<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_24_1831238</id>
	<title>No Cheap Replacement For Hard Disks Before 2020</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256374320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>siddesu writes with disappointing news to anyone who'd like to see solid-state storage dominate in the near-term future. <i>"A new study of storage technology by the former CTO of Seagate predicts that <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news175505861.html">hard disks will remain the cheapest storage technology in the next decade</a> and probably beyond."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>siddesu writes with disappointing news to anyone who 'd like to see solid-state storage dominate in the near-term future .
" A new study of storage technology by the former CTO of Seagate predicts that hard disks will remain the cheapest storage technology in the next decade and probably beyond .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>siddesu writes with disappointing news to anyone who'd like to see solid-state storage dominate in the near-term future.
"A new study of storage technology by the former CTO of Seagate predicts that hard disks will remain the cheapest storage technology in the next decade and probably beyond.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863651</id>
	<title>In spite of his market knowlege</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1256476620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't belive this prediction is going to be correct. The market will always be impacted unpredictably by breakthrough technologies. Already flash drives are making inroads into the market place, and I'm guessing there are start-ups out there at this very moment which will turn the market on its head in the near future. Remember the famous words of the Chairman of IBM, Thomas Watson, who in 1943 said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't belive this prediction is going to be correct .
The market will always be impacted unpredictably by breakthrough technologies .
Already flash drives are making inroads into the market place , and I 'm guessing there are start-ups out there at this very moment which will turn the market on its head in the near future .
Remember the famous words of the Chairman of IBM , Thomas Watson , who in 1943 said " I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't belive this prediction is going to be correct.
The market will always be impacted unpredictably by breakthrough technologies.
Already flash drives are making inroads into the market place, and I'm guessing there are start-ups out there at this very moment which will turn the market on its head in the near future.
Remember the famous words of the Chairman of IBM, Thomas Watson, who in 1943 said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863387</id>
	<title>Re:HDD in 2020 = Tape drives in 1995?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256471400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except there is now LTO4 with double capacity at the same price per media.</p><p>The cheapest scalable storage is by far tape. Sure you can by 1TB disks cheaply, but it does not scale. When I need to store 1PB of data the costs of the disks goes up enormously. There is also the cost of the power required to run them. My tapes consume 0W when not being used. I can run a couple of PB of storage with a 1kW of power and as the power consumption is so low there is no requirement for air conditioning (well at least where I live).</p><p>Sticking another frame on my 3854 library and filling it with LTO4 tapes is orders of magnitude cheaper than buying the same amount of disk in a usable form from anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there is now LTO4 with double capacity at the same price per media.The cheapest scalable storage is by far tape .
Sure you can by 1TB disks cheaply , but it does not scale .
When I need to store 1PB of data the costs of the disks goes up enormously .
There is also the cost of the power required to run them .
My tapes consume 0W when not being used .
I can run a couple of PB of storage with a 1kW of power and as the power consumption is so low there is no requirement for air conditioning ( well at least where I live ) .Sticking another frame on my 3854 library and filling it with LTO4 tapes is orders of magnitude cheaper than buying the same amount of disk in a usable form from anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there is now LTO4 with double capacity at the same price per media.The cheapest scalable storage is by far tape.
Sure you can by 1TB disks cheaply, but it does not scale.
When I need to store 1PB of data the costs of the disks goes up enormously.
There is also the cost of the power required to run them.
My tapes consume 0W when not being used.
I can run a couple of PB of storage with a 1kW of power and as the power consumption is so low there is no requirement for air conditioning (well at least where I live).Sticking another frame on my 3854 library and filling it with LTO4 tapes is orders of magnitude cheaper than buying the same amount of disk in a usable form from anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860135</id>
	<title>HDD in 2020 = Tape drives in 1995?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't tape drives still the least expensive per byte backup solution?  (Or weren't they at least 10-15 years ago, well into the HDD era?)  Just because something has the greatest cost per capacity doesn't mean it will still be the primary technology in use if something else is faster plus adequate in capacity for most purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't tape drives still the least expensive per byte backup solution ?
( Or were n't they at least 10-15 years ago , well into the HDD era ?
) Just because something has the greatest cost per capacity does n't mean it will still be the primary technology in use if something else is faster plus adequate in capacity for most purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't tape drives still the least expensive per byte backup solution?
(Or weren't they at least 10-15 years ago, well into the HDD era?
)  Just because something has the greatest cost per capacity doesn't mean it will still be the primary technology in use if something else is faster plus adequate in capacity for most purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862405</id>
	<title>Re:Comcast killed the hard disk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must have been very lucky to be among the first cable modem trial users in 1997. However, there were probably only a few thousand people in the country to get that kind of bandwidth. Most people were still lucky if their ISP could give you 56k.</p><p>Regardless, Comcast isn't going to kill the hard disk -- that DVR that Comcast supplies won't be coming with an SSD for many years to come. Even if you're not filling up your DVR's disk now, just wait until you get more tuners, more high-def, and more people in the house all recording to the same disk. I don't know about the Internet pipe, but Comcast is streaming a couple new high-def movies to my DVR every day on HBO and Showtime. It could be decades before anything besides a hard disk is cheap enough to hold them all.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have been very lucky to be among the first cable modem trial users in 1997 .
However , there were probably only a few thousand people in the country to get that kind of bandwidth .
Most people were still lucky if their ISP could give you 56k.Regardless , Comcast is n't going to kill the hard disk -- that DVR that Comcast supplies wo n't be coming with an SSD for many years to come .
Even if you 're not filling up your DVR 's disk now , just wait until you get more tuners , more high-def , and more people in the house all recording to the same disk .
I do n't know about the Internet pipe , but Comcast is streaming a couple new high-def movies to my DVR every day on HBO and Showtime .
It could be decades before anything besides a hard disk is cheap enough to hold them all.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have been very lucky to be among the first cable modem trial users in 1997.
However, there were probably only a few thousand people in the country to get that kind of bandwidth.
Most people were still lucky if their ISP could give you 56k.Regardless, Comcast isn't going to kill the hard disk -- that DVR that Comcast supplies won't be coming with an SSD for many years to come.
Even if you're not filling up your DVR's disk now, just wait until you get more tuners, more high-def, and more people in the house all recording to the same disk.
I don't know about the Internet pipe, but Comcast is streaming a couple new high-def movies to my DVR every day on HBO and Showtime.
It could be decades before anything besides a hard disk is cheap enough to hold them all.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861513</id>
	<title>Re:To each his own.</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1256396880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooks</i><br>Funny i've noticed things the other way round, all the early netbooks were SSD based but now lots of them have moved to a slightly larger form factor accomodating a hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooksFunny i 've noticed things the other way round , all the early netbooks were SSD based but now lots of them have moved to a slightly larger form factor accomodating a hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooksFunny i've noticed things the other way round, all the early netbooks were SSD based but now lots of them have moved to a slightly larger form factor accomodating a hard drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859941</id>
	<title>Depends on size</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256380500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows that hard drives will continue to get bigger and bigger, and smaller drives will drop off the market and the "entry" price will remain around the same.  But if you don't *NEED* such huge drives, then SSDD works just fine.  My Netbook can attest to that.  Sure- I can't store ALL my music and ALL my video and ALL my pictures, but I don't need to on that type of device.  Linux seems to work just fine on SSDD, saves a bit of battery, seems a bit faster overall, and it is impervious to jarring and magnetism, and is smaller and lighter.  And that is just 40GB (16 fast, 32 "normal").  I can't imagine that in the next few years that Flash won't continue to get faster, cheaper, and more dense- especially as more and more portable devices create an ever-increasing demand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that hard drives will continue to get bigger and bigger , and smaller drives will drop off the market and the " entry " price will remain around the same .
But if you do n't * NEED * such huge drives , then SSDD works just fine .
My Netbook can attest to that .
Sure- I ca n't store ALL my music and ALL my video and ALL my pictures , but I do n't need to on that type of device .
Linux seems to work just fine on SSDD , saves a bit of battery , seems a bit faster overall , and it is impervious to jarring and magnetism , and is smaller and lighter .
And that is just 40GB ( 16 fast , 32 " normal " ) .
I ca n't imagine that in the next few years that Flash wo n't continue to get faster , cheaper , and more dense- especially as more and more portable devices create an ever-increasing demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that hard drives will continue to get bigger and bigger, and smaller drives will drop off the market and the "entry" price will remain around the same.
But if you don't *NEED* such huge drives, then SSDD works just fine.
My Netbook can attest to that.
Sure- I can't store ALL my music and ALL my video and ALL my pictures, but I don't need to on that type of device.
Linux seems to work just fine on SSDD, saves a bit of battery, seems a bit faster overall, and it is impervious to jarring and magnetism, and is smaller and lighter.
And that is just 40GB (16 fast, 32 "normal").
I can't imagine that in the next few years that Flash won't continue to get faster, cheaper, and more dense- especially as more and more portable devices create an ever-increasing demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859737</id>
	<title>SSDs will soon be "cheap enough"</title>
	<author>Ritz\_Just\_Ritz</author>
	<datestamp>1256379180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of my non-server machines only use about 40-50gb of disk space, even though the hard drives have gradually grown from 20 to 40 to 120 to 500 to 1500GB over the last few years.  Each time I build a system, I tend to throw in whatever drive costs about $100-125 when I order my parts.  So based on my past usage model, I'd have no problem switching over to SSD if I can get say...128GB of storage for $100-125.  On those occasions where I need a big chunk of permanent storage, I'll just get some sort of external hard disk that will undoubtedly continue to plummet in price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of my non-server machines only use about 40-50gb of disk space , even though the hard drives have gradually grown from 20 to 40 to 120 to 500 to 1500GB over the last few years .
Each time I build a system , I tend to throw in whatever drive costs about $ 100-125 when I order my parts .
So based on my past usage model , I 'd have no problem switching over to SSD if I can get say...128GB of storage for $ 100-125 .
On those occasions where I need a big chunk of permanent storage , I 'll just get some sort of external hard disk that will undoubtedly continue to plummet in price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of my non-server machines only use about 40-50gb of disk space, even though the hard drives have gradually grown from 20 to 40 to 120 to 500 to 1500GB over the last few years.
Each time I build a system, I tend to throw in whatever drive costs about $100-125 when I order my parts.
So based on my past usage model, I'd have no problem switching over to SSD if I can get say...128GB of storage for $100-125.
On those occasions where I need a big chunk of permanent storage, I'll just get some sort of external hard disk that will undoubtedly continue to plummet in price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861425</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1256395980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We built a few server machines with SSDs, but we found that for many applications, they're not quite ready yet.  E.g., SSDs seemed like the perfect application for the machines that run our backup jobs off of our SAN.  Unfortunately, the heavy emphasis on writing large catalog files made SSDs unacceptably slow as compared with RAID arrays (to the tune of doubling or tripling running time).  The SSDs looked good on paper, but it turns out that the actual performance was more complicated than the datasheets let on.  For those machines, we moved them back to RAIDs.
<br> <br>
OTOH, we have been using CF cards with single-board computers in certain applications for a very long time, and with these machines, reliability is far more important than disk performance.  SATA SSDs are very competitive with CF now, especially since it will ease a number of constraints that CF imposes on us, and so the next round of these machines that I roll out will probably have SSDs instead.  We're very much looking forward to replacing disks in workstations with SSDs, but we'll see which thing happens first: virtualization and thin clients or cheap SSDs.
<br> <br>
As for the failure-mode part of SSDs-- I've heard this repeated numerous times, but I've never managed to locate a reference.  Do you have one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We built a few server machines with SSDs , but we found that for many applications , they 're not quite ready yet .
E.g. , SSDs seemed like the perfect application for the machines that run our backup jobs off of our SAN .
Unfortunately , the heavy emphasis on writing large catalog files made SSDs unacceptably slow as compared with RAID arrays ( to the tune of doubling or tripling running time ) .
The SSDs looked good on paper , but it turns out that the actual performance was more complicated than the datasheets let on .
For those machines , we moved them back to RAIDs .
OTOH , we have been using CF cards with single-board computers in certain applications for a very long time , and with these machines , reliability is far more important than disk performance .
SATA SSDs are very competitive with CF now , especially since it will ease a number of constraints that CF imposes on us , and so the next round of these machines that I roll out will probably have SSDs instead .
We 're very much looking forward to replacing disks in workstations with SSDs , but we 'll see which thing happens first : virtualization and thin clients or cheap SSDs .
As for the failure-mode part of SSDs-- I 've heard this repeated numerous times , but I 've never managed to locate a reference .
Do you have one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We built a few server machines with SSDs, but we found that for many applications, they're not quite ready yet.
E.g., SSDs seemed like the perfect application for the machines that run our backup jobs off of our SAN.
Unfortunately, the heavy emphasis on writing large catalog files made SSDs unacceptably slow as compared with RAID arrays (to the tune of doubling or tripling running time).
The SSDs looked good on paper, but it turns out that the actual performance was more complicated than the datasheets let on.
For those machines, we moved them back to RAIDs.
OTOH, we have been using CF cards with single-board computers in certain applications for a very long time, and with these machines, reliability is far more important than disk performance.
SATA SSDs are very competitive with CF now, especially since it will ease a number of constraints that CF imposes on us, and so the next round of these machines that I roll out will probably have SSDs instead.
We're very much looking forward to replacing disks in workstations with SSDs, but we'll see which thing happens first: virtualization and thin clients or cheap SSDs.
