<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_224246</id>
	<title>Five Years of PC Storage Performance Compared</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247308800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theraindog writes <i>"PC storage has come a long way in the last few years. Perpendicular recording tech has fueled climbing capacities, 10k-RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial ATA, Native Command Queuing has made mechanical drives smarter, and a burgeoning SSD market looks set to fundamentally change the industry. The Tech Report has taken a look back at <a href="http://techreport.com/articles.x/17183">the last four and a half years of PC storage solutions</a>, probing the capacity and performance of a whopping 70 different notebook and desktop hard drives, SSDs, and exotic RAM disks. There's a lot of test data to digest, but the overall trends are easy to spot, potentially foretelling the future of PC storage."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theraindog writes " PC storage has come a long way in the last few years .
Perpendicular recording tech has fueled climbing capacities , 10k-RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial ATA , Native Command Queuing has made mechanical drives smarter , and a burgeoning SSD market looks set to fundamentally change the industry .
The Tech Report has taken a look back at the last four and a half years of PC storage solutions , probing the capacity and performance of a whopping 70 different notebook and desktop hard drives , SSDs , and exotic RAM disks .
There 's a lot of test data to digest , but the overall trends are easy to spot , potentially foretelling the future of PC storage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theraindog writes "PC storage has come a long way in the last few years.
Perpendicular recording tech has fueled climbing capacities, 10k-RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial ATA, Native Command Queuing has made mechanical drives smarter, and a burgeoning SSD market looks set to fundamentally change the industry.
The Tech Report has taken a look back at the last four and a half years of PC storage solutions, probing the capacity and performance of a whopping 70 different notebook and desktop hard drives, SSDs, and exotic RAM disks.
There's a lot of test data to digest, but the overall trends are easy to spot, potentially foretelling the future of PC storage.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665253</id>
	<title>Re:Overall Trends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the Safari version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the Safari version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the Safari version?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665053</id>
	<title>SAS, SATA, whatever</title>
	<author>mistahkurtz</author>
	<datestamp>1247328240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>10k- <strong>and 15k-</strong>RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial <strong>Attached SCSI and SATA, and ~5k- and 7k-RPM speeds have migrated from PATA to SATA</strong></p> </div><p>
FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>10k- and 15k-RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial Attached SCSI and SATA , and ~ 5k- and 7k-RPM speeds have migrated from PATA to SATA FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10k- and 15k-RPM spindle speeds have migrated from SCSI to Serial Attached SCSI and SATA, and ~5k- and 7k-RPM speeds have migrated from PATA to SATA 
FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664813</id>
	<title>Re:Thorough article backed up with a lot of data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really? Tell me, how many different HDD/SSD configurations did anandtech test in the article you link to? 10.<br>TFA tests 70, almost an order of magnitude more. The funny thing is, you linked to an excellent article with a more technical analysis of SSDs than TFA. I'm sure if you hadn't been so annoyed about my praise for TFA, you wouldn't have bothered posting the link, which will no doubt be very useful to the people who click through to it.</p><p>It's like the old joke about Linux forums, where the only way to get any advice is to troll "Linux sucks, it won't do xyz" - and suddenly, dozens of zealots wade into the argument, describing EXACTLY how Linux does xyz<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... heh heh, thanks for the help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>PS If you have any links where Anandtech compare 70+ HDD/SSDs, I'd love to know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
Tell me , how many different HDD/SSD configurations did anandtech test in the article you link to ?
10.TFA tests 70 , almost an order of magnitude more .
The funny thing is , you linked to an excellent article with a more technical analysis of SSDs than TFA .
I 'm sure if you had n't been so annoyed about my praise for TFA , you would n't have bothered posting the link , which will no doubt be very useful to the people who click through to it.It 's like the old joke about Linux forums , where the only way to get any advice is to troll " Linux sucks , it wo n't do xyz " - and suddenly , dozens of zealots wade into the argument , describing EXACTLY how Linux does xyz .... heh heh , thanks for the help : ) PS If you have any links where Anandtech compare 70 + HDD/SSDs , I 'd love to know : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
Tell me, how many different HDD/SSD configurations did anandtech test in the article you link to?
10.TFA tests 70, almost an order of magnitude more.
The funny thing is, you linked to an excellent article with a more technical analysis of SSDs than TFA.
I'm sure if you hadn't been so annoyed about my praise for TFA, you wouldn't have bothered posting the link, which will no doubt be very useful to the people who click through to it.It's like the old joke about Linux forums, where the only way to get any advice is to troll "Linux sucks, it won't do xyz" - and suddenly, dozens of zealots wade into the argument, describing EXACTLY how Linux does xyz .... heh heh, thanks for the help :)PS If you have any links where Anandtech compare 70+ HDD/SSDs, I'd love to know :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664021</id>
	<title>Re:It is said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247313420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you implying that your disk isn't hard enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that your disk is n't hard enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that your disk isn't hard enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664715</id>
	<title>Re:Thorough article backed up with a lot of data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims, yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions, it dosn't get any credit."</p><p>The truth is the way the article displays the information is shit, they could have done a lot better job on information presentation... and anandtech did a big write up on SSD's a while back that should tell anyone all they really need to know until SSD's come down to sane price levels and storage capacities.  Everything published here isn't new, and has been known for a long time and has been written about better by anand.</p><p>Anandtech:</p><p><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=1" title="anandtech.com">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=1</a> [anandtech.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims , yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions , it dos n't get any credit .
