AMD_pitbull
Distinguished
- Mar 6, 2010
- 132
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I assume you meant 750GB, not 750MB and either way you are wrong, plain and simple. No time soon will an OS use that much storage. In fact I think Windows 8 will use less storage space than Windows 7 does so please explain how an OS will use that much storage space. It will probably take us a minimum of 15 years for something like that and I don't think 15 years is enough for that increase in storage requirements.Octane is just too expensive for it's performance. I might pay half of it's current price for that performance, maybe a little more than half.[/citation]
pretty sure you quoted the wrong guy.
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]True, but by then folks will need a minimum of 750MB for the OS etc and demand at least 5 TB from a boot drive to be acceptable 🙂My first hard disc was 5MB in size (yes, 5MB... not a typo). And I could not believe how much faster it was with it's huge storage capacity compared to the 360k 5 1/4" floppy disks I was using up to then.Bottom line, no matter how big and cheap the next generation SSDs will be, it will always be too small and too expensive. We just want more from Moore's law 🙂[/citation]
it's funny cuz you say it will always be too small and too expensive, yet, the biggest debate we're having here is $/gb. #1 thing I see people complaining about is the amount of space they need, which is understandable. If you need 5tb in storage, an SSD boot and 5 tb HDDs are gonna be a better option right now then trying to buy 5tb in SSD storage. I doubt many people reading these articles have the funds to acquire THAT much space in SSD-land, where the GB still comes at a premium. Give it a few years. Will they be available in larger sizes for cheaper soon? that depends on the companies. The biggest thing I'm seeing isn't GB/$ go down, it's overall performance go up (ie, MB/s) and, imo, there's nothing wrong with that. If I can get a 100gb SSD drive in 3 years that has a sustained speed of 700mb/s Read/write, and I have to pay $200 for it? I don't see an issue. It's just like the 7970 that just came out. 550 for it. Is that cheap? No. But, you want top performance, you pay top dollar or wait ti'll there's better. Welcome to the electronics game.
pretty sure you quoted the wrong guy.
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]True, but by then folks will need a minimum of 750MB for the OS etc and demand at least 5 TB from a boot drive to be acceptable 🙂My first hard disc was 5MB in size (yes, 5MB... not a typo). And I could not believe how much faster it was with it's huge storage capacity compared to the 360k 5 1/4" floppy disks I was using up to then.Bottom line, no matter how big and cheap the next generation SSDs will be, it will always be too small and too expensive. We just want more from Moore's law 🙂[/citation]
it's funny cuz you say it will always be too small and too expensive, yet, the biggest debate we're having here is $/gb. #1 thing I see people complaining about is the amount of space they need, which is understandable. If you need 5tb in storage, an SSD boot and 5 tb HDDs are gonna be a better option right now then trying to buy 5tb in SSD storage. I doubt many people reading these articles have the funds to acquire THAT much space in SSD-land, where the GB still comes at a premium. Give it a few years. Will they be available in larger sizes for cheaper soon? that depends on the companies. The biggest thing I'm seeing isn't GB/$ go down, it's overall performance go up (ie, MB/s) and, imo, there's nothing wrong with that. If I can get a 100gb SSD drive in 3 years that has a sustained speed of 700mb/s Read/write, and I have to pay $200 for it? I don't see an issue. It's just like the 7970 that just came out. 550 for it. Is that cheap? No. But, you want top performance, you pay top dollar or wait ti'll there's better. Welcome to the electronics game.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram