Solid state drives still 'far from practical'

The widespread use of Flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs) could be as far off as five years, according to one analyst. Jim Handy, of Objective Analysis, believes that the chip-based drives may not see significant use in notebook computers for three to five years. "We remain sceptical in our outlook for rapid adoption of Flash-based SSDs," he said.

"Flash has found success in replacing hard disk drives [HDDs] where a fixed capacity is needed, but notebook and PC users will continue to demand increasingly larger HDDs for quite a while yet." The first Flash-based drives began to emerge as options for notebooks in 2007. Vendors such as Apple and Dell offer SSDs on selected notebooks at anywhere from $900 to $1,300.

View: The full story @ vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Coming Soon: Windows Live OneCare for Server

Next Story

Police take down hacker network with up to 1 million zombies

21 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

(Popcorned said @ #8)
I've been reading that the life expectancy of SSD's are considerbly less than normal HDD's.

Is this true?


Better question is what is the life expectancy of a normal harddrive? 3years? 5 years? more? I think 3 years is plenty if SSD last that long. Plus you can always get extra ram and disabled the pagefile.

One interesting point is that, in theory, lifetime will scale virtually 100% with capacity for SSDs, this is because the wear levelling algorithm has twice the capacity to spread the writes over.

(winmoose said @ #8.2)
One interesting point is that, in theory, lifetime will scale virtually 100% with capacity for SSDs, this is because the wear levelling algorithm has twice the capacity to spread the writes over.

hey i think you might be in the wrong forum you just posted a piece of useful information!

Was it just me or someone else also read about Samsung poping up 64GB earlier :nuts: but now calling it action of next 5 years sounds disgusting :disappointed: Talking about continous stream read, maybe the drivers for SSDs will start pinging the SSDs so they don't fall asleep fast demand output is that crazy?

Personally I think computers should have a 70GB SSD Drive for their OS and main apps... then a Rotational magnetic media drive for their "file storage" the OS should be fast... opening and storeing saved files doesn't matter as much as OS I/O

I sorta had this going on my Thinkpad T42. I had a 16GB SSD and a 120GB 5400RPM PATA drive and it worked nicely until i wanted to put back in my DVDRW to backup the data on the PATA Drive They both used the UltraBay so that was a problem.

Today there are NAS drives and all that for backup (i have a 500GB one now ) but at the time i thought, give me a 64GB SSD and i wont need the HDD at all. Who really needs 70GB of applications? I can imagine if you are a gamer and have installed several games to the drives (3-4GB per game) then surely but for the person with a laptop using it for office stuff SSD at 64GB is more than enough Install Office 2007, Vista Business and some other average apps totalled me out at 8.98GB, I don't need a 80GB MP3 collection with me at all time cuz the battery wont last that long anyways Movies, just rip a few to the SSD and you're good to go.

I'd definitely like to get rid of my HDD if i could have a SSD in there. I have a T60 now so SATA SSDs are starting to look tempting even if it's only 32GB for now

When it comes to desktop I believe that we will see computers coming with SSD and HDD as neufuse describes. It makes sense. But in the laptop market I think that it will eventually make more sense to go with an SSD as oppose to an HDD due to being compact and easy on battery life.

(KoDeXeRo said @ #5.2)
Who really needs 70GB of applications?

There's always someone, and it isn't limited to gamers. I do work with Final Cut Studio 2. If you install every single component and all component files, it takes up ~66 GB. And we haven't even begun to discuss the file sizes of the files I work with :)

For the record, I don't have all 66 GB installed on my laptop, nor do I do most of my work from my laptop. I would if I could, though!

(neufuse said @ #5)
Personally I think computers should have a 70GB SSD Drive for their OS and main apps... then a Rotational magnetic media drive for their "file storage" the OS should be fast... opening and storeing saved files doesn't matter as much as OS I/O

That's what I wanna do in the future. But as someone else posted above. What is the life for SSDs at this point? OS I/O specially pagefile usage will write to the SSD alot. I suppose you can move the pagefile to the HDD though, but then that defeates the whole idea of having the OS on the SSD for faster I/O.

(Ledgem said @ #5.4)

There's always someone, and it isn't limited to gamers. I do work with Final Cut Studio 2. If you install every single component and all component files, it takes up ~66 GB. And we haven't even begun to discuss the file sizes of the files I work with :)
Development tools ect too can add up depending what you use and what parts of them you install. I doubt many would use 70Gigs worth, but at the same time you'll want alot more than 16gigs. People who use virtual machines too may argue a case of having those on a solid state drive too to get some of the benefits you get from having the native OS there which will blow out storage still.

We will see Elonex are bringing out the $200 "One", going by the comments (Times online) they will be snapped up, like the Asus eeePC. I think the commentator seems to forget that there are people who "need" 250 GB hard disks in their laptop, so they can install SQL express, and take home 100,000 people's personal details (and then loose the laptop) There are many others who do not want to lug about a low battery life suitcase.

For most people a 1 2 4 8 GB USB disk or SD card is enough to store their work on. I'll be the first in the queue for a cheap and cheerful super light long battery life Linux based disk-less laptop. Just wait and see... :nuts:

Jim Handy, of Objective Analysis, believes that the chip-based drives may not see significant use in notebook computers for three to five years.

Well, it is pretty damn obvious!

They aren't "practical" but thanks to early adopters, and bleeding edge geeks, the rest of us will reap the benefits
of lower prices in the coming years. It's called capitalism......it works

yes, it can't feed the homeless and hungry, cure diseases or provide food and shelter for the needy, but it will get you cheap SSD drives in a few years.
capitalism!

There's always a trade off! SSD retrieves data faster than HDD only if the data is continuous. If the data is spread out, HDD is faster. By the way, I thought that with "flash" technology, you can only write to the disk so many time before it's dead? Well, at least for a flash drive it is.

(KevinRGood said @ #1)
There's always a trade off! SSD retrieves data faster than HDD only if the data is continuous. If the data is spread out, HDD is faster. By the way, I thought that with "flash" technology, you can only write to the disk so many time before it's dead? Well, at least for a flash drive it is.

huh i thought it was the opposite, if the data is spread out the solid state drive will be able to retrieve it faster because there is no head to swing all over the place, but the throughput will be less than a mechanical head reading a continuous stream of data on the disc

besides, not losing your data everytime you drop the disk is something i really like about solid state ....