because they are new.

Did you mean SNSD?

>>6584639
Okay, let me rephrase that a bit.

Why are they so seemingly randomly priced? I just saw a 60GB one for $415, what the fuck is that shit?

>>6584639

The major mfr's have been shipping SSDs for at least 2 years bro, that isn't it.

>>6584661
>implying that 2 years of a new tech makes it old

>>6584644
idiot

The reason is the performance for read/write that you gain. One SSD can easily outperform basic HDD raids.

The best bang for your buck SSD is the P128 or P256 models.

the performance delta between them and conventional platter methods warrant the cost hike.

>>6584668

DRAM based ssds have been around a lot longer than that.

Because they suck ass and yet despite them being expensive and sucking they're going to become standard because of retards buying them because all these big companies want people to, so we'll basically have LCD bullshit all over again as they start coming down in price. Idiots supported this garbage even when it was expensive and so it goes down a little and now we have it cheap but still just as shitty.

>>6584661
How long have hard drive been manufactured? 50 years?

>>6584700
Are you implying that LCD is a bad thing?

>>6584652
as with most newly emerging tech, they are priced higher because people will buy it.

think store brand vs. commercial brand cereal. its the same thing, but different people will buy the different ones for their own reasons.

Some people like to have all the latest stuff, so they are willing to pay alot, and companies know that.

Having only a limited number at a high price makes people want them, so when they finally do lower in price everyone will go get one.

the list of reasons go on and on...


>>6584661

i don't mean the tech is new, i'm saying that it is just recently becoming popular with the mass market. A lot of tech sits on the side lines until it either becomes popular or until the company decides to go big scale with it.

>>6584700
How is an SSD not better then a HDD excluding price?
Protip : For the new generation SSD's, there isn't one.

>Why are they so god-damn expensive?
I guess it comes down to:
Production price/unit.
Competition.
Consumer demand.

Seeing as the price is still high on production, the retail price won't drop below a certain point because the consumer demand isn't high enough to spark serious competition between high quality products.

>>6584736
>I guess it comes down to:
>Production price/unit.
>Competition.
>Consumer demand.

no shit, eh?

If I just wanted to run OS + a couple of games on an ssd how big should I get it?

Price will crash soon anyway

>>6584824
32gb

>>6584729
Three fucking words:
LIMITED
WRITE
CYCLES

And any moron that thinks this isn't a problem, enjoy your fucking dead SSD in less than a year. Protip: OSes write to the fucking drive. A LOT. Unless you barely use your computer and don't keep it on very much, your fucking shitty SSD WILL FUCKING DIE very soon.

There are plenty of arguments against it but they're bullshit concocted by these goddamn companies with a fucking hardon to sell their new garbage technology to fucking suckers.

There's already been a story on /. about SSDs fucking dying very early on and backed up by fucking TONS of comments of similar stories.

SSD is shit.

>>6584636
supply + demand

>>6584824

what OS and what games?


better yet, instead of asking /g/ to use google for you-- look up the sys requirements of the OS you want, and of the games you want to install. add those numbers together and buy a drive accordingly.

>>6584874
And even with "LIMITED WRITECYCLES" they will still
last over 5 years

>>6584824
What's your price range?
I recommend...
For OS/Drivers/Temp/Etc:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233087&Tpk=p128
Storage of Games/Programs Etc:
Get a raptor drive or two.

Total cost around $500-600

>>6584874

dont most of these things have 5yr+ warranties

as long as you backup your data (which you should be doing anyways) what's the problem?

also
>implying magnetic hdds never fail
>laughing girls.jpg

>>6584874
>implying disk based hard drives don't fail.

>>6584896
have you had one for 5 years?

>>6584924
Try basic math.

>>6584874
Only valid post here.
You faggots are unbelievable, enjoy wasting money.

>>6584874
The new generation SSDs have 1M+hr lifetimes with the current firmware and controllers.

>>6584954
see...
>>6584955
the first SSDs where crap and where definitely not worth the money, but now the failure rate of HDDs is an order of magnitude more likely then for an SSD.

Let's talk RAM, /g/.

Why is 128GB or even 80GB of RAM so god-damn expensive?

>>6585008
Talking of RAM, doesn't that get written to an assload of times a day... my RAM ain't died yet, had it 3+ years

>>6584924
No but

I have 20+ year old hard drives that still work,

I have CDRs that I burned my self in the mid
90s that still work,

And have installed Windows to compact flash cards,
I did disable the swap file, and disabled write
behind caching, But 90% of the systems I did like
that were used for years before they were replaced

>>6585015
RAM isn't solid state, hurr.

>>6585024
Most new SSD's have lifetimes of 100 years of USE before failure.

>>6584896
Oh yeah? Tell that to all the faggots who bought these things and lost all their files within the space of one quarter.