As for the failure-mode part of SSDs-- I've heard this repeated numerous times, but I've never managed to locate a reference.
Do you have one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29866351</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256501040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not betting on the cloud that much.  Why?  Bandwidth essentially hasn't been increased for average consumers since cable/DSL providers started with their products.  I'm almost sure that in 2020, we will have essentially the same transfer rates from home to servers as we do now.  So, cloud computing is useless as a primary storage medium.</p><p>However, there is one thing which is starting to emerge as a market instead:  Home servers.  Because most people have relatively fast LAN connections via 100 base T, Wi-Fi, or gigabit Ethernet, and that the hardware to put out the relative high bandwidth for intranets is inexpensive.  If one network segment gets saturated, dedicated individuals can either bond multiple 1000 base T connections, or have machines use different LAN fabrics for different tasks (a dedicated sub-LAN for backups for example.)  I'd place bets that this is where a storage focus will be.  Microsoft and HP have been dabbling in this market for a couple years now with small disk arrays and Windows Home Server.  Apple tossed their hat into the ring with the Mac Mini that runs OS X Server and has two drives (eschewing the internal optical drive).</p><p>Right now, Joe Sixpack isn't used to having a NAS at his place, but with some marketing, that can be solved.  Apple's Time Capsules are a good example of this.  Should someone make a similar item for Windows and every simple to deploy software to people can back their machines up to it, the unwashed masses will eventually get used to a home server.</p><p>Next, add streaming media functionality to allow playing of movies and music files to both computers and TVs.  Then, perhaps add some DVR capability, and a home server appliance would earn a permanent place in the home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not betting on the cloud that much .
Why ? Bandwidth essentially has n't been increased for average consumers since cable/DSL providers started with their products .
I 'm almost sure that in 2020 , we will have essentially the same transfer rates from home to servers as we do now .
So , cloud computing is useless as a primary storage medium.However , there is one thing which is starting to emerge as a market instead : Home servers .
Because most people have relatively fast LAN connections via 100 base T , Wi-Fi , or gigabit Ethernet , and that the hardware to put out the relative high bandwidth for intranets is inexpensive .
If one network segment gets saturated , dedicated individuals can either bond multiple 1000 base T connections , or have machines use different LAN fabrics for different tasks ( a dedicated sub-LAN for backups for example .
) I 'd place bets that this is where a storage focus will be .
Microsoft and HP have been dabbling in this market for a couple years now with small disk arrays and Windows Home Server .
Apple tossed their hat into the ring with the Mac Mini that runs OS X Server and has two drives ( eschewing the internal optical drive ) .Right now , Joe Sixpack is n't used to having a NAS at his place , but with some marketing , that can be solved .
Apple 's Time Capsules are a good example of this .
Should someone make a similar item for Windows and every simple to deploy software to people can back their machines up to it , the unwashed masses will eventually get used to a home server.Next , add streaming media functionality to allow playing of movies and music files to both computers and TVs .
Then , perhaps add some DVR capability , and a home server appliance would earn a permanent place in the home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not betting on the cloud that much.
Why?  Bandwidth essentially hasn't been increased for average consumers since cable/DSL providers started with their products.
I'm almost sure that in 2020, we will have essentially the same transfer rates from home to servers as we do now.
So, cloud computing is useless as a primary storage medium.However, there is one thing which is starting to emerge as a market instead:  Home servers.
Because most people have relatively fast LAN connections via 100 base T, Wi-Fi, or gigabit Ethernet, and that the hardware to put out the relative high bandwidth for intranets is inexpensive.
If one network segment gets saturated, dedicated individuals can either bond multiple 1000 base T connections, or have machines use different LAN fabrics for different tasks (a dedicated sub-LAN for backups for example.
)  I'd place bets that this is where a storage focus will be.
Microsoft and HP have been dabbling in this market for a couple years now with small disk arrays and Windows Home Server.
Apple tossed their hat into the ring with the Mac Mini that runs OS X Server and has two drives (eschewing the internal optical drive).Right now, Joe Sixpack isn't used to having a NAS at his place, but with some marketing, that can be solved.
Apple's Time Capsules are a good example of this.
Should someone make a similar item for Windows and every simple to deploy software to people can back their machines up to it, the unwashed masses will eventually get used to a home server.Next, add streaming media functionality to allow playing of movies and music files to both computers and TVs.
Then, perhaps add some DVR capability, and a home server appliance would earn a permanent place in the home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Forge</author>
	<datestamp>1256394360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is another factor. <br> <br>
Flash is faster and more energy efficient than spinning disks.  This creates a demand for flash which reduces the incentive of manufacturers to drop the price per GB.
<br> <br>
Also try to understand the gap we are dealing with.<br>
Flash is around <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/flash\_card\_memory/" title="pricewatch.com">$1.87 per GB</a> [pricewatch.com] while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB.
<br> <br>
That's 26 times the price.  Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.  I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them.  Some time after that, SSDs may even become cheaper, or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology.  It just won't happen right away.
<br> <br>
Is one more decade too pessimistic an estimate?  Only time will tell.  What I do know is that where SSD's advantages are more important the change has already started. You can buy a portable computer with only SSD storage today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another factor .
Flash is faster and more energy efficient than spinning disks .
This creates a demand for flash which reduces the incentive of manufacturers to drop the price per GB .
Also try to understand the gap we are dealing with .
Flash is around $ 1.87 per GB [ pricewatch.com ] while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB .
That 's 26 times the price .
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives .
I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them .
Some time after that , SSDs may even become cheaper , or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology .
It just wo n't happen right away .
Is one more decade too pessimistic an estimate ?
Only time will tell .
What I do know is that where SSD 's advantages are more important the change has already started .
You can buy a portable computer with only SSD storage today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another factor.
Flash is faster and more energy efficient than spinning disks.
This creates a demand for flash which reduces the incentive of manufacturers to drop the price per GB.
Also try to understand the gap we are dealing with.
Flash is around $1.87 per GB [pricewatch.com] while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB.
That's 26 times the price.
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.
I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them.
Some time after that, SSDs may even become cheaper, or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology.
It just won't happen right away.
Is one more decade too pessimistic an estimate?
Only time will tell.
What I do know is that where SSD's advantages are more important the change has already started.
You can buy a portable computer with only SSD storage today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So these people can predict the future now?!  Really, you never know what is going to happen for sure.  Look at current HDD tech, IBM made the GMR breakthrough and BAM!  Huge storage capacity in drives.  What makes people think that there cannot be another such discovery with solid state or some other yet unknown tech?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So these people can predict the future now ? !
Really , you never know what is going to happen for sure .
Look at current HDD tech , IBM made the GMR breakthrough and BAM !
Huge storage capacity in drives .
What makes people think that there can not be another such discovery with solid state or some other yet unknown tech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So these people can predict the future now?!
Really, you never know what is going to happen for sure.
Look at current HDD tech, IBM made the GMR breakthrough and BAM!
Huge storage capacity in drives.
What makes people think that there cannot be another such discovery with solid state or some other yet unknown tech?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862647</id>
	<title>I don't want 20 TB</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1256411940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they taking into account speed increases? Maybe customers won't want a 20TB HD that runs 10\% faster than today's HD. Maybe they'll want a 1TB solid state drive that runs 500\% faster. I'll certainly trade 500GB for a 100\% speed boost today.</p><p>I have a feeling that there are no big speed breakthroughs left in spinning magnetic media, but there are huge opportunities still waiting in solid state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they taking into account speed increases ?
Maybe customers wo n't want a 20TB HD that runs 10 \ % faster than today 's HD .
Maybe they 'll want a 1TB solid state drive that runs 500 \ % faster .
I 'll certainly trade 500GB for a 100 \ % speed boost today.I have a feeling that there are no big speed breakthroughs left in spinning magnetic media , but there are huge opportunities still waiting in solid state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they taking into account speed increases?
Maybe customers won't want a 20TB HD that runs 10\% faster than today's HD.
Maybe they'll want a 1TB solid state drive that runs 500\% faster.
I'll certainly trade 500GB for a 100\% speed boost today.I have a feeling that there are no big speed breakthroughs left in spinning magnetic media, but there are huge opportunities still waiting in solid state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861115</id>
	<title>Re:Very old article</title>
	<author>Rudeboy777</author>
	<datestamp>1256391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not for a 500GB drive in a fancy shrink-wrapped box (with plenty of useless software) which is what is being referred to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not for a 500GB drive in a fancy shrink-wrapped box ( with plenty of useless software ) which is what is being referred to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not for a 500GB drive in a fancy shrink-wrapped box (with plenty of useless software) which is what is being referred to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863165</id>
	<title>Cheapest? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1256466120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a wide range of applications, solid-state already replaced rotating drives.</p><p>They may have a higher cost per capacity, but where speed, damage resistance and energy consumption is more important than bulk, SSD beats HDD any day.</p><p>My next laptop will have a 16GB flash drive, as opposed to the 160GB the old one has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a wide range of applications , solid-state already replaced rotating drives.They may have a higher cost per capacity , but where speed , damage resistance and energy consumption is more important than bulk , SSD beats HDD any day.My next laptop will have a 16GB flash drive , as opposed to the 160GB the old one has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a wide range of applications, solid-state already replaced rotating drives.They may have a higher cost per capacity, but where speed, damage resistance and energy consumption is more important than bulk, SSD beats HDD any day.My next laptop will have a 16GB flash drive, as opposed to the 160GB the old one has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860577</id>
	<title>Comcast killed the hard disk.</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1256386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Hard disks will probably be the storage of choice for people with large data storage needs. However since bandwidth to the home is increasing at a SNAILS pace, most people won't have the need for so much storage and will buy the equivalently priced but faster, lower power, silent and reliable solid state stuff.</p><p>
Had the situation been different and bandwidth to the home been going through the same improvement rate as HD storage, the result might have been different. But in 1997 I had a comcast connection at 5Mbit down / 2Mbit up speeds for roughly the same price as I now have a 10Mbit down / 5Mbit up. In 1997 I also bought something like a 3Gig hard drive for a comparable price to the 2TB hard drive I bought last week.</p><p>
Hard disk storage has improved by 600+ fold.
Pipes to fill the hard disk have improved by 2 fold.</p><p>
And don't forget that if you actually USE your bandwidth, many ISPs will hassle you or cut you off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard disks will probably be the storage of choice for people with large data storage needs .
However since bandwidth to the home is increasing at a SNAILS pace , most people wo n't have the need for so much storage and will buy the equivalently priced but faster , lower power , silent and reliable solid state stuff .
Had the situation been different and bandwidth to the home been going through the same improvement rate as HD storage , the result might have been different .
But in 1997 I had a comcast connection at 5Mbit down / 2Mbit up speeds for roughly the same price as I now have a 10Mbit down / 5Mbit up .
In 1997 I also bought something like a 3Gig hard drive for a comparable price to the 2TB hard drive I bought last week .
Hard disk storage has improved by 600 + fold .
Pipes to fill the hard disk have improved by 2 fold .
And do n't forget that if you actually USE your bandwidth , many ISPs will hassle you or cut you off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hard disks will probably be the storage of choice for people with large data storage needs.
However since bandwidth to the home is increasing at a SNAILS pace, most people won't have the need for so much storage and will buy the equivalently priced but faster, lower power, silent and reliable solid state stuff.
Had the situation been different and bandwidth to the home been going through the same improvement rate as HD storage, the result might have been different.
But in 1997 I had a comcast connection at 5Mbit down / 2Mbit up speeds for roughly the same price as I now have a 10Mbit down / 5Mbit up.
In 1997 I also bought something like a 3Gig hard drive for a comparable price to the 2TB hard drive I bought last week.
Hard disk storage has improved by 600+ fold.
Pipes to fill the hard disk have improved by 2 fold.
And don't forget that if you actually USE your bandwidth, many ISPs will hassle you or cut you off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860025</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256381280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that now we hit the TB point getting HDD with more space will be less and less of a concern. How much data does the normal user have and need space for? They will need to start the migration to SSD for speed than storage space. The short term answer for balancing the cost will be a hybrid of the two drives using the HDD for space and the SSD for speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that now we hit the TB point getting HDD with more space will be less and less of a concern .
How much data does the normal user have and need space for ?
They will need to start the migration to SSD for speed than storage space .
The short term answer for balancing the cost will be a hybrid of the two drives using the HDD for space and the SSD for speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that now we hit the TB point getting HDD with more space will be less and less of a concern.
How much data does the normal user have and need space for?
They will need to start the migration to SSD for speed than storage space.
The short term answer for balancing the cost will be a hybrid of the two drives using the HDD for space and the SSD for speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860061</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you cant store a SSD in a safety deposit box like we do with regular drive backups, because the charge fades away in a few years. dealbreaker right there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you cant store a SSD in a safety deposit box like we do with regular drive backups , because the charge fades away in a few years .
dealbreaker right there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you cant store a SSD in a safety deposit box like we do with regular drive backups, because the charge fades away in a few years.
dealbreaker right there</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859551</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no substitute, cheap or otherwise, for a mug of frosty piss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no substitute , cheap or otherwise , for a mug of frosty piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no substitute, cheap or otherwise, for a mug of frosty piss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859843</id>
	<title>Re:Very old article</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1256379900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But most SSDs are designed for laptops because that's where hard drives are most at risk.  A 500 GB laptop drive does cost almost $100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But most SSDs are designed for laptops because that 's where hard drives are most at risk .
