<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_158238</id>
	<title>Western Digital Launches First SSD</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267632060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Vigile writes <i>"The solid state disk market keeps getting more crowded, but the Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue SSD marks the first offering from a player that currently dominates the market of traditional spindle-based hard drives. It was a year ago this month that WD purchased SiliconSystems for $65m, a small, enterprise-level SSD vendor that developed its own storage controller.  Western Digital obviously made the move to prepare the company for the inevitable situation it finds itself in today: solid state has surpassed traditional media in performance and will likely soon become the mainstream storage choice for computers.  PC Perspective has put the first consumer-level SSD option from one of the kings of HDDs through the wringer and <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=878">found the drive to be a solid first offering</a>, with performance on par with the some of the better solutions in the market while not quite fast enough to take away the top seatings from Intel and others.  Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well."</i>
Hot Hardware ran their own series of tests, coming to a similar conclusion: "There is no question the SiliconEdge Blue doesn't light up the benchmarks like some of the more recent SSDs we've tested, but <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/WD-SiliconEdge-Blue-256GB-SSD-Review/">it's a solid product</a> from a well-respected brand name storage company."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vigile writes " The solid state disk market keeps getting more crowded , but the Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue SSD marks the first offering from a player that currently dominates the market of traditional spindle-based hard drives .
It was a year ago this month that WD purchased SiliconSystems for $ 65m , a small , enterprise-level SSD vendor that developed its own storage controller .
Western Digital obviously made the move to prepare the company for the inevitable situation it finds itself in today : solid state has surpassed traditional media in performance and will likely soon become the mainstream storage choice for computers .
PC Perspective has put the first consumer-level SSD option from one of the kings of HDDs through the wringer and found the drive to be a solid first offering , with performance on par with the some of the better solutions in the market while not quite fast enough to take away the top seatings from Intel and others .
Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall ; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well .
" Hot Hardware ran their own series of tests , coming to a similar conclusion : " There is no question the SiliconEdge Blue does n't light up the benchmarks like some of the more recent SSDs we 've tested , but it 's a solid product from a well-respected brand name storage company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vigile writes "The solid state disk market keeps getting more crowded, but the Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue SSD marks the first offering from a player that currently dominates the market of traditional spindle-based hard drives.
It was a year ago this month that WD purchased SiliconSystems for $65m, a small, enterprise-level SSD vendor that developed its own storage controller.
Western Digital obviously made the move to prepare the company for the inevitable situation it finds itself in today: solid state has surpassed traditional media in performance and will likely soon become the mainstream storage choice for computers.
PC Perspective has put the first consumer-level SSD option from one of the kings of HDDs through the wringer and found the drive to be a solid first offering, with performance on par with the some of the better solutions in the market while not quite fast enough to take away the top seatings from Intel and others.
Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well.
"
Hot Hardware ran their own series of tests, coming to a similar conclusion: "There is no question the SiliconEdge Blue doesn't light up the benchmarks like some of the more recent SSDs we've tested, but it's a solid product from a well-respected brand name storage company.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348588</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1267645200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I'm an SSD evangelist, I think they're great and probably the most important thing to happen to storage in at least the last decade.</p><p>I was also one of those people who held on to their CRT's for an age because, for me at the time, TFT's provided zero benefit to me. However, a few years later I've found some displays that didn't cost much more than their good quality CRT counterparts used to, as well as being much smaller, sharper and providing almost-as-good colour fidelity.</p><p>SSD's, on the other hand, provided immediate benefits to me as soon as I got my hands on one. Not having to wait for rotational disc latency and avoiding disc thrashing are both worth their weight in gold to me, and this goes double for enterprise stuff. Sure, it's great to have a laptop without a slow-ass drive, but with SSD's you can create a storage solution that'll outperform your 24U of short-stroked FC drives at, beleive it or not, a fraction of the cost. You even spend less time having to wrangle oracle and friends to get the most our of your hardware as you now have IOPS coming out of your ears, and more often than not you're limited by the interface rather than the array itself.</p><p>Spinning platters aren't going to disappear for a long time yet, especially where storage space is king, and for purely sequential reads/writes where hard discs give you much more storage for your money. But anything where random IO and low latency is important, SSD has been delivering immediate benefits that I think are worth the money - especially in the enterprise where random IO becomes <i>very</i> important. YMMV of course, but I've met alot of people who dismiss SSD out of hand despite never actually having used it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm an SSD evangelist , I think they 're great and probably the most important thing to happen to storage in at least the last decade.I was also one of those people who held on to their CRT 's for an age because , for me at the time , TFT 's provided zero benefit to me .
However , a few years later I 've found some displays that did n't cost much more than their good quality CRT counterparts used to , as well as being much smaller , sharper and providing almost-as-good colour fidelity.SSD 's , on the other hand , provided immediate benefits to me as soon as I got my hands on one .
Not having to wait for rotational disc latency and avoiding disc thrashing are both worth their weight in gold to me , and this goes double for enterprise stuff .
Sure , it 's great to have a laptop without a slow-ass drive , but with SSD 's you can create a storage solution that 'll outperform your 24U of short-stroked FC drives at , beleive it or not , a fraction of the cost .
You even spend less time having to wrangle oracle and friends to get the most our of your hardware as you now have IOPS coming out of your ears , and more often than not you 're limited by the interface rather than the array itself.Spinning platters are n't going to disappear for a long time yet , especially where storage space is king , and for purely sequential reads/writes where hard discs give you much more storage for your money .
But anything where random IO and low latency is important , SSD has been delivering immediate benefits that I think are worth the money - especially in the enterprise where random IO becomes very important .
YMMV of course , but I 've met alot of people who dismiss SSD out of hand despite never actually having used it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm an SSD evangelist, I think they're great and probably the most important thing to happen to storage in at least the last decade.I was also one of those people who held on to their CRT's for an age because, for me at the time, TFT's provided zero benefit to me.
However, a few years later I've found some displays that didn't cost much more than their good quality CRT counterparts used to, as well as being much smaller, sharper and providing almost-as-good colour fidelity.SSD's, on the other hand, provided immediate benefits to me as soon as I got my hands on one.
Not having to wait for rotational disc latency and avoiding disc thrashing are both worth their weight in gold to me, and this goes double for enterprise stuff.
Sure, it's great to have a laptop without a slow-ass drive, but with SSD's you can create a storage solution that'll outperform your 24U of short-stroked FC drives at, beleive it or not, a fraction of the cost.
You even spend less time having to wrangle oracle and friends to get the most our of your hardware as you now have IOPS coming out of your ears, and more often than not you're limited by the interface rather than the array itself.Spinning platters aren't going to disappear for a long time yet, especially where storage space is king, and for purely sequential reads/writes where hard discs give you much more storage for your money.
But anything where random IO and low latency is important, SSD has been delivering immediate benefits that I think are worth the money - especially in the enterprise where random IO becomes very important.
YMMV of course, but I've met alot of people who dismiss SSD out of hand despite never actually having used it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348972</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1267647300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been running tests with the little Intel 40G MLCs.  So far I am getting a durability run-rate of around 110TB (the drive is rated for ~40TB).  That is, I'll be able to do at least 100TB worth of writes to this particular SSD before it wears out.  That's actually quite a lot.  Intel's specifications are very conservative.</p><p>MLC flash has approximately a 10,000 cycle endurance.  It all comes down to two things:  (1) How good the drive software is at combining dynamic and static wear leveling algorithms and (2) How friendly the OS is in writing to the drive.  DragonFly's swapcache goes to great pains to generate large clustered writes to greatly reduce write amplification and write combining effects, and it seems to work very well.</p><p>Clearly the newer SSDs are doing a much, MUCH better job with the wear leveling than older SSDs did.  They are plenty good enough now for most applications.  Write endurance also scales linearly with drive size.  That is, the cells still have a 10,000 cycle endurance but there are more of them available.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been running tests with the little Intel 40G MLCs .
So far I am getting a durability run-rate of around 110TB ( the drive is rated for ~ 40TB ) .
That is , I 'll be able to do at least 100TB worth of writes to this particular SSD before it wears out .
That 's actually quite a lot .
Intel 's specifications are very conservative.MLC flash has approximately a 10,000 cycle endurance .
It all comes down to two things : ( 1 ) How good the drive software is at combining dynamic and static wear leveling algorithms and ( 2 ) How friendly the OS is in writing to the drive .
DragonFly 's swapcache goes to great pains to generate large clustered writes to greatly reduce write amplification and write combining effects , and it seems to work very well.Clearly the newer SSDs are doing a much , MUCH better job with the wear leveling than older SSDs did .
They are plenty good enough now for most applications .
Write endurance also scales linearly with drive size .
That is , the cells still have a 10,000 cycle endurance but there are more of them available.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been running tests with the little Intel 40G MLCs.
So far I am getting a durability run-rate of around 110TB (the drive is rated for ~40TB).
That is, I'll be able to do at least 100TB worth of writes to this particular SSD before it wears out.
That's actually quite a lot.
Intel's specifications are very conservative.MLC flash has approximately a 10,000 cycle endurance.
It all comes down to two things:  (1) How good the drive software is at combining dynamic and static wear leveling algorithms and (2) How friendly the OS is in writing to the drive.
DragonFly's swapcache goes to great pains to generate large clustered writes to greatly reduce write amplification and write combining effects, and it seems to work very well.Clearly the newer SSDs are doing a much, MUCH better job with the wear leveling than older SSDs did.
They are plenty good enough now for most applications.
Write endurance also scales linearly with drive size.
That is, the cells still have a 10,000 cycle endurance but there are more of them available.-Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356584</id>
	<title>What is your point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a simple deployment point of view the CRTs had no future.</p><p>At some point in my distinguished career I had to install networks comprising SUN SparcStations, the screens were massive CRTs weighting 20kg (40lb or thereabouts, fucking medieval measurement system).</p><p>When the newtorks comprised 5 machines the unpackaging was a midly inconveneince.</p><p>When the networks had 40 machines I had to go and buy a weight lifting belt to protect my back and my arms were shaking at the end due to the effort of moving those monstruosities around.</p><p>The simple fact that the new screens were more manageable increased productivity (lets forget all the other obvious advantages for now).</p><p>You inane comment makes it sound like if new technology is adopted in a whim for now good reason whatsoever....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a simple deployment point of view the CRTs had no future.At some point in my distinguished career I had to install networks comprising SUN SparcStations , the screens were massive CRTs weighting 20kg ( 40lb or thereabouts , fucking medieval measurement system ) .When the newtorks comprised 5 machines the unpackaging was a midly inconveneince.When the networks had 40 machines I had to go and buy a weight lifting belt to protect my back and my arms were shaking at the end due to the effort of moving those monstruosities around.The simple fact that the new screens were more manageable increased productivity ( lets forget all the other obvious advantages for now ) .You inane comment makes it sound like if new technology is adopted in a whim for now good reason whatsoever... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a simple deployment point of view the CRTs had no future.At some point in my distinguished career I had to install networks comprising SUN SparcStations, the screens were massive CRTs weighting 20kg (40lb or thereabouts, fucking medieval measurement system).When the newtorks comprised 5 machines the unpackaging was a midly inconveneince.When the networks had 40 machines I had to go and buy a weight lifting belt to protect my back and my arms were shaking at the end due to the effort of moving those monstruosities around.The simple fact that the new screens were more manageable increased productivity (lets forget all the other obvious advantages for now).You inane comment makes it sound like if new technology is adopted in a whim for now good reason whatsoever....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346858</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA<br>5 year service life writing 10.5GB per day for 64GB drive, 21GB per day for 128GB or 42.1GB per day for 256GB model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA5 year service life writing 10.5GB per day for 64GB drive , 21GB per day for 128GB or 42.1GB per day for 256GB model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA5 year service life writing 10.5GB per day for 64GB drive, 21GB per day for 128GB or 42.1GB per day for 256GB model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355946</id>
	<title>Re:Price / Perfomance Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the price is as predicted (128 GB @ $529), then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc</i> <br>
<br>
Unless that's an SLC drive at $529, it's already $200 more then the current price point for 128GB drives.  (Most 120-128GB drives are in the $350 range now.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the price is as predicted ( 128 GB @ $ 529 ) , then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc Unless that 's an SLC drive at $ 529 , it 's already $ 200 more then the current price point for 128GB drives .
( Most 120-128GB drives are in the $ 350 range now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the price is as predicted (128 GB @ $529), then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc 

Unless that's an SLC drive at $529, it's already $200 more then the current price point for 128GB drives.
(Most 120-128GB drives are in the $350 range now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347270</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1267639080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the OCZ Colossus.<br>120, 250, and 500 GB* versions.<br>And the best part is that it's in the good ol' 3.5" format.  No more bullshit converters.  No more having the casing take up almost as much volume as the innards.</p><p>And the performance is great.  260 MB/sec / 260 MB/sec.</p><p>*GB here refers to 1,000,000,000 bytes of wrongness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the OCZ Colossus.120 , 250 , and 500 GB * versions.And the best part is that it 's in the good ol ' 3.5 " format .
No more bullshit converters .
No more having the casing take up almost as much volume as the innards.And the performance is great .
260 MB/sec / 260 MB/sec .
* GB here refers to 1,000,000,000 bytes of wrongness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the OCZ Colossus.120, 250, and 500 GB* versions.And the best part is that it's in the good ol' 3.5" format.
No more bullshit converters.
No more having the casing take up almost as much volume as the innards.And the performance is great.
260 MB/sec / 260 MB/sec.
*GB here refers to 1,000,000,000 bytes of wrongness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346870</id>
	<title>SSD + HHD is where it's at - esp for portables...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's most exciting to me is to have a hybrid system with some small SSD on my system, say a 16GB or 32GB one for loading the OS and maintaining any paging info and maybe a few key apps like MS Office or Firefox. Then store my hundreds of gigs of movies and photos and music and what ever else on a 500GB platter.</p><p>Cost should be marginally more (maybe $50?) to implement but performance would rock, platter use would decrease, boot times would increase, etc.</p><p>Seems obvious....and I know a few homebrew and OEM options are out there for doing this but I'd like to see it standard on your average Macbook Pro or Dell laptop!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's most exciting to me is to have a hybrid system with some small SSD on my system , say a 16GB or 32GB one for loading the OS and maintaining any paging info and maybe a few key apps like MS Office or Firefox .
Then store my hundreds of gigs of movies and photos and music and what ever else on a 500GB platter.Cost should be marginally more ( maybe $ 50 ?
) to implement but performance would rock , platter use would decrease , boot times would increase , etc.Seems obvious....and I know a few homebrew and OEM options are out there for doing this but I 'd like to see it standard on your average Macbook Pro or Dell laptop !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's most exciting to me is to have a hybrid system with some small SSD on my system, say a 16GB or 32GB one for loading the OS and maintaining any paging info and maybe a few key apps like MS Office or Firefox.
Then store my hundreds of gigs of movies and photos and music and what ever else on a 500GB platter.Cost should be marginally more (maybe $50?
) to implement but performance would rock, platter use would decrease, boot times would increase, etc.Seems obvious....and I know a few homebrew and OEM options are out there for doing this but I'd like to see it standard on your average Macbook Pro or Dell laptop!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347794</id>
	<title>SSD</title>
	<author>imaque</author>
	<datestamp>1267641480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will they launch The Executor?  Those dang rebels are at it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will they launch The Executor ?
Those dang rebels are at it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will they launch The Executor?
Those dang rebels are at it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346676</id>
	<title>Price &amp; Performance</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1267636800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, I wouldn't worry about Price &amp; Performance yet. For all the talk we're still in the early adopter phase and it's only a matter of time before these things hit critical mass. Like the summary said: <b>Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I would n't worry about Price &amp; Performance yet .
For all the talk we 're still in the early adopter phase and it 's only a matter of time before these things hit critical mass .
Like the summary said : Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall ; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I wouldn't worry about Price &amp; Performance yet.
For all the talk we're still in the early adopter phase and it's only a matter of time before these things hit critical mass.
Like the summary said: Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349110</id>
	<title>western digital well respected?</title>
	<author>bobaferret</author>
	<datestamp>1267647900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm just showing my age here, but since when did western digital become known as "well respected". We used to dread seeing someone show-up with a WD drive, because you knew it was crap. Packard-Bell was the only major label truly cheap and evil enough to actually sell them.  I still avoid them like the plague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm just showing my age here , but since when did western digital become known as " well respected " .
We used to dread seeing someone show-up with a WD drive , because you knew it was crap .
Packard-Bell was the only major label truly cheap and evil enough to actually sell them .
I still avoid them like the plague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm just showing my age here, but since when did western digital become known as "well respected".
We used to dread seeing someone show-up with a WD drive, because you knew it was crap.
Packard-Bell was the only major label truly cheap and evil enough to actually sell them.
I still avoid them like the plague.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346782</id>
	<title>Disappointed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first read that as "Western Digital Launches First BSD"</p><p>I was wondering if was based on Free, Open or Net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first read that as " Western Digital Launches First BSD " I was wondering if was based on Free , Open or Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first read that as "Western Digital Launches First BSD"I was wondering if was based on Free, Open or Net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346708</id>
	<title>Not for sale yet.</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1267636920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, if it is, no one id talking about the cost, which is therefore presumably somewhat high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , if it is , no one id talking about the cost , which is therefore presumably somewhat high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, if it is, no one id talking about the cost, which is therefore presumably somewhat high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350752</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1267612380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked)</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, it won't meet your other requirements, but if all you wanted was a tough screen try an ASUS LS201 monitor... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAdku9YhSCI" title="youtube.com">how many LCD monitors do you know that resist crossbow fire</a> [youtube.com]?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>flimsy hardware ( barely touch any LCD screen and it 's fucked ) Well , it wo n't meet your other requirements , but if all you wanted was a tough screen try an ASUS LS201 monitor... how many LCD monitors do you know that resist crossbow fire [ youtube.com ] ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked)Well, it won't meet your other requirements, but if all you wanted was a tough screen try an ASUS LS201 monitor... how many LCD monitors do you know that resist crossbow fire [youtube.com]?
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349980</id>
	<title>What about memristors?</title>
	<author>Shark</author>
	<datestamp>1267608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't memristor storage ultimately be far denser and cheaper to manufacture?  I know they're not ready for mass market yet and I don't really expect that they should be.  But while an improvements on their mechanical counterparts, I find that SSDs so far are just another compromise.  Mind you, there would probably be similar drawbacks with memristor storage if not wear or capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't memristor storage ultimately be far denser and cheaper to manufacture ?
I know they 're not ready for mass market yet and I do n't really expect that they should be .
But while an improvements on their mechanical counterparts , I find that SSDs so far are just another compromise .
Mind you , there would probably be similar drawbacks with memristor storage if not wear or capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't memristor storage ultimately be far denser and cheaper to manufacture?
I know they're not ready for mass market yet and I don't really expect that they should be.
But while an improvements on their mechanical counterparts, I find that SSDs so far are just another compromise.
Mind you, there would probably be similar drawbacks with memristor storage if not wear or capacity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346744</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1267637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really wish prices dropped on these things. I know they have come a long way since they were first released, but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade, but the price per GB is still insane.</p></div></blockquote><p>Blame Moore's Law, really. After all, SSDs grow in space in accordance with Moore's Law (since doubling transistors doubles storage capacity - SLC or MLC flash). Spinning disk technology however has been growing at a far faster rate. And controller technology is improving, but there's still room for improvement. Especially since each new technology node requires new billion-dollar investments in new equipment, while I'm sure with the classical spinning disk a lot of parts get reused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish prices dropped on these things .
I know they have come a long way since they were first released , but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade , but the price per GB is still insane.Blame Moore 's Law , really .
After all , SSDs grow in space in accordance with Moore 's Law ( since doubling transistors doubles storage capacity - SLC or MLC flash ) .
Spinning disk technology however has been growing at a far faster rate .
And controller technology is improving , but there 's still room for improvement .
Especially since each new technology node requires new billion-dollar investments in new equipment , while I 'm sure with the classical spinning disk a lot of parts get reused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish prices dropped on these things.
I know they have come a long way since they were first released, but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade, but the price per GB is still insane.Blame Moore's Law, really.
After all, SSDs grow in space in accordance with Moore's Law (since doubling transistors doubles storage capacity - SLC or MLC flash).
Spinning disk technology however has been growing at a far faster rate.
And controller technology is improving, but there's still room for improvement.
Especially since each new technology node requires new billion-dollar investments in new equipment, while I'm sure with the classical spinning disk a lot of parts get reused.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</id>
	<title>Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346810</id>
	<title>It's a solid product</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1267637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pun not intended!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pun not intended !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pun not intended!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347116</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1267638480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get 500GB+ drives, but not from Intel.</p><p>On newegg, OCZ has a PCI-E SSD that has 500GB or (either 750GB or 1TB) of storage, and data transfer rates of 700MB/s +/- 100MB/s depending on read/write.</p><p>Of course, the $1k-$2k price tags might scare off most customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get 500GB + drives , but not from Intel.On newegg , OCZ has a PCI-E SSD that has 500GB or ( either 750GB or 1TB ) of storage , and data transfer rates of 700MB/s + /- 100MB/s depending on read/write.Of course , the $ 1k- $ 2k price tags might scare off most customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get 500GB+ drives, but not from Intel.On newegg, OCZ has a PCI-E SSD that has 500GB or (either 750GB or 1TB) of storage, and data transfer rates of 700MB/s +/- 100MB/s depending on read/write.Of course, the $1k-$2k price tags might scare off most customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347770</id>
	<title>Re:Price / Perfomance Question</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1267641360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Price / GB compared to performance == not so good.<br> <br>
I just bought a drive from Newegg.com.  They were selling the Dane-Elec repackaged Intel 80 GB drive (with a USB upgrade kit) for $150 -- under $2/GB.<br> <br>
It's a G1 Intel drive but it can do 35,000 read IOPS per second (only 3,300 write IOPS though).  Still much better random performance than anything other than the G2 Intel.<br> <br>
The linear performance of the Intel drives isn't so great (movie ripping / etc) but if you know you're doing linear work, storing the linear data files on a Velociraptor (or even a fast 7200 RPM drive) turns out to be way more effective $$$/GB for your budget than any SSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Price / GB compared to performance = = not so good .
I just bought a drive from Newegg.com .
They were selling the Dane-Elec repackaged Intel 80 GB drive ( with a USB upgrade kit ) for $ 150 -- under $ 2/GB .
It 's a G1 Intel drive but it can do 35,000 read IOPS per second ( only 3,300 write IOPS though ) .
Still much better random performance than anything other than the G2 Intel .
The linear performance of the Intel drives is n't so great ( movie ripping / etc ) but if you know you 're doing linear work , storing the linear data files on a Velociraptor ( or even a fast 7200 RPM drive ) turns out to be way more effective $ $ $ /GB for your budget than any SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price / GB compared to performance == not so good.
I just bought a drive from Newegg.com.
They were selling the Dane-Elec repackaged Intel 80 GB drive (with a USB upgrade kit) for $150 -- under $2/GB.
It's a G1 Intel drive but it can do 35,000 read IOPS per second (only 3,300 write IOPS though).
Still much better random performance than anything other than the G2 Intel.
The linear performance of the Intel drives isn't so great (movie ripping / etc) but if you know you're doing linear work, storing the linear data files on a Velociraptor (or even a fast 7200 RPM drive) turns out to be way more effective $$$/GB for your budget than any SSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347182</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267638720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough). It's the amount of space, period. (...) When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them.</p></div><p>Unlike mechanical drives which have a very clear sweet spot the SSD prices scale almost linearly with size. Actually I have no problems finding a <a href="http://old.prisguide.no/product.php?productId=119284&amp;cat\_id=9" title="prisguide.no">512GB SSD</a> [prisguide.no] in stock here in Norway. The downside is that it costs 1800$ with or 1450$ without VAT, exactly double what the 256GB version costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with SSDs is n't even the price per GB ( which is bad enough ) .
It 's the amount of space , period .
( ... ) When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes , then I 'll consider them.Unlike mechanical drives which have a very clear sweet spot the SSD prices scale almost linearly with size .
