Texas Memory has been around longer than most of you readers have been alive (or so we're told by our resident omniscient overlord), but it's been quite awhile since it was talked about freely in the same breath as WD, Fujitsu, Samsung, et al. Now, however, the company is making the rounds once more thanks to its "record setting" RamSan-440, which provides between 256GB and 512GB of RAM-based SSD storage, 600,000 IOPS, 4,500MB/sec random sustained external throughput and latency under 15-microseconds. The entire rig arrives in a 90-pound 4U rack-mount enclosure and claims to be "the first SSD to use RAIDed NAND flash memory modules for data backup." Chances are, you were already bracing to hear a pretty ludicrous figure when it comes to pricing, but $150,000 for the 256GB edition and $275,000 for the 512GB iteration? Please -- we'll take a Lightning GT, thanks.

[Via DailyTech]

With the prices of SSDs sinking daily, Super Talent is hoping to grab a few eyes by offering faster drives at comparably low price points. According to a data sheet posted up on the firm's website, its MasterDrive MX line of SSDs now features a maximum read rate of 120MB/sec, while write speeds range between 60MB/sec (15GB and 30GB) and 80MB/sec (60GB and 120GB). Reportedly, the drives used to boast write speeds of 40MB/sec. A minor boost, sure, but a welcome increase all the same.

[Via DailyTech]

SSDs have been quite the hot topic of late, with conflicting power usage reports and free-falling (almost) prices being the two angles most commonly yapped about. Now, however, we have a completely different reason to mention 'em in passing, as SanDisk's dutiful CEO let loose some questionable comments during its Q2 2008 earnings call. Noting that Windows Vista would present unique challenges for SSD manufacturers, he stated that "as soon as you get into Vista applications, you start running into very demanding applications because Vista is not optimized for flash memory solid state disk." Furthermore, he proclaimed that the "next generation controllers need to basically compensate for Vista shortfalls," and finished things up by asserting that "SSD performance in the Vista environment falls short of what the market really needs." It seems all those statements were just used to deflect blame for it being behind schedule, but we're a bit curious about how it intends on defending said statements with real-world numbers. Hmm?

Ridata has dabbled in the wonderful world of triple-data capacity SSDs before, but as with most manufacturers, it wouldn't open its mouth and divulge a price. Now, however, we've got three newcomers to swoon over along with price tags to balk (or cheer, depending on wallet depth) over. The Ultra-S Plus MLC SATA SSD line has launched in 32GB, 64GB and 128GB sizes, all of which offer up to 128MB/sec read speeds and 80MB/sec write speeds. Without further adieu, the late July-bound trio will be selling for $169.90, $294.90 and $537.90 from least capacious to most. So, you gettin' one?

Looks like Tom's Hardware fessed up and apologized for their slip-up in that recent controversial power test, which found SSDs consuming more juice than their spinning-platter counterparts (or, well, not exactly). We're giving 'em a pass, not just because we've always had a fond place in our heart for Tom's, but because they did another comprehensive SSD test (this time under more consistent conditions) which basically confirms that many newer SSDs are, in fact, power savers in most usage scenarios. Not all drives and scenarios, but many. Tom's also namechecks OCZ's Core SATA II SSD (a Samsung in disguise) as the clear winner by a longshot, having "unmatched" power efficiency. Sold.

[Thanks, Chuckles and SNP]

If you've been tearing your hair out, pacing wildly around the room, and sweating bullets over the availability of the ASUS Eee PC 1000 (and we know you have), you'll be pleased to know that the grown-up sized version of the company's mini-laptop is now available for pre-order on Amazon. The site doesn't provide specific release dates for the systems (the $699.99, 40GB SSD equipped 1000, and the $649.99, 80GB HDD equipped 1000H), though we're figuring it can't be too long till these models hit shipping centers. In the meantime, we recommend going for long jogs.

Read - ASUS Eee PC 1000 40G
Read - ASUS Eee PC 1000H 80G

[Via I4UNews]

Good news on the SSD front. Announced back in January, Samsung is now mass producing its 1.8- and 2.5-inch SSDs in both 64GB and 128GB capacities. And since these SATA II SSDs are based on MLC -- 64 MLC NAND flash chips of 16 gigabits each in the 9.5-mm thick 128GB SSD -- you can expect them to be cheap by comparison to SLC-based SSDs and faster by comparison to traditional laptop hard disk drives while lasting about 20 times longer than the expected 4-5 year life span of that mechanical spinner. We're talking 70MB/s writes and 90MB/s reads and power consumption rated at just 0.2-watts idle or 0.5-watts when active -- far less than any of the models (including the SSDs tested by LAPTOP) tested by Tom's which should help put any battery consumption concerns to rest. Heaping happy on top of good, Samsung tells us to expect the 256GB SSD to go mass production by the end of the year. Clap clap clap.

