistake about it, they already know what the replacement is.

 

[Night Hawk]

I did away with any crts back in 2003 when the prices first started to come down on then practically new lcds. Try about $300 for a 14" model back then!

For this build I ended up seeing two 19" models for $100 a pop due to a weekly sale on monitors a Staples store has regularly rather then ordering online. Almost 10yrs. later at 1/3 the cost and a larger screen to boot! Shop around a bit and occasionally you can run into a good bargain on one these days.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Same Problem

My cash problem applies to monitors too.
I can't spare $150 - $250 to get a reasonable size monitor (>=23", my eyes are shot).

I have to spend ~$2000 in the next few weeks to move house (new bond, utility bills, etc.).

 

[Night Hawk]

That's whole different ball game there for sure! Once you get settled in the first item as far as any hardware would be replacing the monitor over a few seconds gained in boot times!

I have a friend who runs with a 24" but keeps the screen res low so everthing is enlarged when viewed onscreen. Of course it also makes a bit harder when trying to help him through any problems when you can only see "part of" one window opened rather then room for viewing two!

The best time for actually looking into any SSD is actually when first planning out a new build. That allows you to calculate the higher tag into the equation for a rough estimate of the total ahead of time as well as decisions on what drives will go in since the smaller sizes for many implies the need for larger second HDs.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Like all technology -- it depends on your needs, wants and cash availability. Some people buy cars that have a top speed faster than a Eurostar TGV train (around 300 Km / hr) -- when the max speed limit in most countries is between 110 and 140 Kph . You then have to say why bother.

I CAN however say that if you use computers regularly for any length of time the performance gained by using an SSD (not just start up time of the application) is ABSOLUTELY IMO WORTH EVERY CENT.

I use photoshop and EXCEL nearly every day -- and here I can tell the difference instantly when working on even a more powerful machine that has only spinners in it.

If you've never tried one I suggest DO NOT try one UNLESS you can afford to get an SSD -- once you've installed one there IS NO GOING BACK.!! You've been warned !!!.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Iforgot]

jimbo are you using virtual memory on the SSD?

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
I assume the paging / system files are all on the SSD -- I installed W8 CP to the SSD as the "C" drive before I re-partitioned it to hold a SMALL amount of user data on a small 20 GB "D" partition (It's a laptop so it's useful to have SOME data stored in the computer -- otherwise I'm happy to use USB sticks / 500GB ext usb drive for "portable" data.

Photoshop scratch file is also on the SSD. SSD "C" partition is 100 GB, "D" partition 20GB. The OS itself uses around 48 GB. Photoshop files can get quite large so that's why I've got a lot of space left on "C".

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Iforgot]

Hi jimbo You know that having a swop file on SSD is going to thrash the SSD. SSD's aren't know for there longevity yet. Take a look at the memory usage with photoshop running and see if you can have it run in memory

 

[jimbo45]

Hi jimbo You know that having a swop file on SSD is going to thrash the SSD. SSD's aren't know for there longevity yet. Take a look at the memory usage with photoshop running and see if you can have it run in memory

Hi there

Fine by me -- the speed is well worth cost of getting another one if it fails --and with 8GB RAM on the laptop any swapping is fairly minimal.

Shortage of RAM will cause disks to be used more. Once the OS has set up all the page segments and done it's mapping then running typical apps on a laptop with 8GB RAM doesn't make for heavy I/O.

The only time I need serious Photoshop scratch files is if I've got a Pro digital camera digital shot where I want to print A3+ or even A2 at Pro quality and am doing loads of "layers".

Cheers
jimbo