Actually I have no problems finding a 512GB SSD [ prisguide.no ] in stock here in Norway .
The downside is that it costs 1800 $ with or 1450 $ without VAT , exactly double what the 256GB version costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough).
It's the amount of space, period.
(...) When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them.Unlike mechanical drives which have a very clear sweet spot the SSD prices scale almost linearly with size.
Actually I have no problems finding a 512GB SSD [prisguide.no] in stock here in Norway.
The downside is that it costs 1800$ with or 1450$ without VAT, exactly double what the 256GB version costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346674</id>
	<title>Anandtech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anandtech pulls apart its random write performance in 3..2..1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anandtech pulls apart its random write performance in 3..2..1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anandtech pulls apart its random write performance in 3..2..1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348826</id>
	<title>Re:SSD + HHD is where it's at - esp for portables.</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1267646460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Already exists.  DragonFly + swapcache, with SSD configured swap (32G nominal on 32bit and 512G nominal on 64bit).  It works very nicely with a 40G Intel MLC drive.</p><p>Of course, you'd have to run DragonFly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).  heheh.  But that said I think most OSs have solutions.  There's ZIL for ZFS (Solaris, FreeBSD), I'm sure Linux has something, and Windows 7 has something.  The DragonFly solution is quite general purpose though and not tied to any particular filesystem.  We use it primarily for meta-data caching for the millions of inodes on our servers.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already exists .
DragonFly + swapcache , with SSD configured swap ( 32G nominal on 32bit and 512G nominal on 64bit ) .
It works very nicely with a 40G Intel MLC drive.Of course , you 'd have to run DragonFly : - ) .
heheh. But that said I think most OSs have solutions .
There 's ZIL for ZFS ( Solaris , FreeBSD ) , I 'm sure Linux has something , and Windows 7 has something .
The DragonFly solution is quite general purpose though and not tied to any particular filesystem .
We use it primarily for meta-data caching for the millions of inodes on our servers.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already exists.
DragonFly + swapcache, with SSD configured swap (32G nominal on 32bit and 512G nominal on 64bit).
It works very nicely with a 40G Intel MLC drive.Of course, you'd have to run DragonFly :-).
heheh.  But that said I think most OSs have solutions.
There's ZIL for ZFS (Solaris, FreeBSD), I'm sure Linux has something, and Windows 7 has something.
The DragonFly solution is quite general purpose though and not tied to any particular filesystem.
We use it primarily for meta-data caching for the millions of inodes on our servers.-Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355082</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267644780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion</p></div></blockquote><p>That really doesn't matter because you can't lose very many points from a single post.  It used to max out at 50 points before the numerical score display went away.  That's a lot of posts modded down before you lose all of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish I could leave off AC on this post , but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivionThat really does n't matter because you ca n't lose very many points from a single post .
It used to max out at 50 points before the numerical score display went away .
That 's a lot of posts modded down before you lose all of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivionThat really doesn't matter because you can't lose very many points from a single post.
It used to max out at 50 points before the numerical score display went away.
That's a lot of posts modded down before you lose all of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622</id>
	<title>Price / Perfomance Question</title>
	<author>quo\_vadis</author>
	<datestamp>1267636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3757" title="anandtech.com">Here is a link to the review of the disk over at anandtech</a> [anandtech.com]. Interestingly, it seems this drive will not be using one of the higher performance SSD controllers (Sandforce / Indilinx), so the performance should be worse than other competitors. If the price is as predicted (128 GB @ $529), then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a link to the review of the disk over at anandtech [ anandtech.com ] .
Interestingly , it seems this drive will not be using one of the higher performance SSD controllers ( Sandforce / Indilinx ) , so the performance should be worse than other competitors .
If the price is as predicted ( 128 GB @ $ 529 ) , then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a link to the review of the disk over at anandtech [anandtech.com].
Interestingly, it seems this drive will not be using one of the higher performance SSD controllers (Sandforce / Indilinx), so the performance should be worse than other competitors.
If the price is as predicted (128 GB @ $529), then this drive wont make much sense compared to faster drives from OCZ etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349262</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1267648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too.</p></div><p>Yes, there are multiple factors.  There's R&amp;D costs, the costs of retooling the factories, and the costs of retraining personnel.  I don't know about SSDs, but at least in the case of LCDs, there were also problems with defects in the factories.  Even if it was cheaper to produce a panel, there was a greater failure rate and they had to account for the cost of producing failed units.
</p><p>I mean, yes, these companies want to jack up the price as much as they can, but there is real competition in the market which I would guess would keep it somewhat honest.  There isn't really an SSD or LCD monopoly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale , the prices on SSD will come down too.Yes , there are multiple factors .
There 's R&amp;D costs , the costs of retooling the factories , and the costs of retraining personnel .
I do n't know about SSDs , but at least in the case of LCDs , there were also problems with defects in the factories .
Even if it was cheaper to produce a panel , there was a greater failure rate and they had to account for the cost of producing failed units .
I mean , yes , these companies want to jack up the price as much as they can , but there is real competition in the market which I would guess would keep it somewhat honest .
There is n't really an SSD or LCD monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too.Yes, there are multiple factors.
There's R&amp;D costs, the costs of retooling the factories, and the costs of retraining personnel.
I don't know about SSDs, but at least in the case of LCDs, there were also problems with defects in the factories.
Even if it was cheaper to produce a panel, there was a greater failure rate and they had to account for the cost of producing failed units.
I mean, yes, these companies want to jack up the price as much as they can, but there is real competition in the market which I would guess would keep it somewhat honest.
There isn't really an SSD or LCD monopoly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349238</id>
	<title>Innovator's Dilemma</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1267648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have recently been reading <i>The Innovator's Dilemma</i> which has quite a case study on the hard drive market and, in particular, disruptive innovations to the market.  If anybody else has read the book, I am wondering - does SSD really representing a disruptive innovation to the market?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have recently been reading The Innovator 's Dilemma which has quite a case study on the hard drive market and , in particular , disruptive innovations to the market .
If anybody else has read the book , I am wondering - does SSD really representing a disruptive innovation to the market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have recently been reading The Innovator's Dilemma which has quite a case study on the hard drive market and, in particular, disruptive innovations to the market.
If anybody else has read the book, I am wondering - does SSD really representing a disruptive innovation to the market?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348680</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>gelfling</author>
	<datestamp>1267645680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's probably true in the mid term. As soon as it does though some new marginally better and far more expensive technology will be touted as the next breakthrough. For LCD screens though there was really only one period of time where the prices dropped rapidly. It was about 2.5 years ago. Since then prices have been flat or nearly flat.</p><p>Have you ever considered why Netbooks are what they are? Why is it that 'regular' laptops of less than stellar performance can't cost $300 new? Because there's no point in them selling a unit at that price when they can give you half of that unit for the same price and you're happy to own one.</p><p>SSD's will be like that. 10 years ago we were looking into SSDs to handle extremely large DNS zone transfers. SSD's barely had the performance we needed. We wound up not getting them because of the absurd cost. Today SSDs are at the performance level of the highest performance SSA disk drives, of a few years ago. And clearly the performance ceiling for current technology is just about as high as it can go. Oh I guess someone will make 20,000rpm drives or 50,000 rpm drives or something like that but they won't be reliable and someone will have to reinvent persistent memory at bus I/O speeds. And THAT will be the 'new' gadget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's probably true in the mid term .
As soon as it does though some new marginally better and far more expensive technology will be touted as the next breakthrough .
For LCD screens though there was really only one period of time where the prices dropped rapidly .
It was about 2.5 years ago .
Since then prices have been flat or nearly flat.Have you ever considered why Netbooks are what they are ?
Why is it that 'regular ' laptops of less than stellar performance ca n't cost $ 300 new ?
Because there 's no point in them selling a unit at that price when they can give you half of that unit for the same price and you 're happy to own one.SSD 's will be like that .
10 years ago we were looking into SSDs to handle extremely large DNS zone transfers .
SSD 's barely had the performance we needed .
We wound up not getting them because of the absurd cost .
Today SSDs are at the performance level of the highest performance SSA disk drives , of a few years ago .
And clearly the performance ceiling for current technology is just about as high as it can go .
Oh I guess someone will make 20,000rpm drives or 50,000 rpm drives or something like that but they wo n't be reliable and someone will have to reinvent persistent memory at bus I/O speeds .
And THAT will be the 'new ' gadget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's probably true in the mid term.
As soon as it does though some new marginally better and far more expensive technology will be touted as the next breakthrough.
For LCD screens though there was really only one period of time where the prices dropped rapidly.
It was about 2.5 years ago.
Since then prices have been flat or nearly flat.Have you ever considered why Netbooks are what they are?
Why is it that 'regular' laptops of less than stellar performance can't cost $300 new?
Because there's no point in them selling a unit at that price when they can give you half of that unit for the same price and you're happy to own one.SSD's will be like that.
10 years ago we were looking into SSDs to handle extremely large DNS zone transfers.
SSD's barely had the performance we needed.
We wound up not getting them because of the absurd cost.
Today SSDs are at the performance level of the highest performance SSA disk drives, of a few years ago.
And clearly the performance ceiling for current technology is just about as high as it can go.
Oh I guess someone will make 20,000rpm drives or 50,000 rpm drives or something like that but they won't be reliable and someone will have to reinvent persistent memory at bus I/O speeds.
And THAT will be the 'new' gadget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31354816</id>
	<title>The real statistic</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1267641300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number that caught my eye the most was the 40gb write limit on the 256gb drive that gives the expected life of 5 years. If you use photoshop on large files for any extended period of time you will chew through that in a heartbeat. Sure I guess you could set your scratch disks to a good old platter based drive, but that's not so easy in a laptop for instance. Lets not even get into video editing or music recording. A lot of real world tasks that people use computers for (maybe even programming?) would wear down an SSD in a much faster time frame than 5 years. You notice that the numbers go WAAAAY down for the smaller drives. 10 gigs a day might seem like a fair amount, but if you hibernate your 2 gig laptop a few times, you've already gone through over half of that. I do a lot of printing from windows to a large format printer. Gigabytes of spool files in a day are pretty typical. I would destroy an SSD in less than 6 months. A friend of mine runs a recording studio. Even when using SCSI drives he still has to replace drives fairly regularly. I guess while you could argue that SSDs are more reliable (magnetic drives can be like russian roulette in a way), I just don't see them having the lifespan that I see out of older smaller drives. It seems like after 300gb, magnetic drives started becoming increasingly unreliable, especially the Seagate 1TB drives for instance. The reviews on newegg are always pretty revealing because the datacentre guys will always post reviews about buying a lot of say 20 and having half of them fail in 6 months. I love western digital drives, and i'm kind of happy to see them finally enter the consumer ssd market, but the costs really need to come down significantly. a hard drive is in reality 100x more complex to engineer than an ssd (at least that is my opinion), since the only challenges in an SSD are density and reliability. I just cannot see how costs won't be become pretty dirt cheap, though you gotta admit the densities they are pushing now are pretty impressive compared to the relative are they take up, especially when you compare it to the huge hard drives people used to use in the 70s-80s. Drives that at most held like 1 gigabyte. I think as long as they keep cranking out cheap, huge, magnetic drives for less than $100, it is going to take at least until you could say buy a 300-500gb SSD for $100, for the market to really take off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number that caught my eye the most was the 40gb write limit on the 256gb drive that gives the expected life of 5 years .
If you use photoshop on large files for any extended period of time you will chew through that in a heartbeat .
Sure I guess you could set your scratch disks to a good old platter based drive , but that 's not so easy in a laptop for instance .
Lets not even get into video editing or music recording .
A lot of real world tasks that people use computers for ( maybe even programming ?
) would wear down an SSD in a much faster time frame than 5 years .
You notice that the numbers go WAAAAY down for the smaller drives .
10 gigs a day might seem like a fair amount , but if you hibernate your 2 gig laptop a few times , you 've already gone through over half of that .
I do a lot of printing from windows to a large format printer .
Gigabytes of spool files in a day are pretty typical .
I would destroy an SSD in less than 6 months .
A friend of mine runs a recording studio .
Even when using SCSI drives he still has to replace drives fairly regularly .
I guess while you could argue that SSDs are more reliable ( magnetic drives can be like russian roulette in a way ) , I just do n't see them having the lifespan that I see out of older smaller drives .
It seems like after 300gb , magnetic drives started becoming increasingly unreliable , especially the Seagate 1TB drives for instance .
The reviews on newegg are always pretty revealing because the datacentre guys will always post reviews about buying a lot of say 20 and having half of them fail in 6 months .
I love western digital drives , and i 'm kind of happy to see them finally enter the consumer ssd market , but the costs really need to come down significantly .
a hard drive is in reality 100x more complex to engineer than an ssd ( at least that is my opinion ) , since the only challenges in an SSD are density and reliability .
I just can not see how costs wo n't be become pretty dirt cheap , though you got ta admit the densities they are pushing now are pretty impressive compared to the relative are they take up , especially when you compare it to the huge hard drives people used to use in the 70s-80s .
Drives that at most held like 1 gigabyte .
I think as long as they keep cranking out cheap , huge , magnetic drives for less than $ 100 , it is going to take at least until you could say buy a 300-500gb SSD for $ 100 , for the market to really take off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number that caught my eye the most was the 40gb write limit on the 256gb drive that gives the expected life of 5 years.
If you use photoshop on large files for any extended period of time you will chew through that in a heartbeat.
Sure I guess you could set your scratch disks to a good old platter based drive, but that's not so easy in a laptop for instance.
Lets not even get into video editing or music recording.
A lot of real world tasks that people use computers for (maybe even programming?
) would wear down an SSD in a much faster time frame than 5 years.
You notice that the numbers go WAAAAY down for the smaller drives.
10 gigs a day might seem like a fair amount, but if you hibernate your 2 gig laptop a few times, you've already gone through over half of that.
I do a lot of printing from windows to a large format printer.
Gigabytes of spool files in a day are pretty typical.
I would destroy an SSD in less than 6 months.
A friend of mine runs a recording studio.
Even when using SCSI drives he still has to replace drives fairly regularly.
I guess while you could argue that SSDs are more reliable (magnetic drives can be like russian roulette in a way), I just don't see them having the lifespan that I see out of older smaller drives.
It seems like after 300gb, magnetic drives started becoming increasingly unreliable, especially the Seagate 1TB drives for instance.
The reviews on newegg are always pretty revealing because the datacentre guys will always post reviews about buying a lot of say 20 and having half of them fail in 6 months.
I love western digital drives, and i'm kind of happy to see them finally enter the consumer ssd market, but the costs really need to come down significantly.
a hard drive is in reality 100x more complex to engineer than an ssd (at least that is my opinion), since the only challenges in an SSD are density and reliability.
I just cannot see how costs won't be become pretty dirt cheap, though you gotta admit the densities they are pushing now are pretty impressive compared to the relative are they take up, especially when you compare it to the huge hard drives people used to use in the 70s-80s.
Drives that at most held like 1 gigabyte.
I think as long as they keep cranking out cheap, huge, magnetic drives for less than $100, it is going to take at least until you could say buy a 300-500gb SSD for $100, for the market to really take off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346570</id>
	<title>Re:Prices have to go down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel is going to release products based on their 25nm manufacturing process in 4Q. Toshiba just doubled their flash density as well and products will start shipping soon. Next few years expect to see a huge explosion in SSD. Just like the late 1990's for hard drives</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel is going to release products based on their 25nm manufacturing process in 4Q .
Toshiba just doubled their flash density as well and products will start shipping soon .
Next few years expect to see a huge explosion in SSD .
Just like the late 1990 's for hard drives</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel is going to release products based on their 25nm manufacturing process in 4Q.
Toshiba just doubled their flash density as well and products will start shipping soon.
Next few years expect to see a huge explosion in SSD.
Just like the late 1990's for hard drives</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346548</id>
	<title>meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yet another meh performer from WD, But I am sure it going to cost about the same</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another meh performer from WD , But I am sure it going to cost about the same</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another meh performer from WD, But I am sure it going to cost about the same</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350890</id>
	<title>Space</title>
	<author>ajdowntown</author>
	<datestamp>1267612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am somewhat saddened by the title of this article.  I had thought that Western Digital was launching a new space station.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am somewhat saddened by the title of this article .
I had thought that Western Digital was launching a new space station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am somewhat saddened by the title of this article.
I had thought that Western Digital was launching a new space station.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347012</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>PhrostyMcByte</author>
	<datestamp>1267638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've been giving high MTBFs on these SSDs for a while, and have discussed how they achieve it (wear leveling) ad nauseam.  I don't think anyone has forgotten -- it's just not an important question any more for most people, because they've already got an answer that is good for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been giving high MTBFs on these SSDs for a while , and have discussed how they achieve it ( wear leveling ) ad nauseam .
I do n't think anyone has forgotten -- it 's just not an important question any more for most people , because they 've already got an answer that is good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been giving high MTBFs on these SSDs for a while, and have discussed how they achieve it (wear leveling) ad nauseam.
I don't think anyone has forgotten -- it's just not an important question any more for most people, because they've already got an answer that is good for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349302</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1267648860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked)</p></div> </blockquote><p>Then I must be terribly lucky, as my 19" Samsung has been dropped on the floor <i>twice</i> and it's working flawlessly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>flimsy hardware ( barely touch any LCD screen and it 's fucked ) Then I must be terribly lucky , as my 19 " Samsung has been dropped on the floor twice and it 's working flawlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked) Then I must be terribly lucky, as my 19" Samsung has been dropped on the floor twice and it's working flawlessly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349008</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>naplam33</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, a budget SSD of 40 gigs or so for OS and software would be perfect for many people. You can just buy a conventional spinning hard disk for the rest of your data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a budget SSD of 40 gigs or so for OS and software would be perfect for many people .
You can just buy a conventional spinning hard disk for the rest of your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a budget SSD of 40 gigs or so for OS and software would be perfect for many people.
You can just buy a conventional spinning hard disk for the rest of your data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</id>
	<title>Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't good replacements for mechanical HDs.  They require tons of background work to keep wear leveling working and I don't trust normal day to day use (rather than occasional like you have now with SSDs in netbooks and storage drives) won't wear the things down incredibly quick.</p><p>Plus every single one I've ever tried do not have significant overall performance increase.  Burst speed seems good but sustained and general use seems to be on par or even worse than standard mechanical drives, and writes are horribly slow.</p><p>But of course, since it's new and exciting and tons of attention are being focused on them, they will become standard despite their huge limitations, much like LCDs with their horrible motion tearing, flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked) and overdriven colors that just makes things look "shiny" to make people think they look better when they really don't.</p><p>But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.</p><p>I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion.  But I truly believe this and am just stunned to the point of near-frustration at the ignorance of the buying public lately who will buy any new pile of garbage as long as it's hyped to hell.  I mean, you have something like the worst piece of hardware ever that is KNOWN to fail eventually regardless (the XBox 360) and people are still buying the damn thing.  That's incredible consumer ignorance, and makes companies realize they can put any pile of garbage out and people will buy it as long as it's hyped to death, which is horribly wrong.</p><p>Get some sense, people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't good replacements for mechanical HDs .
They require tons of background work to keep wear leveling working and I do n't trust normal day to day use ( rather than occasional like you have now with SSDs in netbooks and storage drives ) wo n't wear the things down incredibly quick.Plus every single one I 've ever tried do not have significant overall performance increase .
Burst speed seems good but sustained and general use seems to be on par or even worse than standard mechanical drives , and writes are horribly slow.But of course , since it 's new and exciting and tons of attention are being focused on them , they will become standard despite their huge limitations , much like LCDs with their horrible motion tearing , flimsy hardware ( barely touch any LCD screen and it 's fucked ) and overdriven colors that just makes things look " shiny " to make people think they look better when they really do n't.But soon enough I wo n't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD , just like I ca n't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.I really wish I could leave off AC on this post , but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion .
But I truly believe this and am just stunned to the point of near-frustration at the ignorance of the buying public lately who will buy any new pile of garbage as long as it 's hyped to hell .
I mean , you have something like the worst piece of hardware ever that is KNOWN to fail eventually regardless ( the XBox 360 ) and people are still buying the damn thing .
That 's incredible consumer ignorance , and makes companies realize they can put any pile of garbage out and people will buy it as long as it 's hyped to death , which is horribly wrong.Get some sense , people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't good replacements for mechanical HDs.
They require tons of background work to keep wear leveling working and I don't trust normal day to day use (rather than occasional like you have now with SSDs in netbooks and storage drives) won't wear the things down incredibly quick.Plus every single one I've ever tried do not have significant overall performance increase.
Burst speed seems good but sustained and general use seems to be on par or even worse than standard mechanical drives, and writes are horribly slow.But of course, since it's new and exciting and tons of attention are being focused on them, they will become standard despite their huge limitations, much like LCDs with their horrible motion tearing, flimsy hardware (barely touch any LCD screen and it's fucked) and overdriven colors that just makes things look "shiny" to make people think they look better when they really don't.But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion.
But I truly believe this and am just stunned to the point of near-frustration at the ignorance of the buying public lately who will buy any new pile of garbage as long as it's hyped to hell.
I mean, you have something like the worst piece of hardware ever that is KNOWN to fail eventually regardless (the XBox 360) and people are still buying the damn thing.
That's incredible consumer ignorance, and makes companies realize they can put any pile of garbage out and people will buy it as long as it's hyped to death, which is horribly wrong.Get some sense, people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351274</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267614840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s you. Consumerist of the finest grade. Buying and buying. Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years (make that 2, realistically). Because you buy them anyway.</p><p>I won&rsquo;t be touching anything that even has something like thin kind of wear-out. Not with my data, which to me is more important than my life.</p><p>I have data losses. Even with backups, raids and all the fancy stuff. And I will never ever have a data loss again. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s you .
Consumerist of the finest grade .
Buying and buying .
Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years ( make that 2 , realistically ) .
Because you buy them anyway.I won    t be touching anything that even has something like thin kind of wear-out .
Not with my data , which to me is more important than my life.I have data losses .
Even with backups , raids and all the fancy stuff .
And I will never ever have a data loss again .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s you.
Consumerist of the finest grade.
Buying and buying.
Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years (make that 2, realistically).
Because you buy them anyway.I won’t be touching anything that even has something like thin kind of wear-out.
Not with my data, which to me is more important than my life.I have data losses.
Even with backups, raids and all the fancy stuff.
And I will never ever have a data loss again.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347338</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1267639320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any word about the write cycles limit?<br>That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.</p></div><p>I don't think anybody is forgetting anything.  With wear leveling and whatnot the MTBF is pretty comparable to that of a traditional HDD.  Especially given how quickly capacities are growing and how often drives get upgraded or replaced.</p><p>The odds of you burning out an SSD by hitting the write cycle limit before you want to replace it anyway are fairly slim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any word about the write cycles limit ? That 's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.I do n't think anybody is forgetting anything .
With wear leveling and whatnot the MTBF is pretty comparable to that of a traditional HDD .
Especially given how quickly capacities are growing and how often drives get upgraded or replaced.The odds of you burning out an SSD by hitting the write cycle limit before you want to replace it anyway are fairly slim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any word about the write cycles limit?That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.I don't think anybody is forgetting anything.
With wear leveling and whatnot the MTBF is pretty comparable to that of a traditional HDD.
Especially given how quickly capacities are growing and how often drives get upgraded or replaced.The odds of you burning out an SSD by hitting the write cycle limit before you want to replace it anyway are fairly slim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Intel M25 G2 is supposed to last 5 years assuming 20GB are written to it daily, which is pretty conservative. I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own now, so the problem of write cycle limit can be considered solved for all practical purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Intel M25 G2 is supposed to last 5 years assuming 20GB are written to it daily , which is pretty conservative .
I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own now , so the problem of write cycle limit can be considered solved for all practical purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Intel M25 G2 is supposed to last 5 years assuming 20GB are written to it daily, which is pretty conservative.