So LAPTOP magazine published a report confirming what most people already believe to be true about SSDs (that is, before last week when SSDs supposedly hit the fan): they use less power than traditional drives. Apparently they got up to 20 minutes more battery life when testing an SSD against a platter-based drive in an Eee PC and Gateway T-6828 (which jibes with our own experiences using SSDs in laptops), but if you ask us, the discussion seems a little moot. SSDs perform way faster and are far better suited to portable computing where drives are moved, bumped, and jostled -- the power savings is great, but the speed and reliability are still our top two reasons for going SSD.

If you were shaken to your very core at the recent report that SSDs may not be as power-friendly as you'd been led to believe, drive-maker STEC wants to talk you down from the ledge. According to the company's Patrick Wilkison, the Tom's Hardware article which benchmarked (and gave failing grades) to power-consumption of the non-mechanical drives was flawed because, "They are using legacy drives, none of which will be used by any major PC OEM." According to Patrick (whose job, you might note, is to sell SSDs), new versions of the drives will / do have intelligent power management which circumvents the issues that report shed light on. Wilkison goes on to say that, "Drives will need to have very intelligent power management systems. Some of these SSDs will have them, and those (that) do not have such power intelligence will not be used (by PC makers)." So it's sort of like saying a car you buy in the future will get better gas mileage than the one you own now, provided the automaker cares about fuel efficiency. Small solace, we'd say.

Update: We've gotten a statement from Micron concerning the report -- you can check it out after the break.

If you just shelled out some pretty pennies for the a high-speed, low-power SSD, Tom's Hardware may have stumbled onto some findings that won't sit well. According to a rigorous benchmarking session, they discovered that not only do the drives not save you battery power... they eat more of it. How is this possible you ask? Well mechanical drives only hit peak drainage when the actuator has to move the heads, whereas SSDs use full power whenever they're in use, so the end result is actually a diminished efficiency. What that means is that the hype over "green" drives may be just that: pure hype. On the other hand, you're still getting a drive with no moving parts, which at least makes your data more secure, if not more eco-friendly.

[Via Eeeuser; Thanks, Tony]

¡Aye carumba! OCZ Technology just made us do a double take this morning with the introduction of its all new Core Series SATA II 2.5 SSDs. Hailed as the "world's first truly affordable high-performance SSD for consumers," these drives check in at $169 (32GB), $259 (64GB) and $479 (128GB), which -- as you undoubtedly recognize -- are amazing price points. Each unit utilizes NAND flash technology, possesses a 1.5-million hour mean time before failure and delivers 120 - 143Mbps read / 80 - 93Mbps write speeds. The sub-0.35ms seek times are also worthy of a tip of the hat, and the low power consumption just makes things unnecessarily sweeter. OCZ doesn't mention a definitive ship date, but we're hoping that "available" mention means "right now."

[Via Electronista]

Seagate has already made its intentions about jumping into the SSD game pretty clear, and one analyst now says he sees two clear options at the company's disposal if it wants to seriously make a go of it, each of which involve Seagate shelling out a good chunk of cash. According to Lazard's Daniel Amir, one option would be to buy out Intel's 49% stake in the IM Flash Technologies joint venture it has with Micron, which would reportedly cost anywhere from $1 to $2 billion (not to mention put Seagate on the outs with Intel). More likely than that, Amir says, would be an acquisition of or partnership with SanDisk, which he says would be an ideal fit given Seagate's expertise on the enterprise side and SanDisk's retail knowhow. Amir doesn't put a price tag on that option though, but you can be sure it wouldn't be cheap.

Ah yes, we've been expecting you. That Portégé R500-12Q that popped up on a few foreign sites earlier this year seems to be making the trip Stateside, albeit with a slightly different model name. The R500-S5007V claims to be the "world's first laptop with a 128GB SSD" packed within, which is patently untrue, but we digress. The 2.4-pound machine also includes an integrated DVD SuperMulti drive, 12.1-inch transreflective LED-backlit WXGA display, a battery good for 8-hours of use, 1.33GHz Core 2 Duo U7700 CPU, 2GB of DDR2 RAM, GMA950 graphics set, WiFi, Ethernet, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and a three-year warranty. You better believe that 0.77-inch frame is appealing, but the $2,999 starting price is still mighty tough to swallow.

Well, it had to happen eventually: someone cracked open their Apple TV and transplanted the 2.5-inch drive with a 32GB SSD by Transcend. That's pretty much it -- just a bit of hacking, partitioning, re-imaging, and off you go. Do you really even have to ask if putting an SSD in something was worth it?