<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_1333230</id>
	<title>Why a Hard Disk Is a Better Bargain Than an SSD</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245332580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">Lucas123</a> writes <i>"While solid state disks may be all the rage, what's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low &mdash; offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte. And in a <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9111089">side by side comparison</a> of overall performance of consumer SSDs and HDDs, it's hard to justify spending 10 times as much for a little more speed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucas123 writes " While solid state disks may be all the rage , what 's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low    offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte .
And in a side by side comparison of overall performance of consumer SSDs and HDDs , it 's hard to justify spending 10 times as much for a little more speed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucas123 writes "While solid state disks may be all the rage, what's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low — offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte.
And in a side by side comparison of overall performance of consumer SSDs and HDDs, it's hard to justify spending 10 times as much for a little more speed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28385777</id>
	<title>This is slashdot worthy?</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1245350820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't remember anyone claiming ssd was a great value.  There are advantages to ssd, but cost is not currently one of them.  Someday perhaps, but not now.  I have 72G of ssd hard drive in my eee pc and I love it.  Would I but one for my desktop?  Umm, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't remember anyone claiming ssd was a great value .
There are advantages to ssd , but cost is not currently one of them .
Someday perhaps , but not now .
I have 72G of ssd hard drive in my eee pc and I love it .
Would I but one for my desktop ?
Umm , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't remember anyone claiming ssd was a great value.
There are advantages to ssd, but cost is not currently one of them.
Someday perhaps, but not now.
I have 72G of ssd hard drive in my eee pc and I love it.
Would I but one for my desktop?
Umm, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430503</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1245670980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on which OCZ drive you are using.  The Vertex and Agility series are the only ones that aren't terrible (well that and Summit but it's $$$$$$$$).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on which OCZ drive you are using .
The Vertex and Agility series are the only ones that are n't terrible ( well that and Summit but it 's $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on which OCZ drive you are using.
The Vertex and Agility series are the only ones that aren't terrible (well that and Summit but it's $$$$$$$$).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374021</id>
	<title>You don't buy SSDs for a bargain..</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1245340020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't buy SSDs for a bargain..</p><p>You buy them because it is the one modification you can make in this day and age that will have a dramatic impact on the speed of your computing experience.</p><p>Adding more RAM, stepping up to a faster processor with twice as many cores - yeah, you'll notice those things a bit (especiaslly when multitasking) but if you want to do something that may cust your start up time to a third of what it was, and make it seems like you've turbochraged your machine, for most people an SSD will do that - especially on a laptop where yo're generally not going to have a 10k or 15k RPM drive or a striped array - but there is a cost, and it's significant, and there are a lot of SSD drives to choose from that use different sorts of technologies, generally speaking you get what you pay for with these.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't buy SSDs for a bargain..You buy them because it is the one modification you can make in this day and age that will have a dramatic impact on the speed of your computing experience.Adding more RAM , stepping up to a faster processor with twice as many cores - yeah , you 'll notice those things a bit ( especiaslly when multitasking ) but if you want to do something that may cust your start up time to a third of what it was , and make it seems like you 've turbochraged your machine , for most people an SSD will do that - especially on a laptop where yo 're generally not going to have a 10k or 15k RPM drive or a striped array - but there is a cost , and it 's significant , and there are a lot of SSD drives to choose from that use different sorts of technologies , generally speaking you get what you pay for with these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't buy SSDs for a bargain..You buy them because it is the one modification you can make in this day and age that will have a dramatic impact on the speed of your computing experience.Adding more RAM, stepping up to a faster processor with twice as many cores - yeah, you'll notice those things a bit (especiaslly when multitasking) but if you want to do something that may cust your start up time to a third of what it was, and make it seems like you've turbochraged your machine, for most people an SSD will do that - especially on a laptop where yo're generally not going to have a 10k or 15k RPM drive or a striped array - but there is a cost, and it's significant, and there are a lot of SSD drives to choose from that use different sorts of technologies, generally speaking you get what you pay for with these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375773</id>
	<title>Never underestimate the power of "cheaper"</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1245347100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coal, soda pop, vinyl siding, housebrand whiskey, anything from Wal-Mart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal , soda pop , vinyl siding , housebrand whiskey , anything from Wal-Mart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal, soda pop, vinyl siding, housebrand whiskey, anything from Wal-Mart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375267</id>
	<title>Required Reading for Solid State Drives</title>
	<author>JakFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1245345120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been following the SSD developments since last year and I finally decided to save up enough money to get the Intel X25-M 80GB MLC SSD and I don't regret it.  I've been posting and replying to a few threads on HardOCP forum regarding SSDs and there is just no comparison between an HDD, even VelociRaptor in RAID-0 striping, and a single SSD when it comes to random read and write speeds and also access time.  Both of metrics determine the responsiveness of your system since they are the ones most heavily utilized by the operating system's disk access to it's own system drive.  Lots of random reads with a bunch of random writes thrown in and some sequential read/writes for good measure.</p><p>Too many folks buy into the sequential and burst speed marketing disinformation campaigns, including the writer of this article, but fail to realize the advantage of SSDs, which is the random performance and access times.  Below is a link to a great part of Anand's article about random performance.  I would love to link directly to the pictures here to show you the graphs that speak more than works but I can't do it on this forum!</p><p>Look at the numbers for random 4KB read speed X25-M = 54.2 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.55 MB/s for 3,496\% difference or 35-times faster.  Random 4KB write speed X25-m = 23.1 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.63 MB/s for 1,417\% difference or 14-times faster.  Now consider responsivness which is measured as random 4KB read latency X25-M= 0.11 ms and VelociRaptor 6.83 ms for a 6,209\% difference or 62-times faster.  Now you realize the huge difference in performance that matters in orders of magnitudes of difference between hard disks and solid state disks.</p><p> <b> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=25" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">AnandTech - The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Random Read/Write Performance</a> [anandtech.com] </b> </p><blockquote><div><p> <em>Arguably much more important to any PC user than sequential read/write performance is random access performance. It's not often that you're writing large files sequentially to your disk, but you do encounter tons of small file reads/writes as you use your PC.</em> </p><p> <em>To measure random read/write performance I created an iometer script that peppered the drive with random requests, with an IO queue depth of 3 (to add some multitasking spice to the test). The write test was performed over an 8GB range on the drive, while the read test was performed across the whole drive. I ran the test for 3 minutes.</em> </p></div> </blockquote><p> <b> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=3" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">AnandTech - The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Why You Should Want an SSD</a> [anandtech.com] </b> </p><blockquote><div><p>For the past several months I've been calling SSDs the single most noticeable upgrade you can do to your computer. Whether desktop or laptop, stick a good SSD in there and you'll notice the difference...</p><p>A big part of the problem is that once you have more installed on your system, there are more applications sending read/write requests to your IO subsystem. While our CPUs and GPUs thrive on being fed massive amounts of data in parallel, our hard drives aren't so appreciative of our multitasking demands. And this is where SSDs truly shine...</p><p>Measuring random access is very important because that's what generally happens when you go to run an application while doing other things on your computer. It's random access that feels the slowest on your machine...</p><p>The world's fastest consumer desktop hard drive, Western Digital's 300GB VelociRaptor can access a random file somewhere on its platters in about 6.83ms; that's pretty quick. Most hard drives will take closer to 8 or 9ms in this test. The Intel X25-M however? 0.11ms. The fastest SSDs can find the data you're looking for in around 0.1ms. That's an order of magnitude faster than the fastest hard drive on the market today.</p><p>The table is even more impressive when you realize that wherever the data is on your SSD, the read (and write) latency is the same. While HDDs are fastest when the data you want is in the vicinity of the read/write heads, all parts of a SSD are accessed the same way. If you want 4KB of data, regardless of where it is, you'll get to it at the same speed from a SSD.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> <b> <a href="http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29" title="hardforum.com" rel="nofollow">[H]ard|Forum  &gt; [H]ard|Ware  &gt; Data Storage Systems</a> [hardforum.com] </b> </p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1034226774#post1034226774" title="hardforum.com" rel="nofollow">Any signifcant SSD changes imminent? Good time to buy?</a> [hardforum.com]  </li></ul><p> <b> <a href="http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=186" title="ocztechnologyforum.com" rel="nofollow">OCZ Forum &gt; OCZ Flash Support And Discussion Forum - Generation 2 SSD Vertex, Vertex EX, and Summit on Windows</a> [ocztechnologyforum.com] </b>	</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55238" title="ocztechnologyforum.com" rel="nofollow">Guide for Win Xp installation with Diskpar (alignment), nLite, Ramdrive, Page file Tweaks, Browser Tweaks, My Doc folder move and Print Spooler on Vertex</a> [ocztechnologyforum.com] <br>
<i>(<b>Use Partition Alignment Instructions Only and Align at 1MB (2048 sector) boundry!</b>  Ignore the rest since some of it is bad advice for Intel SSDs and it generally goes against recommendations from OS and storage engineers from Microsoft and Intel.)</i> </li></ul><p> <b> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">AnandTech - Storage</a> [anandtech.com] </b>	</p><ol>
<li> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3403" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">Intel X25-M SSD: Intel Delivers One of the World's Fastest Drives</a> [anandtech.com]  </li><li> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ</a> [anandtech.com]  </li><li> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3535" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">The SSD Update: Vertex Gets Faster, New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved</a> [anandtech.com]	</li></ol><p> <b> <a href="http://www.pcper.com/content\_home.php?s=6" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">PC Perspective - Storage</a> [pcper.com] </b>	 </p><ol>
<li> <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=616" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">Intel X25-M 80GB Solid State Hard Drive Review</a> [pcper.com]  </li><li> <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=691" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">Intel Responds to Fragmentation with New X25-M Firmware</a> [pcper.com]	</li><li> <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=670" title="pcper.com" rel="nofollow">OCZ Vertex Series 120GB SSD Performance Preview - Indilinx makes an intro</a> [pcper.com]  </li></ol><p> <b>Recommendations for SSDs</b> </p><ul>
<li> <b>Align your partition</b> to the 1MB (2048 sector) boundary with the Windows diskpar.exe utility or the equivalent Linux tool so that your partition starts evenly on the 4KB page boundary and also the 512KB erase block boundary for Intel SSDs.  (Recommended by Microsoft OS engineers, default for new partitions created with Windows Vista and Windows 7.)</li><li> <b>Disable defragmentation and prefretch</b> for your SSDs also since they are unnecessary and will actually slow down access.</li><li> <b>Keep your temp folders and page file on the SSD</b> since these are the files that will benefit the most from fast access.  (Recommended by Intel and Microsoft engineers who have done testing.)</li><li> <b>Do not</b> listen to all the information on the OCZ forum since their recommendations came about from trying to resolve stuttering and freezing issues with the JMicron SSD controllers on the earlier OCZ non-Vertex drives.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following the SSD developments since last year and I finally decided to save up enough money to get the Intel X25-M 80GB MLC SSD and I do n't regret it .
I 've been posting and replying to a few threads on HardOCP forum regarding SSDs and there is just no comparison between an HDD , even VelociRaptor in RAID-0 striping , and a single SSD when it comes to random read and write speeds and also access time .
Both of metrics determine the responsiveness of your system since they are the ones most heavily utilized by the operating system 's disk access to it 's own system drive .
Lots of random reads with a bunch of random writes thrown in and some sequential read/writes for good measure.Too many folks buy into the sequential and burst speed marketing disinformation campaigns , including the writer of this article , but fail to realize the advantage of SSDs , which is the random performance and access times .
Below is a link to a great part of Anand 's article about random performance .
I would love to link directly to the pictures here to show you the graphs that speak more than works but I ca n't do it on this forum ! Look at the numbers for random 4KB read speed X25-M = 54.2 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.55 MB/s for 3,496 \ % difference or 35-times faster .
Random 4KB write speed X25-m = 23.1 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.63 MB/s for 1,417 \ % difference or 14-times faster .
Now consider responsivness which is measured as random 4KB read latency X25-M = 0.11 ms and VelociRaptor 6.83 ms for a 6,209 \ % difference or 62-times faster .
Now you realize the huge difference in performance that matters in orders of magnitudes of difference between hard disks and solid state disks .
AnandTech - The SSD Anthology : Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Random Read/Write Performance [ anandtech.com ] Arguably much more important to any PC user than sequential read/write performance is random access performance .
It 's not often that you 're writing large files sequentially to your disk , but you do encounter tons of small file reads/writes as you use your PC .
