<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_23_1647239</id>
	<title>SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269366360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gjt writes <i>"When Intel and OCZ recently announced new 'affordable' Solid State Disk drives &mdash; offering a meager 32-40GB &mdash; we initially yawned. But, then we took a closer look at the press releases and the in-progress research and development in SSD technology and <a href="http://www.gadgetopolis.com/posts/7567/all/1">opened our eyes</a>. While the new drives aren't affordable on a cost per gigabyte basis for everyone, it does set a precedent &mdash; and most importantly a barometer price of $100. And it really does start the death clock for hard drive technology."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gjt writes " When Intel and OCZ recently announced new 'affordable ' Solid State Disk drives    offering a meager 32-40GB    we initially yawned .
But , then we took a closer look at the press releases and the in-progress research and development in SSD technology and opened our eyes .
While the new drives are n't affordable on a cost per gigabyte basis for everyone , it does set a precedent    and most importantly a barometer price of $ 100 .
And it really does start the death clock for hard drive technology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gjt writes "When Intel and OCZ recently announced new 'affordable' Solid State Disk drives — offering a meager 32-40GB — we initially yawned.
But, then we took a closer look at the press releases and the in-progress research and development in SSD technology and opened our eyes.
While the new drives aren't affordable on a cost per gigabyte basis for everyone, it does set a precedent — and most importantly a barometer price of $100.
And it really does start the death clock for hard drive technology.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</id>
	<title>Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>SSDs offer speed. Spinning Disk HDDs offer cheap space. <a href="http://www.storagesearch.com/hybriddisks-art.html" title="storagesearch.com"> Hybrid disks </a> [storagesearch.com]offer a nice compromise until SSDs overtake spinning disks in storage/price.
<br> <br>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection? Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files. HDDs offer cheap storage for those not-so-often used files. The solution is relatively inexpensive, and here <b>today</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSDs offer speed .
Spinning Disk HDDs offer cheap space .
Hybrid disks [ storagesearch.com ] offer a nice compromise until SSDs overtake spinning disks in storage/price .
I mean really , who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection ?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files .
HDDs offer cheap storage for those not-so-often used files .
The solution is relatively inexpensive , and here today</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSDs offer speed.
Spinning Disk HDDs offer cheap space.
Hybrid disks  [storagesearch.com]offer a nice compromise until SSDs overtake spinning disks in storage/price.
I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files.
HDDs offer cheap storage for those not-so-often used files.
The solution is relatively inexpensive, and here today</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588354</id>
	<title>mainstream use of HDs could end early next year</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1269377340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOST people (no, not those of us here on Slashdot) don't even need an 80GB drive these days for their computer. OS, apps, and downloaded music generally fits really easily on an 80GB drive. Most people never rip a movie or anything like that. I just got a 64GB SSD to use as a boot drive, from Newegg for $144. With the coming die shrink for flash memory coming in Q4 this year, that price could easily be what you pay for a 128GB drive for the coming holiday season, or early next year, which is all most people will need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOST people ( no , not those of us here on Slashdot ) do n't even need an 80GB drive these days for their computer .
OS , apps , and downloaded music generally fits really easily on an 80GB drive .
Most people never rip a movie or anything like that .
I just got a 64GB SSD to use as a boot drive , from Newegg for $ 144 .
With the coming die shrink for flash memory coming in Q4 this year , that price could easily be what you pay for a 128GB drive for the coming holiday season , or early next year , which is all most people will need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOST people (no, not those of us here on Slashdot) don't even need an 80GB drive these days for their computer.
OS, apps, and downloaded music generally fits really easily on an 80GB drive.
Most people never rip a movie or anything like that.
I just got a 64GB SSD to use as a boot drive, from Newegg for $144.
With the coming die shrink for flash memory coming in Q4 this year, that price could easily be what you pay for a 128GB drive for the coming holiday season, or early next year, which is all most people will need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587892</id>
	<title>dependability?</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1269375060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i have one PC i leave booted up and running with Linux on it 24/7/365 and it is about 10 years old, those IDE/PATA drives are incredibly dependable, they had dirty/hard umounts from power failures many times and ext3 recovered nicely each time, they had various Linux releases installed on them several times, plus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home getting written to many many many times.
<br> <br>
how is the SSD's dependability going to compare like under the same conditions?
<br> <br>
not as good?
<br>
as good?
<br>
better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i have one PC i leave booted up and running with Linux on it 24/7/365 and it is about 10 years old , those IDE/PATA drives are incredibly dependable , they had dirty/hard umounts from power failures many times and ext3 recovered nicely each time , they had various Linux releases installed on them several times , plus /home getting written to many many many times .
how is the SSD 's dependability going to compare like under the same conditions ?
not as good ?
as good ?
better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have one PC i leave booted up and running with Linux on it 24/7/365 and it is about 10 years old, those IDE/PATA drives are incredibly dependable, they had dirty/hard umounts from power failures many times and ext3 recovered nicely each time, they had various Linux releases installed on them several times, plus /home getting written to many many many times.
how is the SSD's dependability going to compare like under the same conditions?
not as good?
as good?
better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594764</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269462420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?</p><p>The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~1MB/second range. My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~38MB/second.</p><p>That's about 40 times more performance for THE SAME PRICE!</p></div></blockquote><p>wait..what? I'm all for SSDs, but the Intel X25-M is not the same price as any 1TB seagate</p><p>SSDs are not created equal. a $125 one will NOT perform nearly as well as an X25-M. As far as performance though, as HD platters get larger and keep spinning at the same speed, the transfer rates go up. And HDs are still getting faster.</p><p>You'll never meet the same seektime as a SSD, but for raw throughput raw HDs are easily comparable to SSDs at affordable pricepoints right now, just some quick numbers:</p><p>Samsung Spinpoint F1 1tb,  $60 on newegg<br>According to the benchmark data on http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1729, 118MB/s read 60MB/s write.</p><p>For $60 in the SSD department you can't even get SATA, only mini pcie and expresscards. Each are 16GB, and are specced at around 34MB/s read 21MB/s write</p><p>At twice that price, up to the quoted $125 pricerange the article talks about you have drives like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820183202<br>32gigs,  114MB/s read 59MB/s write.   So,  twice the price,  fraction of the storage, and similar speeds.</p><p>Again, seek times are MUCH better on the SSDs, and hopefully these new drives will bring the price down for better performance, but until then theres just a huge gap between good $300-500+ SSDs  and  cheapo $100 SSDs, and right now its just not worth it if you can't pay a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much for a hard drive that 's as fast as that $ 125 SSD ? The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~ 1MB/second range .
My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~ 38MB/second.That 's about 40 times more performance for THE SAME PRICE ! wait..what ?
I 'm all for SSDs , but the Intel X25-M is not the same price as any 1TB seagateSSDs are not created equal .
a $ 125 one will NOT perform nearly as well as an X25-M. As far as performance though , as HD platters get larger and keep spinning at the same speed , the transfer rates go up .
And HDs are still getting faster.You 'll never meet the same seektime as a SSD , but for raw throughput raw HDs are easily comparable to SSDs at affordable pricepoints right now , just some quick numbers : Samsung Spinpoint F1 1tb , $ 60 on neweggAccording to the benchmark data on http : //tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1729 , 118MB/s read 60MB/s write.For $ 60 in the SSD department you ca n't even get SATA , only mini pcie and expresscards .
Each are 16GB , and are specced at around 34MB/s read 21MB/s writeAt twice that price , up to the quoted $ 125 pricerange the article talks about you have drives like http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E1682018320232gigs , 114MB/s read 59MB/s write .
So , twice the price , fraction of the storage , and similar speeds.Again , seek times are MUCH better on the SSDs , and hopefully these new drives will bring the price down for better performance , but until then theres just a huge gap between good $ 300-500 + SSDs and cheapo $ 100 SSDs , and right now its just not worth it if you ca n't pay a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~1MB/second range.
My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~38MB/second.That's about 40 times more performance for THE SAME PRICE!wait..what?
I'm all for SSDs, but the Intel X25-M is not the same price as any 1TB seagateSSDs are not created equal.
a $125 one will NOT perform nearly as well as an X25-M. As far as performance though, as HD platters get larger and keep spinning at the same speed, the transfer rates go up.
And HDs are still getting faster.You'll never meet the same seektime as a SSD, but for raw throughput raw HDs are easily comparable to SSDs at affordable pricepoints right now, just some quick numbers:Samsung Spinpoint F1 1tb,  $60 on neweggAccording to the benchmark data on http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1729, 118MB/s read 60MB/s write.For $60 in the SSD department you can't even get SATA, only mini pcie and expresscards.
Each are 16GB, and are specced at around 34MB/s read 21MB/s writeAt twice that price, up to the quoted $125 pricerange the article talks about you have drives like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682018320232gigs,  114MB/s read 59MB/s write.
So,  twice the price,  fraction of the storage, and similar speeds.Again, seek times are MUCH better on the SSDs, and hopefully these new drives will bring the price down for better performance, but until then theres just a huge gap between good $300-500+ SSDs  and  cheapo $100 SSDs, and right now its just not worth it if you can't pay a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588002</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269375480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time: Access speed and Durability</p><p>and NOISE !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time : Access speed and Durabilityand NOISE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time: Access speed and Durabilityand NOISE !
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398</id>
	<title>HDDs are Done When Google Says They Are Done</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269372900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously.  Google is (believed to be) the largest single user of consumer hard drives.  When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs, I will consider HDDs to be done.  I wonder what price differential the power savings (don't forget the power for cooling) will cover?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Google is ( believed to be ) the largest single user of consumer hard drives .
When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs , I will consider HDDs to be done .
I wonder what price differential the power savings ( do n't forget the power for cooling ) will cover ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Google is (believed to be) the largest single user of consumer hard drives.
When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs, I will consider HDDs to be done.
I wonder what price differential the power savings (don't forget the power for cooling) will cover?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592188</id>
	<title>Re:HDDs are Done When Google Says They Are Done</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then you will also have to use the same amount of redundancy that they use.<br>From a paper I know that they use 3 disk mirroring. Just like airplanes and spacecraft have everything thrice. Because with two disks, you won&rsquo;t know which of them is right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then you will also have to use the same amount of redundancy that they use.From a paper I know that they use 3 disk mirroring .