A 500 GB laptop drive does cost almost $ 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But most SSDs are designed for laptops because that's where hard drives are most at risk.
A 500 GB laptop drive does cost almost $100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863077</id>
	<title>Re:Fragmentation</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1256464560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solid-state drives are instantly block-addressable for the entire capacity, so why would you even worry about disk fragmentation?<br>Having said that I've never used performance SSDs, so maybe you can enlighten me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solid-state drives are instantly block-addressable for the entire capacity , so why would you even worry about disk fragmentation ? Having said that I 've never used performance SSDs , so maybe you can enlighten me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solid-state drives are instantly block-addressable for the entire capacity, so why would you even worry about disk fragmentation?Having said that I've never used performance SSDs, so maybe you can enlighten me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860219</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1256382900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Linus does it... can his followers be far behind? <a href="http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel-ssds.html" title="blogspot.com">http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel-ssds.html</a> [blogspot.com]
I'm looking at doing the same thing for my next machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Linus does it... can his followers be far behind ?
http : //torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel-ssds.html [ blogspot.com ] I 'm looking at doing the same thing for my next machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Linus does it... can his followers be far behind?
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel-ssds.html [blogspot.com]
I'm looking at doing the same thing for my next machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256379600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.</i></p><p>The very definition of cheapest.</p><p><i>As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".</i></p><p>You've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel. The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better (including better trusted) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable. This is just data/software outsourcing at it's worst, with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.</p><p><i>Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.</i></p><p>My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes. I have over half a TB of photos, most going back 10 years, some scanned going back before I was born. I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site. I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more "extreme". I think you'll find lots of people have needs you'd define as extreme. There's nothing extreme about it. Liberating is what it is. People who do nothing but surf the web, read email, and spend their lives on social networking sites, with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage. Other people will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they will be cheapest , but only cheapest per/GB.The very definition of cheapest.As time goes on , SSD 's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems do n't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the " cloud " .You 've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel .
The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better ( including better trusted ) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable .
This is just data/software outsourcing at it 's worst , with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.Sure , per GB , magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity , but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes .
I have over half a TB of photos , most going back 10 years , some scanned going back before I was born .
I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site .
I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more " extreme " .
I think you 'll find lots of people have needs you 'd define as extreme .
There 's nothing extreme about it .
Liberating is what it is .
People who do nothing but surf the web , read email , and spend their lives on social networking sites , with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage .
Other people will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.The very definition of cheapest.As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".You've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel.
The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better (including better trusted) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable.
This is just data/software outsourcing at it's worst, with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes.
I have over half a TB of photos, most going back 10 years, some scanned going back before I was born.
I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site.
I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more "extreme".
I think you'll find lots of people have needs you'd define as extreme.
There's nothing extreme about it.
Liberating is what it is.
People who do nothing but surf the web, read email, and spend their lives on social networking sites, with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage.
Other people will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860179</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1256382540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just means that licensing costs are too high, and we have to wait till the patents run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just means that licensing costs are too high , and we have to wait till the patents run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just means that licensing costs are too high, and we have to wait till the patents run out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623</id>
	<title>Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.</p><p>As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".</p><p>Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they will be cheapest , but only cheapest per/GB.As time goes on , SSD 's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems do n't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the " cloud " .Sure , per GB , magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity , but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860209</id>
	<title>not quite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/flashdiskcomparo.html" title="mattscomputertrends.com">http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/flashdiskcomparo.html</a> [mattscomputertrends.com]</p><p>^ this guy disagree's, saying the transition will come as early as 2013-2014 (five years from march 2008) for 2.5" drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.mattscomputertrends.com/flashdiskcomparo.html [ mattscomputertrends.com ] ^ this guy disagree 's , saying the transition will come as early as 2013-2014 ( five years from march 2008 ) for 2.5 " drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/flashdiskcomparo.html [mattscomputertrends.com]^ this guy disagree's, saying the transition will come as early as 2013-2014 (five years from march 2008) for 2.5" drives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29895245</id>
	<title>Re:To each his own.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you also notice the other change in netbooks that correlates with the switch from SSDs to HDDs?  That was the early netbooks mostly ran Linux, whilst nowadays they mostly run Windows.  Windows (and it's applications) seem to desire more diskspace than Linux does for the most part, so the small capacities of the SSDs were less suited to Windows than Linux, plus Windows didn't tend to perform as well on the cheap SSDs which had slow write times and low IOps, where Linux performed reasonably well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you also notice the other change in netbooks that correlates with the switch from SSDs to HDDs ?
That was the early netbooks mostly ran Linux , whilst nowadays they mostly run Windows .
Windows ( and it 's applications ) seem to desire more diskspace than Linux does for the most part , so the small capacities of the SSDs were less suited to Windows than Linux , plus Windows did n't tend to perform as well on the cheap SSDs which had slow write times and low IOps , where Linux performed reasonably well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you also notice the other change in netbooks that correlates with the switch from SSDs to HDDs?
That was the early netbooks mostly ran Linux, whilst nowadays they mostly run Windows.
Windows (and it's applications) seem to desire more diskspace than Linux does for the most part, so the small capacities of the SSDs were less suited to Windows than Linux, plus Windows didn't tend to perform as well on the cheap SSDs which had slow write times and low IOps, where Linux performed reasonably well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860665</id>
	<title>Newer is not necessarily better</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1256386980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who thought "Well Duh!" when they read this? Just because something is newer doesn't make it better, and it certainly doesn't make it cheaper either! In fact I'm still using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper\_tape" title="wikipedia.org">paper tape</a> [wikipedia.org] for most of my data-storage needs. Granted, I need about 7-10 days prior notice before booting my copy of Windows XP from paper tape, but I only reboot about once a year anyway so it's not that big a deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thought " Well Duh !
" when they read this ?
Just because something is newer does n't make it better , and it certainly does n't make it cheaper either !
In fact I 'm still using paper tape [ wikipedia.org ] for most of my data-storage needs .
Granted , I need about 7-10 days prior notice before booting my copy of Windows XP from paper tape , but I only reboot about once a year anyway so it 's not that big a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thought "Well Duh!
" when they read this?
Just because something is newer doesn't make it better, and it certainly doesn't make it cheaper either!
In fact I'm still using paper tape [wikipedia.org] for most of my data-storage needs.
Granted, I need about 7-10 days prior notice before booting my copy of Windows XP from paper tape, but I only reboot about once a year anyway so it's not that big a deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860515</id>
	<title>Re:SSDs will soon be "cheap enough"</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1256385420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think we will have "disk drives" for much longer. My eeepc has flash soldered in. Desktop motherboard manufacturers will start to do that too. Laptop manufacturers will save space by eliminating drive bays.</p><p>Its less flexible but that just promotes obsolescence, which the manufacturers love.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think we will have " disk drives " for much longer .
My eeepc has flash soldered in .
Desktop motherboard manufacturers will start to do that too .
Laptop manufacturers will save space by eliminating drive bays.Its less flexible but that just promotes obsolescence , which the manufacturers love .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think we will have "disk drives" for much longer.
My eeepc has flash soldered in.
Desktop motherboard manufacturers will start to do that too.
Laptop manufacturers will save space by eliminating drive bays.Its less flexible but that just promotes obsolescence, which the manufacturers love.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863621</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but go ahead and extrapolate the GB-per-dollar-curves and you'll probably find, depending on your assumptions, that disk drives will remain the cheapest storage at least until 2020. Which means that for the next eleven years we will have a data storage structure that looks something like this, where lower entries contain lesser used data:</p><p>CPU registers<br>L1 cache<br>L2/L3 cache<br>RAM<br>SSD or disk drive<br>Disk drive or SSD</p><p>The SSD will contain data that is often read but not written as often. The oft-written data will go into the disk drive because of wear problem in SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but go ahead and extrapolate the GB-per-dollar-curves and you 'll probably find , depending on your assumptions , that disk drives will remain the cheapest storage at least until 2020 .
Which means that for the next eleven years we will have a data storage structure that looks something like this , where lower entries contain lesser used data : CPU registersL1 cacheL2/L3 cacheRAMSSD or disk driveDisk drive or SSDThe SSD will contain data that is often read but not written as often .
The oft-written data will go into the disk drive because of wear problem in SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but go ahead and extrapolate the GB-per-dollar-curves and you'll probably find, depending on your assumptions, that disk drives will remain the cheapest storage at least until 2020.
Which means that for the next eleven years we will have a data storage structure that looks something like this, where lower entries contain lesser used data:CPU registersL1 cacheL2/L3 cacheRAMSSD or disk driveDisk drive or SSDThe SSD will contain data that is often read but not written as often.
The oft-written data will go into the disk drive because of wear problem in SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819</id>
	<title>Get both</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1256379720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh.  New desktop PCs and full scale laptops should have 2 disks in them.  An SSD, with the C: drive partition with the OS and Program Files folders.  Nearly all software will install itself to the SSD by default that way.  Also the swap partition should go here.</p><p>"My Documents\Downloads" and the default download directories should go to the mechanical hard disk.  The slightly complex part is that users should know to store small files to the SSD and big ones to the hard disk, unless the big files are something that needs to be accessed quickly (like a large pdf document).</p><p>OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full.  The typical user isn't going to properly manage a divide like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
New desktop PCs and full scale laptops should have 2 disks in them .
An SSD , with the C : drive partition with the OS and Program Files folders .
Nearly all software will install itself to the SSD by default that way .
Also the swap partition should go here .
" My Documents \ Downloads " and the default download directories should go to the mechanical hard disk .
The slightly complex part is that users should know to store small files to the SSD and big ones to the hard disk , unless the big files are something that needs to be accessed quickly ( like a large pdf document ) .OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache ' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it 's getting full .
The typical user is n't going to properly manage a divide like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
New desktop PCs and full scale laptops should have 2 disks in them.
An SSD, with the C: drive partition with the OS and Program Files folders.
Nearly all software will install itself to the SSD by default that way.
Also the swap partition should go here.
"My Documents\Downloads" and the default download directories should go to the mechanical hard disk.
The slightly complex part is that users should know to store small files to the SSD and big ones to the hard disk, unless the big files are something that needs to be accessed quickly (like a large pdf document).OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full.
The typical user isn't going to properly manage a divide like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29872303</id>
	<title>I tend to agree</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1256571360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree, as I was looking at blueray dvds for backups, and saw that a 50gb dvd would cost me about 5$ to buy, what is the use, might as well just keep buying cheap hdd. The price of the new technology has to come way down before all this is affordable replacement, and blueray has been in the works (trying to come down in price) for about 6 years now....and it's still not here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree , as I was looking at blueray dvds for backups , and saw that a 50gb dvd would cost me about 5 $ to buy , what is the use , might as well just keep buying cheap hdd .
The price of the new technology has to come way down before all this is affordable replacement , and blueray has been in the works ( trying to come down in price ) for about 6 years now....and it 's still not here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree, as I was looking at blueray dvds for backups, and saw that a 50gb dvd would cost me about 5$ to buy, what is the use, might as well just keep buying cheap hdd.
The price of the new technology has to come way down before all this is affordable replacement, and blueray has been in the works (trying to come down in price) for about 6 years now....and it's still not here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861553</id>
	<title>Re:HDD in 2020 = Tape drives in 1995?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LTO3 Tape costs about the same for just the tapes as cheap SATA drives - without considering the cost of the tape drive ($1200?).  I think it's the cheapest per GB today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LTO3 Tape costs about the same for just the tapes as cheap SATA drives - without considering the cost of the tape drive ( $ 1200 ? ) .
I think it 's the cheapest per GB today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LTO3 Tape costs about the same for just the tapes as cheap SATA drives - without considering the cost of the tape drive ($1200?).
I think it's the cheapest per GB today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860827</id>
	<title>Re:Fragmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're joking, right?</p><p>Do you not understand the meaning of the word predictable?</p><p>SSDs can and do wear out and lose the use of sectors, but only after a fairly well quantified amount of usage. It's a problem, but easily avoided with good wear leveling and read/write accounting by the controller firmware.</p><p>HDDs tend to work one day, and the next random day not work (due to head crashes, dust, or sometimes just angry words).</p><p>SSDs beat HDDs in every performance and reliability category</p><p>A machine with moving parts will NEVER be more reliable than one without moving parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're joking , right ? Do you not understand the meaning of the word predictable ? SSDs can and do wear out and lose the use of sectors , but only after a fairly well quantified amount of usage .
It 's a problem , but easily avoided with good wear leveling and read/write accounting by the controller firmware.HDDs tend to work one day , and the next random day not work ( due to head crashes , dust , or sometimes just angry words ) .SSDs beat HDDs in every performance and reliability categoryA machine with moving parts will NEVER be more reliable than one without moving parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're joking, right?Do you not understand the meaning of the word predictable?SSDs can and do wear out and lose the use of sectors, but only after a fairly well quantified amount of usage.
It's a problem, but easily avoided with good wear leveling and read/write accounting by the controller firmware.HDDs tend to work one day, and the next random day not work (due to head crashes, dust, or sometimes just angry words).SSDs beat HDDs in every performance and reliability categoryA machine with moving parts will NEVER be more reliable than one without moving parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859667</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not such a great argument.</p><p>Seagate is not a stupid company. If they know of some new technology which is going to fare than hard disks as we know today, they can certainly invest in creating products around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not such a great argument.Seagate is not a stupid company .