To measure random read/write performance I created an iometer script that peppered the drive with random requests , with an IO queue depth of 3 ( to add some multitasking spice to the test ) .
The write test was performed over an 8GB range on the drive , while the read test was performed across the whole drive .
I ran the test for 3 minutes .
AnandTech - The SSD Anthology : Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Why You Should Want an SSD [ anandtech.com ] For the past several months I 've been calling SSDs the single most noticeable upgrade you can do to your computer .
Whether desktop or laptop , stick a good SSD in there and you 'll notice the difference...A big part of the problem is that once you have more installed on your system , there are more applications sending read/write requests to your IO subsystem .
While our CPUs and GPUs thrive on being fed massive amounts of data in parallel , our hard drives are n't so appreciative of our multitasking demands .
And this is where SSDs truly shine...Measuring random access is very important because that 's what generally happens when you go to run an application while doing other things on your computer .
It 's random access that feels the slowest on your machine...The world 's fastest consumer desktop hard drive , Western Digital 's 300GB VelociRaptor can access a random file somewhere on its platters in about 6.83ms ; that 's pretty quick .
Most hard drives will take closer to 8 or 9ms in this test .
The Intel X25-M however ?
0.11ms. The fastest SSDs can find the data you 're looking for in around 0.1ms .
That 's an order of magnitude faster than the fastest hard drive on the market today.The table is even more impressive when you realize that wherever the data is on your SSD , the read ( and write ) latency is the same .
While HDDs are fastest when the data you want is in the vicinity of the read/write heads , all parts of a SSD are accessed the same way .
If you want 4KB of data , regardless of where it is , you 'll get to it at the same speed from a SSD .
[ H ] ard | Forum &gt; [ H ] ard | Ware &gt; Data Storage Systems [ hardforum.com ] Any signifcant SSD changes imminent ?
Good time to buy ?
[ hardforum.com ] OCZ Forum &gt; OCZ Flash Support And Discussion Forum - Generation 2 SSD Vertex , Vertex EX , and Summit on Windows [ ocztechnologyforum.com ] Guide for Win Xp installation with Diskpar ( alignment ) , nLite , Ramdrive , Page file Tweaks , Browser Tweaks , My Doc folder move and Print Spooler on Vertex [ ocztechnologyforum.com ] ( Use Partition Alignment Instructions Only and Align at 1MB ( 2048 sector ) boundry !
Ignore the rest since some of it is bad advice for Intel SSDs and it generally goes against recommendations from OS and storage engineers from Microsoft and Intel .
) AnandTech - Storage [ anandtech.com ] Intel X25-M SSD : Intel Delivers One of the World 's Fastest Drives [ anandtech.com ] The SSD Anthology : Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ [ anandtech.com ] The SSD Update : Vertex Gets Faster , New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved [ anandtech.com ] PC Perspective - Storage [ pcper.com ] Intel X25-M 80GB Solid State Hard Drive Review [ pcper.com ] Intel Responds to Fragmentation with New X25-M Firmware [ pcper.com ] OCZ Vertex Series 120GB SSD Performance Preview - Indilinx makes an intro [ pcper.com ] Recommendations for SSDs Align your partition to the 1MB ( 2048 sector ) boundary with the Windows diskpar.exe utility or the equivalent Linux tool so that your partition starts evenly on the 4KB page boundary and also the 512KB erase block boundary for Intel SSDs .
( Recommended by Microsoft OS engineers , default for new partitions created with Windows Vista and Windows 7 .
) Disable defragmentation and prefretch for your SSDs also since they are unnecessary and will actually slow down access .
Keep your temp folders and page file on the SSD since these are the files that will benefit the most from fast access .
( Recommended by Intel and Microsoft engineers who have done testing .
) Do not listen to all the information on the OCZ forum since their recommendations came about from trying to resolve stuttering and freezing issues with the JMicron SSD controllers on the earlier OCZ non-Vertex drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following the SSD developments since last year and I finally decided to save up enough money to get the Intel X25-M 80GB MLC SSD and I don't regret it.
I've been posting and replying to a few threads on HardOCP forum regarding SSDs and there is just no comparison between an HDD, even VelociRaptor in RAID-0 striping, and a single SSD when it comes to random read and write speeds and also access time.
Both of metrics determine the responsiveness of your system since they are the ones most heavily utilized by the operating system's disk access to it's own system drive.
Lots of random reads with a bunch of random writes thrown in and some sequential read/writes for good measure.Too many folks buy into the sequential and burst speed marketing disinformation campaigns, including the writer of this article, but fail to realize the advantage of SSDs, which is the random performance and access times.
Below is a link to a great part of Anand's article about random performance.
I would love to link directly to the pictures here to show you the graphs that speak more than works but I can't do it on this forum!Look at the numbers for random 4KB read speed X25-M = 54.2 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.55 MB/s for 3,496\% difference or 35-times faster.
Random 4KB write speed X25-m = 23.1 MB/s and VelociRaptor 1.63 MB/s for 1,417\% difference or 14-times faster.
Now consider responsivness which is measured as random 4KB read latency X25-M= 0.11 ms and VelociRaptor 6.83 ms for a 6,209\% difference or 62-times faster.
Now you realize the huge difference in performance that matters in orders of magnitudes of difference between hard disks and solid state disks.
AnandTech - The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Random Read/Write Performance [anandtech.com]   Arguably much more important to any PC user than sequential read/write performance is random access performance.
It's not often that you're writing large files sequentially to your disk, but you do encounter tons of small file reads/writes as you use your PC.
To measure random read/write performance I created an iometer script that peppered the drive with random requests, with an IO queue depth of 3 (to add some multitasking spice to the test).
The write test was performed over an 8GB range on the drive, while the read test was performed across the whole drive.
I ran the test for 3 minutes.
AnandTech - The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ - Why You Should Want an SSD [anandtech.com]  For the past several months I've been calling SSDs the single most noticeable upgrade you can do to your computer.
Whether desktop or laptop, stick a good SSD in there and you'll notice the difference...A big part of the problem is that once you have more installed on your system, there are more applications sending read/write requests to your IO subsystem.
While our CPUs and GPUs thrive on being fed massive amounts of data in parallel, our hard drives aren't so appreciative of our multitasking demands.
And this is where SSDs truly shine...Measuring random access is very important because that's what generally happens when you go to run an application while doing other things on your computer.
It's random access that feels the slowest on your machine...The world's fastest consumer desktop hard drive, Western Digital's 300GB VelociRaptor can access a random file somewhere on its platters in about 6.83ms; that's pretty quick.
Most hard drives will take closer to 8 or 9ms in this test.
The Intel X25-M however?
0.11ms. The fastest SSDs can find the data you're looking for in around 0.1ms.
That's an order of magnitude faster than the fastest hard drive on the market today.The table is even more impressive when you realize that wherever the data is on your SSD, the read (and write) latency is the same.
While HDDs are fastest when the data you want is in the vicinity of the read/write heads, all parts of a SSD are accessed the same way.
If you want 4KB of data, regardless of where it is, you'll get to it at the same speed from a SSD.
[H]ard|Forum  &gt; [H]ard|Ware  &gt; Data Storage Systems [hardforum.com]  
 Any signifcant SSD changes imminent?
Good time to buy?
[hardforum.com]    OCZ Forum &gt; OCZ Flash Support And Discussion Forum - Generation 2 SSD Vertex, Vertex EX, and Summit on Windows [ocztechnologyforum.com] 	
 Guide for Win Xp installation with Diskpar (alignment), nLite, Ramdrive, Page file Tweaks, Browser Tweaks, My Doc folder move and Print Spooler on Vertex [ocztechnologyforum.com] 
(Use Partition Alignment Instructions Only and Align at 1MB (2048 sector) boundry!
Ignore the rest since some of it is bad advice for Intel SSDs and it generally goes against recommendations from OS and storage engineers from Microsoft and Intel.
)   AnandTech - Storage [anandtech.com] 	
 Intel X25-M SSD: Intel Delivers One of the World's Fastest Drives [anandtech.com]   The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ [anandtech.com]   The SSD Update: Vertex Gets Faster, New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved [anandtech.com]	  PC Perspective - Storage [pcper.com] 	 
 Intel X25-M 80GB Solid State Hard Drive Review [pcper.com]   Intel Responds to Fragmentation with New X25-M Firmware [pcper.com]	 OCZ Vertex Series 120GB SSD Performance Preview - Indilinx makes an intro [pcper.com]   Recommendations for SSDs 
 Align your partition to the 1MB (2048 sector) boundary with the Windows diskpar.exe utility or the equivalent Linux tool so that your partition starts evenly on the 4KB page boundary and also the 512KB erase block boundary for Intel SSDs.
(Recommended by Microsoft OS engineers, default for new partitions created with Windows Vista and Windows 7.
) Disable defragmentation and prefretch for your SSDs also since they are unnecessary and will actually slow down access.
Keep your temp folders and page file on the SSD since these are the files that will benefit the most from fast access.
(Recommended by Intel and Microsoft engineers who have done testing.
) Do not listen to all the information on the OCZ forum since their recommendations came about from trying to resolve stuttering and freezing issues with the JMicron SSD controllers on the earlier OCZ non-Vertex drives.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374227</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>qortra</author>
	<datestamp>1245340860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. I have an OCZ 30GB MLC too, and the read speed is exceptional.  OS startup is *fast* on both XP and Ubuntu.<br> <br>
The write speed is poor (I agree with you there), but <i>that is not the fault of SSDs in general</i>.  The problem is that you and I are both cheap and spent only things that HDD have on SSDs is capacity and price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I have an OCZ 30GB MLC too , and the read speed is exceptional .
OS startup is * fast * on both XP and Ubuntu .
The write speed is poor ( I agree with you there ) , but that is not the fault of SSDs in general .
The problem is that you and I are both cheap and spent only things that HDD have on SSDs is capacity and price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I have an OCZ 30GB MLC too, and the read speed is exceptional.
OS startup is *fast* on both XP and Ubuntu.
The write speed is poor (I agree with you there), but that is not the fault of SSDs in general.
The problem is that you and I are both cheap and spent only things that HDD have on SSDs is capacity and price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28384525</id>
	<title>this is stupid</title>
	<author>dezent</author>
	<datestamp>1245338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its like saying
"Big trucks are always better than a fast car"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its like saying " Big trucks are always better than a fast car "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its like saying
"Big trucks are always better than a fast car"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374485</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather have more capacity then speed.</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1245341880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?</p></div><p>I'd rather have 512 MB of DDR3 ram with SSD hard disk.  I wouldn't need the extra 3.5 GB of page cache with the disk accesses being that much faster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me put it this way , would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram ? I 'd rather have 512 MB of DDR3 ram with SSD hard disk .
I would n't need the extra 3.5 GB of page cache with the disk accesses being that much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?I'd rather have 512 MB of DDR3 ram with SSD hard disk.
I wouldn't need the extra 3.5 GB of page cache with the disk accesses being that much faster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374053</id>
	<title>Typo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I try to keep my hard disk from getting SSDs ever since that movie they made us watch in highschool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I try to keep my hard disk from getting SSDs ever since that movie they made us watch in highschool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I try to keep my hard disk from getting SSDs ever since that movie they made us watch in highschool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373393</id>
	<title>WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it pointing to the wrong article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it pointing to the wrong article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it pointing to the wrong article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374441</id>
	<title>SSDs and HDs</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1245341700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with SSDs have them being generally faster then regular HDs, much cooler since there are no moving parts, much quieter since you have no moving parts making the peanut in a tin can noise, and much more durable since bouncing around isn't going to endanger data platters with read/write heads like regular HDs.</p><p>The other thing is since they've been much cooler there's less cost for cooling fans or HD coolers like regular drives sometimes need. That's potentially less energy used to perform the same task a regular high speed HD would do. Now think about this, if you have an AC unit and your PC is throwing hot air in to the room and your trying to cool that room at the same time, with SSDs that's less work your home AC will have  to do since the PC wouldn't be throwing out as much hot air potentially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with SSDs have them being generally faster then regular HDs , much cooler since there are no moving parts , much quieter since you have no moving parts making the peanut in a tin can noise , and much more durable since bouncing around is n't going to endanger data platters with read/write heads like regular HDs.The other thing is since they 've been much cooler there 's less cost for cooling fans or HD coolers like regular drives sometimes need .