" The truth is the way the article displays the information is shit , they could have done a lot better job on information presentation... and anandtech did a big write up on SSD 's a while back that should tell anyone all they really need to know until SSD 's come down to sane price levels and storage capacities .
Everything published here is n't new , and has been known for a long time and has been written about better by anand.Anandtech : http : //www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3531&amp;p = 1 [ anandtech.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims, yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions, it dosn't get any credit.
"The truth is the way the article displays the information is shit, they could have done a lot better job on information presentation... and anandtech did a big write up on SSD's a while back that should tell anyone all they really need to know until SSD's come down to sane price levels and storage capacities.
Everything published here isn't new, and has been known for a long time and has been written about better by anand.Anandtech:http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=1 [anandtech.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666081</id>
	<title>Re:It is said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247392380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p> </div><p>Stop filming yourself having a wank then!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology .
Unfortunately , I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... : - ( Stop filming yourself having a wank then !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... :-( Stop filming yourself having a wank then!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465</id>
	<title>Re:Overall Trends</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1247318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>on one page instead of 12</p></div><p>The Firefox Add-on <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4925" title="mozilla.org">AutoPager</a> [mozilla.org] is your friend: automatically loads the next page inline as you scroll downwards. Turns multi-page sites into the single page they are supposed to be. Works great with many popular pages, including search results... and idiotic news sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>on one page instead of 12The Firefox Add-on AutoPager [ mozilla.org ] is your friend : automatically loads the next page inline as you scroll downwards .
Turns multi-page sites into the single page they are supposed to be .
Works great with many popular pages , including search results... and idiotic news sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on one page instead of 12The Firefox Add-on AutoPager [mozilla.org] is your friend: automatically loads the next page inline as you scroll downwards.
Turns multi-page sites into the single page they are supposed to be.
Works great with many popular pages, including search results... and idiotic news sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663915</id>
	<title>A similar history will play out for SSDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current models don't spin very quickly, but in the future people will pay a premium for the increased throughput in 5000, 7500, and 10K RPM models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current models do n't spin very quickly , but in the future people will pay a premium for the increased throughput in 5000 , 7500 , and 10K RPM models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current models don't spin very quickly, but in the future people will pay a premium for the increased throughput in 5000, 7500, and 10K RPM models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664881</id>
	<title>log scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The format of those charts is retarded. They should have time on the x axis and whatever metric in log scale on the y axis. I couldn't care less which drive from 2005 is linked to a specific data point. I just want to see the trends as a function of time. In the later charts, with apparently fully exponential trends, you can't see whats going on at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The format of those charts is retarded .
They should have time on the x axis and whatever metric in log scale on the y axis .
I could n't care less which drive from 2005 is linked to a specific data point .
I just want to see the trends as a function of time .
In the later charts , with apparently fully exponential trends , you ca n't see whats going on at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The format of those charts is retarded.
They should have time on the x axis and whatever metric in log scale on the y axis.
I couldn't care less which drive from 2005 is linked to a specific data point.
I just want to see the trends as a function of time.
In the later charts, with apparently fully exponential trends, you can't see whats going on at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28670325</id>
	<title>Anyone else notice</title>
	<author>Extide</author>
	<datestamp>1247397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that they are using an ancient system to do the tests? I wouldn't be surprised if the system itself is a limiting factor with some of the SSDs. Crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that they are using an ancient system to do the tests ?
I would n't be surprised if the system itself is a limiting factor with some of the SSDs .
Crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that they are using an ancient system to do the tests?
I wouldn't be surprised if the system itself is a limiting factor with some of the SSDs.
Crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664209</id>
	<title>Great Technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this technology is sooo great then why do disk drives die suddenly after 3 years of use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this technology is sooo great then why do disk drives die suddenly after 3 years of use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this technology is sooo great then why do disk drives die suddenly after 3 years of use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665089</id>
	<title>Re:why so many pages?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1247328900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And for performance we can forget about storage that uses legacy drive interfaces at all.  The performance kings these days are PCIe attach SSDs and they make the fastest of these SSDs look like tape drives in comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for performance we can forget about storage that uses legacy drive interfaces at all .
The performance kings these days are PCIe attach SSDs and they make the fastest of these SSDs look like tape drives in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for performance we can forget about storage that uses legacy drive interfaces at all.