Just like airplanes and spacecraft have everything thrice .
Because with two disks , you won    t know which of them is right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then you will also have to use the same amount of redundancy that they use.From a paper I know that they use 3 disk mirroring.
Just like airplanes and spacecraft have everything thrice.
Because with two disks, you won’t know which of them is right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589086</id>
	<title>This isn't cheap</title>
	<author>Evro</author>
	<datestamp>1269337620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$100 for 40 gigs isn't really cheap.  It's $2.50/GB.  I bought a 128 GB SSD a year ago for $340 - not that much more.  By contrast, you can get SATA storage for under $0.15/gig.  I think most things will tend toward SSD as the price drops, but this doesn't seem like a price drop.  When SSD hits $1.00/gig it'll probably take off.  SATA will still be used for huge raids though for the simple fact that even at $1.00/gig it's 10x the price of SATA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 100 for 40 gigs is n't really cheap .
It 's $ 2.50/GB .
I bought a 128 GB SSD a year ago for $ 340 - not that much more .
By contrast , you can get SATA storage for under $ 0.15/gig .
I think most things will tend toward SSD as the price drops , but this does n't seem like a price drop .
When SSD hits $ 1.00/gig it 'll probably take off .
SATA will still be used for huge raids though for the simple fact that even at $ 1.00/gig it 's 10x the price of SATA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$100 for 40 gigs isn't really cheap.
It's $2.50/GB.
I bought a 128 GB SSD a year ago for $340 - not that much more.
By contrast, you can get SATA storage for under $0.15/gig.
I think most things will tend toward SSD as the price drops, but this doesn't seem like a price drop.
When SSD hits $1.00/gig it'll probably take off.
SATA will still be used for huge raids though for the simple fact that even at $1.00/gig it's 10x the price of SATA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589258</id>
	<title>and robustness</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1269338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing I like most about my EeePC is that I can drop it over and over and over again and it just keeps working.  Do that to a laptop with HDD and you can kiss it goodbye.

Yeah I know I'm a careless, clumsy klutz.  But so are a great many other laptop/netbook users.  The ability to treat your equipment like a shack of sit without fear of malfunction is priceless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I like most about my EeePC is that I can drop it over and over and over again and it just keeps working .
Do that to a laptop with HDD and you can kiss it goodbye .
Yeah I know I 'm a careless , clumsy klutz .
But so are a great many other laptop/netbook users .
The ability to treat your equipment like a shack of sit without fear of malfunction is priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I like most about my EeePC is that I can drop it over and over and over again and it just keeps working.
Do that to a laptop with HDD and you can kiss it goodbye.
Yeah I know I'm a careless, clumsy klutz.
But so are a great many other laptop/netbook users.
The ability to treat your equipment like a shack of sit without fear of malfunction is priceless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587316</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269372600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CD is already dying.  Blu-ray is about to get its ass whupped once someone starts distributing movies on micro-SD, or the market shifts to movie-downloading services.  A 4-GB micro-SD can hold 1080p movies.  Overnight download requires no physical distribution at all.</p><p>We're close to the emptying of our computers and media centers of all their machines (except the nifty motorized volume knobs; those will never die).  Even muffin fans are becoming less necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CD is already dying .
Blu-ray is about to get its ass whupped once someone starts distributing movies on micro-SD , or the market shifts to movie-downloading services .
A 4-GB micro-SD can hold 1080p movies .
Overnight download requires no physical distribution at all.We 're close to the emptying of our computers and media centers of all their machines ( except the nifty motorized volume knobs ; those will never die ) .
Even muffin fans are becoming less necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CD is already dying.
Blu-ray is about to get its ass whupped once someone starts distributing movies on micro-SD, or the market shifts to movie-downloading services.
A 4-GB micro-SD can hold 1080p movies.
Overnight download requires no physical distribution at all.We're close to the emptying of our computers and media centers of all their machines (except the nifty motorized volume knobs; those will never die).
Even muffin fans are becoming less necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588298</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1269377160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are floppy disks on your list? Or punched cards? Or paper tape? Or core memory? Or WORM optical drives? Or Zip Disks?</p><p>My point is that storage mediums do die when something better comes along. Spinning HDDs will go away, guaranteed. The question is when, and will it be SSDs (as we know them now) or something else which replace them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are floppy disks on your list ?
Or punched cards ?
Or paper tape ?
Or core memory ?
Or WORM optical drives ?
Or Zip Disks ? My point is that storage mediums do die when something better comes along .
Spinning HDDs will go away , guaranteed .
The question is when , and will it be SSDs ( as we know them now ) or something else which replace them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are floppy disks on your list?
Or punched cards?
Or paper tape?
Or core memory?
Or WORM optical drives?
Or Zip Disks?My point is that storage mediums do die when something better comes along.
Spinning HDDs will go away, guaranteed.