That 's potentially less energy used to perform the same task a regular high speed HD would do .
Now think about this , if you have an AC unit and your PC is throwing hot air in to the room and your trying to cool that room at the same time , with SSDs that 's less work your home AC will have to do since the PC would n't be throwing out as much hot air potentially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with SSDs have them being generally faster then regular HDs, much cooler since there are no moving parts, much quieter since you have no moving parts making the peanut in a tin can noise, and much more durable since bouncing around isn't going to endanger data platters with read/write heads like regular HDs.The other thing is since they've been much cooler there's less cost for cooling fans or HD coolers like regular drives sometimes need.
That's potentially less energy used to perform the same task a regular high speed HD would do.
Now think about this, if you have an AC unit and your PC is throwing hot air in to the room and your trying to cool that room at the same time, with SSDs that's less work your home AC will have  to do since the PC wouldn't be throwing out as much hot air potentially.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374655</id>
	<title>What about paper?</title>
	<author>GottliebPins</author>
	<datestamp>1245342600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Storing all your data on paper is even cheaper than hard disk. Of course access speed is a bit slower<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Storing all your data on paper is even cheaper than hard disk .
Of course access speed is a bit slower ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Storing all your data on paper is even cheaper than hard disk.
Of course access speed is a bit slower ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373583</id>
	<title>Thank you, Captain obvious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245338100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should win the "duh" award. I don't think anybody outside a relatively small community of super-geeks even gives a flop about SSD's, and  I'm pretty sure they're qualified to do a cost-benefit analysis.</p><p>How did this article even make it to the front page? Aren't there ground breaking stories about Miss California or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should win the " duh " award .
I do n't think anybody outside a relatively small community of super-geeks even gives a flop about SSD 's , and I 'm pretty sure they 're qualified to do a cost-benefit analysis.How did this article even make it to the front page ?
Are n't there ground breaking stories about Miss California or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should win the "duh" award.
I don't think anybody outside a relatively small community of super-geeks even gives a flop about SSD's, and  I'm pretty sure they're qualified to do a cost-benefit analysis.How did this article even make it to the front page?
Aren't there ground breaking stories about Miss California or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376547</id>
	<title>RamSan is where it's at.</title>
	<author>Rakeris</author>
	<datestamp>1245349920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure about you all, but I am getting one of these for my next PC. Who needs HDDs and those cute little SSDs.
<p>
<a href="http://www.ramsan.com/products/ramsan-5000.htm" title="ramsan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ramsan.com/products/ramsan-5000.htm</a> [ramsan.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about you all , but I am getting one of these for my next PC .
Who needs HDDs and those cute little SSDs .
http : //www.ramsan.com/products/ramsan-5000.htm [ ramsan.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about you all, but I am getting one of these for my next PC.
Who needs HDDs and those cute little SSDs.
http://www.ramsan.com/products/ramsan-5000.htm [ramsan.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374411</id>
	<title>Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245341580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SSD has a place where it is used best, (speed-dependent applications, such as OS booting), HDD also has a place where it shines (massive storage without breaking the bank). SSD is awesome for booting, but way faster than I need for most things.  Why would I pay 10X as much to store DVD rips on a drive that can deliver them oodles faster than I need to watch them?<br> <br>

Having the right tools and using the tools right are very different things.  I refuse to pick which type of drive is "better," because each one is great in its own way.  I keep my multimedia on regular old 7200rpm drives, because it's cheap and gets the job done.  I'd love to boot from SDD, but using it for large-scale storage would be stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD has a place where it is used best , ( speed-dependent applications , such as OS booting ) , HDD also has a place where it shines ( massive storage without breaking the bank ) .
SSD is awesome for booting , but way faster than I need for most things .
Why would I pay 10X as much to store DVD rips on a drive that can deliver them oodles faster than I need to watch them ?
Having the right tools and using the tools right are very different things .
I refuse to pick which type of drive is " better , " because each one is great in its own way .
I keep my multimedia on regular old 7200rpm drives , because it 's cheap and gets the job done .
I 'd love to boot from SDD , but using it for large-scale storage would be stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD has a place where it is used best, (speed-dependent applications, such as OS booting), HDD also has a place where it shines (massive storage without breaking the bank).
SSD is awesome for booting, but way faster than I need for most things.
Why would I pay 10X as much to store DVD rips on a drive that can deliver them oodles faster than I need to watch them?
Having the right tools and using the tools right are very different things.
I refuse to pick which type of drive is "better," because each one is great in its own way.
I keep my multimedia on regular old 7200rpm drives, because it's cheap and gets the job done.
I'd love to boot from SDD, but using it for large-scale storage would be stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419</id>
	<title>Wrong article link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should have been <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468" title="computerworld.com">this article</a> [computerworld.com].
<br>
That said, I don't think anyone claims SSD is better than HDD if your bottleneck is capacity or sequential read speed. However if you do lots of random reads/writes, this line from the comparison says it all:
<br>
<b>OCZ's drive had a random access time of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 milliseconds; Seagate's 16.9 milliseconds. </b>
<br>
That's an 84X difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should have been this article [ computerworld.com ] .
That said , I do n't think anyone claims SSD is better than HDD if your bottleneck is capacity or sequential read speed .
However if you do lots of random reads/writes , this line from the comparison says it all : OCZ 's drive had a random access time of .2 milliseconds ; Seagate 's 16.9 milliseconds .
That 's an 84X difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should have been this article [computerworld.com].
That said, I don't think anyone claims SSD is better than HDD if your bottleneck is capacity or sequential read speed.
However if you do lots of random reads/writes, this line from the comparison says it all:

OCZ's drive had a random access time of .2 milliseconds; Seagate's 16.9 milliseconds.
That's an 84X difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375097</id>
	<title>Hard NOT TO justify the price</title>
	<author>cmay</author>
	<datestamp>1245344340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The performance increase I found on my laptop after installing a SSD was amazing.

I could never ever return to a regular drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The performance increase I found on my laptop after installing a SSD was amazing .
I could never ever return to a regular drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The performance increase I found on my laptop after installing a SSD was amazing.
I could never ever return to a regular drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373517</id>
	<title>Performance is night and day better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a new IT supported laptop at work (HP EliteBook). Performance was significantly better than my previous laptop (now on dualcore, 4GB ram, etc)... I took my new machine and put in the 80GB Intel SSD... The performance is amazing. I would estimate that things I do on the system are around 3-10x faster than with the stock disk.</p><p>Now I did go from a 150GB down to an 80GB drive, but for mobile with no waiting, it's like getting a new machine again. It may cost more, but being able to load visual studio, open a solution (small project), compile and run in under 10 seconds where my last HD took over a minute is well worth the "hype".</p><p>(as a disclaimer, my IT supported laptop is loaded with a TON of crap software)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a new IT supported laptop at work ( HP EliteBook ) .
Performance was significantly better than my previous laptop ( now on dualcore , 4GB ram , etc ) ... I took my new machine and put in the 80GB Intel SSD... The performance is amazing .
I would estimate that things I do on the system are around 3-10x faster than with the stock disk.Now I did go from a 150GB down to an 80GB drive , but for mobile with no waiting , it 's like getting a new machine again .
It may cost more , but being able to load visual studio , open a solution ( small project ) , compile and run in under 10 seconds where my last HD took over a minute is well worth the " hype " .
( as a disclaimer , my IT supported laptop is loaded with a TON of crap software )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a new IT supported laptop at work (HP EliteBook).
Performance was significantly better than my previous laptop (now on dualcore, 4GB ram, etc)... I took my new machine and put in the 80GB Intel SSD... The performance is amazing.
I would estimate that things I do on the system are around 3-10x faster than with the stock disk.Now I did go from a 150GB down to an 80GB drive, but for mobile with no waiting, it's like getting a new machine again.
It may cost more, but being able to load visual studio, open a solution (small project), compile and run in under 10 seconds where my last HD took over a minute is well worth the "hype".
(as a disclaimer, my IT supported laptop is loaded with a TON of crap software)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1245337740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have used a 30GB OCZ for some time now, with one system partition and one for data. I recebtly moved the system part (Windows XP) back to an older 250GB Hitachi drive, with no perceptible speed loss. The data partition holds World of Warcraft and does give a moderate speed gain on startup. It also reduces delay when switching between two WoW instances significantly. But that is about it.</p><p>I think the primary strengths of SSD are still high shock tolerance and low power needs, which makes them ideal for laptops. In some (very few) specialized applications that are aware of the geometry of a SSD (i.e. its very large effective sector size), an SSD may also give a speed improvement. There are also applications, where SSDs are significantly slower. For example small write performance is really bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used a 30GB OCZ for some time now , with one system partition and one for data .
I recebtly moved the system part ( Windows XP ) back to an older 250GB Hitachi drive , with no perceptible speed loss .
The data partition holds World of Warcraft and does give a moderate speed gain on startup .
It also reduces delay when switching between two WoW instances significantly .
But that is about it.I think the primary strengths of SSD are still high shock tolerance and low power needs , which makes them ideal for laptops .
In some ( very few ) specialized applications that are aware of the geometry of a SSD ( i.e .
its very large effective sector size ) , an SSD may also give a speed improvement .
There are also applications , where SSDs are significantly slower .
For example small write performance is really bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used a 30GB OCZ for some time now, with one system partition and one for data.
I recebtly moved the system part (Windows XP) back to an older 250GB Hitachi drive, with no perceptible speed loss.
The data partition holds World of Warcraft and does give a moderate speed gain on startup.
It also reduces delay when switching between two WoW instances significantly.
But that is about it.I think the primary strengths of SSD are still high shock tolerance and low power needs, which makes them ideal for laptops.
In some (very few) specialized applications that are aware of the geometry of a SSD (i.e.
its very large effective sector size), an SSD may also give a speed improvement.
There are also applications, where SSDs are significantly slower.
For example small write performance is really bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373363</id>
	<title>A side by side comparison?</title>
	<author>Daniel Wood</author>
	<datestamp>1245337140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone please point out the SSD they compare to in the article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please point out the SSD they compare to in the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please point out the SSD they compare to in the article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28378553</id>
	<title>Apart from the wrong link, also the wrong analysis</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1245356040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone else pointed out, this link was to the wrong review.</p><p>And the review made the wrong analysis.</p><p>I have two machines with SSDs in them.  My Eee has a cheapish SSD in it.  Is it as fast as a HD?  Probably not.  But:</p><p>1.  It's faster for random-access reads, which are 95\% of my workload on the Eee.<br>2.  It is quieter and uses less power.</p><p>The Eee ran its fan all the time when I got it.  I swapped the hard drive for an SSD.  Now the fan runs only very occasionally.  Why should it?  I just took half the heat out of the system, easily.  It also gets longer battery life.</p><p>The other is a desktop machine I put together on a lark to see whether I could make a machine which ran WoW really nicely and was very quiet on a reasonable budget.  ("Reasonable" is probably the wrong word to use.)  I have a fanless video card, a huge heatsink, a bunch of 120mm or larger slow fans, and an SSD.  The SSD is one of the nicer ones (OCZ vertex).  It is at least TWICE as fast, probably moreso, than the striped array of fastish (but not super fast) platter drives it replaced.  It is, of course, silent.  Since the VAST bulk of everything the game does is random-access reads, the net result is a huge performance win.</p><p>Would I use these for everything?  No.</p><p>If I got a big chunk of money, would I seriously think about putting a 250GB flash drive in my laptop, or ordering my next laptop with one?  Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone else pointed out , this link was to the wrong review.And the review made the wrong analysis.I have two machines with SSDs in them .
My Eee has a cheapish SSD in it .
Is it as fast as a HD ?
Probably not .
But : 1. It 's faster for random-access reads , which are 95 \ % of my workload on the Eee.2 .
It is quieter and uses less power.The Eee ran its fan all the time when I got it .
I swapped the hard drive for an SSD .
Now the fan runs only very occasionally .
Why should it ?
I just took half the heat out of the system , easily .
It also gets longer battery life.The other is a desktop machine I put together on a lark to see whether I could make a machine which ran WoW really nicely and was very quiet on a reasonable budget .
( " Reasonable " is probably the wrong word to use .
) I have a fanless video card , a huge heatsink , a bunch of 120mm or larger slow fans , and an SSD .
The SSD is one of the nicer ones ( OCZ vertex ) .
It is at least TWICE as fast , probably moreso , than the striped array of fastish ( but not super fast ) platter drives it replaced .