The performance kings these days are PCIe attach SSDs and they make the fastest of these SSDs look like tape drives in comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</id>
	<title>It is said...</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1247312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology .
Unfortunately , I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is said that pr0n drives certain sectors of technology.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28668567</id>
	<title>But at what cost?</title>
	<author>justthinkit</author>
	<datestamp>1247426040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any drive 750GB or higher in capacity that is reliable?  Half the 750GB / 1TB drives I have bought in the past year or two have failed.  I am currently pinning my hopes on the 1TB Green Samsung drive that I opted for because it runs slower &amp; cooler.  Anyone have a reliable higher capacity drive recommendation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any drive 750GB or higher in capacity that is reliable ?
Half the 750GB / 1TB drives I have bought in the past year or two have failed .
I am currently pinning my hopes on the 1TB Green Samsung drive that I opted for because it runs slower &amp; cooler .
Anyone have a reliable higher capacity drive recommendation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any drive 750GB or higher in capacity that is reliable?
Half the 750GB / 1TB drives I have bought in the past year or two have failed.
I am currently pinning my hopes on the 1TB Green Samsung drive that I opted for because it runs slower &amp; cooler.
Anyone have a reliable higher capacity drive recommendation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666913</id>
	<title>backups?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247408580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Now I still got plenty old disks, but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000$ for the whole system, it'd be close to 100$/TB but slightly over. That's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago, so I still say things are moving along nicely.</p></div><p>Is this data important to you? If so, how would you back it up?</p><p>I have a 1.5 TB drive, but it's in an external enclosure. I have a "normal" 500 GB drive inside machine and backup to the 1.5 TB (incrementals, with history).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I still got plenty old disks , but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000 $ for the whole system , it 'd be close to 100 $ /TB but slightly over .
That 's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago , so I still say things are moving along nicely.Is this data important to you ?
If so , how would you back it up ? I have a 1.5 TB drive , but it 's in an external enclosure .
I have a " normal " 500 GB drive inside machine and backup to the 1.5 TB ( incrementals , with history ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now I still got plenty old disks, but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000$ for the whole system, it'd be close to 100$/TB but slightly over.
That's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago, so I still say things are moving along nicely.Is this data important to you?
If so, how would you back it up?I have a 1.5 TB drive, but it's in an external enclosure.
I have a "normal" 500 GB drive inside machine and backup to the 1.5 TB (incrementals, with history).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28704291</id>
	<title>My 15,000 RPM drives are very quiet</title>
	<author>MasterOfGoingFaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247677260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The three 15000 RPM SCSI 320 drives in my workstation (HP XW8400) are very quiet.  This machine is amazingly quiet - HP engineers at a trade show say that was one of their design goals and they certainly achieved it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The three 15000 RPM SCSI 320 drives in my workstation ( HP XW8400 ) are very quiet .
This machine is amazingly quiet - HP engineers at a trade show say that was one of their design goals and they certainly achieved it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three 15000 RPM SCSI 320 drives in my workstation (HP XW8400) are very quiet.
This machine is amazingly quiet - HP engineers at a trade show say that was one of their design goals and they certainly achieved it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28669279</id>
	<title>Noise and Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247432220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really miss two things in that study;</p><p>- How noisy these devices are?</p><p>- How much electricity do they use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really miss two things in that study ; - How noisy these devices are ? - How much electricity do they use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really miss two things in that study;- How noisy these devices are?- How much electricity do they use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664263</id>
	<title>Re:12 pages?</title>
	<author>Djehuty3</author>
	<datestamp>1247316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ad...vert?<br> <br>

What is this..Ad-Vert of which you speak?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad...vert ?
What is this..Ad-Vert of which you speak ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad...vert?
What is this..Ad-Vert of which you speak?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664499</id>
	<title>Re:Great Technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're doing it right, it shouldn't be a big deal if the disk dies. If you have an internet connection, it should be trivial to ensure that you have your data backed up in multiple places that are widely distributed geographically. I've had drives die, disasters take out all of my hardware. I've never lost data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're doing it right , it should n't be a big deal if the disk dies .
If you have an internet connection , it should be trivial to ensure that you have your data backed up in multiple places that are widely distributed geographically .
I 've had drives die , disasters take out all of my hardware .
I 've never lost data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're doing it right, it shouldn't be a big deal if the disk dies.
If you have an internet connection, it should be trivial to ensure that you have your data backed up in multiple places that are widely distributed geographically.
I've had drives die, disasters take out all of my hardware.
I've never lost data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664855</id>
	<title>Re:why so many pages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 750gb that I filled with compressed video. My huge mp3 collection would be four times as large if I upgraded it to flac. A few terrabytes is not all that much and I could probably fill a 5TB array about as fast as 12mb/s would get me. With video now, especially HD video, drives are going to get filled up faster than ever. Also digital photography is pushing beyond film now with 50 megapixel sensors. They are quite expensive, but imagine what it will be like in another 5 years or so. Even my 10-meg camera stores 12 megabyte raws. Its not hard to fill up a 4gig card at around 300 images.</p><p>What can I say? Hoarding is also addicting. Who knows. Maybe one day society will collapse and these huge caches of media will be some of our only copies of our cultural history. I think it is important for music to be preserved, and with many things going out of print and obscure record companies dissolving, it is getting rather hard to find underground stuff from even the 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 750gb that I filled with compressed video .
My huge mp3 collection would be four times as large if I upgraded it to flac .
A few terrabytes is not all that much and I could probably fill a 5TB array about as fast as 12mb/s would get me .
With video now , especially HD video , drives are going to get filled up faster than ever .
Also digital photography is pushing beyond film now with 50 megapixel sensors .
They are quite expensive , but imagine what it will be like in another 5 years or so .
Even my 10-meg camera stores 12 megabyte raws .
Its not hard to fill up a 4gig card at around 300 images.What can I say ?
Hoarding is also addicting .
Who knows .
Maybe one day society will collapse and these huge caches of media will be some of our only copies of our cultural history .
I think it is important for music to be preserved , and with many things going out of print and obscure record companies dissolving , it is getting rather hard to find underground stuff from even the 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 750gb that I filled with compressed video.
My huge mp3 collection would be four times as large if I upgraded it to flac.
A few terrabytes is not all that much and I could probably fill a 5TB array about as fast as 12mb/s would get me.
With video now, especially HD video, drives are going to get filled up faster than ever.
Also digital photography is pushing beyond film now with 50 megapixel sensors.
They are quite expensive, but imagine what it will be like in another 5 years or so.
Even my 10-meg camera stores 12 megabyte raws.
Its not hard to fill up a 4gig card at around 300 images.What can I say?
Hoarding is also addicting.
Who knows.
Maybe one day society will collapse and these huge caches of media will be some of our only copies of our cultural history.
I think it is important for music to be preserved, and with many things going out of print and obscure record companies dissolving, it is getting rather hard to find underground stuff from even the 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664527</id>
	<title>On the GIGABYTE IRAM, compared to CENATEK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/storage-removable-media/interesting-comparison-i-did-2-diff-true-ssds-7819/" title="thenewtech.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/storage-removable-media/interesting-comparison-i-did-2-diff-true-ssds-7819/</a> [thenewtech.com]</p><p>Oddly &amp; IRONICALLY enough, to satisfy those here that "bitch about empirical evidence" &amp; "anecdotal evidence" (trolls use this bullshit - a test done IS A TEST DONE, period)</p><p>Well - <b>I did my OWN test in comparing 2 Solid-State drives</b> (what I call "TRUE SSD's", because they're NOT based on FLASH RAM with its slower write cycles &amp; limited lifespan) <b>&amp; had some interesting results, compared to a WD Raptor 74gb, used as my "SCIENTIFIC METHOD CONTROL ITEM"</b></p><p>(Though I Have the Raptor X + Velociraptor here also, but, I figure most folks do not own those or shell out the ca$h for them, so I used what most folks might want or be able to afford in my test (yesterday in fact)).</p><p><b>Drives used &amp; results</b> (in case you cannot see that post or its images without being a member) <b>on HDTach's "LONG TEST":</b></p><p><b>GIGABYTE IRAM</b> = 138.5 mb/sec + 3-4\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 0.1 ms access/seek</p><p><b>CENATEK ROCKETDRIVE</b> = 124.5 mb/sec + 2-3\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 0.0 ms access/seek</p><p><b>Western Digital "RAPTOR" 74gb unit, 8mb cache 10,000 rpm diskdrive</b> = 101.4 mb/sec + 2\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 8.8 ms access/seek</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; The results make sense, especially comparing the tech involved with my "TRUE SSD's" (not flash ram based), because the CENATEK uses PCI 2.2 bus (133mb/sec theoretical max transferral rates) &amp; PC-133 SDRAM... the GIGABYTE IRAM uses SATA 1 bus (150mb/sec theoretical transferral rates) + DDR-400 Kingston RAM (what I bought for it) &amp; minus the bus mgt. overheads? The results matched the theoretical rates, perfectly, on throughput, but also on access/seek... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.thenewtech.com/forums/storage-removable-media/interesting-comparison-i-did-2-diff-true-ssds-7819/ [ thenewtech.com ] Oddly &amp; IRONICALLY enough , to satisfy those here that " bitch about empirical evidence " &amp; " anecdotal evidence " ( trolls use this bullshit - a test done IS A TEST DONE , period ) Well - I did my OWN test in comparing 2 Solid-State drives ( what I call " TRUE SSD 's " , because they 're NOT based on FLASH RAM with its slower write cycles &amp; limited lifespan ) &amp; had some interesting results , compared to a WD Raptor 74gb , used as my " SCIENTIFIC METHOD CONTROL ITEM " ( Though I Have the Raptor X + Velociraptor here also , but , I figure most folks do not own those or shell out the ca $ h for them , so I used what most folks might want or be able to afford in my test ( yesterday in fact ) ) .Drives used &amp; results ( in case you can not see that post or its images without being a member ) on HDTach 's " LONG TEST " : GIGABYTE IRAM = 138.5 mb/sec + 3-4 \ % CPU usage ( this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage ) &amp; 0.1 ms access/seekCENATEK ROCKETDRIVE = 124.5 mb/sec + 2-3 \ % CPU usage ( this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage ) &amp; 0.0 ms access/seekWestern Digital " RAPTOR " 74gb unit , 8mb cache 10,000 rpm diskdrive = 101.4 mb/sec + 2 \ % CPU usage ( this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage ) &amp; 8.8 ms access/seekAPKP.S. = &gt; The results make sense , especially comparing the tech involved with my " TRUE SSD 's " ( not flash ram based ) , because the CENATEK uses PCI 2.2 bus ( 133mb/sec theoretical max transferral rates ) &amp; PC-133 SDRAM... the GIGABYTE IRAM uses SATA 1 bus ( 150mb/sec theoretical transferral rates ) + DDR-400 Kingston RAM ( what I bought for it ) &amp; minus the bus mgt .
