"Try paying $2 per Kilobyte. I remember when 3.5" floppies were that much or more."
Given that a 3.5" floppy held 1.44 megabytes, you used to pay over $3,000 per floppy disc? I've got boxes of old ones I can let you have for just a few hundred dollars each, less if you buy lots.
What I find interesting is that everybody compares SSDs with SATA or PATA discs, this is not comparing like with like as SSDs cost an order of magnitude more, a fairer test is between SSDs and Fibre Channel discs which are mainly 15,000 rpm and have far better reliability than SSDs. The major difference is that for FC you need a rather expensive interface and the energy consumption of the SSDs is lower. The actual speed difference between SSD & FC is minimal. Of course when they start making SSD FC media.....
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Try paying $2 per Kilobyte. I remember when 3.5" floppies were that much or more."
Given that a 3.5" floppy held 1.44 megabytes, you used to pay over $3,000 per floppy disc? I've got boxes of old ones I can let you have for just a few hundred dollars each, less if you buy lots.
What I find interesting is that everybody compares SSDs with SATA or PATA discs, this is not comparing like with like as SSDs cost an order of magnitude more, a fairer test is between SSDs and Fibre Channel discs which are mainly 15,000 rpm and have far better reliability than SSDs. The major difference is that for FC you need a rather expensive interface and the energy consumption of the SSDs is lower. The actual speed difference between SSD & FC is minimal.
Of course when they start making SSD FC media.....