It is , of course , silent .
Since the VAST bulk of everything the game does is random-access reads , the net result is a huge performance win.Would I use these for everything ?
No.If I got a big chunk of money , would I seriously think about putting a 250GB flash drive in my laptop , or ordering my next laptop with one ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone else pointed out, this link was to the wrong review.And the review made the wrong analysis.I have two machines with SSDs in them.
My Eee has a cheapish SSD in it.
Is it as fast as a HD?
Probably not.
But:1.  It's faster for random-access reads, which are 95\% of my workload on the Eee.2.
It is quieter and uses less power.The Eee ran its fan all the time when I got it.
I swapped the hard drive for an SSD.
Now the fan runs only very occasionally.
Why should it?
I just took half the heat out of the system, easily.
It also gets longer battery life.The other is a desktop machine I put together on a lark to see whether I could make a machine which ran WoW really nicely and was very quiet on a reasonable budget.
("Reasonable" is probably the wrong word to use.
)  I have a fanless video card, a huge heatsink, a bunch of 120mm or larger slow fans, and an SSD.
The SSD is one of the nicer ones (OCZ vertex).
It is at least TWICE as fast, probably moreso, than the striped array of fastish (but not super fast) platter drives it replaced.
It is, of course, silent.
Since the VAST bulk of everything the game does is random-access reads, the net result is a huge performance win.Would I use these for everything?
No.If I got a big chunk of money, would I seriously think about putting a 250GB flash drive in my laptop, or ordering my next laptop with one?
Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374337</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong article link</title>
	<author>Wolfger</author>
	<datestamp>1245341340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would be nice if Slashdot's editors would actually RTFA (or even scan over it) to see if it is what the submitter says it is. It took me all of 15 seconds to say "Hey, this article doesn't mention SSD's at all."<br> <br>
Then the actual article says the opposite of what the submitter is trying to get us to believe: "if you're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time, an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost"
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and I'm guessing the review was written with the same FS on each drive, but we are now seeing new FS's that are better suited to SSD's than HDD's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would be nice if Slashdot 's editors would actually RTFA ( or even scan over it ) to see if it is what the submitter says it is .
It took me all of 15 seconds to say " Hey , this article does n't mention SSD 's at all .
" Then the actual article says the opposite of what the submitter is trying to get us to believe : " if you 're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time , an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost " ...and I 'm guessing the review was written with the same FS on each drive , but we are now seeing new FS 's that are better suited to SSD 's than HDD 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would be nice if Slashdot's editors would actually RTFA (or even scan over it) to see if it is what the submitter says it is.
It took me all of 15 seconds to say "Hey, this article doesn't mention SSD's at all.
" 
Then the actual article says the opposite of what the submitter is trying to get us to believe: "if you're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time, an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost"
  ...and I'm guessing the review was written with the same FS on each drive, but we are now seeing new FS's that are better suited to SSD's than HDD's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373315</id>
	<title>How much is your time worth?</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1245337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I suppose it's a matter of assessing if the speed difference and the battery power differences are worth it for <i>you</i>. If your time simply isn't worth the premium price (let's be honest you're not doing anything that important are you?) then I don't suppose it is *worth* the price premium to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I suppose it 's a matter of assessing if the speed difference and the battery power differences are worth it for you .
If your time simply is n't worth the premium price ( let 's be honest you 're not doing anything that important are you ?
) then I do n't suppose it is * worth * the price premium to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I suppose it's a matter of assessing if the speed difference and the battery power differences are worth it for you.
If your time simply isn't worth the premium price (let's be honest you're not doing anything that important are you?
) then I don't suppose it is *worth* the price premium to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375371</id>
	<title>HP's G5 servers use 2.5</title>
	<author>boeroboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245345480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fun starts with HP's newer servers, which use the mini 2.5" SAS/SATA drives.  Has anybody taken a DL-380 G5 and filled it with 8 SSDs in RAID 5?</p><p>Would be fun to have some research play moneys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fun starts with HP 's newer servers , which use the mini 2.5 " SAS/SATA drives .
Has anybody taken a DL-380 G5 and filled it with 8 SSDs in RAID 5 ? Would be fun to have some research play moneys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fun starts with HP's newer servers, which use the mini 2.5" SAS/SATA drives.
Has anybody taken a DL-380 G5 and filled it with 8 SSDs in RAID 5?Would be fun to have some research play moneys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376593</id>
	<title>More Gems from the SSD comparison article</title>
	<author>DaveWick79</author>
	<datestamp>1245350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quote: "(Keep in mind that most SSD vendors publish sequential read/write rates, which are much faster than random I/O. But most operations on a desktop or laptop are random. For example, file systems and e-mail applications mostly use random operations, while system boot up or copying a large file from a USB drive involves sequential operations. So, in general, don't believe the packaging hype.)"</p><p>The author apparently lacks the basic understanding that since an SSD has no moving platter, there is no difference between sequential and random read/writes.  This is why it is advertised as such.  So, in general, don't believe the BS this amateur is spouting out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I quote : " ( Keep in mind that most SSD vendors publish sequential read/write rates , which are much faster than random I/O .
But most operations on a desktop or laptop are random .
For example , file systems and e-mail applications mostly use random operations , while system boot up or copying a large file from a USB drive involves sequential operations .
So , in general , do n't believe the packaging hype .
) " The author apparently lacks the basic understanding that since an SSD has no moving platter , there is no difference between sequential and random read/writes .
This is why it is advertised as such .
So , in general , do n't believe the BS this amateur is spouting out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quote: "(Keep in mind that most SSD vendors publish sequential read/write rates, which are much faster than random I/O.
But most operations on a desktop or laptop are random.
For example, file systems and e-mail applications mostly use random operations, while system boot up or copying a large file from a USB drive involves sequential operations.
So, in general, don't believe the packaging hype.
)"The author apparently lacks the basic understanding that since an SSD has no moving platter, there is no difference between sequential and random read/writes.
This is why it is advertised as such.
So, in general, don't believe the BS this amateur is spouting out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377635</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>clarkie.mg</author>
	<datestamp>1245353760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.There are also applications, where SSDs are significantly slower. For example small write performance is really bad.</p></div><p>There are also applications where <b>poorly designed</b> SSDs are significantly slower. This post : <a href="http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=34943" title="slizone.com">http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=34943</a> [slizone.com] summarizes the problem revealed by anandtech there : <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403" title="anandtech.com">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403</a> [anandtech.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.There are also applications , where SSDs are significantly slower .
For example small write performance is really bad.There are also applications where poorly designed SSDs are significantly slower .
This post : http : //forums.slizone.com/index.php ? showtopic = 34943 [ slizone.com ] summarizes the problem revealed by anandtech there : http : //www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3403 [ anandtech.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.There are also applications, where SSDs are significantly slower.
For example small write performance is really bad.There are also applications where poorly designed SSDs are significantly slower.
This post : http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=34943 [slizone.com] summarizes the problem revealed by anandtech there : http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403 [anandtech.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375823</id>
	<title>Re:Why not RAID?</title>
	<author>ergo98</author>
	<datestamp>1245347220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive. Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built in</p></div></blockquote><p>You would need a massive magnetic disk array to match the I/O performance of a modern SSD like the Intel X25-E.</p><p>And I/Os are what really matters, because a storage system spends most of its life satisfying small distributed requests, not reading GBs sequentially. This is why sequential throughput comparisons are so incredibly misleading, when the only time such performance comes into play is when you copy one massive conveniently defragmented file from one drive to another.</p><p>It would be foolhardy to claim that one or the other reigned supreme in all circumstances. For a file/media server, for instance, magnetic disks are almost certainly more than adequate, and the space is the principal value of the drive. For a database server, or even for most workstations, though, I/O speed is a much greater return.</p><p>SSDs are going to completely change the landscape of many enterprise systems, and for something like a netbook (where price isn't the focus), they seem like a no-brainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive .
Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built inYou would need a massive magnetic disk array to match the I/O performance of a modern SSD like the Intel X25-E.And I/Os are what really matters , because a storage system spends most of its life satisfying small distributed requests , not reading GBs sequentially .
This is why sequential throughput comparisons are so incredibly misleading , when the only time such performance comes into play is when you copy one massive conveniently defragmented file from one drive to another.It would be foolhardy to claim that one or the other reigned supreme in all circumstances .
For a file/media server , for instance , magnetic disks are almost certainly more than adequate , and the space is the principal value of the drive .
For a database server , or even for most workstations , though , I/O speed is a much greater return.SSDs are going to completely change the landscape of many enterprise systems , and for something like a netbook ( where price is n't the focus ) , they seem like a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive.
Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built inYou would need a massive magnetic disk array to match the I/O performance of a modern SSD like the Intel X25-E.And I/Os are what really matters, because a storage system spends most of its life satisfying small distributed requests, not reading GBs sequentially.
This is why sequential throughput comparisons are so incredibly misleading, when the only time such performance comes into play is when you copy one massive conveniently defragmented file from one drive to another.It would be foolhardy to claim that one or the other reigned supreme in all circumstances.
For a file/media server, for instance, magnetic disks are almost certainly more than adequate, and the space is the principal value of the drive.
For a database server, or even for most workstations, though, I/O speed is a much greater return.SSDs are going to completely change the landscape of many enterprise systems, and for something like a netbook (where price isn't the focus), they seem like a no-brainer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377893</id>
	<title>Re:Why not RAID?</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1245354360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The additional linear speed is more or less worthless if you're talking about databases. The only thing that wants it is backup, and that's limited by the tape drive. For random access you're often lucky if you get a couple of megabytes per second.
</p><p>
For random access on disks a raid10 array is what you want, raid5 is crap because random writes will almost certainly have the "small write penalty" of 50\% or more.
</p><p>
The "enterprise" versions of the flash drives are very much being looked at right now. Their problem is that real world reliability and failure mode data is still in very short supply. That make people worried about putting them into live systems, but development, test and secondary systems are getting these drives with serious performance hikes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The additional linear speed is more or less worthless if you 're talking about databases .
The only thing that wants it is backup , and that 's limited by the tape drive .
For random access you 're often lucky if you get a couple of megabytes per second .
For random access on disks a raid10 array is what you want , raid5 is crap because random writes will almost certainly have the " small write penalty " of 50 \ % or more .
The " enterprise " versions of the flash drives are very much being looked at right now .
Their problem is that real world reliability and failure mode data is still in very short supply .
That make people worried about putting them into live systems , but development , test and secondary systems are getting these drives with serious performance hikes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The additional linear speed is more or less worthless if you're talking about databases.
The only thing that wants it is backup, and that's limited by the tape drive.
For random access you're often lucky if you get a couple of megabytes per second.
For random access on disks a raid10 array is what you want, raid5 is crap because random writes will almost certainly have the "small write penalty" of 50\% or more.
The "enterprise" versions of the flash drives are very much being looked at right now.
Their problem is that real world reliability and failure mode data is still in very short supply.
That make people worried about putting them into live systems, but development, test and secondary systems are getting these drives with serious performance hikes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28378649</id>
	<title>Obviously, you've never used a desktop computer</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1245356280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike laptops, desktop computers let you have multiple drives, and thus the smart use of SSDs... A smaller, cheaper SSD for the OS, and a large HD for data storage, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike laptops , desktop computers let you have multiple drives , and thus the smart use of SSDs... A smaller , cheaper SSD for the OS , and a large HD for data storage , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike laptops, desktop computers let you have multiple drives, and thus the smart use of SSDs... A smaller, cheaper SSD for the OS, and a large HD for data storage, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374905</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>mejesster</author>
	<datestamp>1245343560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess nobody bothers to read the article anymore, but this article is old and largely irrelevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess nobody bothers to read the article anymore , but this article is old and largely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess nobody bothers to read the article anymore, but this article is old and largely irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375141</id>
	<title>I remember an article like this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245344520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back maybe 5 years ago there were articles like this talking about how CRTs still had so much to offer and how they were so cheap and how LCD displays were still new and expensive...  <br>
<br>
Somehow I expect this article to have a similarly short shelf life and will look at best amusingly quaint in about 2-3 years when SSDs start getting really price competitive with spinning platters.  Probably not cheaper, but close enough that people will be willing to pay the extra for the rather substantial performance improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back maybe 5 years ago there were articles like this talking about how CRTs still had so much to offer and how they were so cheap and how LCD displays were still new and expensive.. . Somehow I expect this article to have a similarly short shelf life and will look at best amusingly quaint in about 2-3 years when SSDs start getting really price competitive with spinning platters .