overheads ? The results matched the theoretical rates , perfectly , on throughput , but also on access/seek... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/storage-removable-media/interesting-comparison-i-did-2-diff-true-ssds-7819/ [thenewtech.com]Oddly &amp; IRONICALLY enough, to satisfy those here that "bitch about empirical evidence" &amp; "anecdotal evidence" (trolls use this bullshit - a test done IS A TEST DONE, period)Well - I did my OWN test in comparing 2 Solid-State drives (what I call "TRUE SSD's", because they're NOT based on FLASH RAM with its slower write cycles &amp; limited lifespan) &amp; had some interesting results, compared to a WD Raptor 74gb, used as my "SCIENTIFIC METHOD CONTROL ITEM"(Though I Have the Raptor X + Velociraptor here also, but, I figure most folks do not own those or shell out the ca$h for them, so I used what most folks might want or be able to afford in my test (yesterday in fact)).Drives used &amp; results (in case you cannot see that post or its images without being a member) on HDTach's "LONG TEST":GIGABYTE IRAM = 138.5 mb/sec + 3-4\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 0.1 ms access/seekCENATEK ROCKETDRIVE = 124.5 mb/sec + 2-3\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 0.0 ms access/seekWestern Digital "RAPTOR" 74gb unit, 8mb cache 10,000 rpm diskdrive = 101.4 mb/sec + 2\% CPU usage (this was the RANGE I saw in 3 test runs on CPU usage) &amp; 8.8 ms access/seekAPKP.S.=&gt; The results make sense, especially comparing the tech involved with my "TRUE SSD's" (not flash ram based), because the CENATEK uses PCI 2.2 bus (133mb/sec theoretical max transferral rates) &amp; PC-133 SDRAM... the GIGABYTE IRAM uses SATA 1 bus (150mb/sec theoretical transferral rates) + DDR-400 Kingston RAM (what I bought for it) &amp; minus the bus mgt.
overheads? The results matched the theoretical rates, perfectly, on throughput, but also on access/seek... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666301</id>
	<title>Re:Overall Trends</title>
	<author>bestalexguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad AutoPager on Google search screws up the Comment/Promote/Remove feature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad AutoPager on Google search screws up the Comment/Promote/Remove feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad AutoPager on Google search screws up the Comment/Promote/Remove feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657</id>
	<title>Re:why so many pages?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1247321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>summary - intel x25 is super fast, super expensive. not much has changed with spinning platters.</p></div><p>Hmm not the trends I've noticed. From what I've paid attention to:<br>1) Spinning platters hasn't changed that much, but they've gone down substantially in price. The sweet spot on capacity/cost including SATA connections and everything has gone up considerably and is now at 1.5TB/disk, which are only minimally more expensive than 1.0TB while the 2.0TB disks are top of the line and very expensive.</p><p>2) SSD prices were in freefall up until around march. Since then there's been 4 months of increased prices, very abnormal for computer equipment. Not sure if this means the prices will go much slower from here, if so that's bad because they're still at enthusiast pricing.</p><p>Basicly, it looks to me like we're header for SSDs as primary drives and 1.5TB+ disks for vast disk arrays that SSDs won't touch for a long while, they still have a 25:1 cost disadvantage compared to the cheapest bulk storage. Now I still got plenty old disks, but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000$ for the whole system, it'd be close to 100$/TB but slightly over. That's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago, so I still say things are moving along nicely.</p><p>Also I didn't get the Intel SSD, but I did get the 120GB Vertex and it flies. I can start a torrent doing 2MB/s random writes and I barely notice I'm doing it. The world is moving forward a lot, but honesly with faster Internet I don't feel quite the same need to store everything locally anyway. Still, it's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something. I never thought I'd say this because I've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers, but things are starting to bottom out. Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for, it's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>summary - intel x25 is super fast , super expensive .
not much has changed with spinning platters.Hmm not the trends I 've noticed .