If they know of some new technology which is going to fare than hard disks as we know today , they can certainly invest in creating products around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not such a great argument.Seagate is not a stupid company.
If they know of some new technology which is going to fare than hard disks as we know today, they can certainly invest in creating products around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862519</id>
	<title>TCO of SSDs is already cheaper than HDDs</title>
	<author>Software Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1256409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The total cost of ownership of a storage device includes the purchase price, the cost of restoring/reinstalling after catastrophic drive failures, and the ongoing cost of electricity.</p><p>For a home user, the reinstall cost from a single catastrophic failure is going to outweight both the purchase price and the electricity cost. SSDs have a significantly lower catastrophic failure rate, so they cost less.</p><p>For a server, the electricity cost is going to outweigh the purchase price and the reinstall cost.  SSDs use less electricity, so they cost less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The total cost of ownership of a storage device includes the purchase price , the cost of restoring/reinstalling after catastrophic drive failures , and the ongoing cost of electricity.For a home user , the reinstall cost from a single catastrophic failure is going to outweight both the purchase price and the electricity cost .
SSDs have a significantly lower catastrophic failure rate , so they cost less.For a server , the electricity cost is going to outweigh the purchase price and the reinstall cost .
SSDs use less electricity , so they cost less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The total cost of ownership of a storage device includes the purchase price, the cost of restoring/reinstalling after catastrophic drive failures, and the ongoing cost of electricity.For a home user, the reinstall cost from a single catastrophic failure is going to outweight both the purchase price and the electricity cost.
SSDs have a significantly lower catastrophic failure rate, so they cost less.For a server, the electricity cost is going to outweigh the purchase price and the reinstall cost.
SSDs use less electricity, so they cost less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860729</id>
	<title>Why haven't we developed a fiber optic hard drive?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1256387460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use DVD RW technology with more advanced lasers and more advanced media. I am sure that a fiber optic hard drive that uses rewritable media can be made cheaper than a solid state hard drive. Just use multiple platters like real hard drives and use lasers instead of magnetic read/write heads.</p><p>Right now I have USB kits for ATA IDE hard drives to be used as external hard drives for my backups and sometimes I use DVD-R or CD-R disks for backup. I am sure that a multi-platter fiber optic hard drive would at least make a great backup device.</p><p>I also use cheap SD cards and USB flash drives for backup of smaller documents. Mostly pictures that need to be developed in JPG format for photo developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use DVD RW technology with more advanced lasers and more advanced media .
I am sure that a fiber optic hard drive that uses rewritable media can be made cheaper than a solid state hard drive .
Just use multiple platters like real hard drives and use lasers instead of magnetic read/write heads.Right now I have USB kits for ATA IDE hard drives to be used as external hard drives for my backups and sometimes I use DVD-R or CD-R disks for backup .
I am sure that a multi-platter fiber optic hard drive would at least make a great backup device.I also use cheap SD cards and USB flash drives for backup of smaller documents .
Mostly pictures that need to be developed in JPG format for photo developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use DVD RW technology with more advanced lasers and more advanced media.
I am sure that a fiber optic hard drive that uses rewritable media can be made cheaper than a solid state hard drive.
Just use multiple platters like real hard drives and use lasers instead of magnetic read/write heads.Right now I have USB kits for ATA IDE hard drives to be used as external hard drives for my backups and sometimes I use DVD-R or CD-R disks for backup.
I am sure that a multi-platter fiber optic hard drive would at least make a great backup device.I also use cheap SD cards and USB flash drives for backup of smaller documents.
Mostly pictures that need to be developed in JPG format for photo developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862265</id>
	<title>They are way underestimating.</title>
	<author>Jogar the Barbarian</author>
	<datestamp>1256405700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know where they're getting their numbers, but based on data I've been collecting for the past 5 years, theirs are way off. A 14 TB drive for $40 in 2020? My data says by 2020, $40 will buy you 342 TB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where they 're getting their numbers , but based on data I 've been collecting for the past 5 years , theirs are way off .
A 14 TB drive for $ 40 in 2020 ?
My data says by 2020 , $ 40 will buy you 342 TB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where they're getting their numbers, but based on data I've been collecting for the past 5 years, theirs are way off.
A 14 TB drive for $40 in 2020?
My data says by 2020, $40 will buy you 342 TB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861323</id>
	<title>in other news...</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1256394660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the 'Monkeys fly out of one's ass' association predicts that Monkeys flying out of one's ass will be the leading cause of Monkeys flying out of one's ass for the foreseeable future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 'Monkeys fly out of one 's ass ' association predicts that Monkeys flying out of one 's ass will be the leading cause of Monkeys flying out of one 's ass for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 'Monkeys fly out of one's ass' association predicts that Monkeys flying out of one's ass will be the leading cause of Monkeys flying out of one's ass for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860383</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not about to trust this one...</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1256384100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tri- and Quad-state MLC NAND is basically DOA. The reliability of Two-bit-per-cell NAND is plummeting with each litho revision as fewer and fewer electrons are available for noting the state. As it stands, they're piling on more and more ECC to account for the incredibly bad quality of NAND as it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tri- and Quad-state MLC NAND is basically DOA .
The reliability of Two-bit-per-cell NAND is plummeting with each litho revision as fewer and fewer electrons are available for noting the state .
As it stands , they 're piling on more and more ECC to account for the incredibly bad quality of NAND as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tri- and Quad-state MLC NAND is basically DOA.
The reliability of Two-bit-per-cell NAND is plummeting with each litho revision as fewer and fewer electrons are available for noting the state.
As it stands, they're piling on more and more ECC to account for the incredibly bad quality of NAND as it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859873</id>
	<title>Re:Speed vs Capacity</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1256380080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why choose only one storage option? I think I'll mix them, one for system performance and the other for storing my multimedia files, it's not like it needs much power if it is offline most of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why choose only one storage option ?
I think I 'll mix them , one for system performance and the other for storing my multimedia files , it 's not like it needs much power if it is offline most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why choose only one storage option?
I think I'll mix them, one for system performance and the other for storing my multimedia files, it's not like it needs much power if it is offline most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862181</id>
	<title>Re:Speed vs Capacity</title>
	<author>Skal Tura</author>
	<datestamp>1256404320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDDs won't always top on capacity.<br>Right now Intel's X25-M 80Gb costs 289$ according to newegg.</p><p>If moore's law hold true on SSDs aswell, like it should and has been for past, we are talking fast change here. As a thought:<br>1&#189;years, 80gb/145$<br>3years, 160gb/145$<br>4.5years 320gb<br>6years 640gb/145$ still<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or 320gb for ~73$ or 160gb for ~37$<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDDs wo n't always top on capacity.Right now Intel 's X25-M 80Gb costs 289 $ according to newegg.If moore 's law hold true on SSDs aswell , like it should and has been for past , we are talking fast change here .
As a thought : 1   years , 80gb/145 $ 3years , 160gb/145 $ 4.5years 320gb6years 640gb/145 $ still ... or 320gb for ~ 73 $ or 160gb for ~ 37 $ ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDDs won't always top on capacity.Right now Intel's X25-M 80Gb costs 289$ according to newegg.If moore's law hold true on SSDs aswell, like it should and has been for past, we are talking fast change here.
As a thought:1½years, 80gb/145$3years, 160gb/145$4.5years 320gb6years 640gb/145$ still ... or 320gb for ~73$ or 160gb for ~37$ ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863139</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1256465700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's 26 times the price. Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives. I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them. Some time after that, SSDs may even become cheaper, or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology. It just won't happen right away.</p></div></blockquote><p>Going by this website:<br><a href="http://lab-notes.blogspot.com/2007/05/historical-storage-prices-raw-data.html" title="blogspot.com">http://lab-notes.blogspot.com/2007/05/historical-storage-prices-raw-data.html</a> [blogspot.com]<br>and harddrive prices verified here: <a href="http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddiskdata.html" title="mattscomputertrends.com">http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddiskdata.html</a> [mattscomputertrends.com]</p><p>I took the sweetspot price of both HDD and flash for 2002:</p><p>A 128mb flash module cost $147 making it $1176 per GB.<br>A 60GB harddrive cost $275 making it $4.58 per GB.</p><p>$X/GB, the flash price was 256.8 times the price of hard drive.  So it dropped an entire order of a magnitude since then in 7 years.  Assuming everything goes along as in the past, that another magnitude of an order drop would occur by 2016/2017.  That would leave flash 2.5x that of a 3.5" HDD.  Of course, that would make it a comparable price for a higher-capacity 2.5" notebook, which is the size of all SSDs as well.</p><p>I don't think the wait will be until 2020.  There will always be desktop computers and servers.  But the growth market are small devices now.  Unlike a decade ago, a notebook can be the primary machine for a great many people without much performance penalty on normal tasks, and that's what many people are buying in lieu of a desktop machine.  The previous decade saw digital cameras, GPS systems, and iPods really grow the flash market, iPhone/smartphones are adding cellphones to that list.  Who knows what will be next?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 26 times the price .
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives .
I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them .
Some time after that , SSDs may even become cheaper , or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology .
It just wo n't happen right away.Going by this website : http : //lab-notes.blogspot.com/2007/05/historical-storage-prices-raw-data.html [ blogspot.com ] and harddrive prices verified here : http : //www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddiskdata.html [ mattscomputertrends.com ] I took the sweetspot price of both HDD and flash for 2002 : A 128mb flash module cost $ 147 making it $ 1176 per GB.A 60GB harddrive cost $ 275 making it $ 4.58 per GB. $ X/GB , the flash price was 256.8 times the price of hard drive .
So it dropped an entire order of a magnitude since then in 7 years .
Assuming everything goes along as in the past , that another magnitude of an order drop would occur by 2016/2017 .
That would leave flash 2.5x that of a 3.5 " HDD .
Of course , that would make it a comparable price for a higher-capacity 2.5 " notebook , which is the size of all SSDs as well.I do n't think the wait will be until 2020 .
There will always be desktop computers and servers .
But the growth market are small devices now .
Unlike a decade ago , a notebook can be the primary machine for a great many people without much performance penalty on normal tasks , and that 's what many people are buying in lieu of a desktop machine .
The previous decade saw digital cameras , GPS systems , and iPods really grow the flash market , iPhone/smartphones are adding cellphones to that list .
Who knows what will be next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 26 times the price.
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.
I am sure they will get so close that the price gap becomes less important than all the other features which separate them.
Some time after that, SSDs may even become cheaper, or both SSDs and hard drives will be supplanted by some other technology.
It just won't happen right away.Going by this website:http://lab-notes.blogspot.com/2007/05/historical-storage-prices-raw-data.html [blogspot.com]and harddrive prices verified here: http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddiskdata.html [mattscomputertrends.com]I took the sweetspot price of both HDD and flash for 2002:A 128mb flash module cost $147 making it $1176 per GB.A 60GB harddrive cost $275 making it $4.58 per GB.$X/GB, the flash price was 256.8 times the price of hard drive.
So it dropped an entire order of a magnitude since then in 7 years.
Assuming everything goes along as in the past, that another magnitude of an order drop would occur by 2016/2017.
That would leave flash 2.5x that of a 3.5" HDD.
Of course, that would make it a comparable price for a higher-capacity 2.5" notebook, which is the size of all SSDs as well.I don't think the wait will be until 2020.
There will always be desktop computers and servers.
But the growth market are small devices now.
Unlike a decade ago, a notebook can be the primary machine for a great many people without much performance penalty on normal tasks, and that's what many people are buying in lieu of a desktop machine.
The previous decade saw digital cameras, GPS systems, and iPods really grow the flash market, iPhone/smartphones are adding cellphones to that list.
Who knows what will be next?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859617</id>
	<title>Prediction eh</title>
	<author>xtal</author>
	<datestamp>1256378340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact a major , respected , industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</id>
	<title>Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>Saeger</author>
	<datestamp>1256380980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody with a clue has been arguing that SSD's would be cheaper per gigabyte than ye olde spinning-platter HDDs any time soon.</p><p>What we're seeing now, and will see much more of, is the hybrid approach of combining a small-ish (80GB) SSD for the most-accessed OS &amp; Apps, with a monsterously huge and relatively slow (array of) HDDs for bulk data archival and backup.</p><p>With HDD I/O still the single <b>biggest bottleneck</b> today, it makes sense to start transitioning to SSDs, but it doesn't have to be all at once. The premium for SSDs -- ~$2.50/GB SSD vs ~$0.10/GB HDD -- isn't that much, but it will probably pay for most to wait another year not just for prices to fall more, but for <i>all</i> SSDs to finally support TRIM, and have efficient firmware that competes with indilinx and intel's. SATA3 will also be welcome as current SSDs have already hit the SATA2 xfer limit.</p><p>(Oh, and please don't eat the "ZOMG SSDs have limited write-cycles!" FUD. In the vast majority of normal usage patterns, you'll never ever get close to hitting it, and even you did, the failure mode still allows you to READ your data off if you had no backup, as opposed to a HDD crash.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody with a clue has been arguing that SSD 's would be cheaper per gigabyte than ye olde spinning-platter HDDs any time soon.What we 're seeing now , and will see much more of , is the hybrid approach of combining a small-ish ( 80GB ) SSD for the most-accessed OS &amp; Apps , with a monsterously huge and relatively slow ( array of ) HDDs for bulk data archival and backup.With HDD I/O still the single biggest bottleneck today , it makes sense to start transitioning to SSDs , but it does n't have to be all at once .