Probably not cheaper , but close enough that people will be willing to pay the extra for the rather substantial performance improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back maybe 5 years ago there were articles like this talking about how CRTs still had so much to offer and how they were so cheap and how LCD displays were still new and expensive...  

Somehow I expect this article to have a similarly short shelf life and will look at best amusingly quaint in about 2-3 years when SSDs start getting really price competitive with spinning platters.
Probably not cheaper, but close enough that people will be willing to pay the extra for the rather substantial performance improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374125</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong article link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well said, random reads are an order of magnitude faster.  What's interesting is to see the article neglect this mark, when the desktop/laptop computing experience relies most on this exact variable.
<br> <br>
I don't expect enterprise data centers to be using SSD to host my flikr photos any time soon (outside of a few specialized workloads such as database <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/realneel/entry/the\_zfs\_intent\_log" title="sun.com">write cache</a> [sun.com]), but the laptop and the solid state disk are a match made in heaven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said , random reads are an order of magnitude faster .
What 's interesting is to see the article neglect this mark , when the desktop/laptop computing experience relies most on this exact variable .
I do n't expect enterprise data centers to be using SSD to host my flikr photos any time soon ( outside of a few specialized workloads such as database write cache [ sun.com ] ) , but the laptop and the solid state disk are a match made in heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said, random reads are an order of magnitude faster.
What's interesting is to see the article neglect this mark, when the desktop/laptop computing experience relies most on this exact variable.
I don't expect enterprise data centers to be using SSD to host my flikr photos any time soon (outside of a few specialized workloads such as database write cache [sun.com]), but the laptop and the solid state disk are a match made in heaven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373317</id>
	<title>This article is nearly 80 computer years old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me be the first of many to point out this article was posted July 31, <b>2008</b>, though its central point still stands. Also worth nothing, this article was written before Intel's X-25 SSDs were released which moved the performance bar <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">so high</a> [anandtech.com] that their insane price (~3-4$/GB) started to make sense for the some people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be the first of many to point out this article was posted July 31 , 2008 , though its central point still stands .
Also worth nothing , this article was written before Intel 's X-25 SSDs were released which moved the performance bar so high [ anandtech.com ] that their insane price ( ~ 3-4 $ /GB ) started to make sense for the some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be the first of many to point out this article was posted July 31, 2008, though its central point still stands.
Also worth nothing, this article was written before Intel's X-25 SSDs were released which moved the performance bar so high [anandtech.com] that their insane price (~3-4$/GB) started to make sense for the some people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365</id>
	<title>Why not RAID?</title>
	<author>digitalderbs</author>
	<datestamp>1245341400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive. Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built in. <br> <br>

 have four magnetic drives running on software RAID 10 -- not the 1+0 variety. I get 3x a single drive's read (200MB/s) and about 1.5-2X write. Plus I have a full backup and 2TB of space. The sw kernel module uses less than 5-10\% of one cpu on a quad system<br> <br>

At this time, why not buy many magnetic drives in RAID with the extra $$? Unless you would want to support a burgeoning technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive .
Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built in .
have four magnetic drives running on software RAID 10 -- not the 1 + 0 variety .
I get 3x a single drive 's read ( 200MB/s ) and about 1.5-2X write .
Plus I have a full backup and 2TB of space .
The sw kernel module uses less than 5-10 \ % of one cpu on a quad system At this time , why not buy many magnetic drives in RAID with the extra $ $ ?
Unless you would want to support a burgeoning technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood the motivation in spending more for the speed of an SSD drive when a bunch of RAID drives can perform at multiples faster than a single drive.
Plus you get the added disk space and redundancy built in.
have four magnetic drives running on software RAID 10 -- not the 1+0 variety.
I get 3x a single drive's read (200MB/s) and about 1.5-2X write.
Plus I have a full backup and 2TB of space.
The sw kernel module uses less than 5-10\% of one cpu on a quad system 

At this time, why not buy many magnetic drives in RAID with the extra $$?
Unless you would want to support a burgeoning technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373611</id>
	<title>Moving parts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read distance measured in microns, magnets, heads, cylinders, normal forces, weight and my favorite, impact functions - all of these seem like great reasons to move to SSD.<br>1000 (or more) rewrites is a scary limit for the SSD route, but I like the idea of walking around with my laptop on and not worrying about drive failures (as much).</p><p>Take this for what it's worth, but I was at a conference a couple years ago and the VP of Intel's desktop support division said that 30\% of his problems with laptops were solved by requiring folks to wait for the drive to spin down after hibernating/shutdown operations and before shouldering the laptop.  Even if the number seems somewhat inflated, it seems like good advice for anyone with a "conventional" hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read distance measured in microns , magnets , heads , cylinders , normal forces , weight and my favorite , impact functions - all of these seem like great reasons to move to SSD.1000 ( or more ) rewrites is a scary limit for the SSD route , but I like the idea of walking around with my laptop on and not worrying about drive failures ( as much ) .Take this for what it 's worth , but I was at a conference a couple years ago and the VP of Intel 's desktop support division said that 30 \ % of his problems with laptops were solved by requiring folks to wait for the drive to spin down after hibernating/shutdown operations and before shouldering the laptop .
Even if the number seems somewhat inflated , it seems like good advice for anyone with a " conventional " hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read distance measured in microns, magnets, heads, cylinders, normal forces, weight and my favorite, impact functions - all of these seem like great reasons to move to SSD.1000 (or more) rewrites is a scary limit for the SSD route, but I like the idea of walking around with my laptop on and not worrying about drive failures (as much).Take this for what it's worth, but I was at a conference a couple years ago and the VP of Intel's desktop support division said that 30\% of his problems with laptops were solved by requiring folks to wait for the drive to spin down after hibernating/shutdown operations and before shouldering the laptop.
Even if the number seems somewhat inflated, it seems like good advice for anyone with a "conventional" hard drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377257</id>
	<title>I thought it was all about reliability.</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1245352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the biggest advantage of solid state was no moving parts to wear out. Speed is certainly a consideration to be sure, but reliability and service life seemed like it was more of the point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the biggest advantage of solid state was no moving parts to wear out .
Speed is certainly a consideration to be sure , but reliability and service life seemed like it was more of the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the biggest advantage of solid state was no moving parts to wear out.
Speed is certainly a consideration to be sure, but reliability and service life seemed like it was more of the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374269</id>
	<title>uh huh</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1245341040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I can stick a USB magnetic platter drive that is smaller than my thumb in my pocket and not worry about it breaking into pieces or when I can insert and remove them into my camera/phone, then you can say that traditional drives have caught up with SSD. And as the world goes netbook, netbooks have a lot to gain from compact, robust, low-power, silent storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I can stick a USB magnetic platter drive that is smaller than my thumb in my pocket and not worry about it breaking into pieces or when I can insert and remove them into my camera/phone , then you can say that traditional drives have caught up with SSD .
And as the world goes netbook , netbooks have a lot to gain from compact , robust , low-power , silent storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I can stick a USB magnetic platter drive that is smaller than my thumb in my pocket and not worry about it breaking into pieces or when I can insert and remove them into my camera/phone, then you can say that traditional drives have caught up with SSD.
And as the world goes netbook, netbooks have a lot to gain from compact, robust, low-power, silent storage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374665</id>
	<title>I was just debating this..</title>
	<author>$1uck</author>
	<datestamp>1245342660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm building a home PVR (in a distributed manner),  I've got an hdhomerun box, nas with two 500gb, and I'm looking at building a myth backend machine to save streams from the hdhomerun to the nas.  I was trying to decide if I should use a SSD or traditional HD.  I don't think I need a whole lot of space on the machine as I want the video saved to the nas.  It looks like SSD is the way to go if I can find one reasonably priced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm building a home PVR ( in a distributed manner ) , I 've got an hdhomerun box , nas with two 500gb , and I 'm looking at building a myth backend machine to save streams from the hdhomerun to the nas .
I was trying to decide if I should use a SSD or traditional HD .
I do n't think I need a whole lot of space on the machine as I want the video saved to the nas .
It looks like SSD is the way to go if I can find one reasonably priced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm building a home PVR (in a distributed manner),  I've got an hdhomerun box, nas with two 500gb, and I'm looking at building a myth backend machine to save streams from the hdhomerun to the nas.
I was trying to decide if I should use a SSD or traditional HD.
I don't think I need a whole lot of space on the machine as I want the video saved to the nas.
It looks like SSD is the way to go if I can find one reasonably priced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377013</id>
	<title>How about both?</title>
	<author>tgrigsby</author>
	<datestamp>1245351780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got done ordering a new machine, and after much research I decided to go with a 256GB SSD as my boot and application installation drive and 3x1TB drives RAIDed together for my data/multimedia storage and work area.  The rationale is screaming fast boot and app load times and fault tolerance for the files I can't replace.  Read times on SSDs tend to be off the chart fast, and writes to my boot/app drive will occur almost entirely when I'm installing software.</p><p>My current machine, much as I love it, takes 3 minutes to boot from hibernation, and at least 10 minutes to do a full startup.  Yeah, it's about 5 years old, but it's got 2GB of RAM and two 2GHz AMD Athlons.  The problem, ignoring OS bloat, is largely the drive speed.  Plainly put, I'm doing what I can to eliminate the biggest bottleneck on my system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got done ordering a new machine , and after much research I decided to go with a 256GB SSD as my boot and application installation drive and 3x1TB drives RAIDed together for my data/multimedia storage and work area .
The rationale is screaming fast boot and app load times and fault tolerance for the files I ca n't replace .
Read times on SSDs tend to be off the chart fast , and writes to my boot/app drive will occur almost entirely when I 'm installing software.My current machine , much as I love it , takes 3 minutes to boot from hibernation , and at least 10 minutes to do a full startup .
Yeah , it 's about 5 years old , but it 's got 2GB of RAM and two 2GHz AMD Athlons .
The problem , ignoring OS bloat , is largely the drive speed .
Plainly put , I 'm doing what I can to eliminate the biggest bottleneck on my system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got done ordering a new machine, and after much research I decided to go with a 256GB SSD as my boot and application installation drive and 3x1TB drives RAIDed together for my data/multimedia storage and work area.
The rationale is screaming fast boot and app load times and fault tolerance for the files I can't replace.
Read times on SSDs tend to be off the chart fast, and writes to my boot/app drive will occur almost entirely when I'm installing software.My current machine, much as I love it, takes 3 minutes to boot from hibernation, and at least 10 minutes to do a full startup.
Yeah, it's about 5 years old, but it's got 2GB of RAM and two 2GHz AMD Athlons.
The problem, ignoring OS bloat, is largely the drive speed.
Plainly put, I'm doing what I can to eliminate the biggest bottleneck on my system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281</id>
	<title>2.5" or 3.5" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245336900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the submitter is mixing up 2.5" HDD and 3.5" HDD.<br>SSD is all the rage in the 2.5" segment, not the 3.5" (yet, as they are much much faster than what's described in the article and much more expensive as well).<br>I can't fit these very fast 3.5" HDD in my Macbook Pro no matter hard I try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the submitter is mixing up 2.5 " HDD and 3.5 " HDD.SSD is all the rage in the 2.5 " segment , not the 3.5 " ( yet , as they are much much faster than what 's described in the article and much more expensive as well ) .I ca n't fit these very fast 3.5 " HDD in my Macbook Pro no matter hard I try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the submitter is mixing up 2.5" HDD and 3.5" HDD.SSD is all the rage in the 2.5" segment, not the 3.5" (yet, as they are much much faster than what's described in the article and much more expensive as well).I can't fit these very fast 3.5" HDD in my Macbook Pro no matter hard I try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374735</id>
	<title>SSD = Read cache miss god</title>
	<author>Bardwick</author>
	<datestamp>1245342960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't used on personal equipment, but on EMC DMX 4, we have some databases that were suffering 15-27ms response times due to read misses.<br>SSD drop that down to  2ms.<br>Another interesting idea is using them for swap/paging space.  Haven't toyed with yet, but should be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't used on personal equipment , but on EMC DMX 4 , we have some databases that were suffering 15-27ms response times due to read misses.SSD drop that down to 2ms.Another interesting idea is using them for swap/paging space .