From what I 've paid attention to : 1 ) Spinning platters has n't changed that much , but they 've gone down substantially in price .
The sweet spot on capacity/cost including SATA connections and everything has gone up considerably and is now at 1.5TB/disk , which are only minimally more expensive than 1.0TB while the 2.0TB disks are top of the line and very expensive.2 ) SSD prices were in freefall up until around march .
Since then there 's been 4 months of increased prices , very abnormal for computer equipment .
Not sure if this means the prices will go much slower from here , if so that 's bad because they 're still at enthusiast pricing.Basicly , it looks to me like we 're header for SSDs as primary drives and 1.5TB + disks for vast disk arrays that SSDs wo n't touch for a long while , they still have a 25 : 1 cost disadvantage compared to the cheapest bulk storage .
Now I still got plenty old disks , but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000 $ for the whole system , it 'd be close to 100 $ /TB but slightly over .
That 's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago , so I still say things are moving along nicely.Also I did n't get the Intel SSD , but I did get the 120GB Vertex and it flies .
I can start a torrent doing 2MB/s random writes and I barely notice I 'm doing it .
The world is moving forward a lot , but honesly with faster Internet I do n't feel quite the same need to store everything locally anyway .
Still , it 's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something .
I never thought I 'd say this because I 've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers , but things are starting to bottom out .
Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for , it 's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>summary - intel x25 is super fast, super expensive.
not much has changed with spinning platters.Hmm not the trends I've noticed.
From what I've paid attention to:1) Spinning platters hasn't changed that much, but they've gone down substantially in price.
The sweet spot on capacity/cost including SATA connections and everything has gone up considerably and is now at 1.5TB/disk, which are only minimally more expensive than 1.0TB while the 2.0TB disks are top of the line and very expensive.2) SSD prices were in freefall up until around march.
Since then there's been 4 months of increased prices, very abnormal for computer equipment.
Not sure if this means the prices will go much slower from here, if so that's bad because they're still at enthusiast pricing.Basicly, it looks to me like we're header for SSDs as primary drives and 1.5TB+ disks for vast disk arrays that SSDs won't touch for a long while, they still have a 25:1 cost disadvantage compared to the cheapest bulk storage.
Now I still got plenty old disks, but if I replaced all 12 in my Antec 1200 with the cheapest 1.5TB disk you can now deliver 18TB for less than 2000$ for the whole system, it'd be close to 100$/TB but slightly over.
That's just freakishly huge compared to five years ago, so I still say things are moving along nicely.Also I didn't get the Intel SSD, but I did get the 120GB Vertex and it flies.
I can start a torrent doing 2MB/s random writes and I barely notice I'm doing it.
The world is moving forward a lot, but honesly with faster Internet I don't feel quite the same need to store everything locally anyway.
Still, it's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something.
I never thought I'd say this because I've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers, but things are starting to bottom out.
Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for, it's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133</id>
	<title>why so many pages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 benchmarks for the same thing? oh right this is techcrunch they need to fill every page with as many stupid ads as possible, and draw out their pointless review to the point you gag.<p>
summary - intel x25 is super fast, super expensive. not much has changed with spinning platters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 benchmarks for the same thing ?
oh right this is techcrunch they need to fill every page with as many stupid ads as possible , and draw out their pointless review to the point you gag .
summary - intel x25 is super fast , super expensive .
not much has changed with spinning platters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 benchmarks for the same thing?
oh right this is techcrunch they need to fill every page with as many stupid ads as possible, and draw out their pointless review to the point you gag.
summary - intel x25 is super fast, super expensive.
not much has changed with spinning platters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007</id>
	<title>Overall Trends</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1247313240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The overall trend on one page instead of 12 is that storage is getting cheaper, bigger and faster. Oh boy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The overall trend on one page instead of 12 is that storage is getting cheaper , bigger and faster .
Oh boy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overall trend on one page instead of 12 is that storage is getting cheaper, bigger and faster.
Oh boy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663999</id>
	<title>Re:It is said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247313180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></div><p>Sex drive should be enough of a drive to store all your collection, or at least to try to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... : - ( Sex drive should be enough of a drive to store all your collection , or at least to try to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single drive to store my whole collection... :-(Sex drive should be enough of a drive to store all your collection, or at least to try to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664217</id>
	<title>Re:It is said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you collect it? There is a near INFINTE supply on the web, easily found for free. If you are storing over 1.5 TB or pr0n for personal consumption....wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you collect it ?
There is a near INFINTE supply on the web , easily found for free .
If you are storing over 1.5 TB or pr0n for personal consumption....wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you collect it?