The premium for SSDs -- ~ $ 2.50/GB SSD vs ~ $ 0.10/GB HDD -- is n't that much , but it will probably pay for most to wait another year not just for prices to fall more , but for all SSDs to finally support TRIM , and have efficient firmware that competes with indilinx and intel 's .
SATA3 will also be welcome as current SSDs have already hit the SATA2 xfer limit .
( Oh , and please do n't eat the " ZOMG SSDs have limited write-cycles !
" FUD .
In the vast majority of normal usage patterns , you 'll never ever get close to hitting it , and even you did , the failure mode still allows you to READ your data off if you had no backup , as opposed to a HDD crash .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody with a clue has been arguing that SSD's would be cheaper per gigabyte than ye olde spinning-platter HDDs any time soon.What we're seeing now, and will see much more of, is the hybrid approach of combining a small-ish (80GB) SSD for the most-accessed OS &amp; Apps, with a monsterously huge and relatively slow (array of) HDDs for bulk data archival and backup.With HDD I/O still the single biggest bottleneck today, it makes sense to start transitioning to SSDs, but it doesn't have to be all at once.
The premium for SSDs -- ~$2.50/GB SSD vs ~$0.10/GB HDD -- isn't that much, but it will probably pay for most to wait another year not just for prices to fall more, but for all SSDs to finally support TRIM, and have efficient firmware that competes with indilinx and intel's.
SATA3 will also be welcome as current SSDs have already hit the SATA2 xfer limit.
(Oh, and please don't eat the "ZOMG SSDs have limited write-cycles!
" FUD.
In the vast majority of normal usage patterns, you'll never ever get close to hitting it, and even you did, the failure mode still allows you to READ your data off if you had no backup, as opposed to a HDD crash.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860185</id>
	<title>Tagged Slavegate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why there won't be any cheap replacements for hard disk drives until 2020?  Could it be the fact Slavegate, the one making the claim, has and is actively trying to hinder the progress of all solid state based storage?  Personally, I thing Slavegate is doing this as a measure so they can continue to influence their sheep to buy Slavegate HDDs every year to replace a drive that had experienced a head crash.</p><p>"http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/15/1632232"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why there wo n't be any cheap replacements for hard disk drives until 2020 ?
Could it be the fact Slavegate , the one making the claim , has and is actively trying to hinder the progress of all solid state based storage ?
Personally , I thing Slavegate is doing this as a measure so they can continue to influence their sheep to buy Slavegate HDDs every year to replace a drive that had experienced a head crash .
" http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/04/15/1632232 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why there won't be any cheap replacements for hard disk drives until 2020?
Could it be the fact Slavegate, the one making the claim, has and is actively trying to hinder the progress of all solid state based storage?
Personally, I thing Slavegate is doing this as a measure so they can continue to influence their sheep to buy Slavegate HDDs every year to replace a drive that had experienced a head crash.
"http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/15/1632232"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859975</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256380800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing we haven't been working with solid state storage in digital cameras for 10+ years then. Or the RAID controller technology which could make them kick-ass fast. Sorry, but SSDs aren't revolutionary in that sense, they're taking two rather mainstream technologies combined with the same process improvement you see in CPU/GPU/RAM and coming to whoop ass in all performance oriented markets. I have an SSD as my primary disk and I'd say it's the biggest revolution since dual cores. Almost no matter what I do, the machine remains very responsive under heavy IO load completely unlike hard disks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing we have n't been working with solid state storage in digital cameras for 10 + years then .
Or the RAID controller technology which could make them kick-ass fast .
Sorry , but SSDs are n't revolutionary in that sense , they 're taking two rather mainstream technologies combined with the same process improvement you see in CPU/GPU/RAM and coming to whoop ass in all performance oriented markets .
I have an SSD as my primary disk and I 'd say it 's the biggest revolution since dual cores .
Almost no matter what I do , the machine remains very responsive under heavy IO load completely unlike hard disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing we haven't been working with solid state storage in digital cameras for 10+ years then.
Or the RAID controller technology which could make them kick-ass fast.
Sorry, but SSDs aren't revolutionary in that sense, they're taking two rather mainstream technologies combined with the same process improvement you see in CPU/GPU/RAM and coming to whoop ass in all performance oriented markets.
I have an SSD as my primary disk and I'd say it's the biggest revolution since dual cores.
Almost no matter what I do, the machine remains very responsive under heavy IO load completely unlike hard disks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861309</id>
	<title>Ignoring history again</title>
	<author>LootBag</author>
	<datestamp>1256394480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like somebody neglected to read The Innovator's Dilemma.

Flash drives do not need to become cheaper than hard drives, they simply need to represent enough value for a demographic who are willing to pay a premium for them. This is already happening.

There are many systems that do not need more storage space, but do require "lower power consumption, faster read access time, and better mechanical reliability". Builders of these kinds of systems will adopt the newer technology, won't care about the storage advantage of hard drives (it has no value for them), and will willingly pay the price premium for the desired features.

Anyone care to estimate the cost of a service call on a failed drive? When you factor in the labour (not just the cost to send somebody, but also the cost of having them not available to do something else), the cost of an upset customer (taking up time calling in to complain, having endless meetings about what went wrong, etc), the damage to your reputation (a tough thing to measure, but potentially very expensive), and so forth, the actual price of the drive itself is not a significant part of the equation. Solid state devices have always tended to have a reliability advantage over anything with moving parts, and people will pay a premium for reliability, especially where said reliability will reduce costs overall.

Hard drives also consume a lot of power, and in many cases aren't actually doing anything but sitting there spinning, since everything is happening in RAM. There are many PCs and servers out there that barely use their hard drive. It loads the relevant app into RAM, and it's job is done. Still, there it sits, spinning away, generating heat (that needs to be cooled), and eating power to no purpose. As the cost of electricity continues to climb, the long term costs of this may in fact prove the flash drive to be cheaper overall, despite the initial price difference.

Ignoring flash altogether, there are a whole host of new storage technologies being explored that will produce neither flash drives nor hard drives. While prognostication is always dangerous, it seems not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of these will become reality in the next decade, rendering both hard drives and flash drives obsolete.

Reading that article, I am left with the impression that those researchers give a strong impression of having their heads in the silicon . . . er . . . sand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like somebody neglected to read The Innovator 's Dilemma .
Flash drives do not need to become cheaper than hard drives , they simply need to represent enough value for a demographic who are willing to pay a premium for them .
This is already happening .
There are many systems that do not need more storage space , but do require " lower power consumption , faster read access time , and better mechanical reliability " .
Builders of these kinds of systems will adopt the newer technology , wo n't care about the storage advantage of hard drives ( it has no value for them ) , and will willingly pay the price premium for the desired features .
Anyone care to estimate the cost of a service call on a failed drive ?
When you factor in the labour ( not just the cost to send somebody , but also the cost of having them not available to do something else ) , the cost of an upset customer ( taking up time calling in to complain , having endless meetings about what went wrong , etc ) , the damage to your reputation ( a tough thing to measure , but potentially very expensive ) , and so forth , the actual price of the drive itself is not a significant part of the equation .
Solid state devices have always tended to have a reliability advantage over anything with moving parts , and people will pay a premium for reliability , especially where said reliability will reduce costs overall .
Hard drives also consume a lot of power , and in many cases are n't actually doing anything but sitting there spinning , since everything is happening in RAM .
There are many PCs and servers out there that barely use their hard drive .
It loads the relevant app into RAM , and it 's job is done .
Still , there it sits , spinning away , generating heat ( that needs to be cooled ) , and eating power to no purpose .
As the cost of electricity continues to climb , the long term costs of this may in fact prove the flash drive to be cheaper overall , despite the initial price difference .
Ignoring flash altogether , there are a whole host of new storage technologies being explored that will produce neither flash drives nor hard drives .
While prognostication is always dangerous , it seems not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of these will become reality in the next decade , rendering both hard drives and flash drives obsolete .
Reading that article , I am left with the impression that those researchers give a strong impression of having their heads in the silicon .
. .
er .
. .
sand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like somebody neglected to read The Innovator's Dilemma.
Flash drives do not need to become cheaper than hard drives, they simply need to represent enough value for a demographic who are willing to pay a premium for them.
This is already happening.
There are many systems that do not need more storage space, but do require "lower power consumption, faster read access time, and better mechanical reliability".
Builders of these kinds of systems will adopt the newer technology, won't care about the storage advantage of hard drives (it has no value for them), and will willingly pay the price premium for the desired features.
Anyone care to estimate the cost of a service call on a failed drive?
When you factor in the labour (not just the cost to send somebody, but also the cost of having them not available to do something else), the cost of an upset customer (taking up time calling in to complain, having endless meetings about what went wrong, etc), the damage to your reputation (a tough thing to measure, but potentially very expensive), and so forth, the actual price of the drive itself is not a significant part of the equation.
Solid state devices have always tended to have a reliability advantage over anything with moving parts, and people will pay a premium for reliability, especially where said reliability will reduce costs overall.
Hard drives also consume a lot of power, and in many cases aren't actually doing anything but sitting there spinning, since everything is happening in RAM.
There are many PCs and servers out there that barely use their hard drive.
It loads the relevant app into RAM, and it's job is done.
Still, there it sits, spinning away, generating heat (that needs to be cooled), and eating power to no purpose.
As the cost of electricity continues to climb, the long term costs of this may in fact prove the flash drive to be cheaper overall, despite the initial price difference.
Ignoring flash altogether, there are a whole host of new storage technologies being explored that will produce neither flash drives nor hard drives.
While prognostication is always dangerous, it seems not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of these will become reality in the next decade, rendering both hard drives and flash drives obsolete.
Reading that article, I am left with the impression that those researchers give a strong impression of having their heads in the silicon .
. .
er .
. .
sand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860909</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1256389380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the very definition of cheapest is "the cheapest solution that meets your needs".</p><p>Most of my machines are content with little more than enough storage to hold the OS and any data I am currently working with.  Beyond that I use a large file server for the bulk of my data.</p><p>So in my case, if I can buy a 2TB magnetic drive for $200, or for the same price buy a faster, quieter, lower power solid state drive I would opt for the latter.  In my case I am more concerned about price/transfer rate, price/power requirements, and price/noise level.</p><p>Finally, I never said that the "cloud" is the best place for data.  Only that more and more people are moving to low powered devices that do little more than access internet resources... which further reduces the needs of having large storage devices on their workstations.  Instead they want fast, quiet, low power, and portable storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the very definition of cheapest is " the cheapest solution that meets your needs " .Most of my machines are content with little more than enough storage to hold the OS and any data I am currently working with .
Beyond that I use a large file server for the bulk of my data.So in my case , if I can buy a 2TB magnetic drive for $ 200 , or for the same price buy a faster , quieter , lower power solid state drive I would opt for the latter .
In my case I am more concerned about price/transfer rate , price/power requirements , and price/noise level.Finally , I never said that the " cloud " is the best place for data .
Only that more and more people are moving to low powered devices that do little more than access internet resources... which further reduces the needs of having large storage devices on their workstations .
Instead they want fast , quiet , low power , and portable storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the very definition of cheapest is "the cheapest solution that meets your needs".Most of my machines are content with little more than enough storage to hold the OS and any data I am currently working with.
Beyond that I use a large file server for the bulk of my data.So in my case, if I can buy a 2TB magnetic drive for $200, or for the same price buy a faster, quieter, lower power solid state drive I would opt for the latter.
In my case I am more concerned about price/transfer rate, price/power requirements, and price/noise level.Finally, I never said that the "cloud" is the best place for data.
Only that more and more people are moving to low powered devices that do little more than access internet resources... which further reduces the needs of having large storage devices on their workstations.
Instead they want fast, quiet, low power, and portable storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29866869</id>
	<title>It used to be...</title>
	<author>AaronPSU777</author>
	<datestamp>1256462400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that flash memory was so expensive it was only viable for applications where you only needed a little bit of storage, like storing your contacts list in a cellphone.  Then it got to the point where it took over as the standard storage media for digital cameras and mp3 players, remember the microdrive? it's gone now, and hard drive based mp3 players are the exception not the rule these days.  Now flash is beginning to move into the consumer pc space.  This was first seen in cheap netbooks with 4-16gb ssds, but increasingly they are popping up as a high end option as well.  It's pretty clear that rotating media is on the way out.  I don't doubt that it will maintain it's cost/gigabyte advantage but it will likely be relegated to a role as low speed, infrequently accessed storage while ssds take over as the primary drive in laptops first and then desktops.  It's possible a tipping point could be reached both as the performance delta between rotating and solid state media increases and as software companies beginning writing programs to take advantage of ssds until eventually the performance of rotating media is so abysmal they are no longer used and software companied forget about them entirely.

It's important to note too that while rotating media has a cost/gigabyte advantage it cannot go below a certain price floor due to the inherent and unchanging costs involved in manufacturing a precision mechanical device.  For example the cheapest you can get a new 2.5" hdd these days is about 50 bucks, however even if a manufacturer were to make, say an 8 mb hdd it probably still wouldn't be much cheaper than that just due to the costs in making a magnetic disk, precision enclosure, bearings, etc.  However ssds can easily go below this price.  What this means is that ssds could potentially take over the low end of the pc market by offering cheap low capacity drives that hdd manufacturers are simply incapable of matching in price.

