 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:12:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> I read some benchmarks from Tom's Hardware which suggested that
> expensive magnetic drives can actually beat cheap SSD in some cases, in
> terms of transfer rate and/or power consumption.
>
> This utterly boggles my mind.
>
> (Unless they're talking about *write* speed, which is the only real
> weakness of SSD, AFAIK...)
Most cheap SSDs are crap. Some have been shown to have worst-case
access-times of up to a half-second. A good SSD will beat any magnetic
disk hands down.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay
Subject: Re: New computer... Wish me luck
Date: 16 Feb 2010 22:02:54
Message: <4b7b5c5e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote in message
news:4b7ae46d@news.povray.org...
> Somewhere I saw a RAID array of (I think) 24 SDD's. While I don't recall
> what the transfer rate was, it was insanely fast. Maybe someone here
> posted it. Don't recall.
Here it is:
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/09/video-samsung-ssd-ra.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Most cheap SSDs are crap. Some have been shown to have worst-case
> access-times of up to a half-second. A good SSD will beat any magnetic
> disk hands down.
You would expect that an SSD, with absolutely no moving parts of any
kind, would easily beat any conceivably mechanical device. I have no
idea how the hell cheap SSDs can possibly manage to be slower.
Then again, even the term "cheap SSDs" is something of an oxymoron. I've
4GB. You could just about fit your swap file on that, or maybe an entire
Windows partition, but not much else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b7bb229$1@news.povray.org...
> Then again, even the term "cheap SSDs" is something of an oxymoron. I've
> 4GB. You could just about fit your swap file on that, or maybe an entire
> Windows partition, but not much else.
>
Surely you jest (or you posted this 2 years ago).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Surely you jest (or you posted this 2 years ago).
I haven't checked prices recently. (For that matter, it's quite
difficult to find anybody who even sells SSD.) I imagine they've
probably gone down since I looked last year - but I don't know by how much.
The HD prices, OTOH, I checked just a month or two ago.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay
Subject: Re: New computer... Wish me luck
Date: 17 Feb 2010 09:02:46
Message: <4b7bf706@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b7bbabb$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
>
>> Surely you jest (or you posted this 2 years ago).
>
> I haven't checked prices recently. (For that matter, it's quite difficult
> to find anybody who even sells SSD.) I imagine they've probably gone down
> since I looked last year - but I don't know by how much.
>
> The HD prices, OTOH, I checked just a month or two ago.
Just saw 80GB SSD drive on NewEgg.com yesterday, for about $155(USD) after
mail-in rebate. Normally, it cost around $200. The average person can fit
their OS and most or all of their applications on something that size. Then
they can store videos and pictures on their $100 1TB hard drive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Just saw 80GB SSD drive on NewEgg.com yesterday, for about $155(USD) after
> mail-in rebate.
Now that sounds a little more reasonable...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I'd be happy with XP 64-bit, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing...
It exists, but it's not recommended... Quite bad hardware support from what
I heard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd be happy with XP 64-bit, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing...
>
> It exists, but it's not recommended... Quite bad hardware support from what
> I heard.
Question: Does a 32-bit version of Vista or 7 exist?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:47:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> Question: Does a 32-bit version of Vista or 7 exist?
As 5 seconds of googling would have told you: Yes.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