I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own now, so the problem of write cycle limit can be considered solved for all practical purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1267640880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in a few years, LCDs came down in price so quickly.  In 2002, I bought a *cheap* but decent quality 17" LCD monitor for $400.  In 2010 I can buy a comparble quality 24" monitor for around $225.  You can now buy a 46" HDTV for well under $1000 today.  You could NEVER buy a CRT of that size for so little.  And it was a rarity to see a CRT TV larger than 37" anywhere but in the wealthiest homes.</p><p>Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too.  Once are close enough in cost compared spinning magnetic media that their additional benefits outweight any cost advantage of spinning disks, HDDs will become obsolete, and the entire market will switch to SSD, and then they'll get even cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in a few years , LCDs came down in price so quickly .
In 2002 , I bought a * cheap * but decent quality 17 " LCD monitor for $ 400 .
In 2010 I can buy a comparble quality 24 " monitor for around $ 225 .
You can now buy a 46 " HDTV for well under $ 1000 today .
You could NEVER buy a CRT of that size for so little .
And it was a rarity to see a CRT TV larger than 37 " anywhere but in the wealthiest homes.Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale , the prices on SSD will come down too .
Once are close enough in cost compared spinning magnetic media that their additional benefits outweight any cost advantage of spinning disks , HDDs will become obsolete , and the entire market will switch to SSD , and then they 'll get even cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in a few years, LCDs came down in price so quickly.
In 2002, I bought a *cheap* but decent quality 17" LCD monitor for $400.
In 2010 I can buy a comparble quality 24" monitor for around $225.
You can now buy a 46" HDTV for well under $1000 today.
You could NEVER buy a CRT of that size for so little.
And it was a rarity to see a CRT TV larger than 37" anywhere but in the wealthiest homes.Once manufacturers recoup their R&amp;D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too.
Once are close enough in cost compared spinning magnetic media that their additional benefits outweight any cost advantage of spinning disks, HDDs will become obsolete, and the entire market will switch to SSD, and then they'll get even cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460</id>
	<title>Gah</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1267635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wish prices dropped on these things.  I know they have come a long way since they were first released, but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade, but the price per GB is still insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish prices dropped on these things .
I know they have come a long way since they were first released , but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade , but the price per GB is still insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish prices dropped on these things.
I know they have come a long way since they were first released, but still... my Dell Mini 9 hungers for a storage upgrade, but the price per GB is still insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352558</id>
	<title>I'd rather have reliable than fast</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267621140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subject line speaks for itself. It is far more important to me to have reliability than speed. This drive is still a lot faster than a platter drive, but is obviously a quality offering to boot.</p><p>Can't wait to try it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject line speaks for itself .
It is far more important to me to have reliability than speed .
This drive is still a lot faster than a platter drive , but is obviously a quality offering to boot.Ca n't wait to try it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject line speaks for itself.
It is far more important to me to have reliability than speed.
This drive is still a lot faster than a platter drive, but is obviously a quality offering to boot.Can't wait to try it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31361854</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Dr.Syshalt</author>
	<datestamp>1267693500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That&rsquo;s you. Consumerist of the finest grade. Buying and buying. Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years (make that 2, realistically). Because you buy them anyway.</p></div><p>You don't own a car, do you? You need to replace some parts every year, or even twice a year, if you use your car a lot. This is called "maintainance".<br> <br>
In 2-3 years you can get much faster drives then those we have today, you buy one of them and you toss out the old one. I like them always having the top performance, this saves my time which costs more than some HDD or SSD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s you .
Consumerist of the finest grade .
Buying and buying .
Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years ( make that 2 , realistically ) .
Because you buy them anyway.You do n't own a car , do you ?
You need to replace some parts every year , or even twice a year , if you use your car a lot .
This is called " maintainance " .
In 2-3 years you can get much faster drives then those we have today , you buy one of them and you toss out the old one .
I like them always having the top performance , this saves my time which costs more than some HDD or SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s you.
Consumerist of the finest grade.
Buying and buying.
Because old products break down after a ridiculous 5 years (make that 2, realistically).
Because you buy them anyway.You don't own a car, do you?
You need to replace some parts every year, or even twice a year, if you use your car a lot.
This is called "maintainance".
In 2-3 years you can get much faster drives then those we have today, you buy one of them and you toss out the old one.
I like them always having the top performance, this saves my time which costs more than some HDD or SSD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</id>
	<title>Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>gelfling</author>
	<datestamp>1267636680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy, the companies rolled out smaller flat panels. Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates. So of course they charged more for them.</p><p>Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free, the companies roll out smaller, and in some cases slower SSD's which are less expensive to make, cheaper to ship and over the long run (probably) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts. So of course they will charge more for them.</p><p>Everything old is new again. Wait and see companies that offer Netbooks with NO storage as an 'option' and then charge up the wazoo for a crappy sized SSD touted as 'premium'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy , the companies rolled out smaller flat panels .
Not only where they cheaper for them to make , they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates .
So of course they charged more for them.Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free , the companies roll out smaller , and in some cases slower SSD 's which are less expensive to make , cheaper to ship and over the long run ( probably ) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts .
So of course they will charge more for them.Everything old is new again .
Wait and see companies that offer Netbooks with NO storage as an 'option ' and then charge up the wazoo for a crappy sized SSD touted as 'premium' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy, the companies rolled out smaller flat panels.
Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates.
So of course they charged more for them.Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free, the companies roll out smaller, and in some cases slower SSD's which are less expensive to make, cheaper to ship and over the long run (probably) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts.
So of course they will charge more for them.Everything old is new again.
Wait and see companies that offer Netbooks with NO storage as an 'option' and then charge up the wazoo for a crappy sized SSD touted as 'premium'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347080</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel your pain with the CRTs. I had a 19" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution in the 90s. It took about 10 years to get LCDs with 1920x1200. But they are 24". Sure my desk is a bit thinner but the 3 years between my 19" CRT gonig tits up, and me being able to drop $500 on a decent 24" 1920x1200 monitor was PURE HELL.<br>
<br>
Althought I still think spinning metal discs will last. Only due to the total storage density of traditional HDD. It will take a long time for SSDs to fit 1.5TB into a drive bay, and not cost absurd amounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel your pain with the CRTs .
I had a 19 " monitor with 1600x1200 resolution in the 90s .
It took about 10 years to get LCDs with 1920x1200 .
But they are 24 " .
Sure my desk is a bit thinner but the 3 years between my 19 " CRT gonig tits up , and me being able to drop $ 500 on a decent 24 " 1920x1200 monitor was PURE HELL .
Althought I still think spinning metal discs will last .
Only due to the total storage density of traditional HDD .
It will take a long time for SSDs to fit 1.5TB into a drive bay , and not cost absurd amounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel your pain with the CRTs.
I had a 19" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution in the 90s.
It took about 10 years to get LCDs with 1920x1200.
But they are 24".
Sure my desk is a bit thinner but the 3 years between my 19" CRT gonig tits up, and me being able to drop $500 on a decent 24" 1920x1200 monitor was PURE HELL.
Althought I still think spinning metal discs will last.
Only due to the total storage density of traditional HDD.
It will take a long time for SSDs to fit 1.5TB into a drive bay, and not cost absurd amounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352604</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1267621560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p><div class="quote"><p>Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare;</p></div><p>I thought the same, until I installed Windows 7 on a 30GB SSD - you may not want to do this if you like to hibernate<br>and have a lot of RAM - and I haven't yet found a way to make Windows put the hibernate file on a different disk.</p><p>If anyone knows how this can be done, I'd be grateful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare ; I thought the same , until I installed Windows 7 on a 30GB SSD - you may not want to do this if you like to hibernateand have a lot of RAM - and I have n't yet found a way to make Windows put the hibernate file on a different disk.If anyone knows how this can be done , I 'd be grateful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare;I thought the same, until I installed Windows 7 on a 30GB SSD - you may not want to do this if you like to hibernateand have a lot of RAM - and I haven't yet found a way to make Windows put the hibernate file on a different disk.If anyone knows how this can be done, I'd be grateful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351988</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Gordo\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1267618260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, two things that most people don't even realize is that:</p><p>1. The 20Gb of writes per day for 5 years spec was the design goal. The Intel drives are believed to be almost an order of magnitude better than that (look it up at Anandtech).<br>2. When SSDs fail, they're designed to fail on the next write, so the worst thing that's likely to happen is that when it fails, you can read all of your data to a new drive. That's a completely different scenario from HDD failure, where you lose everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , two things that most people do n't even realize is that : 1 .
The 20Gb of writes per day for 5 years spec was the design goal .
The Intel drives are believed to be almost an order of magnitude better than that ( look it up at Anandtech ) .2 .
When SSDs fail , they 're designed to fail on the next write , so the worst thing that 's likely to happen is that when it fails , you can read all of your data to a new drive .
That 's a completely different scenario from HDD failure , where you lose everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, two things that most people don't even realize is that:1.
The 20Gb of writes per day for 5 years spec was the design goal.
The Intel drives are believed to be almost an order of magnitude better than that (look it up at Anandtech).2.
When SSDs fail, they're designed to fail on the next write, so the worst thing that's likely to happen is that when it fails, you can read all of your data to a new drive.
That's a completely different scenario from HDD failure, where you lose everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346694</id>
	<title>slashvertize much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is a blatant reprint of some corporate press release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a blatant reprint of some corporate press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a blatant reprint of some corporate press release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350560</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1267611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of what we will see (and, I'd argue, have started to see) in the transition is an increase in failure rates of the older devices (regardless of what's being advertised).</p><p>Shortly before LCDs became the 'default' option, maybe a year or so before, CRT quality dropped off pretty quickly. A lot more new ones were dying than would happen in previous years, and many places just said "fuck it, we're getting one of those new fangled LCDs for 2x as much" because they didn't want the big thing on their desk.</p><p>Fast forward to now: take a look at the reviews on the newer disks on a site like newegg.com. You've got a fairly high percentage of low-rating reviews, and certainly more than would be acceptable even a year or two ago for a product considered "purchasable".</p><p>So, that transition has already started. Except for very few people, the benefits of the larger capacity disks is negligible. Heck, I've got what I'd consider "a lot" of media compared to most people, and I'm not even 50\% on a raid1 array yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of what we will see ( and , I 'd argue , have started to see ) in the transition is an increase in failure rates of the older devices ( regardless of what 's being advertised ) .Shortly before LCDs became the 'default ' option , maybe a year or so before , CRT quality dropped off pretty quickly .
A lot more new ones were dying than would happen in previous years , and many places just said " fuck it , we 're getting one of those new fangled LCDs for 2x as much " because they did n't want the big thing on their desk.Fast forward to now : take a look at the reviews on the newer disks on a site like newegg.com .
You 've got a fairly high percentage of low-rating reviews , and certainly more than would be acceptable even a year or two ago for a product considered " purchasable " .So , that transition has already started .
Except for very few people , the benefits of the larger capacity disks is negligible .
Heck , I 've got what I 'd consider " a lot " of media compared to most people , and I 'm not even 50 \ % on a raid1 array yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of what we will see (and, I'd argue, have started to see) in the transition is an increase in failure rates of the older devices (regardless of what's being advertised).Shortly before LCDs became the 'default' option, maybe a year or so before, CRT quality dropped off pretty quickly.
A lot more new ones were dying than would happen in previous years, and many places just said "fuck it, we're getting one of those new fangled LCDs for 2x as much" because they didn't want the big thing on their desk.Fast forward to now: take a look at the reviews on the newer disks on a site like newegg.com.
You've got a fairly high percentage of low-rating reviews, and certainly more than would be acceptable even a year or two ago for a product considered "purchasable".So, that transition has already started.
Except for very few people, the benefits of the larger capacity disks is negligible.