To better illustrate this lets look at the 64 Gb ssd, which is retailing for as little $150.  As a quick back of the envelope calculation let's say that the cost/gigabyte of flash memory drops by half every 18 months, and working from that number lets say the cost of our ssd drops by 40\% every 18 months.  In 3 years then a 64 Gb ssd will be selling for around $50, the same price as the cheapest hdd available.  In 3 years of course that low end hdd could very well be 500 gigabytes.  But there are plenty of users who would likely take the ssd for its performance advantage, and once the cost goes below $50 it will suddenly be the cheapest option available.  Keep in mind too that a 64 Gb ssd is perfectly capable of running Windows 7 with plenty of programs installed and some usable storage left over as well.  It's perfectly viable for a lot of users and would provide much better performance than any other option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that flash memory was so expensive it was only viable for applications where you only needed a little bit of storage , like storing your contacts list in a cellphone .
Then it got to the point where it took over as the standard storage media for digital cameras and mp3 players , remember the microdrive ?
it 's gone now , and hard drive based mp3 players are the exception not the rule these days .
Now flash is beginning to move into the consumer pc space .
This was first seen in cheap netbooks with 4-16gb ssds , but increasingly they are popping up as a high end option as well .
It 's pretty clear that rotating media is on the way out .
I do n't doubt that it will maintain it 's cost/gigabyte advantage but it will likely be relegated to a role as low speed , infrequently accessed storage while ssds take over as the primary drive in laptops first and then desktops .
It 's possible a tipping point could be reached both as the performance delta between rotating and solid state media increases and as software companies beginning writing programs to take advantage of ssds until eventually the performance of rotating media is so abysmal they are no longer used and software companied forget about them entirely .
It 's important to note too that while rotating media has a cost/gigabyte advantage it can not go below a certain price floor due to the inherent and unchanging costs involved in manufacturing a precision mechanical device .
For example the cheapest you can get a new 2.5 " hdd these days is about 50 bucks , however even if a manufacturer were to make , say an 8 mb hdd it probably still would n't be much cheaper than that just due to the costs in making a magnetic disk , precision enclosure , bearings , etc .
However ssds can easily go below this price .
What this means is that ssds could potentially take over the low end of the pc market by offering cheap low capacity drives that hdd manufacturers are simply incapable of matching in price .
To better illustrate this lets look at the 64 Gb ssd , which is retailing for as little $ 150 .
As a quick back of the envelope calculation let 's say that the cost/gigabyte of flash memory drops by half every 18 months , and working from that number lets say the cost of our ssd drops by 40 \ % every 18 months .
In 3 years then a 64 Gb ssd will be selling for around $ 50 , the same price as the cheapest hdd available .
In 3 years of course that low end hdd could very well be 500 gigabytes .
But there are plenty of users who would likely take the ssd for its performance advantage , and once the cost goes below $ 50 it will suddenly be the cheapest option available .
Keep in mind too that a 64 Gb ssd is perfectly capable of running Windows 7 with plenty of programs installed and some usable storage left over as well .
It 's perfectly viable for a lot of users and would provide much better performance than any other option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that flash memory was so expensive it was only viable for applications where you only needed a little bit of storage, like storing your contacts list in a cellphone.
Then it got to the point where it took over as the standard storage media for digital cameras and mp3 players, remember the microdrive?
it's gone now, and hard drive based mp3 players are the exception not the rule these days.
Now flash is beginning to move into the consumer pc space.
This was first seen in cheap netbooks with 4-16gb ssds, but increasingly they are popping up as a high end option as well.
It's pretty clear that rotating media is on the way out.
I don't doubt that it will maintain it's cost/gigabyte advantage but it will likely be relegated to a role as low speed, infrequently accessed storage while ssds take over as the primary drive in laptops first and then desktops.
It's possible a tipping point could be reached both as the performance delta between rotating and solid state media increases and as software companies beginning writing programs to take advantage of ssds until eventually the performance of rotating media is so abysmal they are no longer used and software companied forget about them entirely.
It's important to note too that while rotating media has a cost/gigabyte advantage it cannot go below a certain price floor due to the inherent and unchanging costs involved in manufacturing a precision mechanical device.
For example the cheapest you can get a new 2.5" hdd these days is about 50 bucks, however even if a manufacturer were to make, say an 8 mb hdd it probably still wouldn't be much cheaper than that just due to the costs in making a magnetic disk, precision enclosure, bearings, etc.
However ssds can easily go below this price.
What this means is that ssds could potentially take over the low end of the pc market by offering cheap low capacity drives that hdd manufacturers are simply incapable of matching in price.
To better illustrate this lets look at the 64 Gb ssd, which is retailing for as little $150.
As a quick back of the envelope calculation let's say that the cost/gigabyte of flash memory drops by half every 18 months, and working from that number lets say the cost of our ssd drops by 40\% every 18 months.
In 3 years then a 64 Gb ssd will be selling for around $50, the same price as the cheapest hdd available.
In 3 years of course that low end hdd could very well be 500 gigabytes.
But there are plenty of users who would likely take the ssd for its performance advantage, and once the cost goes below $50 it will suddenly be the cheapest option available.
Keep in mind too that a 64 Gb ssd is perfectly capable of running Windows 7 with plenty of programs installed and some usable storage left over as well.
It's perfectly viable for a lot of users and would provide much better performance than any other option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860695</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1256387220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not so sure about that.</p><p>Now what someone ought to do is get some historical data from pricewatch, and plot  log(price/gb) vs year for all the data points, get some trendlines from the scatter plot and determine the likely intercept year.</p><p>Someone did do a weak version of that a couple years ago, and guessed that the intercept would be fairly soon iirc.  Within the next couple of years even.</p><p>I don't know how accurate that estimate is, but I find suspicious that the 2020 estimate comes from a maker of hard drives...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so sure about that.Now what someone ought to do is get some historical data from pricewatch , and plot log ( price/gb ) vs year for all the data points , get some trendlines from the scatter plot and determine the likely intercept year.Someone did do a weak version of that a couple years ago , and guessed that the intercept would be fairly soon iirc .
Within the next couple of years even.I do n't know how accurate that estimate is , but I find suspicious that the 2020 estimate comes from a maker of hard drives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not so sure about that.Now what someone ought to do is get some historical data from pricewatch, and plot  log(price/gb) vs year for all the data points, get some trendlines from the scatter plot and determine the likely intercept year.Someone did do a weak version of that a couple years ago, and guessed that the intercept would be fairly soon iirc.
Within the next couple of years even.I don't know how accurate that estimate is, but I find suspicious that the 2020 estimate comes from a maker of hard drives...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859755</id>
	<title>Here's a Radical Idea:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256379300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy's absolutely right on this and there's nothing really to argue about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy 's absolutely right on this and there 's nothing really to argue about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy's absolutely right on this and there's nothing really to argue about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862263</id>
	<title>Re:Get both</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1256405700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FAIL.  You should not swap, period.   What is this "My Documents" directory you speak of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FAIL .
You should not swap , period .
What is this " My Documents " directory you speak of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAIL.
You should not swap, period.
What is this "My Documents" directory you speak of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256378520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because manufacturing techniques often take at least 10 years to become mainstream.   Even if someone invents something faster, smaller and more reliable than magnetic storage... you still have to conceive of a way to produce it in mass quantities to drive the price below that of established spinning disks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because manufacturing techniques often take at least 10 years to become mainstream .
Even if someone invents something faster , smaller and more reliable than magnetic storage... you still have to conceive of a way to produce it in mass quantities to drive the price below that of established spinning disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because manufacturing techniques often take at least 10 years to become mainstream.
Even if someone invents something faster, smaller and more reliable than magnetic storage... you still have to conceive of a way to produce it in mass quantities to drive the price below that of established spinning disks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860671</id>
	<title>Yes, well</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1256387040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard drives never beat magnetic tape in dollars per megabyte.  I guess that's why we still all use tape drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard drives never beat magnetic tape in dollars per megabyte .
I guess that 's why we still all use tape drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard drives never beat magnetic tape in dollars per megabyte.
I guess that's why we still all use tape drives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29876955</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1256549760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's at the high end.  But what if you only need 4GB?  A solid-state drive will run you about <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134514" title="newegg.com">$3.35/GB</a> [newegg.com].  Rotating media?  Can't do that -- the smallest you can get is an 80GB drive for <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136195" title="newegg.com">$35</a> [newegg.com], which works out to $8.75 per gigabyte of used storage.</p><p>(Before you object to my choice of solid-state drives, please note that the CompactFlash interface is parallel ATA with a smaller pin spacing, and adapters cost next to nothing.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's at the high end .
But what if you only need 4GB ?
A solid-state drive will run you about $ 3.35/GB [ newegg.com ] .
Rotating media ?
Ca n't do that -- the smallest you can get is an 80GB drive for $ 35 [ newegg.com ] , which works out to $ 8.75 per gigabyte of used storage .
( Before you object to my choice of solid-state drives , please note that the CompactFlash interface is parallel ATA with a smaller pin spacing , and adapters cost next to nothing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's at the high end.
But what if you only need 4GB?
A solid-state drive will run you about $3.35/GB [newegg.com].
Rotating media?
Can't do that -- the smallest you can get is an 80GB drive for $35 [newegg.com], which works out to $8.75 per gigabyte of used storage.
(Before you object to my choice of solid-state drives, please note that the CompactFlash interface is parallel ATA with a smaller pin spacing, and adapters cost next to nothing.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860345</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1256383800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure that decade-long safety deposit box data sequestration is exactly what the average user is looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that decade-long safety deposit box data sequestration is exactly what the average user is looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that decade-long safety deposit box data sequestration is exactly what the average user is looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860511</id>
	<title>Oh really? Could've fooled me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256385420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really? You can buy netbooks with SSD storage for under $200 now; last-gen netbooks are available for around $100. They have SSD. That is damn cheap.</p><p>No, we're not talking about 2Tb of storage at that price point. But most people, many geeks included, do not need or use that much storage. Most people have, at most, a gig or two of storage they want to preserve - and that's on the high end. Personally, I've been saving data for close to 15 years now (including quite a few ripped DVDs and CDs, audio and data ISOs), and 150G is still enough for me to create a complete backup.</p><p>SSDs of 8 or 16Gb are quite common now, and more than enough storage for most people's needs - including OS and applications. You can get a 16G OCZ SSD for $50 or so. I -think- that's about a third to a fourth less than they cost as little as a year ago.</p><p>No, those SSDs aren't cheaper per gig than a HDD, but they are more than enough capacity for most folks. I know several geeks who have gone all-SSD in their desktops and laptops, and only keep rotational media around for backup.</p><p>In other news, the promised high-density hard drives - the ones which were supposed to surpass tape density and be cheaper per megabyte - still are not here yet. Surprise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
You can buy netbooks with SSD storage for under $ 200 now ; last-gen netbooks are available for around $ 100 .
They have SSD .
That is damn cheap.No , we 're not talking about 2Tb of storage at that price point .
But most people , many geeks included , do not need or use that much storage .
Most people have , at most , a gig or two of storage they want to preserve - and that 's on the high end .
Personally , I 've been saving data for close to 15 years now ( including quite a few ripped DVDs and CDs , audio and data ISOs ) , and 150G is still enough for me to create a complete backup.SSDs of 8 or 16Gb are quite common now , and more than enough storage for most people 's needs - including OS and applications .
You can get a 16G OCZ SSD for $ 50 or so .
I -think- that 's about a third to a fourth less than they cost as little as a year ago.No , those SSDs are n't cheaper per gig than a HDD , but they are more than enough capacity for most folks .
I know several geeks who have gone all-SSD in their desktops and laptops , and only keep rotational media around for backup.In other news , the promised high-density hard drives - the ones which were supposed to surpass tape density and be cheaper per megabyte - still are not here yet .
Surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
You can buy netbooks with SSD storage for under $200 now; last-gen netbooks are available for around $100.
They have SSD.
That is damn cheap.No, we're not talking about 2Tb of storage at that price point.
But most people, many geeks included, do not need or use that much storage.
Most people have, at most, a gig or two of storage they want to preserve - and that's on the high end.
Personally, I've been saving data for close to 15 years now (including quite a few ripped DVDs and CDs, audio and data ISOs), and 150G is still enough for me to create a complete backup.SSDs of 8 or 16Gb are quite common now, and more than enough storage for most people's needs - including OS and applications.
You can get a 16G OCZ SSD for $50 or so.
I -think- that's about a third to a fourth less than they cost as little as a year ago.No, those SSDs aren't cheaper per gig than a HDD, but they are more than enough capacity for most folks.
I know several geeks who have gone all-SSD in their desktops and laptops, and only keep rotational media around for backup.In other news, the promised high-density hard drives - the ones which were supposed to surpass tape density and be cheaper per megabyte - still are not here yet.
Surprise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697</id>
	<title>I'm not about to trust this one...</title>
	<author>Suiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1256378880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, both Intel and OCZ have said that once they get to tri and quad-state MLC flash technology, prices should drop considerably by 2012.

I think Seagate just doesn't want to be relegated as a dying tech company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , both Intel and OCZ have said that once they get to tri and quad-state MLC flash technology , prices should drop considerably by 2012 .
I think Seagate just does n't want to be relegated as a dying tech company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, both Intel and OCZ have said that once they get to tri and quad-state MLC flash technology, prices should drop considerably by 2012.
