[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]There are people out there building their own systems who actually opt to NOT get at least a 60GB SSD as their system drive? Seriously, of all the upgrades and cash I've ever thrown into my PC, nothing (!) gave the type of real-world, noticeable difference in everyday computer use as my SSD! Though, anyone also considering buying/using an SSD for data storage is somewhat either missing the point, or has absolutely zero cash-flow considerations.[/citation]
id use one to store massive amounts of small files and on a hdd, it can take 5 minutes to open folders.
if i had the cash, i would replace all hdds with ssd also, a bit more reliable than them.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]What a flawed argument. In the HDD sector there is thriving competition, and yet due to a single natural disaster prices are way up. Intel has had a practical monopoly on the market for YEARS, and prices/warranty have stayed the same for a good long time. I'm not saying that what you said was out-and-out wrong, but there are more variables than just supply/demand/competition. In the tech industry is does not take long for a giant like Intel to fall, and they have fallen before when they have let their guard down. AMD reigned supreme for a nice long stint with their $1000 consumer end CPUs. Intel does not want AMD, or one of the upstart ARM companies to provide any real competition, so they keep prices low so as to discourage anyone from entering the market. The second their prices go up there will be money/blood in the water, and anyone who has the ability to will be all over making CPUs.Anywho, I would much rather have shorter warranties and companies getting back on their feet quicker, then to have these crazy prices forever and ever. As companies recover and compete for customers again the warranties will rise again.[/citation]
actually the cpu market is effectively unenterable for anyone new, the cost me design a chip that iw powerful enough is in the billion $ range, probably a few billion now, and even after than you have to soak up the losses for your first 2-3 chipsets all in all you are looking at a loss of about 10-20 billion before you have a chance to compete...
arm managed to enter it because they are less complicated cpus made for phones, and slowly crawled up to the point we are even considering them for an intel replacement, at least in server and low end laptop markets.
just thought i should mention that.
------------------
all that above said, i want a 4tb drive. and i will get one when it hits 200$, and i will buy it from whoever has the strongest warrenty.
i will buy my second 4tb backup when they hit the 100$ range, or when Christmas comes whichever happens first.
and from that moment on, i will be replacing my drives, and backup drives every time the warranty gives out with a bigger drive... it takes a while to eat up 1tb of space if you also use dvds to burn off the bigger files.
im also planning in useing thumb drives to get the smaller files not needed anymore off.
and in a few years (2-3 hdd sycles) when ssds hit the 1tb mark for 100$, ill replace all drives with those, probably to the point i can raid 5 them with a hdd.
hdds are going to die, the more i think of it the sooner it seams it could happen.
if everyone moved over to ssd, pooled collectively 10 billion, and just worked as hard as they could on getting to a 10-5nm process for memory (far less complex than a cpu, not sure how much of the physics stuff applies) we could get the tb range really fast, but god know no company can pool together resources for a common good.