http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/ Engadget Comments for OCZ's Colossus SSD comes out of its shell http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
I believe you mean standard platter based drives.]]>Jul 25th 2009 8:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Regards,
]]>Jul 25th 2009 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
/s]]>Jul 25th 2009 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 7:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 7:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
Yay Technology!

(what's up with this stoopid commenting system?)]]>Jul 25th 2009 7:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/ SSD ]]>Jul 25th 2009 8:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/use "$message = htmlspecialchars($message)" instead. ]]>Jul 25th 2009 8:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 8:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 8:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
Example data sheet - see page 5: http://www.hynix.com/datasheet/pdf/flash/HY27(U_S)G(08_16)2G2M%20Series(Rev0.7).pdf]]>Jul 26th 2009 1:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
Something really does need to be done about this since the current situation is absurd and on a 1.5TB drive you're now getting 140GB less than the claimed size of the drive. There's nothing stopping drive manufacturers claiming a drive is 100TB* and then hidden at the bottom of the page *1TB = 10bits. I was hoping OCZ would take a stand for honesty but it looks like doing so never made business sense.]]>Jul 25th 2009 8:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 9:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 9:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
The SSD's? no idea. (wouldn't be surprised if they DID think of it the same way, though)]]>Jul 25th 2009 11:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
There is the metric standard (also known as the SI prefix) which includes kilobit megabit gigabit and terabit and their respective numerical representation 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, and 10^12 bits.

The other standard, the manufacturers standard, is based on a binary prefix which includes kibibit mebibit gigibit and tebibit and their respective numerical representation 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, and 2^40 bits.

The decimal, metric, SI prefix is the easiest one for consumers who generally are not informed as to what binary is and number systems of a different bases. Representing digital information how its stored in base 2, as a binary prefix makes sense as that is how it is manufactured physically. However this would more than likely confuse most people.

However with that said there is a bit of a disconnect as the drives are manufactured and rated in storage size under the binary prefix but are marketed and sold to consumers using the SI prefix.


Hope that clears it up :)
]]>Jul 25th 2009 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 11:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
Using a decimal measure may be technically correct and may follow a standard but it's the same as selling petrol in the UK in US gallons (which are smaller) - it's technically correct but is not the appropriate means of measurement and not the means of measurement the buyer expects, thus it’s deceptive.]]>Jul 25th 2009 12:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
Yep, that's it exactly. Good thing you said it, cuz I'm too lazy to type that out. XD]]>Jul 25th 2009 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 11:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
No one is lying to you. It has to do with the differences in how the drive manufacturers and the OS makers address the bytes on a drive. The drive makers use the decimal system where 1000 bytes = 1 kilobyte. The OS makers use the Binary system where 1024 bytes = 1 Kilobyte. Poof, space is "lost" in the conversion. You're still getting the same number of bytes in both cases, but when you take those extra 24 bytes in each Kilobyte your Gigabytes appear to be less. This is all stated in fine print on the drive box. Do a little research before you accuse people of lying. This has been going on for years, and don't expect the drive makers to budge, because they're right, and so are the OS makers.

Read for yourself (if you're not too lazy): http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=byte&l=1]]>Jul 25th 2009 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/

Funny how this marketing practice is acceptable when selling technology, can you imagine if car manufactures' marketing departments decided to redefine miles (making them shorter, thus car faster) or gallons (making them larger, thus more efficient)?


You mean like how some auto makers report gross, rather than net horsepower? Or how some German manufacturers report DIN, rather than SAE horsepower?


Seriously, the world has real problems, put away the OCD and let this go. ]]>Jul 25th 2009 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
And to the OP, no, they are not both right. By definition, a KILO-byte is a thousand bytes. The official name referring to 1,024 bytes is a KIBI-byte or Kilo Binary byte.

So in fact, the harddrive manufacturers are correct; it is the OS and application designers that continue to use the wrong naming. Of course, this is because the wrong use of kilobyte/megabyte/etc entered into common usage.

]]>Jul 26th 2009 7:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3608]]>Jul 25th 2009 11:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 11:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 6:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 11:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 12:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/]]>Jul 25th 2009 1:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/

Happiness is multiple backups.]]>Jul 25th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 8:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 2:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 4:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/Jul 25th 2009 5:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/25/oczs-colossus-ssd-comes-out-of-its-shell/I guarantee that two OCZ Vertex drives running in RAID0 will be far faster, at least in sequential speeds. The problem is that the Colossus only uses one SATA connection which is limited to just under 300MB/sec in SATA II. Considering the fact that one OCZ Vertex (same controller) can hit over 200MB/sec in seq and 250MB/sec in burst, there is no doubt in my mind that a Colossus will be bottlenecked by the SATA interface. They should really just focus on the PCI express based product for desktops, or just make the 3.5 drives use one controller.]]>Jul 26th 2009 7:33PM