I think Seagate just doesn't want to be relegated as a dying tech company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860139</id>
	<title>First` poOst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Save Linux from a overly morbid and 8ecruitment, but join in especially</htmltext>
<tokenext>Save Linux from a overly morbid and 8ecruitment , but join in especially</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save Linux from a overly morbid and 8ecruitment, but join in especially</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629</id>
	<title>Fragmentation</title>
	<author>Sumbius</author>
	<datestamp>1256378460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one, just like many others, prefer hard disks over solid-state because of their more predictable lifespan. Solid-state drives tend to slowly lose parts of their usable sections. Even though the good old hard disks tend to break easily, at least I can defragment them without slowly starting to damage the disk.  Yep, there are 2 different kinds of solid-state drives which handle this problem differently, but I still don't think the technology is matured enough yet. Perhaps in a few years.

As for the mini laptops and such, solid-state seems to be superior though. Many of the first mini laptops used solid-state, but now only very few have them. Why this direction of development?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one , just like many others , prefer hard disks over solid-state because of their more predictable lifespan .
Solid-state drives tend to slowly lose parts of their usable sections .
Even though the good old hard disks tend to break easily , at least I can defragment them without slowly starting to damage the disk .
Yep , there are 2 different kinds of solid-state drives which handle this problem differently , but I still do n't think the technology is matured enough yet .
Perhaps in a few years .
As for the mini laptops and such , solid-state seems to be superior though .
Many of the first mini laptops used solid-state , but now only very few have them .
Why this direction of development ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one, just like many others, prefer hard disks over solid-state because of their more predictable lifespan.
Solid-state drives tend to slowly lose parts of their usable sections.
Even though the good old hard disks tend to break easily, at least I can defragment them without slowly starting to damage the disk.
Yep, there are 2 different kinds of solid-state drives which handle this problem differently, but I still don't think the technology is matured enough yet.
Perhaps in a few years.
As for the mini laptops and such, solid-state seems to be superior though.
Many of the first mini laptops used solid-state, but now only very few have them.
Why this direction of development?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859605</id>
	<title>Define 'cheapest'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you mean 'lowest cost per GB' then you're probably right.  If you mean 'lowest cost per IOPS' then you're already wrong.  And if we're talking 'lowest cost for something of adequate capacity and a low power consumption for a laptop' then you're also probably wrong too.  When flash drives drop below about $1/GB (and it's already close) there will be little advantage in mechanical disks for most users.  It doesn't matter if the disk is bigger if you're only using 10\% of the capacity, and it's slower than the alternative and uses more power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you mean 'lowest cost per GB ' then you 're probably right .
If you mean 'lowest cost per IOPS ' then you 're already wrong .
And if we 're talking 'lowest cost for something of adequate capacity and a low power consumption for a laptop ' then you 're also probably wrong too .
When flash drives drop below about $ 1/GB ( and it 's already close ) there will be little advantage in mechanical disks for most users .
It does n't matter if the disk is bigger if you 're only using 10 \ % of the capacity , and it 's slower than the alternative and uses more power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you mean 'lowest cost per GB' then you're probably right.
If you mean 'lowest cost per IOPS' then you're already wrong.
And if we're talking 'lowest cost for something of adequate capacity and a low power consumption for a laptop' then you're also probably wrong too.
When flash drives drop below about $1/GB (and it's already close) there will be little advantage in mechanical disks for most users.
It doesn't matter if the disk is bigger if you're only using 10\% of the capacity, and it's slower than the alternative and uses more power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861375</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>FatherDale</author>
	<datestamp>1256395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it won't happen. Neither will non-Windows computers. Or 6 hour batteries. That's science fiction.
  --written from a 2.2 lb netbook running Ubuntu 9.10 on a 20gb SSD.
  --who pays people to write that crap?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it wo n't happen .
Neither will non-Windows computers .
Or 6 hour batteries .
That 's science fiction .
--written from a 2.2 lb netbook running Ubuntu 9.10 on a 20gb SSD .
--who pays people to write that crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it won't happen.
Neither will non-Windows computers.
Or 6 hour batteries.
That's science fiction.
--written from a 2.2 lb netbook running Ubuntu 9.10 on a 20gb SSD.
--who pays people to write that crap?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861211</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256392800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you'll never ever get close to hitting it</i></p><p>Tell that to my customers.  Soldering it to the MB seemed like a good idea at the time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll never ever get close to hitting itTell that to my customers .
Soldering it to the MB seemed like a good idea at the time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll never ever get close to hitting itTell that to my customers.
Soldering it to the MB seemed like a good idea at the time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860295</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh.... DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256383440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB. Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB. You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of <a href="http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode15.htm#6" title="ibras.dk" rel="nofollow">uncle ted from every side of your house</a> [ibras.dk] on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB .
Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB .
You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of uncle ted from every side of your house [ ibras.dk ] on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB.
Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB.
You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of uncle ted from every side of your house [ibras.dk] on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860999</id>
	<title>Cheapest on initial purchase != cheapest overall</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1256390460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSDs have a much longer lifespan, which means that they don't have to become cheaper than traditional drives, they just have to be cheap enough that when factoring in their lifespan, their extra cost is more than justified.</p><p>Also, because SSDs don't rely on moving parts, the fact that you can't lose one because your laptop took a bump on a subway or you tripped over your tower is another selling point - not only in terms of lower the odds of needing to replace the drive early (and therefore the cost you're paying per drive), but because if what you're storing on the drive is far more valuable than the device itself, you are very much willing to pay extra to lower the chances of a dead drive. Even if you make daily backups, losing say... a day's worth of freelance work is going to cost you a lot more than the cost of the drive.</p><p>With that in mind, I'd say even at double to triple the cost, they're worth it. Right now it's more like 10x, but but getting it down to 3x won't take more than a few years, even if getting it equal IS more of a 2020 thing - although I seriously question that number too. 6 years ago I bought a 1gb flash drive for something like $150. 1 year ago I bought a 16gb one for 30 bucks. If 5 years was enough to drop the cost per gigabyte 80-fold, and it's at a 10x multiplier now, I don't think it's going to be long at all before it gets equal, or damn close... and again, damn close is more than good enough with their much longer lifespan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSDs have a much longer lifespan , which means that they do n't have to become cheaper than traditional drives , they just have to be cheap enough that when factoring in their lifespan , their extra cost is more than justified.Also , because SSDs do n't rely on moving parts , the fact that you ca n't lose one because your laptop took a bump on a subway or you tripped over your tower is another selling point - not only in terms of lower the odds of needing to replace the drive early ( and therefore the cost you 're paying per drive ) , but because if what you 're storing on the drive is far more valuable than the device itself , you are very much willing to pay extra to lower the chances of a dead drive .
Even if you make daily backups , losing say... a day 's worth of freelance work is going to cost you a lot more than the cost of the drive.With that in mind , I 'd say even at double to triple the cost , they 're worth it .
Right now it 's more like 10x , but but getting it down to 3x wo n't take more than a few years , even if getting it equal IS more of a 2020 thing - although I seriously question that number too .
6 years ago I bought a 1gb flash drive for something like $ 150 .
1 year ago I bought a 16gb one for 30 bucks .
If 5 years was enough to drop the cost per gigabyte 80-fold , and it 's at a 10x multiplier now , I do n't think it 's going to be long at all before it gets equal , or damn close... and again , damn close is more than good enough with their much longer lifespan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSDs have a much longer lifespan, which means that they don't have to become cheaper than traditional drives, they just have to be cheap enough that when factoring in their lifespan, their extra cost is more than justified.Also, because SSDs don't rely on moving parts, the fact that you can't lose one because your laptop took a bump on a subway or you tripped over your tower is another selling point - not only in terms of lower the odds of needing to replace the drive early (and therefore the cost you're paying per drive), but because if what you're storing on the drive is far more valuable than the device itself, you are very much willing to pay extra to lower the chances of a dead drive.
Even if you make daily backups, losing say... a day's worth of freelance work is going to cost you a lot more than the cost of the drive.With that in mind, I'd say even at double to triple the cost, they're worth it.
Right now it's more like 10x, but but getting it down to 3x won't take more than a few years, even if getting it equal IS more of a 2020 thing - although I seriously question that number too.
6 years ago I bought a 1gb flash drive for something like $150.
1 year ago I bought a 16gb one for 30 bucks.
If 5 years was enough to drop the cost per gigabyte 80-fold, and it's at a 10x multiplier now, I don't think it's going to be long at all before it gets equal, or damn close... and again, damn close is more than good enough with their much longer lifespan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859911</id>
	<title>Re:Very old article</title>
	<author>Carra</author>
	<datestamp>1256380320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish we Europeans could buy it for that price. Closer to &euro;100 here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish we Europeans could buy it for that price .
Closer to    100 here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish we Europeans could buy it for that price.
Closer to €100 here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862613</id>
	<title>slightly misdleading lead...</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1256411040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes of course, if we are speaking of cheapest.  That doesn't mean there won't be faster and better available...I mean, right now portable storage is less that USD0.10/Gig - and dropping daily it seems.  Anyway, not so simple a proposition as nothing new until 2020.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes of course , if we are speaking of cheapest .
That does n't mean there wo n't be faster and better available...I mean , right now portable storage is less that USD0.10/Gig - and dropping daily it seems .
Anyway , not so simple a proposition as nothing new until 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes of course, if we are speaking of cheapest.
That doesn't mean there won't be faster and better available...I mean, right now portable storage is less that USD0.10/Gig - and dropping daily it seems.
Anyway, not so simple a proposition as nothing new until 2020.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862005</id>
	<title>Multistate flash has been three yrs away for 15 yr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solid state does not keep up with Moore's Law.  Magnetics are still passing it by.  That won't stop SSD's penetrating markets from the bottom.  Seagate really has to assume that they will stall out well before 2020 for SSD to catch up.  Personally I would be surprised to see magnetics stall out before solid state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solid state does not keep up with Moore 's Law .
Magnetics are still passing it by .
That wo n't stop SSD 's penetrating markets from the bottom .
Seagate really has to assume that they will stall out well before 2020 for SSD to catch up .
Personally I would be surprised to see magnetics stall out before solid state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solid state does not keep up with Moore's Law.
Magnetics are still passing it by.
That won't stop SSD's penetrating markets from the bottom.
Seagate really has to assume that they will stall out well before 2020 for SSD to catch up.
Personally I would be surprised to see magnetics stall out before solid state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29877905</id>
	<title>10,000 5 1/4 inch</title>
	<author>Cur8or</author>
	<datestamp>1256553540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>10,000 floppies might be cheaper, but not better.
By next dive is a SSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>10,000 floppies might be cheaper , but not better .
By next dive is a SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10,000 floppies might be cheaper, but not better.
By next dive is a SSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859847</id>
	<title>I predict...</title>
	<author>ProfMobius</author>
	<datestamp>1256379900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict that when the cheapest SDD will be around the same price as HDD, people will switch to SDD whatever the capacity is.
<p>I also predict the death of internet porn at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that when the cheapest SDD will be around the same price as HDD , people will switch to SDD whatever the capacity is .
I also predict the death of internet porn at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that when the cheapest SDD will be around the same price as HDD, people will switch to SDD whatever the capacity is.
I also predict the death of internet porn at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859823</id>
	<title>Re:Very old article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256379720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're going by Best Buy prices, not Newegg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going by Best Buy prices , not Newegg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going by Best Buy prices, not Newegg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613</id>
	<title>Speed vs Capacity</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1256378340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although flash memories have also become popular - with advantages such as lower power consumption, faster read access time, and better mechanical reliability than HDDs</p></div><p>So HDDs will still be tops in terms of capacity, but SSDs win in everything else. They're getting to the price range now that they're a viable replacement for high-end systems that don't need massive storage. I doubt I'll even have a HDD in the next system I build, SSDs provide enough capacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although flash memories have also become popular - with advantages such as lower power consumption , faster read access time , and better mechanical reliability than HDDsSo HDDs will still be tops in terms of capacity , but SSDs win in everything else .
They 're getting to the price range now that they 're a viable replacement for high-end systems that do n't need massive storage .
I doubt I 'll even have a HDD in the next system I build , SSDs provide enough capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although flash memories have also become popular - with advantages such as lower power consumption, faster read access time, and better mechanical reliability than HDDsSo HDDs will still be tops in terms of capacity, but SSDs win in everything else.
They're getting to the price range now that they're a viable replacement for high-end systems that don't need massive storage.
I doubt I'll even have a HDD in the next system I build, SSDs provide enough capacity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859995</id>
	<title>Futurama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256380980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There has always been and will always be a 22\% chance that 90\% of the time, 45\% of the people will only be correct 62\% of the time when attempting to predict the future to 100\% accuracy. Henceforth and seemingly only a partially untrue tautology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    There has always been and will always be a 22 \ % chance that 90 \ % of the time , 45 \ % of the people will only be correct 62 \ % of the time when attempting to predict the future to 100 \ % accuracy .
Henceforth and seemingly only a partially untrue tautology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    There has always been and will always be a 22\% chance that 90\% of the time, 45\% of the people will only be correct 62\% of the time when attempting to predict the future to 100\% accuracy.
Henceforth and seemingly only a partially untrue tautology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861939</id>
	<title>Re:Fragmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do not defragment an SSD. Ever. Not only does it potentially wear the disk out, it has no performance benefit anyway, and the idea that your files are now defragmented is an illusion anyway, since SSD controllers do not write files in contiguous blocks. Fragmentation hardly hurts SSDs at all, as long as you have decent read-ahead (which all current OSes do), and NCQ (which all current OSes and SSDs do).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not defragment an SSD .
