Switching from "normal" HD to flash HD.

[princealfie]

Brand is largely irrelevant, but the functions of Dynamic and Static RAM are quite different. SRAM is faster than DRAM, and doesn't require periodic refreshing, but requires larger more expensive chips.

Since they're mostly made of Silicon, it's all dirt (well sand) in the end.

We'll all be using quantum computers in the not too distant future...

B

Thanks for your explanation. Of course the good thing is that both are more stable than 2.5 inch HD's when dropped.

 

[NJPitcher]

Who needs a hard drive when you can remember all the zeros and ones yourself...

 

[djejrejk]

http://www.flash-memory-store.com/qmemory-flash-laptop-hard-drive-16gb.html

This looks very promising. Despite the limited writes (which I suspect is overrated anyways) and the lack of 160 GB flash memory, I would love to have this to replace my Powerbooks' current HD's which already suck up a ton of battery life spinning up the platters.

So what is the extended battery life? I suspect like 2-3 times more? I wouldn't be surprised.

In the mean time, check these drives from seagate out. They are suppose to cut boot time in half and the 7200 rpm version is coming out soon. They have 256 megs of flash memory integrated. I assume that it would work. I'm not sure about mac compatibility.

 

[princealfie]

In the mean time, check these drives from seagate out. They are suppose to cut boot time in half and the 7200 rpm version is coming out soon. They have 256 megs of flash memory integrated. I assume that it would work. I'm not sure about mac compatibility.

Why would they be windows only compatible?

 

[irishgrizzly]

I wonder how longer before the price is the same as a 'normal' HD, maybe 2-3 years?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/04/sandisk-announces-32gb-ssd-prices-begin-to-fall/

 

[herr_neumann]

Modern OS's and programs make extensive use of temp files and swap files, which are written to continuously. Two problems; Flash memory is much slower to write than to read, the linked cmpany plays the usual games - states read speeds not write, and states the ATA-66 interface speed AS IF that's what the drive can actually accomplish. 16.0 MB/s read speed (write is typically half of read). Can you say; 10 times slower than a SATA drive? A Firewire 400 drive regularly gets 40 MB/s read and write.
.

I think the SanDisk brochure here begs to differ with you:

http://www.sandisk.com/Assets/File/OEM/Manuals/SSD_2.5_and_1.8_Family_Brochure.pdf

Take a look at the last page. It has a direct comparison chart.