The question is when, and will it be SSDs (as we know them now) or something else which replace them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588398</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1269377580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, DVDs spin 2000 RPM, while HDD's spin between 5400RPM and 15000RPM.  Big difference in power and heat.  Plus, hard drives spin fragile magnetic disks on exotic fluid bearings with a physical head micrometers away.  They are a lot more susceptible to damage.</p><p>Although this still misses a big point: DVDs and CDs are going away too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , DVDs spin 2000 RPM , while HDD 's spin between 5400RPM and 15000RPM .
Big difference in power and heat .
Plus , hard drives spin fragile magnetic disks on exotic fluid bearings with a physical head micrometers away .
They are a lot more susceptible to damage.Although this still misses a big point : DVDs and CDs are going away too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, DVDs spin 2000 RPM, while HDD's spin between 5400RPM and 15000RPM.
Big difference in power and heat.
Plus, hard drives spin fragile magnetic disks on exotic fluid bearings with a physical head micrometers away.
They are a lot more susceptible to damage.Although this still misses a big point: DVDs and CDs are going away too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470</id>
	<title>Disks are dying -- AGAIN...</title>
	<author>sillivalley</author>
	<datestamp>1269373140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... decades?<br> <br>

But somehow, the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology, thin film heads, headerless architectures, increased spindle speeds, bigger caches, perpendicular recording, 4k sectors, continuing advances in encoding and ECC, continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming.<br> <br>

And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway? Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all?  Isn't that what Intel promised us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for ... decades ? But somehow , the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology , thin film heads , headerless architectures , increased spindle speeds , bigger caches , perpendicular recording , 4k sectors , continuing advances in encoding and ECC , continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming .
And whatever happened to bubble memory , anyway ?
Was n't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all ?
Is n't that what Intel promised us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for ... decades? 

But somehow, the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology, thin film heads, headerless architectures, increased spindle speeds, bigger caches, perpendicular recording, 4k sectors, continuing advances in encoding and ECC, continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming.
And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway?
Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all?
Isn't that what Intel promised us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1269370800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSDs will replace all the small hard drives.<br>When you get down to small enough drive SSDs will be cheaper per Gig than HDs.<br>Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $90.<br>But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $45 or a 250GB drive for $22.50. There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive.<br>At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters. It is probably close right now.<br>When that happens you will see SSDs replace HDs in that range. That range will keep creeping up and up.<br>So HDDs will be what you get when you need a lot of storage. Maybe they will eventually be used only for externals and NASs.<br>Eventually 1 TB SSDs will be cheaper than HDDs but for all I know we will have 100TB HDs for $90.<br>BTW as someone that paid several hundred dollars for a 30MB HD in 1984 the idea of a sub hundred dollar 100TB HDD just seems like a matter of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSDs will replace all the small hard drives.When you get down to small enough drive SSDs will be cheaper per Gig than HDs.Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $ 90.But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $ 45 or a 250GB drive for $ 22.50 .
There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive.At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters .
It is probably close right now.When that happens you will see SSDs replace HDs in that range .
That range will keep creeping up and up.So HDDs will be what you get when you need a lot of storage .
Maybe they will eventually be used only for externals and NASs.Eventually 1 TB SSDs will be cheaper than HDDs but for all I know we will have 100TB HDs for $ 90.BTW as someone that paid several hundred dollars for a 30MB HD in 1984 the idea of a sub hundred dollar 100TB HDD just seems like a matter of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSDs will replace all the small hard drives.When you get down to small enough drive SSDs will be cheaper per Gig than HDs.Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $90.But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $45 or a 250GB drive for $22.50.
There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive.At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters.
It is probably close right now.When that happens you will see SSDs replace HDs in that range.
That range will keep creeping up and up.So HDDs will be what you get when you need a lot of storage.
Maybe they will eventually be used only for externals and NASs.Eventually 1 TB SSDs will be cheaper than HDDs but for all I know we will have 100TB HDs for $90.BTW as someone that paid several hundred dollars for a 30MB HD in 1984 the idea of a sub hundred dollar 100TB HDD just seems like a matter of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269371820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?</p><p>The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~1MB/second range. My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~38MB/second.</p><p>That's about <b>40 times more performance</b> for THE SAME PRICE!</p><p>Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.</p><p>A 40GB SSD is more than sufficient for your average manager/executive. They'd almost certainly prefer opening Outlook and Power Point in a tenth of the time it used to take to having an extra thousand gigabytes of unused space on their laptop.</p><p>The 80 GB drive I have in my system was the best upgrade I ever bought. Kernel compiles are crazy fast, and all of the media I need can be streamed off the network (sharing a single one of those 1.5TB drives with a dozen or so other people).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much for a hard drive that 's as fast as that $ 125 SSD ? The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~ 1MB/second range .
My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~ 38MB/second.That 's about 40 times more performance for THE SAME PRICE ! Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.A 40GB SSD is more than sufficient for your average manager/executive .
They 'd almost certainly prefer opening Outlook and Power Point in a tenth of the time it used to take to having an extra thousand gigabytes of unused space on their laptop.The 80 GB drive I have in my system was the best upgrade I ever bought .
Kernel compiles are crazy fast , and all of the media I need can be streamed off the network ( sharing a single one of those 1.5TB drives with a dozen or so other people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?The 1TB Seagate hard drive that I recently tested gets random 4k read rates in the ~1MB/second range.