Have n't toyed with yet , but should be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't used on personal equipment, but on EMC DMX 4, we have some databases that were suffering 15-27ms response times due to read misses.SSD drop that down to  2ms.Another interesting idea is using them for swap/paging space.
Haven't toyed with yet, but should be interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373311</id>
	<title>Wrong article linked</title>
	<author>smallshot</author>
	<datestamp>1245337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article in the link is from July 31, 2008 and has nothing to do with SSDs, but rather a comparison of WD HDDs.  I think they meant to link to this one: <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468</a> [computerworld.com] from today (June 18, 2009)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article in the link is from July 31 , 2008 and has nothing to do with SSDs , but rather a comparison of WD HDDs .
I think they meant to link to this one : http : //www.computerworld.com/action/article.do ? command = viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId = 9134468 [ computerworld.com ] from today ( June 18 , 2009 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article in the link is from July 31, 2008 and has nothing to do with SSDs, but rather a comparison of WD HDDs.
I think they meant to link to this one: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468 [computerworld.com] from today (June 18, 2009)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374783</id>
	<title>We've got a hierarchy here....</title>
	<author>Glasswire</author>
	<datestamp>1245343140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like we have a speed/size hierarchy in processor caches (L1 smaller and faster than L2 which is smaller and faster than L3), we are about to enter a tiering model for storage.<br>It's silly to compare a 128GB SSD with 1.5TB spindle drive.  On a personal system you're going to do different things with them.  The SSD (or other systemboard flash) will be your fast OS and frequently used disk where fast reads / writes are important but files are not huge.  For very large data, a secondary spindle drive with TBs connected either as second SATA drive or eSATA external (or, frankly, my preference) located on a storage server or appliance will be appropriate,<br>But for most laptop users, i fyou cna have only one drive, a MLC SSD drive ~160GB or larger will be plenty and WILL make a qualitative change in you life.  If only in that with SSD you can hibernate (full save of RAM to disk then shutdown) in seconds instead of minutes.<br>Anyone who has not used an SSD <i>just doesn't know</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like we have a speed/size hierarchy in processor caches ( L1 smaller and faster than L2 which is smaller and faster than L3 ) , we are about to enter a tiering model for storage.It 's silly to compare a 128GB SSD with 1.5TB spindle drive .
On a personal system you 're going to do different things with them .
The SSD ( or other systemboard flash ) will be your fast OS and frequently used disk where fast reads / writes are important but files are not huge .
For very large data , a secondary spindle drive with TBs connected either as second SATA drive or eSATA external ( or , frankly , my preference ) located on a storage server or appliance will be appropriate,But for most laptop users , i fyou cna have only one drive , a MLC SSD drive ~ 160GB or larger will be plenty and WILL make a qualitative change in you life .
If only in that with SSD you can hibernate ( full save of RAM to disk then shutdown ) in seconds instead of minutes.Anyone who has not used an SSD just does n't know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like we have a speed/size hierarchy in processor caches (L1 smaller and faster than L2 which is smaller and faster than L3), we are about to enter a tiering model for storage.It's silly to compare a 128GB SSD with 1.5TB spindle drive.
On a personal system you're going to do different things with them.
The SSD (or other systemboard flash) will be your fast OS and frequently used disk where fast reads / writes are important but files are not huge.
For very large data, a secondary spindle drive with TBs connected either as second SATA drive or eSATA external (or, frankly, my preference) located on a storage server or appliance will be appropriate,But for most laptop users, i fyou cna have only one drive, a MLC SSD drive ~160GB or larger will be plenty and WILL make a qualitative change in you life.
If only in that with SSD you can hibernate (full save of RAM to disk then shutdown) in seconds instead of minutes.Anyone who has not used an SSD just doesn't know</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28378087</id>
	<title>Re:2.5" or 3.5" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oooh, do you feel special because your laptop says "pro" on it?</p><p>Fucktard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooh , do you feel special because your laptop says " pro " on it ? Fucktard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooh, do you feel special because your laptop says "pro" on it?Fucktard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28379649</id>
	<title>SSD</title>
	<author>OPAlex</author>
	<datestamp>1245316080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about MTBF?  traditional hard Drives have only so long to live before they die.  SSD should - in theory - last longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about MTBF ?
traditional hard Drives have only so long to live before they die .
SSD should - in theory - last longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about MTBF?
traditional hard Drives have only so long to live before they die.
SSD should - in theory - last longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374019</id>
	<title>How can you say that with a straight face?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245339960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low &#226;" offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Really?  People <em>don't know</em> that hard disks offer a capacity/$ value that would <em>shock</em> your grandpa, and that the deal just keeps getting better?  I don't believe you.  Find me just one of these people. I bet you can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low   " offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte .
Really ? People do n't know that hard disks offer a capacity/ $ value that would shock your grandpa , and that the deal just keeps getting better ?
I do n't believe you .
Find me just one of these people .
I bet you ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low â" offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte.
Really?  People don't know that hard disks offer a capacity/$ value that would shock your grandpa, and that the deal just keeps getting better?
I don't believe you.
Find me just one of these people.
I bet you can't.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377965</id>
	<title>Re:Why not RAID?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because sequential read speed is the "Mhz Myth" of the storage market. Far more important to the typical desktop user (and enterprise application) is random read/write latency, which is 25-75 times faster on SSDs than HHDs.</p><p>Typical Desktop HDD seek latency: 9ms<br>Performance Desktop HDD seek latency: 7ms<br>Typical Laptop HDD seek latency: 16ms</p><p>Intel X25-E seek latency: 0.21 ms<br>OCZ Vertex seek latency: 0.37ms</p><p>You can't improve latency (seek) time with a RAID array; you can only improve throughput (sequential access).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because sequential read speed is the " Mhz Myth " of the storage market .
Far more important to the typical desktop user ( and enterprise application ) is random read/write latency , which is 25-75 times faster on SSDs than HHDs.Typical Desktop HDD seek latency : 9msPerformance Desktop HDD seek latency : 7msTypical Laptop HDD seek latency : 16msIntel X25-E seek latency : 0.21 msOCZ Vertex seek latency : 0.37msYou ca n't improve latency ( seek ) time with a RAID array ; you can only improve throughput ( sequential access ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because sequential read speed is the "Mhz Myth" of the storage market.
Far more important to the typical desktop user (and enterprise application) is random read/write latency, which is 25-75 times faster on SSDs than HHDs.Typical Desktop HDD seek latency: 9msPerformance Desktop HDD seek latency: 7msTypical Laptop HDD seek latency: 16msIntel X25-E seek latency: 0.21 msOCZ Vertex seek latency: 0.37msYou can't improve latency (seek) time with a RAID array; you can only improve throughput (sequential access).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430591</id>
	<title>Re:Article Misses The Mark</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1245671280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Hmm, interesting that they both performed exactly the same. I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data, except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older, generic USB drive you were using. Way to go, you've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you weren't even reviewing. "
<br> <br>
I thought the same thing, and they should have pointed it out, but the point of the test was to see if the drives have value in real world scenarios.  Spend a lot of time moving data from an external USB hard drive?  Well, an SSD drive isn't going to help this situation at all.  So misleading yes, definitely, but still a valid test I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hmm , interesting that they both performed exactly the same .
I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data , except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older , generic USB drive you were using .
Way to go , you 've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you were n't even reviewing .
" I thought the same thing , and they should have pointed it out , but the point of the test was to see if the drives have value in real world scenarios .
Spend a lot of time moving data from an external USB hard drive ?
Well , an SSD drive is n't going to help this situation at all .
So misleading yes , definitely , but still a valid test I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hmm, interesting that they both performed exactly the same.
I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data, except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older, generic USB drive you were using.
Way to go, you've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you weren't even reviewing.
"
 
I thought the same thing, and they should have pointed it out, but the point of the test was to see if the drives have value in real world scenarios.
Spend a lot of time moving data from an external USB hard drive?
Well, an SSD drive isn't going to help this situation at all.
So misleading yes, definitely, but still a valid test I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373717</id>
	<title>Stop, Hammer time!</title>
	<author>linuxg0d</author>
	<datestamp>1245338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't think that it's important that Hard Drives are at an all time low.
<br> <br>
Would you still buy an older iPod from back in 2005?  Or would you go for the newer iPod models?
<br> <br>
It isn't because something is at an all time low that it makes it right to keep investing in it.  Keep in mind that demand drives the market and that demand drives the advancement of said markets.
<br> <br>
Technically, based on this article, I should go out and buy myself a walk-man, some parachute pants and a Hyundai Pony.
<br> <br>
Stop, Hammer time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't think that it 's important that Hard Drives are at an all time low .
Would you still buy an older iPod from back in 2005 ?
Or would you go for the newer iPod models ?
It is n't because something is at an all time low that it makes it right to keep investing in it .
Keep in mind that demand drives the market and that demand drives the advancement of said markets .
Technically , based on this article , I should go out and buy myself a walk-man , some parachute pants and a Hyundai Pony .
Stop , Hammer time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't think that it's important that Hard Drives are at an all time low.
Would you still buy an older iPod from back in 2005?
Or would you go for the newer iPod models?
It isn't because something is at an all time low that it makes it right to keep investing in it.
Keep in mind that demand drives the market and that demand drives the advancement of said markets.
Technically, based on this article, I should go out and buy myself a walk-man, some parachute pants and a Hyundai Pony.
Stop, Hammer time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373531</id>
	<title>That's not quite an honest statement.</title>
	<author>talldean</author>
	<datestamp>1245337860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You drop them, and they don't break.  That seems - for many, including myself - the killer feature.

For internal laptop drives, they take less energy, so my laptop lasts longer.

And on my laptop, since it's not my primary machine, I don't need an enormous drive.


That said, you were right; it's hard justifying extra cost for a small speed bump, but that's a less-than-honest way to phrase this particular choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You drop them , and they do n't break .
That seems - for many , including myself - the killer feature .
For internal laptop drives , they take less energy , so my laptop lasts longer .
And on my laptop , since it 's not my primary machine , I do n't need an enormous drive .
That said , you were right ; it 's hard justifying extra cost for a small speed bump , but that 's a less-than-honest way to phrase this particular choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You drop them, and they don't break.
That seems - for many, including myself - the killer feature.
For internal laptop drives, they take less energy, so my laptop lasts longer.
And on my laptop, since it's not my primary machine, I don't need an enormous drive.
That said, you were right; it's hard justifying extra cost for a small speed bump, but that's a less-than-honest way to phrase this particular choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374353</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong article link</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1245341340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, you don't have to defrag an SSD. Traditional file allocation schemes assume that sequential access is better, so defrag software tries to order files to land on sequential positions. But in an SSD, there's no need for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , you do n't have to defrag an SSD .
Traditional file allocation schemes assume that sequential access is better , so defrag software tries to order files to land on sequential positions .
But in an SSD , there 's no need for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, you don't have to defrag an SSD.
Traditional file allocation schemes assume that sequential access is better, so defrag software tries to order files to land on sequential positions.
But in an SSD, there's no need for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373131</id>
	<title>Understatement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245336360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A little more speed" ? how a bout a lot more speed ? Putting the OS on a quality SSD gave lots of people immense performance gains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A little more speed " ?
how a bout a lot more speed ?
Putting the OS on a quality SSD gave lots of people immense performance gains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A little more speed" ?
how a bout a lot more speed ?
Putting the OS on a quality SSD gave lots of people immense performance gains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373567</id>
	<title>What about SAS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For this price range it seems going with some enterprise rated SAS drives @ 15k RPMS. It seems they'd be a bit better for RAID configs.</p><p>Also, the 2.5" WD drives require a 3.5" drive bay, real enterprise class drives only require a 2.5" small form factor bay..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For this price range it seems going with some enterprise rated SAS drives @ 15k RPMS .
It seems they 'd be a bit better for RAID configs.Also , the 2.5 " WD drives require a 3.5 " drive bay , real enterprise class drives only require a 2.5 " small form factor bay. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this price range it seems going with some enterprise rated SAS drives @ 15k RPMS.
It seems they'd be a bit better for RAID configs.Also, the 2.5" WD drives require a 3.5" drive bay, real enterprise class drives only require a 2.5" small form factor bay..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374033</id>
	<title>Article Misses The Mark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is some seriously shoddy reporting.  Take for example this gem:<p><div class="quote"><p>Next I transferred a 1GB folder filled with photos and video files to the drives from a USB drive. Both the SSD and the HDD accomplished the file transfer in about 50 seconds (the Seagate was 2 seconds slower).</p></div><p>Hmm, interesting that they both performed <em>exactly</em> the same.  I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data, except they were probably <b>both limited</b> by the transfer rate of the older, generic USB drive you were using.  Way to go, you've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you weren't even reviewing.