There is a near INFINTE supply on the web, easily found for free.
If you are storing over 1.5 TB or pr0n for personal consumption....wow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665283</id>
	<title>Noise</title>
	<author>CmdrPorno</author>
	<datestamp>1247331960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that there appear to be no subjective or objective noise measurements (I did not read the entire article, as some moron has seen fit to split it across twelve pages).  I remember when 7200 rpm drives first came out, they were aimed at the server market and a RAID array of them made the room sound like there was a generator running.  The 7200 rpm drive in my recent iMac is whisper quiet by comparison.</p><p>I assume the newest 15,000 rpm drives are similarly noisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that there appear to be no subjective or objective noise measurements ( I did not read the entire article , as some moron has seen fit to split it across twelve pages ) .
I remember when 7200 rpm drives first came out , they were aimed at the server market and a RAID array of them made the room sound like there was a generator running .
The 7200 rpm drive in my recent iMac is whisper quiet by comparison.I assume the newest 15,000 rpm drives are similarly noisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that there appear to be no subjective or objective noise measurements (I did not read the entire article, as some moron has seen fit to split it across twelve pages).
I remember when 7200 rpm drives first came out, they were aimed at the server market and a RAID array of them made the room sound like there was a generator running.
The 7200 rpm drive in my recent iMac is whisper quiet by comparison.I assume the newest 15,000 rpm drives are similarly noisy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664989</id>
	<title>shit!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>dying. Everyone ARE A PATHETIC of business and for a living got have their moments Purposes *BSD is that the project to do?wnload the can connect to</htmltext>
<tokenext>dying .
Everyone ARE A PATHETIC of business and for a living got have their moments Purposes * BSD is that the project to do ? wnload the can connect to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dying.
Everyone ARE A PATHETIC of business and for a living got have their moments Purposes *BSD is that the project to do?wnload the can connect to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666829</id>
	<title>Re:why so many pages?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1247406660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still, it's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something. I never thought I'd say this because I've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers, but things are starting to bottom out. Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for, it's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory.</p></div><p>Something will come up to eat the space.</p><p>CD-ROM's could store more text than you could ever need. Then came multimedia content. CD's suddenly felt cramped.</p><p>Time was when computer music meant mod files. Who had the space to devote to encoding real live music? Now we have mp3 players in our pockets.</p><p>We'll come up with more and more stuff to eat up the space. Video is the biggest driver right now but even the most hardcore downloader will need some time to fill up a 1.5tb drive. Hardcore geeks who keep the last ten iso's of every software distribution out there are having trouble filling up that space. But we'll come up with something else. I don't do video editing but by all accounts you eat up hard drive space like candy.</p><p>The next revolution we desperately need is reliable archival storage. Tapes tend to suck and backing up to a second external drive just makes me think of the RAID admonishment -- "RAID is not backup." It feels safer to have something like a DVD with no electronic parts to go bad, something you can stick in a new drive whenever you want. Except wait a minute, how good are the discs? When will the dye start to fade, the backing peel off? No, DVD's are worrisome when talking about really important data.</p><p>So the current best advice out there is to backup your data multiple times with different technology so it would take a truly awful combination of failures to fuck 'em all. But there needs to be a better way than this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , it 's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something .
I never thought I 'd say this because I 've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers , but things are starting to bottom out .
Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for , it 's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory.Something will come up to eat the space.CD-ROM 's could store more text than you could ever need .
Then came multimedia content .
CD 's suddenly felt cramped.Time was when computer music meant mod files .
Who had the space to devote to encoding real live music ?
Now we have mp3 players in our pockets.We 'll come up with more and more stuff to eat up the space .
Video is the biggest driver right now but even the most hardcore downloader will need some time to fill up a 1.5tb drive .
Hardcore geeks who keep the last ten iso 's of every software distribution out there are having trouble filling up that space .
But we 'll come up with something else .
I do n't do video editing but by all accounts you eat up hard drive space like candy.The next revolution we desperately need is reliable archival storage .
Tapes tend to suck and backing up to a second external drive just makes me think of the RAID admonishment -- " RAID is not backup .
" It feels safer to have something like a DVD with no electronic parts to go bad , something you can stick in a new drive whenever you want .
Except wait a minute , how good are the discs ?
When will the dye start to fade , the backing peel off ?
No , DVD 's are worrisome when talking about really important data.So the current best advice out there is to backup your data multiple times with different technology so it would take a truly awful combination of failures to fuck 'em all .
But there needs to be a better way than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, it's nice to have 32GB on the USB stick in my pocket for when I need something.
I never thought I'd say this because I've been rather insatisfiable when it comes to computers, but things are starting to bottom out.
Even a pack rat like me is starting to wonder what I need all this space for, it's moving past nice-to-have into cool-but-why territory.Something will come up to eat the space.CD-ROM's could store more text than you could ever need.