My 80GB Intel X25-M gets ~38MB/second.That's about 40 times more performance for THE SAME PRICE!Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.A 40GB SSD is more than sufficient for your average manager/executive.
They'd almost certainly prefer opening Outlook and Power Point in a tenth of the time it used to take to having an extra thousand gigabytes of unused space on their laptop.The 80 GB drive I have in my system was the best upgrade I ever bought.
Kernel compiles are crazy fast, and all of the media I need can be streamed off the network (sharing a single one of those 1.5TB drives with a dozen or so other people).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588146</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSD has the additional advantage of less power consumption too doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD has the additional advantage of less power consumption too does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD has the additional advantage of less power consumption too doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587480</id>
	<title>Re:This just in!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!</p><p>Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity! But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!</p><p>Can I be a tech pundit yet?</p></div><p>Yeah, and LCD's signal the end for CRT's...
<br>
<br>
Oh wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles , just as soon as their poor $ $ /mile traveled ratio reaches parity , but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now ! Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry , just as soon as their poor $ $ /watt ratio reaches parity !
But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW ! Can I be a tech pundit yet ? Yeah , and LCD 's signal the end for CRT 's.. . Oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity!
But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!Can I be a tech pundit yet?Yeah, and LCD's signal the end for CRT's...


Oh wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587348</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1269372720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CD's are  800MB. You could easily replace them with SD cards without significantly affecting what the music industry earns.</p><p>But why would you replace one physical medium with another, when you can just switch to online distribution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CD 's are 800MB .
You could easily replace them with SD cards without significantly affecting what the music industry earns.But why would you replace one physical medium with another , when you can just switch to online distribution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CD's are  800MB.
You could easily replace them with SD cards without significantly affecting what the music industry earns.But why would you replace one physical medium with another, when you can just switch to online distribution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586976</id>
	<title>SSD Drives</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1269371580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The SSD drive on my netbook has been running great ever since I bought it. I'm really looking at buying a SSD drive and turning my newer SATA platter drive in to an external backup drive of sorts. Since I won't need to access it very regularly it'd make the perfect backup tape of sorts.<br><br>80 gigs for $224 ain't bad...<br>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023</htmltext>
<tokenext>The SSD drive on my netbook has been running great ever since I bought it .
I 'm really looking at buying a SSD drive and turning my newer SATA platter drive in to an external backup drive of sorts .
Since I wo n't need to access it very regularly it 'd make the perfect backup tape of sorts.80 gigs for $ 224 ai n't bad...http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16820167023</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SSD drive on my netbook has been running great ever since I bought it.
I'm really looking at buying a SSD drive and turning my newer SATA platter drive in to an external backup drive of sorts.
Since I won't need to access it very regularly it'd make the perfect backup tape of sorts.80 gigs for $224 ain't bad...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588508</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269334860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they? I think I've seen many holographic storage disc products (touted to be THE FUTURE) that were spinning as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>CDs are tiny...  ~12 full CDs will fit on a $30 USB thumb drive.   Blu-Ray isn't all that big, either...  ~40 Blu-Ray movies on a $100 HDD?</p><p>Optical media will succeed only if densities can continue to increase, all the while the pressing technology remains fairly simple.  As soon as Disc+ yields / speeds are low enough that writing data to Flash is faster, discs will go away for good...  The ability to stamp out discs at high speeds and low costs is a great benefit, but the drawbacks will kill the medium as soon as those benefits aren't so huge anymore...  For example, if the number of layers on a disc has to climb much more than 2 to keep up with desired capacities, expect prices to rise, substantially.</p><p>And holographic discs are the ultimate in vaporware...  Slashdot has been having stories on multi-terabyte HVDs since '99.  They come with a massively expensive product they swear will be dirt cheap in a month, they get a bit of funding, then they fizzle out...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu Ray and CDs are still " spinning media " are n't they ?
I think I 've seen many holographic storage disc products ( touted to be THE FUTURE ) that were spinning as well.CDs are tiny... ~ 12 full CDs will fit on a $ 30 USB thumb drive .
Blu-Ray is n't all that big , either... ~ 40 Blu-Ray movies on a $ 100 HDD ? Optical media will succeed only if densities can continue to increase , all the while the pressing technology remains fairly simple .
As soon as Disc + yields / speeds are low enough that writing data to Flash is faster , discs will go away for good... The ability to stamp out discs at high speeds and low costs is a great benefit , but the drawbacks will kill the medium as soon as those benefits are n't so huge anymore... For example , if the number of layers on a disc has to climb much more than 2 to keep up with desired capacities , expect prices to rise , substantially.And holographic discs are the ultimate in vaporware... Slashdot has been having stories on multi-terabyte HVDs since '99 .
They come with a massively expensive product they swear will be dirt cheap in a month , they get a bit of funding , then they fizzle out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?
I think I've seen many holographic storage disc products (touted to be THE FUTURE) that were spinning as well.CDs are tiny...  ~12 full CDs will fit on a $30 USB thumb drive.