<br> <br>
Or this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot depends on how you expect to use your computer. If you're a college student writing papers and surfing the Internet for information, the advantages of an SSD are negligible, but if you're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time, an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost, Wong said.</p></div><p>This is exactly backwards.  The college student downloading video will need the extra hard drive space, where the college student writing papers and surfing the internet is going to have a much better experience with storage that performs better under random io workloads.  But then again, what college student these days doesn't have an external usb hard drive for all their media?
<br> <br>
They also mention that consumers will likely look for larger storage regardless of the type of underlying technology.  But the consumers likely to care are the same as those likely to know the difference between HDD and SDD in the first place.  The consumer that doesn't is more likely to make a purchase based on "wow 20 second bootup" and "MS Office starts in a snap, and everything goes faster" than anything else.
<br> <br>
For interactive workloads nothing beats SSD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is some seriously shoddy reporting .
Take for example this gem : Next I transferred a 1GB folder filled with photos and video files to the drives from a USB drive .
Both the SSD and the HDD accomplished the file transfer in about 50 seconds ( the Seagate was 2 seconds slower ) .Hmm , interesting that they both performed exactly the same .
I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data , except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older , generic USB drive you were using .
Way to go , you 've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you were n't even reviewing .
Or this : A lot depends on how you expect to use your computer .
If you 're a college student writing papers and surfing the Internet for information , the advantages of an SSD are negligible , but if you 're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time , an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost , Wong said.This is exactly backwards .
The college student downloading video will need the extra hard drive space , where the college student writing papers and surfing the internet is going to have a much better experience with storage that performs better under random io workloads .
But then again , what college student these days does n't have an external usb hard drive for all their media ?
They also mention that consumers will likely look for larger storage regardless of the type of underlying technology .
But the consumers likely to care are the same as those likely to know the difference between HDD and SDD in the first place .
The consumer that does n't is more likely to make a purchase based on " wow 20 second bootup " and " MS Office starts in a snap , and everything goes faster " than anything else .
For interactive workloads nothing beats SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is some seriously shoddy reporting.
Take for example this gem:Next I transferred a 1GB folder filled with photos and video files to the drives from a USB drive.
Both the SSD and the HDD accomplished the file transfer in about 50 seconds (the Seagate was 2 seconds slower).Hmm, interesting that they both performed exactly the same.
I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data, except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older, generic USB drive you were using.
Way to go, you've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you weren't even reviewing.
Or this:A lot depends on how you expect to use your computer.
If you're a college student writing papers and surfing the Internet for information, the advantages of an SSD are negligible, but if you're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time, an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost, Wong said.This is exactly backwards.
The college student downloading video will need the extra hard drive space, where the college student writing papers and surfing the internet is going to have a much better experience with storage that performs better under random io workloads.
But then again, what college student these days doesn't have an external usb hard drive for all their media?
They also mention that consumers will likely look for larger storage regardless of the type of underlying technology.
But the consumers likely to care are the same as those likely to know the difference between HDD and SDD in the first place.
The consumer that doesn't is more likely to make a purchase based on "wow 20 second bootup" and "MS Office starts in a snap, and everything goes faster" than anything else.
For interactive workloads nothing beats SSD.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376263</id>
	<title>Re:Why not RAID?</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1245348840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the truth about RAIDs: RAID has faster transfer rate, but the access time is just as slow as the slowest hard drive you have in the RAID. When you try to read a file from a specific part of the disk, the disks still have to move the heads to that location and wait for the given part of the plate to spin past the reading head. Whether you have 1 hard drive, or a RAID of 20 hard drives, the time it takes to start reading the given block is identical. However, once you start reading the block, sequential access is much faster in RAID0 or 5 and that's the advantage of RAID.
<br> <br>
If you're copying a very large file from one place to another, RAID0 or 5 will go much faster. But: when people are talking about speed in general, they are referring to things like Windows booting up, programs starting up, your database reading a bit of data from a file, a game loading some textures from a file, browser accessing hundreds of cached files etc, those all keep accessing random blocks of data from the hard drive and the overall speed for these are almost entirely limited by the access time, at that point RAID makes very little difference.
<br> <br>
This is where SSD comes in: transfer speed of SSD is about the same as a standard hard drive, but the access time is phenomenally faster because there's no waiting for a head to move and there's no waiting for a plate to spin past the head.
<br> <br>
In addition, SSD makes no sound, and uses much less electricity to read/write and almost no electricity when idle, produces less heat, and: immune to mechanical shocks and vibrations. These are very desirable attributes on a laptop.
<br> <br>
Also, SSD and RAID aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a RAID of SSDs for some mind blowing performance:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the truth about RAIDs : RAID has faster transfer rate , but the access time is just as slow as the slowest hard drive you have in the RAID .
When you try to read a file from a specific part of the disk , the disks still have to move the heads to that location and wait for the given part of the plate to spin past the reading head .
Whether you have 1 hard drive , or a RAID of 20 hard drives , the time it takes to start reading the given block is identical .
However , once you start reading the block , sequential access is much faster in RAID0 or 5 and that 's the advantage of RAID .
If you 're copying a very large file from one place to another , RAID0 or 5 will go much faster .
But : when people are talking about speed in general , they are referring to things like Windows booting up , programs starting up , your database reading a bit of data from a file , a game loading some textures from a file , browser accessing hundreds of cached files etc , those all keep accessing random blocks of data from the hard drive and the overall speed for these are almost entirely limited by the access time , at that point RAID makes very little difference .
This is where SSD comes in : transfer speed of SSD is about the same as a standard hard drive , but the access time is phenomenally faster because there 's no waiting for a head to move and there 's no waiting for a plate to spin past the head .
In addition , SSD makes no sound , and uses much less electricity to read/write and almost no electricity when idle , produces less heat , and : immune to mechanical shocks and vibrations .
These are very desirable attributes on a laptop .
Also , SSD and RAID are n't mutually exclusive .
You can have a RAID of SSDs for some mind blowing performance : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 96dWOEa4Djs [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the truth about RAIDs: RAID has faster transfer rate, but the access time is just as slow as the slowest hard drive you have in the RAID.
When you try to read a file from a specific part of the disk, the disks still have to move the heads to that location and wait for the given part of the plate to spin past the reading head.
Whether you have 1 hard drive, or a RAID of 20 hard drives, the time it takes to start reading the given block is identical.
However, once you start reading the block, sequential access is much faster in RAID0 or 5 and that's the advantage of RAID.
If you're copying a very large file from one place to another, RAID0 or 5 will go much faster.
But: when people are talking about speed in general, they are referring to things like Windows booting up, programs starting up, your database reading a bit of data from a file, a game loading some textures from a file, browser accessing hundreds of cached files etc, those all keep accessing random blocks of data from the hard drive and the overall speed for these are almost entirely limited by the access time, at that point RAID makes very little difference.
This is where SSD comes in: transfer speed of SSD is about the same as a standard hard drive, but the access time is phenomenally faster because there's no waiting for a head to move and there's no waiting for a plate to spin past the head.
In addition, SSD makes no sound, and uses much less electricity to read/write and almost no electricity when idle, produces less heat, and: immune to mechanical shocks and vibrations.
These are very desirable attributes on a laptop.
Also, SSD and RAID aren't mutually exclusive.
You can have a RAID of SSDs for some mind blowing performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376095</id>
	<title>Article is expired!</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1245348120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey guys, the article should not have been posted.  Check the date, it's from exactly 1 year ago.<br>If you want to discuss this, find an up to date article comparing speeds, and then start over.</p><p>Since then, Solid Sstate drives are somewhat bigger.  SSD are a lot (relatively) bigger, and cheaper than 1 year ago.</p><p>But I think the results are the same.  Use what's best for your situation.<br>Editing video?  SolidS state drives.<br>High Seek database with small transactions?  SSD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys , the article should not have been posted .
Check the date , it 's from exactly 1 year ago.If you want to discuss this , find an up to date article comparing speeds , and then start over.Since then , Solid Sstate drives are somewhat bigger .
SSD are a lot ( relatively ) bigger , and cheaper than 1 year ago.But I think the results are the same .
Use what 's best for your situation.Editing video ?
SolidS state drives.High Seek database with small transactions ?
SSD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys, the article should not have been posted.
Check the date, it's from exactly 1 year ago.If you want to discuss this, find an up to date article comparing speeds, and then start over.Since then, Solid Sstate drives are somewhat bigger.
SSD are a lot (relatively) bigger, and cheaper than 1 year ago.But I think the results are the same.
Use what's best for your situation.Editing video?
SolidS state drives.High Seek database with small transactions?
SSD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373875</id>
	<title>when we looked at netbooks...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245339420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a 120GB HDD or 8GB SSD for the same price.  We chose the HDD's and it took about a whole 2 seconds to come to that decision.  SSD's might be all the rage in the geeky circles, but 120GB vs. 8GB.  The extra performance was not worth it to us over the extra storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a 120GB HDD or 8GB SSD for the same price .
We chose the HDD 's and it took about a whole 2 seconds to come to that decision .
SSD 's might be all the rage in the geeky circles , but 120GB vs. 8GB. The extra performance was not worth it to us over the extra storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a 120GB HDD or 8GB SSD for the same price.
We chose the HDD's and it took about a whole 2 seconds to come to that decision.
SSD's might be all the rage in the geeky circles, but 120GB vs. 8GB.  The extra performance was not worth it to us over the extra storage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375003</id>
	<title>Re:I don't know why...</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1245343920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Long article but worth reading before you spend  $100s on a drive only to get crap performance.  In short not all MLC drives are created equal.  In fact some of them are slower than a NOTEBOOK HDD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long article but worth reading before you spend $ 100s on a drive only to get crap performance .
In short not all MLC drives are created equal .
In fact some of them are slower than a NOTEBOOK HDD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long article but worth reading before you spend  $100s on a drive only to get crap performance.
In short not all MLC drives are created equal.
In fact some of them are slower than a NOTEBOOK HDD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28387883</id>
	<title>Re:I remember an article like this</title>
	<author>m50d</author>
	<datestamp>1245416700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still using a CRT; it was &pound;5 and it goes up to 2048x1536. Let me know where I can do that with an LCD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using a CRT ; it was   5 and it goes up to 2048x1536 .
Let me know where I can do that with an LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using a CRT; it was £5 and it goes up to 2048x1536.
Let me know where I can do that with an LCD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374047</id>
	<title>when space is enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently use 30 gigas for windows + games, 20 gigas for ubuntu, and 80 gigas for porn. 130 gigas in total.</p><p>I don't like 1080p movies. 25 gigas for the sake of watching a movie? pff.. does not pay the extra time to download/burn/cut+paste/whatever. So 80 gigas for porn is right.</p><p>In 12 months 256GB SSDs will cost 150$ or less. And then, I will clearly prefer to pay 50 extra dollars for less heat, less consumption, less noise, and more resistance.</p><p>And, if today my current disk die, I would seriously consider to purchase a 128GB SSD. In fact, YouTube satisfies 90\% of my multimedia needs so I could actually use a fraction of that 80 gigas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently use 30 gigas for windows + games , 20 gigas for ubuntu , and 80 gigas for porn .
130 gigas in total.I do n't like 1080p movies .
25 gigas for the sake of watching a movie ?
pff.. does not pay the extra time to download/burn/cut + paste/whatever .
So 80 gigas for porn is right.In 12 months 256GB SSDs will cost 150 $ or less .
And then , I will clearly prefer to pay 50 extra dollars for less heat , less consumption , less noise , and more resistance.And , if today my current disk die , I would seriously consider to purchase a 128GB SSD .
In fact , YouTube satisfies 90 \ % of my multimedia needs so I could actually use a fraction of that 80 gigas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently use 30 gigas for windows + games, 20 gigas for ubuntu, and 80 gigas for porn.
130 gigas in total.I don't like 1080p movies.
25 gigas for the sake of watching a movie?
pff.. does not pay the extra time to download/burn/cut+paste/whatever.
So 80 gigas for porn is right.In 12 months 256GB SSDs will cost 150$ or less.