Heck, I've got what I'd consider "a lot" of media compared to most people, and I'm not even 50\% on a raid1 array yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346606</id>
	<title>Mahmoedm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanx Y the best</p><p>Www.arbforce.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanx Y the bestWww.arbforce.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanx Y the bestWww.arbforce.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348732</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>shadowfaxcrx</author>
	<datestamp>1267645860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and we'll get off your lawn too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>The LCD/CRT thing had me pretty mad last year when one of my twin 19" NEC CRTs finally bit the dust. Finding a CRT proved impossible, so I finally ended up replacing them with twin Samsung Touch of Colors screens. I was very surprised at the image quality. It's a lot better now than it was when LCD started to take over. My monitors' refresh rates are actually better than the NECs' were. I don't see any ghosting even on very fast-moving games and videos.  And with dynamic contrast, the washed out black issues don't exist for me either.</p><p>What I'm getting at is that, compared to HDD technology right now, SSD still pretty much sucks.  But it will get better and eventually will outstrip HDD tech. And until then, we need the "ignorant public" who will "buy any new pile of garbage as long as it's hyped to hell" in order to provide the funding for the research that will make SSD something you and I want to buy as well.  Consider it a moron tax on the early adopters<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>HDDs have been around for 30 years. They've had a hell of a run, and it's not quite over yet, but the next generation is gearing up to replace them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and we 'll get off your lawn too ; ) The LCD/CRT thing had me pretty mad last year when one of my twin 19 " NEC CRTs finally bit the dust .
Finding a CRT proved impossible , so I finally ended up replacing them with twin Samsung Touch of Colors screens .
I was very surprised at the image quality .
It 's a lot better now than it was when LCD started to take over .
My monitors ' refresh rates are actually better than the NECs ' were .
I do n't see any ghosting even on very fast-moving games and videos .
And with dynamic contrast , the washed out black issues do n't exist for me either.What I 'm getting at is that , compared to HDD technology right now , SSD still pretty much sucks .
But it will get better and eventually will outstrip HDD tech .
And until then , we need the " ignorant public " who will " buy any new pile of garbage as long as it 's hyped to hell " in order to provide the funding for the research that will make SSD something you and I want to buy as well .
Consider it a moron tax on the early adopters ; ) HDDs have been around for 30 years .
They 've had a hell of a run , and it 's not quite over yet , but the next generation is gearing up to replace them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and we'll get off your lawn too ;)The LCD/CRT thing had me pretty mad last year when one of my twin 19" NEC CRTs finally bit the dust.
Finding a CRT proved impossible, so I finally ended up replacing them with twin Samsung Touch of Colors screens.
I was very surprised at the image quality.
It's a lot better now than it was when LCD started to take over.
My monitors' refresh rates are actually better than the NECs' were.
I don't see any ghosting even on very fast-moving games and videos.
And with dynamic contrast, the washed out black issues don't exist for me either.What I'm getting at is that, compared to HDD technology right now, SSD still pretty much sucks.
But it will get better and eventually will outstrip HDD tech.
And until then, we need the "ignorant public" who will "buy any new pile of garbage as long as it's hyped to hell" in order to provide the funding for the research that will make SSD something you and I want to buy as well.
Consider it a moron tax on the early adopters ;)HDDs have been around for 30 years.
They've had a hell of a run, and it's not quite over yet, but the next generation is gearing up to replace them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356266</id>
	<title>Re:mainstream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267702920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uhh... yeah.... except that even 0.75 TB to 1 decimal place IS 0.8 TB... unless you are a banker, that is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uhh... yeah.... except that even 0.75 TB to 1 decimal place IS 0.8 TB... unless you are a banker , that is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhh... yeah.... except that even 0.75 TB to 1 decimal place IS 0.8 TB... unless you are a banker, that is</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347532</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267640100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use multiple drives. SSD for OS and applications. HDD for bulk data storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use multiple drives .
SSD for OS and applications .
HDD for bulk data storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use multiple drives.
SSD for OS and applications.
HDD for bulk data storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346470</id>
	<title>Decent performance, strong sequential writes</title>
	<author>MojoKid</author>
	<datestamp>1267635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The drive shows pretty decent write performance actually, seen here:   <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/WD-SiliconEdge-Blue-256GB-SSD-Review/?page=6" title="hothardware.com">http://hothardware.com/Articles/WD-SiliconEdge-Blue-256GB-SSD-Review/?page=6</a> [hothardware.com]  but it falls down a little bit on small transfer sizes and high queue depths.  Still it's pretty much a decent offering for a client PC application so long as WD gets their price down a bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The drive shows pretty decent write performance actually , seen here : http : //hothardware.com/Articles/WD-SiliconEdge-Blue-256GB-SSD-Review/ ? page = 6 [ hothardware.com ] but it falls down a little bit on small transfer sizes and high queue depths .
Still it 's pretty much a decent offering for a client PC application so long as WD gets their price down a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drive shows pretty decent write performance actually, seen here:   http://hothardware.com/Articles/WD-SiliconEdge-Blue-256GB-SSD-Review/?page=6 [hothardware.com]  but it falls down a little bit on small transfer sizes and high queue depths.
Still it's pretty much a decent offering for a client PC application so long as WD gets their price down a bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350296</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who reported that Intel made the "best" SSDs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who reported that Intel made the " best " SSDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who reported that Intel made the "best" SSDs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350340</id>
	<title>Re:western digital well respected?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1267610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. I have watched WD go from cheap brand to respected brand. To answer your rhetorical question with a real answer: it happened over the last, say, five or six years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I have watched WD go from cheap brand to respected brand .
To answer your rhetorical question with a real answer : it happened over the last , say , five or six years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I have watched WD go from cheap brand to respected brand.
To answer your rhetorical question with a real answer: it happened over the last, say, five or six years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346884</id>
	<title>Re:Prices have to go down</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267637700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, it doesn't look like prices will go down much until Q4 when Intel get their next generation flash chips going. What is happening though is that many of the high-end controllers are massively increasing performance for a relatively small increase in price. For example my Vertex has about 10MB/s random 4k write on an unaligned partition, the Vertex LE is now doing 50MB/s. Random reads have gone from 35MB/s on my Vertex to almost 80MB/s on the latest Crucial C300s. So you may have to wait a bit longer, but the difference will be even more amazing when you switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it does n't look like prices will go down much until Q4 when Intel get their next generation flash chips going .
What is happening though is that many of the high-end controllers are massively increasing performance for a relatively small increase in price .
For example my Vertex has about 10MB/s random 4k write on an unaligned partition , the Vertex LE is now doing 50MB/s .
Random reads have gone from 35MB/s on my Vertex to almost 80MB/s on the latest Crucial C300s .
So you may have to wait a bit longer , but the difference will be even more amazing when you switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it doesn't look like prices will go down much until Q4 when Intel get their next generation flash chips going.
What is happening though is that many of the high-end controllers are massively increasing performance for a relatively small increase in price.
For example my Vertex has about 10MB/s random 4k write on an unaligned partition, the Vertex LE is now doing 50MB/s.
Random reads have gone from 35MB/s on my Vertex to almost 80MB/s on the latest Crucial C300s.
So you may have to wait a bit longer, but the difference will be even more amazing when you switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350480</id>
	<title>Who else?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267611300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well."</p></div></blockquote><p>Whaaaa?!</p><p>Unless I'm gravely mistaken, this debut makes WD the VERY LAST major player in the hard drive market to see the writing on the wall.</p><p>Samsung, Hitachi, Seagate, ALL have had SSDs on the market for some time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall ; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well. " Whaaaa ?
! Unless I 'm gravely mistaken , this debut makes WD the VERY LAST major player in the hard drive market to see the writing on the wall.Samsung , Hitachi , Seagate , ALL have had SSDs on the market for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western Digital has seen the writing on the wall; the only question is when the other players in the hard drive market will as well."Whaaaa?
!Unless I'm gravely mistaken, this debut makes WD the VERY LAST major player in the hard drive market to see the writing on the wall.Samsung, Hitachi, Seagate, ALL have had SSDs on the market for some time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349450</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1267649580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.</i>
</p><p>How could it be forgotten when it gets brough up <i>every single time SSDs are discussed</i> ?
</p><p>And, of course, <i>every single time</i> the same point is made that wear-levelling solved the problem years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting .
How could it be forgotten when it gets brough up every single time SSDs are discussed ?
And , of course , every single time the same point is made that wear-levelling solved the problem years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's one thing everyone seems to be forgetting.
How could it be forgotten when it gets brough up every single time SSDs are discussed ?
And, of course, every single time the same point is made that wear-levelling solved the problem years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348534</id>
	<title>Some of us get by fine on 20 GB hard drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us get by fine on 20 GB hard drives. Hard drives were that size ~10 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us get by fine on 20 GB hard drives .
Hard drives were that size ~ 10 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us get by fine on 20 GB hard drives.
Hard drives were that size ~10 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347400</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1267639560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy, the companies rolled out smaller flat panels. Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates. So of course they charged more for them.</p></div><p>And people happily paid the premium for large displays that didn't crush their desks.</p><p>And after a few years the prices came down, and now it's virtually unheard-of to buy a big ol' CRT unless you're doing some fancy graphics work.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free, the companies roll out smaller, and in some cases slower SSD's which are less expensive to make, cheaper to ship and over the long run (probably) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts. So of course they will charge more for them.</p></div><p>Similarly, people are happily paying the premium for faster drives that use less power and have fewer moving parts to break.</p><p>And after a few years the prices will come down and it'll be virtually unheard-of to buy a traditional HDD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy , the companies rolled out smaller flat panels .
Not only where they cheaper for them to make , they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates .
So of course they charged more for them.And people happily paid the premium for large displays that did n't crush their desks.And after a few years the prices came down , and now it 's virtually unheard-of to buy a big ol ' CRT unless you 're doing some fancy graphics work.Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free , the companies roll out smaller , and in some cases slower SSD 's which are less expensive to make , cheaper to ship and over the long run ( probably ) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts .
So of course they will charge more for them.Similarly , people are happily paying the premium for faster drives that use less power and have fewer moving parts to break.And after a few years the prices will come down and it 'll be virtually unheard-of to buy a traditional HDD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy, the companies rolled out smaller flat panels.
Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates.
So of course they charged more for them.And people happily paid the premium for large displays that didn't crush their desks.And after a few years the prices came down, and now it's virtually unheard-of to buy a big ol' CRT unless you're doing some fancy graphics work.Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free, the companies roll out smaller, and in some cases slower SSD's which are less expensive to make, cheaper to ship and over the long run (probably) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts.
So of course they will charge more for them.Similarly, people are happily paying the premium for faster drives that use less power and have fewer moving parts to break.And after a few years the prices will come down and it'll be virtually unheard-of to buy a traditional HDD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348348</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1267644060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have forgotten because with wear leveling its a fixed issue with most SSDs.  Its MTBF is on par with mechanical disks.</p><p>The new hotness is to make sure your OS and disk support TRIM so you dont have performance issues down the line.  I bought a 60gig OCZ drive a month or two ago and run Win7 on it (both support TRIM).  200+/mbs reads with no latency. Its pretty nice for gaming load times. I still have 2 500gig drives for storage.  Works great.  When the 120gig model goes on sale I'll switch to it and put the 60 in my laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have forgotten because with wear leveling its a fixed issue with most SSDs .
Its MTBF is on par with mechanical disks.The new hotness is to make sure your OS and disk support TRIM so you dont have performance issues down the line .
I bought a 60gig OCZ drive a month or two ago and run Win7 on it ( both support TRIM ) .
200 + /mbs reads with no latency .
Its pretty nice for gaming load times .
I still have 2 500gig drives for storage .
Works great .
When the 120gig model goes on sale I 'll switch to it and put the 60 in my laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have forgotten because with wear leveling its a fixed issue with most SSDs.
Its MTBF is on par with mechanical disks.The new hotness is to make sure your OS and disk support TRIM so you dont have performance issues down the line.
I bought a 60gig OCZ drive a month or two ago and run Win7 on it (both support TRIM).
200+/mbs reads with no latency.
Its pretty nice for gaming load times.
I still have 2 500gig drives for storage.
Works great.
When the 120gig model goes on sale I'll switch to it and put the 60 in my laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346520</id>
	<title>Core competency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>but it's a solid product  <i>from a well-respected brand name storage company."</i> </b></p><p>Even when the two technologies are completely different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it 's a solid product from a well-respected brand name storage company .
" Even when the two technologies are completely different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it's a solid product  from a well-respected brand name storage company.