Blu-Ray isn't all that big, either...  ~40 Blu-Ray movies on a $100 HDD?Optical media will succeed only if densities can continue to increase, all the while the pressing technology remains fairly simple.
As soon as Disc+ yields / speeds are low enough that writing data to Flash is faster, discs will go away for good...  The ability to stamp out discs at high speeds and low costs is a great benefit, but the drawbacks will kill the medium as soon as those benefits aren't so huge anymore...  For example, if the number of layers on a disc has to climb much more than 2 to keep up with desired capacities, expect prices to rise, substantially.And holographic discs are the ultimate in vaporware...  Slashdot has been having stories on multi-terabyte HVDs since '99.
They come with a massively expensive product they swear will be dirt cheap in a month, they get a bit of funding, then they fizzle out...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587082</id>
	<title>Why does one have to win?</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1269371880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I see SSD becoming more common in the future, if HHDs continue to be significantly cheaper for large storage they will continue to play a roll.</p><p>While SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper, computers are needing more and more storage space.</p><p>Right now I have 2TB installed on my desktop and if I had wanted SSDs it would of cost $7000~=((2,000/44)*$125).<br>Which is obviously not even close to affordable.</p><p>SSDs make a lot of sense for some things but are not likely to replace HHDs anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I see SSD becoming more common in the future , if HHDs continue to be significantly cheaper for large storage they will continue to play a roll.While SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper , computers are needing more and more storage space.Right now I have 2TB installed on my desktop and if I had wanted SSDs it would of cost $ 7000 ~ = ( ( 2,000/44 ) * $ 125 ) .Which is obviously not even close to affordable.SSDs make a lot of sense for some things but are not likely to replace HHDs anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I see SSD becoming more common in the future, if HHDs continue to be significantly cheaper for large storage they will continue to play a roll.While SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper, computers are needing more and more storage space.Right now I have 2TB installed on my desktop and if I had wanted SSDs it would of cost $7000~=((2,000/44)*$125).Which is obviously not even close to affordable.SSDs make a lot of sense for some things but are not likely to replace HHDs anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588974</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once copyright issues get worked out CDs and the like will die at an alarming rate. Nearly everyone will have access to the net so buying things on disk will become pointless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once copyright issues get worked out CDs and the like will die at an alarming rate .
Nearly everyone will have access to the net so buying things on disk will become pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once copyright issues get worked out CDs and the like will die at an alarming rate.
Nearly everyone will have access to the net so buying things on disk will become pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589350</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>denobug</author>
	<datestamp>1269339000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am seeing a lot of discussion as far as cost/capacity, speed, tolerance rating.  I am surprised no one has brought up the discussion of HDD and SSD in RAID configurations.  I think one recent slashdot article discuss about the use of SSD in data centers and its limitations but so far this has not being part of this discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am seeing a lot of discussion as far as cost/capacity , speed , tolerance rating .
I am surprised no one has brought up the discussion of HDD and SSD in RAID configurations .
I think one recent slashdot article discuss about the use of SSD in data centers and its limitations but so far this has not being part of this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am seeing a lot of discussion as far as cost/capacity, speed, tolerance rating.
I am surprised no one has brought up the discussion of HDD and SSD in RAID configurations.
I think one recent slashdot article discuss about the use of SSD in data centers and its limitations but so far this has not being part of this discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31604850</id>
	<title>Re:Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269430560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection? Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...</p></div><p>When did you visit my bedroom?!?!?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection ?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...When did you visit my bedroom ? ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...When did you visit my bedroom?!?!?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591990</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?</p></div><p>Yes. And USB sticks still have already put an end to the latter, and will do so to the former too, soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu Ray and CDs are still " spinning media " are n't they ? Yes .
And USB sticks still have already put an end to the latter , and will do so to the former too , soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?Yes.
And USB sticks still have already put an end to the latter, and will do so to the former too, soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1269375660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.</i></p><p>I don't think that the parent would dispute that SSDs have a lot of benefits over a magnetic HDD, including speed. But like capacity, speed is also irrelevant in many situations.</p><p>However, how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music? Less dramatically, how 'bout playing a video game? (HDDs would speed up loading times, but likely not the rest of the game.)</p><p>There's a lot of stuff that you don't <i>need</i> speed for, and space is more important. If someone has 500 GB of data, it doesn't matter how fast SSDs are if 500 GB of SSDs isn't affordable -- they'll have to decide either to lose data (unlikely) or have a magnetic HDDs.</p><p>What does all this mean? I think a lot of computers (at least many desktops) in a couple years will have both an SSD and magnetic HDD to play to their respective strengths. But it'll be a few years (I'd guess at least 5) before most desktops have <i>only</i> SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much for a hard drive that 's as fast as that $ 125 SSD ?
... Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.I do n't think that the parent would dispute that SSDs have a lot of benefits over a magnetic HDD , including speed .
But like capacity , speed is also irrelevant in many situations.However , how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music ?
Less dramatically , how 'bout playing a video game ?
( HDDs would speed up loading times , but likely not the rest of the game .
) There 's a lot of stuff that you do n't need speed for , and space is more important .