Ever. Not only does it potentially wear the disk out , it has no performance benefit anyway , and the idea that your files are now defragmented is an illusion anyway , since SSD controllers do not write files in contiguous blocks .
Fragmentation hardly hurts SSDs at all , as long as you have decent read-ahead ( which all current OSes do ) , and NCQ ( which all current OSes and SSDs do ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not defragment an SSD.
Ever. Not only does it potentially wear the disk out, it has no performance benefit anyway, and the idea that your files are now defragmented is an illusion anyway, since SSD controllers do not write files in contiguous blocks.
Fragmentation hardly hurts SSDs at all, as long as you have decent read-ahead (which all current OSes do), and NCQ (which all current OSes and SSDs do).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649</id>
	<title>Very old article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>today, a typical 500 GB hard drive costs about $100</p></div><p>This article must be several years old. In present day, a 1TB hard drive costs about $80.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>October 23rd, 2009 By Lisa Zyga</p></div><p>Doh!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>today , a typical 500 GB hard drive costs about $ 100This article must be several years old .
In present day , a 1TB hard drive costs about $ 80.October 23rd , 2009 By Lisa ZygaDoh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>today, a typical 500 GB hard drive costs about $100This article must be several years old.
In present day, a 1TB hard drive costs about $80.October 23rd, 2009 By Lisa ZygaDoh!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859685</id>
	<title>ROFLMAO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right.<br>Obviously this dude has his head stuck in the sand.<br>Cheaper alternatives to hard disks will almost certainly be at hand by 2020. Probably by 2018, and possibly as soon as 2014.</p><p>Lack of insight might be the reason why he is the \_former\_ CTO of Seagate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right.Obviously this dude has his head stuck in the sand.Cheaper alternatives to hard disks will almost certainly be at hand by 2020 .
Probably by 2018 , and possibly as soon as 2014.Lack of insight might be the reason why he is the \ _former \ _ CTO of Seagate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right.Obviously this dude has his head stuck in the sand.Cheaper alternatives to hard disks will almost certainly be at hand by 2020.
Probably by 2018, and possibly as soon as 2014.Lack of insight might be the reason why he is the \_former\_ CTO of Seagate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859701</id>
	<title>Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people."</p><p>http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people .
" http : //joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people.
"http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29870859</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1256561280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know if it's just the shitty exchange rate here in the UK, but price-per-GB on SSD's has skyrocketed recently; about four months ago I paid &pound;230 for my 120GB OCZ Agility; the same drive is now on sale here for &pound;300. Other brands of SSD's show the same huge jumps (which is a shame as I'm waiting on 6Gbps SATA before I jump onto a new workstation) whereas everything else seems more or less static. Either the price of NAND has risen considerably, or demand is such that supply is low, or manufacturers have decided they can shaft us.</p><p>Still though, I'm not buying another spinning-rust hard drive unless I really need the space. Affordable SSD's are the most important thing to happen to storage this decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know if it 's just the shitty exchange rate here in the UK , but price-per-GB on SSD 's has skyrocketed recently ; about four months ago I paid   230 for my 120GB OCZ Agility ; the same drive is now on sale here for   300 .
Other brands of SSD 's show the same huge jumps ( which is a shame as I 'm waiting on 6Gbps SATA before I jump onto a new workstation ) whereas everything else seems more or less static .
Either the price of NAND has risen considerably , or demand is such that supply is low , or manufacturers have decided they can shaft us.Still though , I 'm not buying another spinning-rust hard drive unless I really need the space .
Affordable SSD 's are the most important thing to happen to storage this decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know if it's just the shitty exchange rate here in the UK, but price-per-GB on SSD's has skyrocketed recently; about four months ago I paid £230 for my 120GB OCZ Agility; the same drive is now on sale here for £300.
Other brands of SSD's show the same huge jumps (which is a shame as I'm waiting on 6Gbps SATA before I jump onto a new workstation) whereas everything else seems more or less static.
Either the price of NAND has risen considerably, or demand is such that supply is low, or manufacturers have decided they can shaft us.Still though, I'm not buying another spinning-rust hard drive unless I really need the space.
Affordable SSD's are the most important thing to happen to storage this decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863369</id>
	<title>Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1256470920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you are spinning a couple hundred TB of disk that is a *LOT* of money</p><p>Which is why file systems like GPFS are so cool, with their policy based allocation to different classes of disk pools, so I can write a policy like to force all my MP3's onto SATA for example like this</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* force MP3's and the like onto SATA storage forever */<br>RULE 'mp3' SET POOL 'sata'<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; WHERE LOWER(NAME) LIKE '\%.mp3' OR LOWER(NAME) LIKE '\%.m4a'</p><p>Or I can migrate files that have not been accessed for a some time of the fast disk onto the slow disk</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* migrate old files to SATA to keep the FC disks free */<br>RULE 'mig' MIGRATE FROM POOL 'system'<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; THRESHOLD(90,70) WEIGHT(weighting) TO POOL 'sata'</p><p>where the weighting factor is a marco that depends on last time accessed and file size. I can also reserve specific disks for metadata, and allocate those to the fastest disks for I/O I have.</p><p>I tell you all those ZFS fan boys have not the faintest clue how crap ZFS actually is for an allegedly all singing and dancing modern FS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you are spinning a couple hundred TB of disk that is a * LOT * of moneyWhich is why file systems like GPFS are so cool , with their policy based allocation to different classes of disk pools , so I can write a policy like to force all my MP3 's onto SATA for example like this / * force MP3 's and the like onto SATA storage forever * /RULE 'mp3 ' SET POOL 'sata '         WHERE LOWER ( NAME ) LIKE ' \ % .mp3 ' OR LOWER ( NAME ) LIKE ' \ % .m4a'Or I can migrate files that have not been accessed for a some time of the fast disk onto the slow disk / * migrate old files to SATA to keep the FC disks free * /RULE 'mig ' MIGRATE FROM POOL 'system '         THRESHOLD ( 90,70 ) WEIGHT ( weighting ) TO POOL 'sata'where the weighting factor is a marco that depends on last time accessed and file size .
I can also reserve specific disks for metadata , and allocate those to the fastest disks for I/O I have.I tell you all those ZFS fan boys have not the faintest clue how crap ZFS actually is for an allegedly all singing and dancing modern FS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you are spinning a couple hundred TB of disk that is a *LOT* of moneyWhich is why file systems like GPFS are so cool, with their policy based allocation to different classes of disk pools, so I can write a policy like to force all my MP3's onto SATA for example like this /* force MP3's and the like onto SATA storage forever */RULE 'mp3' SET POOL 'sata'
        WHERE LOWER(NAME) LIKE '\%.mp3' OR LOWER(NAME) LIKE '\%.m4a'Or I can migrate files that have not been accessed for a some time of the fast disk onto the slow disk /* migrate old files to SATA to keep the FC disks free */RULE 'mig' MIGRATE FROM POOL 'system'
        THRESHOLD(90,70) WEIGHT(weighting) TO POOL 'sata'where the weighting factor is a marco that depends on last time accessed and file size.
I can also reserve specific disks for metadata, and allocate those to the fastest disks for I/O I have.I tell you all those ZFS fan boys have not the faintest clue how crap ZFS actually is for an allegedly all singing and dancing modern FS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864699</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256487360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me it isn't cost, but size.  I can't get a big enough SSD to replace my current hard drives.  The biggest drive in my home is a 1TB so we're not talking a lot of space.  Most are 500GB or smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me it is n't cost , but size .
I ca n't get a big enough SSD to replace my current hard drives .
The biggest drive in my home is a 1TB so we 're not talking a lot of space .
Most are 500GB or smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me it isn't cost, but size.
I can't get a big enough SSD to replace my current hard drives.
The biggest drive in my home is a 1TB so we're not talking a lot of space.
Most are 500GB or smaller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860201</id>
	<title>To each his own.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDDs are still much better for data storage -- it's a mature technology which is quite reliable and won't be replaced any time soon.</p><p>However, SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooks, notebooks will follow: lower power consumption, less noise, immunity to bumps and shake make SSDs so attractive in that segment.</p><p>SSDs use on desktops is somewhat limited -- they are much better as a system disk because of fast IO times, but most users won't really care about that extra speedup.<br>Vendors might offer dual-disk configuration though where the OS is on SSD and user data -- on HDD. But that is rather something for power users, not for Joe the Plummers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDDs are still much better for data storage -- it 's a mature technology which is quite reliable and wo n't be replaced any time soon.However , SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooks , notebooks will follow : lower power consumption , less noise , immunity to bumps and shake make SSDs so attractive in that segment.SSDs use on desktops is somewhat limited -- they are much better as a system disk because of fast IO times , but most users wo n't really care about that extra speedup.Vendors might offer dual-disk configuration though where the OS is on SSD and user data -- on HDD .
But that is rather something for power users , not for Joe the Plummers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDDs are still much better for data storage -- it's a mature technology which is quite reliable and won't be replaced any time soon.However, SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooks, notebooks will follow: lower power consumption, less noise, immunity to bumps and shake make SSDs so attractive in that segment.SSDs use on desktops is somewhat limited -- they are much better as a system disk because of fast IO times, but most users won't really care about that extra speedup.Vendors might offer dual-disk configuration though where the OS is on SSD and user data -- on HDD.
But that is rather something for power users, not for Joe the Plummers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864131</id>
	<title>Look at small hard drives</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1256481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Flash is around $1.87 per GB while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB.<br> <br>That's 26 times the price. Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you look at 64-80G drives rather than the 1-1.5T sweet spot for HD prices, the SSDs are around 3-5 times the price. USB sticks are cheaper than any hard drive when you get down to 8-16G.<br> <br>Very soon, SSDs will be cheap enough that your choice is between a 100G SSD and a 1T HD at the same price. Unless you really need the space and using separate system and data drives would be too expensive, your computer will have an SSD. I'm fairly certain this is what we'll start seeing; every computer has an SSD with 64-128G space and those who need it add a 1T+ HD for videos and mp3s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is around $ 1.87 per GB while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB .
That 's 26 times the price .
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.If you look at 64-80G drives rather than the 1-1.5T sweet spot for HD prices , the SSDs are around 3-5 times the price .
USB sticks are cheaper than any hard drive when you get down to 8-16G .
Very soon , SSDs will be cheap enough that your choice is between a 100G SSD and a 1T HD at the same price .
Unless you really need the space and using separate system and data drives would be too expensive , your computer will have an SSD .
I 'm fairly certain this is what we 'll start seeing ; every computer has an SSD with 64-128G space and those who need it add a 1T + HD for videos and mp3s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is around $1.87 per GB while Hard drives are closer to 7c per GB.
That's 26 times the price.
Sure SSDs are getting cheaper every day but so are hard drives.If you look at 64-80G drives rather than the 1-1.5T sweet spot for HD prices, the SSDs are around 3-5 times the price.
USB sticks are cheaper than any hard drive when you get down to 8-16G.
Very soon, SSDs will be cheap enough that your choice is between a 100G SSD and a 1T HD at the same price.
Unless you really need the space and using separate system and data drives would be too expensive, your computer will have an SSD.
I'm fairly certain this is what we'll start seeing; every computer has an SSD with 64-128G space and those who need it add a 1T+ HD for videos and mp3s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862939</id>
	<title>I don't believe it for a minute</title>
	<author>bratwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256461620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe that. I think there will be a threshold effect driven by consumer demand. When the price threshold is reached that ordinary consumers will dig into their wallets, I think the pressure will be on solid-state drive makers to get the product out there and at the price the market demands. This is the kind of bogus/fud story that mfgrs float every once in awhile when they're feeling a little inadequate or under-prepared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe that .
I think there will be a threshold effect driven by consumer demand .
When the price threshold is reached that ordinary consumers will dig into their wallets , I think the pressure will be on solid-state drive makers to get the product out there and at the price the market demands .
This is the kind of bogus/fud story that mfgrs float every once in awhile when they 're feeling a little inadequate or under-prepared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe that.
I think there will be a threshold effect driven by consumer demand.
When the price threshold is reached that ordinary consumers will dig into their wallets, I think the pressure will be on solid-state drive makers to get the product out there and at the price the market demands.
This is the kind of bogus/fud story that mfgrs float every once in awhile when they're feeling a little inadequate or under-prepared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860109</id>
	<title>Re:Get both</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1256382000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full</p></div></blockquote><p>Bingo.  The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive.  You'd have a "C:" drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300+ GB cache for your 4TB disk.   Only unlike your RAM, it doesn't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD doesn't lose its contents.  This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache ' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it 's getting fullBingo .
The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive .
You 'd have a " C : " drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300 + GB cache for your 4TB disk .
Only unlike your RAM , it does n't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD does n't lose its contents .
This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting fullBingo.
The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive.
You'd have a "C:" drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300+ GB cache for your 4TB disk.
Only unlike your RAM, it doesn't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD doesn't lose its contents.
This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860851</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not about to trust this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256388900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And don't forget that Gates too claimed that 640 k memory should be enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget that Gates too claimed that 640 k memory should be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget that Gates too claimed that 640 k memory should be enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29895245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29876955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29866351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1831238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29870859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29895245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861303
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864131
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29864699
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29870859
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29876955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859975
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29862405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29866351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29863369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29860219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29861425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1831238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1831238.29859685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