Then came multimedia content.
CD's suddenly felt cramped.Time was when computer music meant mod files.
Who had the space to devote to encoding real live music?
Now we have mp3 players in our pockets.We'll come up with more and more stuff to eat up the space.
Video is the biggest driver right now but even the most hardcore downloader will need some time to fill up a 1.5tb drive.
Hardcore geeks who keep the last ten iso's of every software distribution out there are having trouble filling up that space.
But we'll come up with something else.
I don't do video editing but by all accounts you eat up hard drive space like candy.The next revolution we desperately need is reliable archival storage.
Tapes tend to suck and backing up to a second external drive just makes me think of the RAID admonishment -- "RAID is not backup.
" It feels safer to have something like a DVD with no electronic parts to go bad, something you can stick in a new drive whenever you want.
Except wait a minute, how good are the discs?
When will the dye start to fade, the backing peel off?
No, DVD's are worrisome when talking about really important data.So the current best advice out there is to backup your data multiple times with different technology so it would take a truly awful combination of failures to fuck 'em all.
But there needs to be a better way than this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664097</id>
	<title>12 pages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>12 pages?  Yeah, I want to read that.  12 pages of ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>12 pages ?
Yeah , I want to read that .
12 pages of ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12 pages?
Yeah, I want to read that.
12 pages of ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665545</id>
	<title>Re:Overall Trends</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1247336640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly fond of Link Widgets myself. It allows (ALT+ Page Up / Down) to cycle to the previous / next page. I mostly use it for sites where I appreciate the pagination (webcomics primarily.)</p><p>Sites with lots of superfluous pages like this one I just skim the first and last pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly fond of Link Widgets myself .
It allows ( ALT + Page Up / Down ) to cycle to the previous / next page .
I mostly use it for sites where I appreciate the pagination ( webcomics primarily .
) Sites with lots of superfluous pages like this one I just skim the first and last pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly fond of Link Widgets myself.
It allows (ALT+ Page Up / Down) to cycle to the previous / next page.
I mostly use it for sites where I appreciate the pagination (webcomics primarily.
)Sites with lots of superfluous pages like this one I just skim the first and last pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664799</id>
	<title>Re:It is said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it indexed by category? I'm looking for a series I lost after a drive crash,  maybe I could offer you a colo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it indexed by category ?
I 'm looking for a series I lost after a drive crash , maybe I could offer you a colo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it indexed by category?
I'm looking for a series I lost after a drive crash,  maybe I could offer you a colo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363</id>
	<title>Thorough article backed up with a lot of data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247317200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like slashdot is on its high horse, saying "of course SSDs are faster, duh, what a waste of time!".</p><p>And yet if somebody had written that in a blog, everybody would merrily trolling about how "anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, BTW my HDD is teh fastest".<br>I don't understand it. Somebody goes to the trouble of comparing a shit-load of drives in a variety of tests, and apparently the results are boring/irrelevant.</p><p>Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims, yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions, it dosn't get any credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like slashdot is on its high horse , saying " of course SSDs are faster , duh , what a waste of time !
" .And yet if somebody had written that in a blog , everybody would merrily trolling about how " anecdotal evidence is irrelevant , BTW my HDD is teh fastest " .I do n't understand it .
Somebody goes to the trouble of comparing a shit-load of drives in a variety of tests , and apparently the results are boring/irrelevant.Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims , yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions , it dos n't get any credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like slashdot is on its high horse, saying "of course SSDs are faster, duh, what a waste of time!
".And yet if somebody had written that in a blog, everybody would merrily trolling about how "anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, BTW my HDD is teh fastest".I don't understand it.
Somebody goes to the trouble of comparing a shit-load of drives in a variety of tests, and apparently the results are boring/irrelevant.Slashdotters are always bitching about lack of empirical evidence for claims, yet when an article come along with abundant information to back up its conclusions, it dosn't get any credit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664107</id>
	<title>Technology moves so fast...</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1247314500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amazing what feats we have accomplished over the past five years.  I really makes you wonder what storage technology we will have 50 years from now.  I honestly can't wait to give my "in my day" speech to all the youngins when I'm 76.<br> <br> <i>"In my day, all our data was mostly stored on spinning magnetic disks... or platters as we used to call them..."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing what feats we have accomplished over the past five years .
I really makes you wonder what storage technology we will have 50 years from now .
I honestly ca n't wait to give my " in my day " speech to all the youngins when I 'm 76 .
" In my day , all our data was mostly stored on spinning magnetic disks... or platters as we used to call them... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing what feats we have accomplished over the past five years.
I really makes you wonder what storage technology we will have 50 years from now.
I honestly can't wait to give my "in my day" speech to all the youngins when I'm 76.
"In my day, all our data was mostly stored on spinning magnetic disks... or platters as we used to call them..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28704291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_224246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28704291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28665545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28666081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28664799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_224246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_224246.28663915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