If someone has 500 GB of data , it does n't matter how fast SSDs are if 500 GB of SSDs is n't affordable -- they 'll have to decide either to lose data ( unlikely ) or have a magnetic HDDs.What does all this mean ?
I think a lot of computers ( at least many desktops ) in a couple years will have both an SSD and magnetic HDD to play to their respective strengths .
But it 'll be a few years ( I 'd guess at least 5 ) before most desktops have only SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much for a hard drive that's as fast as that $125 SSD?
... Storage capacity is irrelevant in many situations.I don't think that the parent would dispute that SSDs have a lot of benefits over a magnetic HDD, including speed.
But like capacity, speed is also irrelevant in many situations.However, how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music?
Less dramatically, how 'bout playing a video game?
(HDDs would speed up loading times, but likely not the rest of the game.
)There's a lot of stuff that you don't need speed for, and space is more important.
If someone has 500 GB of data, it doesn't matter how fast SSDs are if 500 GB of SSDs isn't affordable -- they'll have to decide either to lose data (unlikely) or have a magnetic HDDs.What does all this mean?
I think a lot of computers (at least many desktops) in a couple years will have both an SSD and magnetic HDD to play to their respective strengths.
But it'll be a few years (I'd guess at least 5) before most desktops have only SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269371280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical users keep music on their computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical users keep music on their computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical users keep music on their computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587260</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornographers.</title>
	<author>Vectormatic</author>
	<datestamp>1269372420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CMOS chips and high voltage work pretty well for data destruction too</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CMOS chips and high voltage work pretty well for data destruction too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CMOS chips and high voltage work pretty well for data destruction too</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596674</id>
	<title>Re:Disks are dying -- AGAIN...</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1269440880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what happened to bubble memory, but I'm pretty sure there were no bubble memory products widely available from various manufacturers with massively better performance at fairly competitive prices. So maybe they're onto something this time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what happened to bubble memory , but I 'm pretty sure there were no bubble memory products widely available from various manufacturers with massively better performance at fairly competitive prices .
So maybe they 're onto something this time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what happened to bubble memory, but I'm pretty sure there were no bubble memory products widely available from various manufacturers with massively better performance at fairly competitive prices.
So maybe they're onto something this time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594608</id>
	<title>Re:Disks are dying -- AGAIN...</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269373260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OH HORSESHIT!  Pundits just pun.  People who *use* their computers are shocked how much better they run with an SSD.  End of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OH HORSESHIT !
Pundits just pun .
People who * use * their computers are shocked how much better they run with an SSD .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH HORSESHIT!
Pundits just pun.
People who *use* their computers are shocked how much better they run with an SSD.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587834</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269374700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see spinning media, blu ray, CD, HD, as being used primarily for backup.  Already the external hard drives I have are for backup, while anything I use regularly is solid state.  Probably the small computers I buy will be solid state.  I can see the time in five years when anything but a desktop computer will be solid state.  The DVD player is about the least reliable and most power hungry part of on my laptop, so I can see wanting that to go as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see spinning media , blu ray , CD , HD , as being used primarily for backup .
Already the external hard drives I have are for backup , while anything I use regularly is solid state .
Probably the small computers I buy will be solid state .
I can see the time in five years when anything but a desktop computer will be solid state .
The DVD player is about the least reliable and most power hungry part of on my laptop , so I can see wanting that to go as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see spinning media, blu ray, CD, HD, as being used primarily for backup.
Already the external hard drives I have are for backup, while anything I use regularly is solid state.
Probably the small computers I buy will be solid state.
I can see the time in five years when anything but a desktop computer will be solid state.
The DVD player is about the least reliable and most power hungry part of on my laptop, so I can see wanting that to go as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592838</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269356700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you enter digital pictures into the landscape, it does change  a bit.  Still, that's still a lot of pictures.  Besides, you don't want all your pictures on the move.  They're much safer at home on server and/or NAS.</p></div><p> Maybe I do want all my pictures on the move. Is there some reason I can't take everything with me while keeping a backup safe at home?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Music you say?  We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.</p></div><p>Good one.  Next you're going to say that the typical user dual-boots, and mainly uses their laptop to SSH into their server at home so they can read their email with Pine.  You might be surprised to find out what the real world is like, if you ever leave your basement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you enter digital pictures into the landscape , it does change a bit .
Still , that 's still a lot of pictures .
Besides , you do n't want all your pictures on the move .
They 're much safer at home on server and/or NAS .
Maybe I do want all my pictures on the move .
Is there some reason I ca n't take everything with me while keeping a backup safe at home ? Music you say ?
We 're talking about " needing " ... You do n't " need " music on your laptop , unless that 's your profession , but that does n't make you a typcial user.Good one .
Next you 're going to say that the typical user dual-boots , and mainly uses their laptop to SSH into their server at home so they can read their email with Pine .
You might be surprised to find out what the real world is like , if you ever leave your basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you enter digital pictures into the landscape, it does change  a bit.
Still, that's still a lot of pictures.
Besides, you don't want all your pictures on the move.
They're much safer at home on server and/or NAS.
Maybe I do want all my pictures on the move.
Is there some reason I can't take everything with me while keeping a backup safe at home?Music you say?