And then, I will clearly prefer to pay 50 extra dollars for less heat, less consumption, less noise, and more resistance.And, if today my current disk die, I would seriously consider to purchase a 128GB SSD.
In fact, YouTube satisfies 90\% of my multimedia needs so I could actually use a fraction of that 80 gigas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551</id>
	<title>I'd rather have more capacity then speed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD. I play lots of games, watch videos and listen to music. A 32GB SSD just won't fly.

Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD .
I play lots of games , watch videos and listen to music .
A 32GB SSD just wo n't fly .
Let me put it this way , would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD.
I play lots of games, watch videos and listen to music.
A 32GB SSD just won't fly.
Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28387815</id>
	<title>Never used SSDs?</title>
	<author>the\_germ</author>
	<datestamp>1245416340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever wrote that article has probably never used an SSD in real life.</p><p>Use a regular HDD for everyday work for half a year. Install and remove apps, edit and archive photos, organize your music library. After half a year it will take forever to start recently installed or updated apps and the whole system will feel so slooooowww...</p><p>SSD speed also degrades over time (though due to other reasons), but not as heavy as regular HDDs. In real life, I didn't notice any slowdown after half a year of using my SSD now. A difference like black and white compared to regular HDDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever wrote that article has probably never used an SSD in real life.Use a regular HDD for everyday work for half a year .
Install and remove apps , edit and archive photos , organize your music library .
After half a year it will take forever to start recently installed or updated apps and the whole system will feel so slooooowww...SSD speed also degrades over time ( though due to other reasons ) , but not as heavy as regular HDDs .
In real life , I did n't notice any slowdown after half a year of using my SSD now .
A difference like black and white compared to regular HDDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever wrote that article has probably never used an SSD in real life.Use a regular HDD for everyday work for half a year.
Install and remove apps, edit and archive photos, organize your music library.
After half a year it will take forever to start recently installed or updated apps and the whole system will feel so slooooowww...SSD speed also degrades over time (though due to other reasons), but not as heavy as regular HDDs.
In real life, I didn't notice any slowdown after half a year of using my SSD now.
A difference like black and white compared to regular HDDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373743</id>
	<title>Performance and storage are not the only metrics</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SSD are also silent, do not warm too much, are resistant to shocks, are smaller...<br>
This is how you justify the ten-fold increase in price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD are also silent , do not warm too much , are resistant to shocks , are smaller.. . This is how you justify the ten-fold increase in price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD are also silent, do not warm too much, are resistant to shocks, are smaller...
This is how you justify the ten-fold increase in price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375909</id>
	<title>GB / $</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1245347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GB / $<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's awesome. Remember when it used to be $ / GB?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GB / $ ... that 's awesome .
Remember when it used to be $ / GB ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GB / $ ... that's awesome.
Remember when it used to be $ / GB?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374975</id>
	<title>Give me the cheapest HD you have!</title>
	<author>Garbad Ropedink</author>
	<datestamp>1245343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's just my 'give me the cheapest componants you have' method of building computers, but I've had a slew of hard drive related mishaps lately. Most notably when my high falootin external drive fell a whole foot and a half off my tower and broke, taking all the data on it with it. Then recently I just put in a new internal hard drive, because I wasn't going to risk another slight jostle blowing away 500 gigs worth of data. Again, it could be the cheapskate factor, but this new drive is also giving me issues, preventing my computer from booting and the like. Then I had another external hard drive that stopped working after I hit it with a hammer.</p><p>I think I'm leaning towards solid state drives after my recent experience, for some reason regular hard drives seem to be really unreliable for me these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just my 'give me the cheapest componants you have ' method of building computers , but I 've had a slew of hard drive related mishaps lately .
Most notably when my high falootin external drive fell a whole foot and a half off my tower and broke , taking all the data on it with it .
Then recently I just put in a new internal hard drive , because I was n't going to risk another slight jostle blowing away 500 gigs worth of data .
Again , it could be the cheapskate factor , but this new drive is also giving me issues , preventing my computer from booting and the like .
Then I had another external hard drive that stopped working after I hit it with a hammer.I think I 'm leaning towards solid state drives after my recent experience , for some reason regular hard drives seem to be really unreliable for me these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just my 'give me the cheapest componants you have' method of building computers, but I've had a slew of hard drive related mishaps lately.
Most notably when my high falootin external drive fell a whole foot and a half off my tower and broke, taking all the data on it with it.
Then recently I just put in a new internal hard drive, because I wasn't going to risk another slight jostle blowing away 500 gigs worth of data.
Again, it could be the cheapskate factor, but this new drive is also giving me issues, preventing my computer from booting and the like.
Then I had another external hard drive that stopped working after I hit it with a hammer.I think I'm leaning towards solid state drives after my recent experience, for some reason regular hard drives seem to be really unreliable for me these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373389</id>
	<title>Performance has always had its premium.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher performing parts have always carried a higher price. However, there is a need for higher performance, and clearly the market shows that the demand is there for the price, I'm looking at you servers and computer enthusiasts.</p><p>I have a 300GB velociraptor in my computer, and I have been eye'ing the SSD's for some time, but they just haven't hit the price point for me yet to justify purchasing them yet.</p><p>In fact, I feel like an oddity, I work for a small IT firm, and when I asked my boss why a customer's computer had a raid0 of 250'sGB (where we had to replace them both with a new 500GB) why did he just get a velociraptor in the first place, he simply stated that it was cheaper to get 2 250GB hard drives at $60 than it was to get 1 300GB velociraptor.</p><p>Now, the only thing that may change the landscape from all this is that SSDs are built on silicon, which is subject to Moore's Law, and we've witnessed how cheap thumb drives and other flash media drives are, there's definitely a real possibility that in time SSD's will be faster AND cheaper than HDDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher performing parts have always carried a higher price .
However , there is a need for higher performance , and clearly the market shows that the demand is there for the price , I 'm looking at you servers and computer enthusiasts.I have a 300GB velociraptor in my computer , and I have been eye'ing the SSD 's for some time , but they just have n't hit the price point for me yet to justify purchasing them yet.In fact , I feel like an oddity , I work for a small IT firm , and when I asked my boss why a customer 's computer had a raid0 of 250'sGB ( where we had to replace them both with a new 500GB ) why did he just get a velociraptor in the first place , he simply stated that it was cheaper to get 2 250GB hard drives at $ 60 than it was to get 1 300GB velociraptor.Now , the only thing that may change the landscape from all this is that SSDs are built on silicon , which is subject to Moore 's Law , and we 've witnessed how cheap thumb drives and other flash media drives are , there 's definitely a real possibility that in time SSD 's will be faster AND cheaper than HDDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher performing parts have always carried a higher price.
However, there is a need for higher performance, and clearly the market shows that the demand is there for the price, I'm looking at you servers and computer enthusiasts.I have a 300GB velociraptor in my computer, and I have been eye'ing the SSD's for some time, but they just haven't hit the price point for me yet to justify purchasing them yet.In fact, I feel like an oddity, I work for a small IT firm, and when I asked my boss why a customer's computer had a raid0 of 250'sGB (where we had to replace them both with a new 500GB) why did he just get a velociraptor in the first place, he simply stated that it was cheaper to get 2 250GB hard drives at $60 than it was to get 1 300GB velociraptor.Now, the only thing that may change the landscape from all this is that SSDs are built on silicon, which is subject to Moore's Law, and we've witnessed how cheap thumb drives and other flash media drives are, there's definitely a real possibility that in time SSD's will be faster AND cheaper than HDDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374487</id>
	<title>The sound of inevitability</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1245341880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least from my POV it is virtually inevitable that SSDs will take over most of the HDD market.  The only reason HDDs are hanging on at all is that the HDD makes have gotten to be really good at making huge capacity drives for a very low price.  But each year that goes by the SSDs get closer on price and at some point the switchover will start to happen even in low-end machines.
<br> <br>
The HDD makers also seem to have very little room to try and squeeze hybrid drives in this transition period.  They are on a death spiral of trying to drive down cost and drive up density.  That is a race that is going to bump up against the limits imposed by physics sooner rather than later (especially since increasing the size of the form factor is out of the question).
<br> <br>
So we can bicker over where we are in the course of the transition but it is hard to argue that the transition won't occur.  I don't believe that we'll still have spinning platters in our retail PCs in 10 years.  In 20 years it is entirely possible that HDDs will be a distant memory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least from my POV it is virtually inevitable that SSDs will take over most of the HDD market .
The only reason HDDs are hanging on at all is that the HDD makes have gotten to be really good at making huge capacity drives for a very low price .
But each year that goes by the SSDs get closer on price and at some point the switchover will start to happen even in low-end machines .
The HDD makers also seem to have very little room to try and squeeze hybrid drives in this transition period .
They are on a death spiral of trying to drive down cost and drive up density .
That is a race that is going to bump up against the limits imposed by physics sooner rather than later ( especially since increasing the size of the form factor is out of the question ) .
So we can bicker over where we are in the course of the transition but it is hard to argue that the transition wo n't occur .
I do n't believe that we 'll still have spinning platters in our retail PCs in 10 years .
In 20 years it is entirely possible that HDDs will be a distant memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least from my POV it is virtually inevitable that SSDs will take over most of the HDD market.
The only reason HDDs are hanging on at all is that the HDD makes have gotten to be really good at making huge capacity drives for a very low price.
But each year that goes by the SSDs get closer on price and at some point the switchover will start to happen even in low-end machines.
The HDD makers also seem to have very little room to try and squeeze hybrid drives in this transition period.
They are on a death spiral of trying to drive down cost and drive up density.
That is a race that is going to bump up against the limits imposed by physics sooner rather than later (especially since increasing the size of the form factor is out of the question).
So we can bicker over where we are in the course of the transition but it is hard to argue that the transition won't occur.
I don't believe that we'll still have spinning platters in our retail PCs in 10 years.
In 20 years it is entirely possible that HDDs will be a distant memory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377193</id>
	<title>all time low</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1245352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low</p></div><p>Was there ever a time that hard disk driver prices weren't at an all-time low?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time lowWas there ever a time that hard disk driver prices were n't at an all-time low ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time lowWas there ever a time that hard disk driver prices weren't at an all-time low?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373343</id>
	<title>July 2008</title>
	<author>ranson</author>
	<datestamp>1245337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone bother to take a look at the date of this article? Seems a little outdated given the continuing advancements in disk storage over the past year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone bother to take a look at the date of this article ?
Seems a little outdated given the continuing advancements in disk storage over the past year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone bother to take a look at the date of this article?
Seems a little outdated given the continuing advancements in disk storage over the past year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374069</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather have more capacity then speed.</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1245340260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD. I play lots of games, watch videos and listen to music. A 32GB SSD just won't fly.</p><p>Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?</p></div><p>If you care about random read/write performance, which is the bottleneck for almost all disk access tasks, it's actually more like 4 GB of DDR2 ram vs 512 MB of L2 cache if you consider the ~100x speed difference between SSDs and HDs.  That becomes a more compelling choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD .
I play lots of games , watch videos and listen to music .
A 32GB SSD just wo n't fly.Let me put it this way , would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram ? If you care about random read/write performance , which is the bottleneck for almost all disk access tasks , it 's actually more like 4 GB of DDR2 ram vs 512 MB of L2 cache if you consider the ~ 100x speed difference between SSDs and HDs .
That becomes a more compelling choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have a 1TB hard drive then a 32GB SSD.
I play lots of games, watch videos and listen to music.
A 32GB SSD just won't fly.Let me put it this way, would you rather have 4GB of DDR2 ram or 512MB of DDR3 ram?If you care about random read/write performance, which is the bottleneck for almost all disk access tasks, it's actually more like 4 GB of DDR2 ram vs 512 MB of L2 cache if you consider the ~100x speed difference between SSDs and HDs.
That becomes a more compelling choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373369</id>
	<title>I don't know why...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245337140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the link to the real article <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468" title="computerworld.com">http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468</a> [computerworld.com] considering the one linked from the summary is totally different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the link to the real article http : //www.computerworld.com/action/article.do ? command = viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId = 9134468 [ computerworld.com ] considering the one linked from the summary is totally different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the link to the real article http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134468 [computerworld.com] considering the one linked from the summary is totally different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28378087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1333230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28387883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28378087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28376263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28375141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28387883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1333230.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28373485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28377635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28374227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1333230.28430503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