" Even when the two technologies are completely different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352134</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>EndlessNameless</author>
	<datestamp>1267618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you ignoring the high-grade LCD monitors that graphics professionals prefer to CRTs? You can, in fact, pay more to get excellent visual quality. If you are willing to pay for quality, you too can use LCDs that produce perfect colors with even lighting and no motion tear. If you want to blather about the $100 crap LCDs, a fair comparison is the $100 CRTs that go pop after 6 months---not a high end Trinitron tube. Get real.</p><p>SSDs are not the end of reliable storage, LCDs are not the end of clear and accurate displays, and your nostalgic rant is not the least bit enlightening.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.</p></div><p>Just like you can't buy a goddamn real 5.25 floppy drive or a goddamn real cassette drive? Their successors had their growing pains, naturally, but eventually eclipsed the old technology on every meaningful metric.</p><p>It's called "information technology" for a reason. We find better ways of storing, manipulating, and transmitting information. If you have a fetish for magnetizing spinning aluminium and glass platters, that is a personal issue---but don't pretend it is the only way to store data and don't assume we won't find better ways of accomplishing the task.</p><p>The idea that we should always need or produce "goddamn real HDs" is profoundly backwards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you ignoring the high-grade LCD monitors that graphics professionals prefer to CRTs ?
You can , in fact , pay more to get excellent visual quality .
If you are willing to pay for quality , you too can use LCDs that produce perfect colors with even lighting and no motion tear .
If you want to blather about the $ 100 crap LCDs , a fair comparison is the $ 100 CRTs that go pop after 6 months---not a high end Trinitron tube .
Get real.SSDs are not the end of reliable storage , LCDs are not the end of clear and accurate displays , and your nostalgic rant is not the least bit enlightening.But soon enough I wo n't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD , just like I ca n't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.Just like you ca n't buy a goddamn real 5.25 floppy drive or a goddamn real cassette drive ?
Their successors had their growing pains , naturally , but eventually eclipsed the old technology on every meaningful metric.It 's called " information technology " for a reason .
We find better ways of storing , manipulating , and transmitting information .
If you have a fetish for magnetizing spinning aluminium and glass platters , that is a personal issue---but do n't pretend it is the only way to store data and do n't assume we wo n't find better ways of accomplishing the task.The idea that we should always need or produce " goddamn real HDs " is profoundly backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you ignoring the high-grade LCD monitors that graphics professionals prefer to CRTs?
You can, in fact, pay more to get excellent visual quality.
If you are willing to pay for quality, you too can use LCDs that produce perfect colors with even lighting and no motion tear.
If you want to blather about the $100 crap LCDs, a fair comparison is the $100 CRTs that go pop after 6 months---not a high end Trinitron tube.
Get real.SSDs are not the end of reliable storage, LCDs are not the end of clear and accurate displays, and your nostalgic rant is not the least bit enlightening.But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.Just like you can't buy a goddamn real 5.25 floppy drive or a goddamn real cassette drive?
Their successors had their growing pains, naturally, but eventually eclipsed the old technology on every meaningful metric.It's called "information technology" for a reason.
We find better ways of storing, manipulating, and transmitting information.
If you have a fetish for magnetizing spinning aluminium and glass platters, that is a personal issue---but don't pretend it is the only way to store data and don't assume we won't find better ways of accomplishing the task.The idea that we should always need or produce "goddamn real HDs" is profoundly backwards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346946</id>
	<title>Flat panel != LCD</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1267637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LCD displays are flat panel, but flat panel displays are not necessarily LCD.  I've had several very nice flat panel CRTs both at home and at work.  I have to say that for most activities, the LCD still causes less eyestrain.<p><div class="quote"><p>Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates. So of course they charged more for them.</p></div><p>Same with most anything else during the last twenty years.  I once investigated a 2.50 increase in a 16.00 phone bill due to a 'tax'.  It turned out the tax was 0.03 and that 2.47 was the maximum sum the phone company was allowed to charge for 'handling' the tax.  They do that because too many let them get away with it. It's even easier now that feedback mechanisms have been removed from most activities whether airport security theater or a simple, but broken, web shop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD displays are flat panel , but flat panel displays are not necessarily LCD .
I 've had several very nice flat panel CRTs both at home and at work .
I have to say that for most activities , the LCD still causes less eyestrain.Not only where they cheaper for them to make , they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates .
So of course they charged more for them.Same with most anything else during the last twenty years .
I once investigated a 2.50 increase in a 16.00 phone bill due to a 'tax' .
It turned out the tax was 0.03 and that 2.47 was the maximum sum the phone company was allowed to charge for 'handling ' the tax .
They do that because too many let them get away with it .
It 's even easier now that feedback mechanisms have been removed from most activities whether airport security theater or a simple , but broken , web shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD displays are flat panel, but flat panel displays are not necessarily LCD.
I've had several very nice flat panel CRTs both at home and at work.
I have to say that for most activities, the LCD still causes less eyestrain.Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates.
So of course they charged more for them.Same with most anything else during the last twenty years.
I once investigated a 2.50 increase in a 16.00 phone bill due to a 'tax'.
It turned out the tax was 0.03 and that 2.47 was the maximum sum the phone company was allowed to charge for 'handling' the tax.
They do that because too many let them get away with it.
It's even easier now that feedback mechanisms have been removed from most activities whether airport security theater or a simple, but broken, web shop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348446</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1267644600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is it seems SSDs and HDDs will never be close in cost, at least if you consider $/GB to be important. HDD manufacturers keep increasing the data density as fast, or faster, than the SDD manufacturers can.
<p>
The question is when will SSDs get cheap enough, or good enough, for most people. Honestly I have a bigger problem getting cheap (and large) enough backup storage. DVD-Rs are laughable and Bluray is still too expensive. Considering buying a backup HDD, but HDDs are not exactly small and portable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is it seems SSDs and HDDs will never be close in cost , at least if you consider $ /GB to be important .
HDD manufacturers keep increasing the data density as fast , or faster , than the SDD manufacturers can .
The question is when will SSDs get cheap enough , or good enough , for most people .
Honestly I have a bigger problem getting cheap ( and large ) enough backup storage .
DVD-Rs are laughable and Bluray is still too expensive .
Considering buying a backup HDD , but HDDs are not exactly small and portable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is it seems SSDs and HDDs will never be close in cost, at least if you consider $/GB to be important.
HDD manufacturers keep increasing the data density as fast, or faster, than the SDD manufacturers can.
The question is when will SSDs get cheap enough, or good enough, for most people.
Honestly I have a bigger problem getting cheap (and large) enough backup storage.
DVD-Rs are laughable and Bluray is still too expensive.
Considering buying a backup HDD, but HDDs are not exactly small and portable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31353446</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267628520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice thing about an SSD is that it's small and can handle the brunt of the big jobs that need speed.  So, I decided to replace my single 7200 RPM 3.5" drive with an SSD for the boot drive, and a 5400 RPM 2.5" drive for storage.  I will never go back to hard drives for the boot system, no matter how much space I need.  Mounted on a 3.5" adapter, both drives take up the same amount of space as a single 3.5" drive, and everything runs incredibly cool in near silence.  With the speed of the SSD for my main projects, the slow speed of the laptop hard drive is a non-issue.  SSDs really shine with fragmented files, anyway, so the big stuff like games and movies doesn't benefit from an SSD, anyway.  Even the games running off the laptop drive are damn fast with both drives running in tandem.</p><p>If you really need everything to look like it's running on one drive, just map a network drive or use file system links.  You can put the hard drives into RAID and map that, although that's a lot more trouble than I'd be willing to put up with.  I don't need that level of performance, and RAID isn't a backup solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about an SSD is that it 's small and can handle the brunt of the big jobs that need speed .
So , I decided to replace my single 7200 RPM 3.5 " drive with an SSD for the boot drive , and a 5400 RPM 2.5 " drive for storage .
I will never go back to hard drives for the boot system , no matter how much space I need .
Mounted on a 3.5 " adapter , both drives take up the same amount of space as a single 3.5 " drive , and everything runs incredibly cool in near silence .
With the speed of the SSD for my main projects , the slow speed of the laptop hard drive is a non-issue .
SSDs really shine with fragmented files , anyway , so the big stuff like games and movies does n't benefit from an SSD , anyway .
Even the games running off the laptop drive are damn fast with both drives running in tandem.If you really need everything to look like it 's running on one drive , just map a network drive or use file system links .
You can put the hard drives into RAID and map that , although that 's a lot more trouble than I 'd be willing to put up with .
I do n't need that level of performance , and RAID is n't a backup solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing about an SSD is that it's small and can handle the brunt of the big jobs that need speed.
So, I decided to replace my single 7200 RPM 3.5" drive with an SSD for the boot drive, and a 5400 RPM 2.5" drive for storage.
I will never go back to hard drives for the boot system, no matter how much space I need.
Mounted on a 3.5" adapter, both drives take up the same amount of space as a single 3.5" drive, and everything runs incredibly cool in near silence.
With the speed of the SSD for my main projects, the slow speed of the laptop hard drive is a non-issue.
SSDs really shine with fragmented files, anyway, so the big stuff like games and movies doesn't benefit from an SSD, anyway.
Even the games running off the laptop drive are damn fast with both drives running in tandem.If you really need everything to look like it's running on one drive, just map a network drive or use file system links.
You can put the hard drives into RAID and map that, although that's a lot more trouble than I'd be willing to put up with.
I don't need that level of performance, and RAID isn't a backup solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346922</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like this post.  Too bad it *won't* get the credit it deserves in the mod system (haha, right now it's at -1: Troll), but I'll weigh in (as AC of course) and say that I do agree, by and large, that the quality of electronic consumer goods is definitely sucking lately.</p><p>Other examples include:</p><p>- PC keyboards (I still have 80s-era IBM keyboards that work flawlessly)<br>- Audio equipment (can anyone say "iPod earbuds?" or "bad mp3 bitrates")<br>- Overreliance on lame fly-by-wire technologies (Toyota, etc)</p><p>Not to sound like a luddite, of course, but, c'mon people...</p><p>Oh, and if I'm gonna be -1 anyway:</p><p>- A monoculture computing milleu dominated by a monopoly where a single OS dominates the public's conception of what a computer should be able to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this post .
Too bad it * wo n't * get the credit it deserves in the mod system ( haha , right now it 's at -1 : Troll ) , but I 'll weigh in ( as AC of course ) and say that I do agree , by and large , that the quality of electronic consumer goods is definitely sucking lately.Other examples include : - PC keyboards ( I still have 80s-era IBM keyboards that work flawlessly ) - Audio equipment ( can anyone say " iPod earbuds ?
" or " bad mp3 bitrates " ) - Overreliance on lame fly-by-wire technologies ( Toyota , etc ) Not to sound like a luddite , of course , but , c'mon people...Oh , and if I 'm gon na be -1 anyway : - A monoculture computing milleu dominated by a monopoly where a single OS dominates the public 's conception of what a computer should be able to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this post.
Too bad it *won't* get the credit it deserves in the mod system (haha, right now it's at -1: Troll), but I'll weigh in (as AC of course) and say that I do agree, by and large, that the quality of electronic consumer goods is definitely sucking lately.Other examples include:- PC keyboards (I still have 80s-era IBM keyboards that work flawlessly)- Audio equipment (can anyone say "iPod earbuds?
" or "bad mp3 bitrates")- Overreliance on lame fly-by-wire technologies (Toyota, etc)Not to sound like a luddite, of course, but, c'mon people...Oh, and if I'm gonna be -1 anyway:- A monoculture computing milleu dominated by a monopoly where a single OS dominates the public's conception of what a computer should be able to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347608</id>
	<title>mainstream</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1267640580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you'll know SSD has gone mainstream when they do 512 GB + 256 GB = 0.8 TB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll know SSD has gone mainstream when they do 512 GB + 256 GB = 0.8 TB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll know SSD has gone mainstream when they do 512 GB + 256 GB = 0.8 TB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468</id>
	<title>Prices have to go down</title>
	<author>oycob</author>
	<datestamp>1267635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want lower prices on good SSD units. How long do I have to wait?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want lower prices on good SSD units .
How long do I have to wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want lower prices on good SSD units.
How long do I have to wait?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348226</id>
	<title>always going to be 20x magnetic</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267643580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When its 50 cents a gig, magnetic will be 3 cents a gig.
