Reg Hardware has covered plenty of solid-state disks before, but never anything to match the capacity of Kingston’s latest high density SSD. Back in January, Kingston announced the SSDNow V+ series, the higher spec members of its family of “value” drives with capacities ranging from 64GB to 512GB. Kingston SSDNow V+ 512GB …
All they have to do now
... is make it £1000 cheaper.
Time for a Tips article
Now that SSDs are becoming more readily available, and a wee bit less mouthwateringly expensive (the Kingston 512GB drive notwithstanding), how about an article (or series) on how best to optimise your PC or notebook to make the most out of an SSD, and what *not* to do with 'em too.
I think not
Shaving a few seconds off my start-up times for more than I would normally spend on a car. It really just doesn't seem worth it - especially as I usually put the PC in sleep mode so it only takes me about 2s to start up. So, £1200+ to boot in 14s or whatever it costs to run the PC in sleep mode (draws less than 1W) and boot in 2s. I know what I'll be doing!
Not only boot time
Did you not read the rest of the article?
Are these real GB (gigabytes) or GiB (gibibytes)?
Not that it really matters. I can't afford one anyway.
Am I not paying attention, or..
did you fail to mention the single most important bit on info about any SSD- which controller it's using?
You were correct 1st time
Toshiba, it says in the article...
WikiPedia Links in Articles?
While I get the purpose doesn't it fly in the face of El Reg's stance on the "Quality" of Wikipedia?
Citing it as a source reference points to a change of heart, lazy rporting or (horror!) falling standards in El Reg's reporting. In all three cases, say ain't so Joe!
On topic to the review, over there in the USA once again it's £/$ pricing. Forshame...
Did you just say............
".....think 40, 64 and 128GB - .........they are useful merely as boot drives which allow the user to enhance their computing experience with faster start-up times and reduced application load times......"
128GB 'to reduce application load times...' ? Are you mental ?
I have two machines. A linux running netbook with a 60gb HD [the original Wind] and an HP from work with a 75GB HD.
Both do what they are supposed to very well [once the drag factor of Vista is factored in of course] but how much do I want to store on my home/ C drive ? An external HD provides back up for 'essential' stuff and Linux backs up to USB anyway.
A 128 SSD in a laptop is fine. Really.
Are you having a giraffe??
Even the most piss poor laptops sport a bigger drive than 128gb.
My laptop would be useless with owt less than 250. Which is why i have a 400.
A 128 SSD in a laptop is fine. Really.
It isn't if you want to cart a load of media around with you and you only have one drive slot or are concerned about battery life.
About the only application I can see for this horrendously expensive drive.
My desktop has Terrabytes of storage and 160GB of FLASH is more than enough to get all the performance benefit FLASH offers. For me 80GB would be enough, 40GB a bit marginal.
160Gb enough for my lappy
Although I must confess it is 160Gb of 2x80gb Raid 0 SSD's :) The rarer 1.8" variety.
Much more expensive than the US
Odd, here in the states I just bought one of the 128GB numbers for my business for only $300. Sounds like someone's back to the old practice of lopping off the dollar and grafting a pound. With such cheap shipping, you should order from Amazon US.
I had a desktop PC used for my full-time job as a software developer with a 200Gb drive until the PC died a few months back. The disk never got even nearly full. For some people 128Gb is not enough, but for most it probably is.
Anyway a question: I hibernate my PC rather than sleep. Would I see even more amazing speed-ups using an SSD since it has to save/load a few Gb of RAM to disk?