Flash SSDs are the worst fucking thing to have happened in Computing history. Windows ME was less fucked up than this!

Also, enjoy losing space on your disc as it ages as TRIM literally trims some of the cells to death to keep your data alive.

I'll fucking stick with HDDs, i'd sooner by a DRAM-drive than Flash SSD.

>>6585008
i remember when 3 years ago in school some kid told me his computer had 60 gigs of ram. first i laughed at the fact that he mistook his HD for ram, then laughed at the fact that he had a 60gb HD

>>6584874
>dead SSD in less than a year
My eee had a very low quality 4gb SSD.
It is 2 years old now.

My home computer has a 32gb X25-e from intel. It is 1 year old now.

>>6585043
What I was saying in my post >>6585024
was why would SSDs fail, if years ago Compactflash
worked well enough to run an OS on, and work
for years, it only sucked because it was slow

>>6584729
Write speeds are pathetic.

>>6585057
is it running Linux, if so, remember that helps a lot

>>6585051
Ummm, as mentioned multiple times above the old generation controllers and firmware where not designed properly, hence the failure.

The new SSD's are byte for byte more stable then HDDs and are far less prone to physical stresses causing hardware failure.

The new HDD's are shit, a test was done with a (10x)1TB HDDs drive and (10x)Intel SSD drive, both had 100TB written/read/deleted. Out of the 10 HDDs, 8 had corrupt sectors, two qualified for warranty return. Out of the SSDs not one failed a read/write test and performance after the test was within 1% of the original tested values.

>>6584727
this anon knows his economics.

>>6584729
>How is an SSD not better then a HDD excluding price?

power consumption

>>6585231
Using less power is bad?

>>6585101
No, windows.

>>6585131
> [citation needed]

Because its basically a bunch of ram?

>>6585231
1-1.5W(SSD) vs 10-25W(HDD)

the technology is expensive, but is also the wave of the future

hdd's have become dirt cheap like sdram was/is, and that came and went

i woudn't be surprised if in the near future, moderatly sized ssd's were the main operating drive in a computer with an additional hdd for archival purposes

where the OS would manage disc capacity vs performance by seamlessly transferring data between discs (i.e. no reason for a 4gb movie to be on the ssd)

>>6585318
There are actually prototype builds where SSD-like technology acts similar to RAM now, and RAM is integrated as a level 4 cache for the processor.

>>6585350
oh god that sounds so sexy

>>6585350
>>6585355

Sexy? Are you fucking kidding me? Ram latency is insanely high compared to l3 cache, and ssd's are similarly slower than ram.

Setting up a build like that sounds pretty retarded.

>>6585381
ITT retard who doesn't know shit about computer architecture.

The reason RAM has high latency is because the processor has to assess it via pipelining, if the RAM is implemented as a cache it removes the need for this and gives the processor direct and much faster access.

>>6584874
protoip: all new OSes are optimized in an SSD friendly way. More ram usage, less harddrive usage. Which is fine anyway since massive amounts of ram are becoming more commonplace, espescially in the enthusiast market which is more likely to use SSDs and new OSs.

>>6585405
The reason RAM has high latency is because it isn't on the chip.

>>6585445
That's what a cache is, hence the idea of adding the ram for direct access from the processor.

According to multiple series of tests, the average write endurance of today's flash SSD is of about 1 to 5 millions write cycles. And, the bigger the storage capacity of a drive, the better it gets endurance-wise.

Let's do a little math. Let's take, say, a 64Gb drive.

2 million (average write endurance) x 64G (capacity) divided by 80M bytes / sec (That's the fastest for a flash SSD available today and assumes that the data is being written in big DMA blocks.) gives the endurance limited life in seconds.

That's a meaningless number - which needs to be divided by seconds in an hour, hours in a day etc etc to give...

The end result is 51 years.

So, yeah... I don't think I'll still be using my 64Gb flash SSD 50 years from now. So, if people are afraid, they can refrain from using these drives, but I wouldn't recommend it, considering the boost in performance they have to offer.

>>6585381
SATA was designed as a replacement for EIDE, which is all hard disk tech.

Need more motherboards with mini-pcie risers.

It is cheaper to coat an aluminium disc with rust than to make chips.

doesn't NASA use SSD in their deep-space voyager shit?

>>6586309
Yes, as an aside though HDDs would never work in space. So its a moot point.

their not, but the cheap ones are just big USB sticks. Remember when a 10 MB drive was $3600?. I paid close to three hundred for my first 4 gig drive. Are you 16 years old? This is the way the capitalist system feeds off your wallet. Next year they will be cheap. Just wait a while.

>>6586374
Speaking of which, what's the biggest capacity USB stick and how much do they cost?

>>6586328
are you fucking stupid?