Both are dropping like a rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When its 50 cents a gig , magnetic will be 3 cents a gig .
Both are dropping like a rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When its 50 cents a gig, magnetic will be 3 cents a gig.
Both are dropping like a rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352908</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>IronHalik</author>
	<datestamp>1267623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting aside $ per GB (matter of time):</p><p>There already are 500 GB SSD drives - OCZ colossus.<br>160 GB, IMHO is more then enough for apps/OS (and thats what SSDs are great for considering their pros/cons)<br>Nobody forbids you to use HDDs for mass storage (with large files and decent sequential speeds of HDDs it all works nicely)</p><p>In the end, the only problem is the price. With improvement to technological process, popularization and popular demand rising we may hope for them to drop soon.<br>I would compare it to flash drives beating DVDs - DVDs are great way to store something cheaply and pretty reliably. But for day to day use - moving presentation files, large data files and one-time-OS-install-use, flash sticks win for me. I've even disconnected my failing DVD burner and bought 8GB stick to replace it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting aside $ per GB ( matter of time ) : There already are 500 GB SSD drives - OCZ colossus.160 GB , IMHO is more then enough for apps/OS ( and thats what SSDs are great for considering their pros/cons ) Nobody forbids you to use HDDs for mass storage ( with large files and decent sequential speeds of HDDs it all works nicely ) In the end , the only problem is the price .
With improvement to technological process , popularization and popular demand rising we may hope for them to drop soon.I would compare it to flash drives beating DVDs - DVDs are great way to store something cheaply and pretty reliably .
But for day to day use - moving presentation files , large data files and one-time-OS-install-use , flash sticks win for me .
I 've even disconnected my failing DVD burner and bought 8GB stick to replace it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting aside $ per GB (matter of time):There already are 500 GB SSD drives - OCZ colossus.160 GB, IMHO is more then enough for apps/OS (and thats what SSDs are great for considering their pros/cons)Nobody forbids you to use HDDs for mass storage (with large files and decent sequential speeds of HDDs it all works nicely)In the end, the only problem is the price.
With improvement to technological process, popularization and popular demand rising we may hope for them to drop soon.I would compare it to flash drives beating DVDs - DVDs are great way to store something cheaply and pretty reliably.
But for day to day use - moving presentation files, large data files and one-time-OS-install-use, flash sticks win for me.
I've even disconnected my failing DVD burner and bought 8GB stick to replace it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351518</id>
	<title>Re:Any word about the write cycles limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267616040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own now</p></div></blockquote><p>Why on earth would you not use anything as young as 5 years? I'm typing this on a 2002 Thinkpad T32, works fine. The machine is surrounded by a few 1999 Virgin Webplayers which I'm working on, they work fine as well. The newest piece of computing hardware here is the mentioned Thinkpad together with a few other similar machines. They work fine. The only things needing replacement are the hard drives which do tend to crap out after a few years but for the rest these machines just work. A PIII-m 1.2 GHz has enough power for modern applications - bar games which I don't play so who cares.</p><p>A blanket statement - or is it an intention - to only use 'new' hardware just makes you sound like a marketing tool. Ooooh, shiny new, gotta have...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own nowWhy on earth would you not use anything as young as 5 years ?
I 'm typing this on a 2002 Thinkpad T32 , works fine .
The machine is surrounded by a few 1999 Virgin Webplayers which I 'm working on , they work fine as well .
The newest piece of computing hardware here is the mentioned Thinkpad together with a few other similar machines .
They work fine .
The only things needing replacement are the hard drives which do tend to crap out after a few years but for the rest these machines just work .
A PIII-m 1.2 GHz has enough power for modern applications - bar games which I do n't play so who cares.A blanket statement - or is it an intention - to only use 'new ' hardware just makes you sound like a marketing tool .
Ooooh , shiny new , got ta have.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that in 5 years I am going to use any piece of electronics I own nowWhy on earth would you not use anything as young as 5 years?
I'm typing this on a 2002 Thinkpad T32, works fine.
The machine is surrounded by a few 1999 Virgin Webplayers which I'm working on, they work fine as well.
The newest piece of computing hardware here is the mentioned Thinkpad together with a few other similar machines.
They work fine.
The only things needing replacement are the hard drives which do tend to crap out after a few years but for the rest these machines just work.
A PIII-m 1.2 GHz has enough power for modern applications - bar games which I don't play so who cares.A blanket statement - or is it an intention - to only use 'new' hardware just makes you sound like a marketing tool.
Ooooh, shiny new, gotta have...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348552</id>
	<title>EMP Bomb</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1267645020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are SSD drives more / less vulnerable to large (intentional) EMPs than HDDs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are SSD drives more / less vulnerable to large ( intentional ) EMPs than HDDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are SSD drives more / less vulnerable to large (intentional) EMPs than HDDs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346814</id>
	<title>A solid product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me more, Captain Obvious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me more , Captain Obvious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me more, Captain Obvious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349672</id>
	<title>Re:Flat panel monitors all over again</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1267607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCDs generally have become a lot cheaper, but most of the cheap ones nowadays use crappy TN film panels, which means mediocre or average image quality.</p><p>I guess it depends how picky you are about these things. After seeing and using my first S-IPS based LCDs (Apple Cinema Display and EIZO L997), I haven't looked back. The difference is night and day,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCDs generally have become a lot cheaper , but most of the cheap ones nowadays use crappy TN film panels , which means mediocre or average image quality.I guess it depends how picky you are about these things .
After seeing and using my first S-IPS based LCDs ( Apple Cinema Display and EIZO L997 ) , I have n't looked back .
The difference is night and day,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCDs generally have become a lot cheaper, but most of the cheap ones nowadays use crappy TN film panels, which means mediocre or average image quality.I guess it depends how picky you are about these things.
After seeing and using my first S-IPS based LCDs (Apple Cinema Display and EIZO L997), I haven't looked back.
The difference is night and day,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346976</id>
	<title>fail</title>
	<author>CSFFlame</author>
	<datestamp>1267637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Possibly a Jmicron, and worse performance than ALL Intel/Indilinx/Samsung/Sandforce controllers and DOUBLE the price?

hahahaha, no</htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly a Jmicron , and worse performance than ALL Intel/Indilinx/Samsung/Sandforce controllers and DOUBLE the price ?
hahahaha , no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly a Jmicron, and worse performance than ALL Intel/Indilinx/Samsung/Sandforce controllers and DOUBLE the price?
hahahaha, no</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347076</id>
	<title>Re:Please don't let this get like LCD monitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion.</p></div><p>Is your karma really that important to you?</p><p>I don't agree with you, but I do recognize that you have reasons for choosing the hardware you do.  So does everyone.</p><p>The only reason I can see you get modded down is not your opinion on the hardware, its that you call everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish I could leave off AC on this post , but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion.Is your karma really that important to you ? I do n't agree with you , but I do recognize that you have reasons for choosing the hardware you do .
So does everyone.The only reason I can see you get modded down is not your opinion on the hardware , its that you call everyone an idiot that does n't agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I really wish I could leave off AC on this post, but I know idiot mods are going to treat it as a troll post and mod it down to oblivion.Is your karma really that important to you?I don't agree with you, but I do recognize that you have reasons for choosing the hardware you do.
So does everyone.The only reason I can see you get modded down is not your opinion on the hardware, its that you call everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347652</id>
	<title>Bummer!</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1267640760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was hoping to see if WD is coming out with a new line of raptors, 300GB or so, running at 15k using SATA3 interface. It's been 2 years since the velo refresh and my 74GB rappy is getting long in the tooth, but it still works!<br> <br>Keep on truckin' guys!<br>Sidenote, I have 4OCZ SSD's in raid0 on an Adaptec card, simply stunning performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping to see if WD is coming out with a new line of raptors , 300GB or so , running at 15k using SATA3 interface .
It 's been 2 years since the velo refresh and my 74GB rappy is getting long in the tooth , but it still works !
Keep on truckin ' guys ! Sidenote , I have 4OCZ SSD 's in raid0 on an Adaptec card , simply stunning performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping to see if WD is coming out with a new line of raptors, 300GB or so, running at 15k using SATA3 interface.
It's been 2 years since the velo refresh and my 74GB rappy is getting long in the tooth, but it still works!
Keep on truckin' guys!Sidenote, I have 4OCZ SSD's in raid0 on an Adaptec card, simply stunning performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348420</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1267644480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough). It's the amount of space, period. Currently, on Newegg, their Intel SSDs (I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best) come in a maximum of 160 GB. That is honestly a <i>pathetic</i> amount of storage. When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them. Not a moment before.</p></div><p>You're doing it wrong.  You don't get an SSD for document storage.  That's what spinning disks and RAID are for.  No, you get an SSD for your root partition including<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var (or C:\windows and C:\program files).  You don't really need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home to be fast (although velociraptor drives and RAID are nice), but putting your binaries, config files, and shared program files on SSD is the thing that will give you the biggest performance jump you've had in years (disk access being the bottleneck that it is).  Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare; I'm personally at 13.22GB/29.35GB on an OCZ Vertex 30GB and loving the 10s boots and instant OpenOffice coldstarts.  Of course it's better than just fast application launching--programs which load a lot of data (i.e. from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share) are also much quicker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with SSDs is n't even the price per GB ( which is bad enough ) .
It 's the amount of space , period .
Currently , on Newegg , their Intel SSDs ( I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best ) come in a maximum of 160 GB .
That is honestly a pathetic amount of storage .
When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes , then I 'll consider them .
Not a moment before.You 're doing it wrong .
You do n't get an SSD for document storage .
That 's what spinning disks and RAID are for .
No , you get an SSD for your root partition including /etc /bin /lib /usr and /var ( or C : \ windows and C : \ program files ) .
You do n't really need /home to be fast ( although velociraptor drives and RAID are nice ) , but putting your binaries , config files , and shared program files on SSD is the thing that will give you the biggest performance jump you 've had in years ( disk access being the bottleneck that it is ) .
Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare ; I 'm personally at 13.22GB/29.35GB on an OCZ Vertex 30GB and loving the 10s boots and instant OpenOffice coldstarts .
Of course it 's better than just fast application launching--programs which load a lot of data ( i.e .
from /usr/share ) are also much quicker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough).
It's the amount of space, period.
Currently, on Newegg, their Intel SSDs (I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best) come in a maximum of 160 GB.
That is honestly a pathetic amount of storage.
When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them.
Not a moment before.You're doing it wrong.
You don't get an SSD for document storage.
That's what spinning disks and RAID are for.
No, you get an SSD for your root partition including /etc /bin /lib /usr and /var (or C:\windows and C:\program files).
You don't really need /home to be fast (although velociraptor drives and RAID are nice), but putting your binaries, config files, and shared program files on SSD is the thing that will give you the biggest performance jump you've had in years (disk access being the bottleneck that it is).
Most people can fit their root partition on a cheap 30GB SSD with plenty of room to spare; I'm personally at 13.22GB/29.35GB on an OCZ Vertex 30GB and loving the 10s boots and instant OpenOffice coldstarts.
Of course it's better than just fast application launching--programs which load a lot of data (i.e.
from /usr/share) are also much quicker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756</id>
	<title>Re:Gah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough). It's the amount of space, period. Currently, on Newegg, their Intel SSDs (I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best) come in a maximum of 160 GB. That is honestly a <i>pathetic</i> amount of storage. When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them. Not a moment before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with SSDs is n't even the price per GB ( which is bad enough ) .
It 's the amount of space , period .
Currently , on Newegg , their Intel SSDs ( I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best ) come in a maximum of 160 GB .
That is honestly a pathetic amount of storage .
When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes , then I 'll consider them .
Not a moment before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with SSDs isn't even the price per GB (which is bad enough).
It's the amount of space, period.
Currently, on Newegg, their Intel SSDs (I singled out Intel as they reportedly make the best) come in a maximum of 160 GB.
That is honestly a pathetic amount of storage.
When the drives come in at least 500 GB sizes, then I'll consider them.
Not a moment before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31361854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31353446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_158238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31356584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31351274
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31361854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31353446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31352908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31349008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31350296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31348826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_158238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31346622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31355946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_158238.31347770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
