Eden of the East, look it up.

@(Unverified) There's a performance difference between this and the 80gb X25M (and the 80gb with the 160gb), same reasons why the OCZ Agility 120 is faster than its smaller kins. That aside, the point is in a home desktop though, 40GB for a system drive is really cutting it close. It doesn't offer enough flexibility IMO, and really is for people who don't mind working around those disk limitations. On a GB-per-dollar level the Kingston 40GB is slightly superior than the X25M, so it's an option to buy more than one of these.

40 GB is too small for many, but it's enough for some. Truth is, this Kingston is a budget SSD solution for people who'd like to min-max their boxes for the highest performance/cost ratio. SSD boosts performance like nothing on the market today, so it's a worthwhile investment. This is just the rock-bottom, cheapest thing you can do.

If you are serious about using a SSD for a typical system drive without pulling your hair out trying to finagle retarded installers from unzipping itself twice on the system temp directory, grab an OCZ Agility 120 or an Intel X25M (especially now that the firmware upgrade is out!). SSDs are expensive when you compare these drives to the disk-spinning ones, but the performance gains via SSD is the best bang-per-buck compared to any other upgrade for a modern system.

Of course if you don't care about performance, then you don't need to be concerned with SSDs. They're still expensive.

Hey, something i'd like to have!

"Now, I think PCs architectures have gotten too complex at the expense of functionality. "

I don't understand this statement. Today's personal computers are more function-rich than ever before, thanks to those complex architectures, and things like the web browser. I'm not sure your entire conclusion is, actually. I mean, it read like every other piece of near-sighted criticism of new invention that hasn't been invented yet. It's not to say you are wrong--odds are against new inventions, they tend to fail, but it reads like a bunch of contradictory statements.

READ RULES O.O
IT MADE MY CAPS LOCK ON

woot

I don't see T-MO and Sprint getting into a hissy fit about sideloading apps, but somehow AT&T is? I can see a business reason why to retain control, but not a technical one. Don't forget, the iPhone has remote kill capabilities. If need be, they can even write it in contract regarding limitation on support w/ sideloaded or unapproved applications. I think your hypothetical situations are sound, even if probable (I doubt it), but isn't particularly convincing.

In other words, "perfect" situation here has to be a compromise and at some point, the App store bottleneck will erode Apple/AT&T's bottom line. It may already be at that point where the compromise is more desirable than the present state.

why not~

Engadget clearly needs more posts about Japanese internet memes that they don't even mention in their posts!