We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.Good one.
Next you're going to say that the typical user dual-boots, and mainly uses their laptop to SSH into their server at home so they can read their email with Pine.
You might be surprised to find out what the real world is like, if you ever leave your basement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587740</id>
	<title>Re:This just in!</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1269374280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, not yet. You missed that the tech pundits are getting paid to throw this over the wall because of the relevance to Microsoft Windows. Remember how the first netbooks were all shipped with SSDs and GNU/Linux but when Microsoft came in and offered payment schemes for putting Windows XP on them, they all ended up with spinning disks?  Windows just didn't fit very well/much on those small SSDs. Well, the SSDs are now almost ready for Windows so out come the dumbass stories to get people thinking about SSDs again. You'll soon be seeing them in devices with Windows and probably starting with netbooks. Remember, some pretty cool single and dual core ARM devices are heading to market this year.<br><br>The 'tech pundit' won't write about SSDs when all the fuss with SSDs is when they are the only storage means for GNU/Linux based systems.  They don't get paid to do that.<br><br>You might not remember it but a number of years ago, an internal Microsoft email got sent out to the wrong address and it was learned that not only had Microsoft been hammering on a magazine editor to do a story on one of their projects but when that editor finally assigned a writer, Microsoft an atleast 12 employees assigned to \_helping\_ this writer put together his story. Some of those employees were given scripts to work from regarding conversations they were to have with this writer.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not yet .
You missed that the tech pundits are getting paid to throw this over the wall because of the relevance to Microsoft Windows .
Remember how the first netbooks were all shipped with SSDs and GNU/Linux but when Microsoft came in and offered payment schemes for putting Windows XP on them , they all ended up with spinning disks ?
Windows just did n't fit very well/much on those small SSDs .
Well , the SSDs are now almost ready for Windows so out come the dumbass stories to get people thinking about SSDs again .
You 'll soon be seeing them in devices with Windows and probably starting with netbooks .
Remember , some pretty cool single and dual core ARM devices are heading to market this year.The 'tech pundit ' wo n't write about SSDs when all the fuss with SSDs is when they are the only storage means for GNU/Linux based systems .
They do n't get paid to do that.You might not remember it but a number of years ago , an internal Microsoft email got sent out to the wrong address and it was learned that not only had Microsoft been hammering on a magazine editor to do a story on one of their projects but when that editor finally assigned a writer , Microsoft an atleast 12 employees assigned to \ _helping \ _ this writer put together his story .
Some of those employees were given scripts to work from regarding conversations they were to have with this writer.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not yet.
You missed that the tech pundits are getting paid to throw this over the wall because of the relevance to Microsoft Windows.
Remember how the first netbooks were all shipped with SSDs and GNU/Linux but when Microsoft came in and offered payment schemes for putting Windows XP on them, they all ended up with spinning disks?
Windows just didn't fit very well/much on those small SSDs.
Well, the SSDs are now almost ready for Windows so out come the dumbass stories to get people thinking about SSDs again.
You'll soon be seeing them in devices with Windows and probably starting with netbooks.
Remember, some pretty cool single and dual core ARM devices are heading to market this year.The 'tech pundit' won't write about SSDs when all the fuss with SSDs is when they are the only storage means for GNU/Linux based systems.
They don't get paid to do that.You might not remember it but a number of years ago, an internal Microsoft email got sent out to the wrong address and it was learned that not only had Microsoft been hammering on a magazine editor to do a story on one of their projects but when that editor finally assigned a writer, Microsoft an atleast 12 employees assigned to \_helping\_ this writer put together his story.
Some of those employees were given scripts to work from regarding conversations they were to have with this writer.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591648</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1269349320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on your purpose.  The latest edition of the Backyard Astronomer discusses how they used to like film and, for most uses, now heartily recommend larger-sensor digital for astrophotography.  For a freakish demo, they compare a couple long-exposures of a valley scene at night so you can see the detail captured in the dark areas by digital compared to film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your purpose .
The latest edition of the Backyard Astronomer discusses how they used to like film and , for most uses , now heartily recommend larger-sensor digital for astrophotography .
For a freakish demo , they compare a couple long-exposures of a valley scene at night so you can see the detail captured in the dark areas by digital compared to film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your purpose.
The latest edition of the Backyard Astronomer discusses how they used to like film and, for most uses, now heartily recommend larger-sensor digital for astrophotography.
For a freakish demo, they compare a couple long-exposures of a valley scene at night so you can see the detail captured in the dark areas by digital compared to film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591186</id>
	<title>SSD isnt about performance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269347100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been looking for faster performing disk for along time.</p><p>I'm a developer and compiling code is very disk intensive.<br>Sadly, almost all the SSD drives are slow on write.</p><p>The solution I am currently using is a RAMDISK..<br>The guys at superspeed provide a really nice RAM disk for windows that is blazingly fast.<br>It even backs/restores durring restart operations.</p><p>We need a much better disk cache.. maybe somthing the end user can give clues to.<br>The operating system could allow changing the cache algorithm on a folder by folder basis.<br>It would be nice to suggest to the disk cache that certain folders should be kept in ram always.<br>Maybe even specifying how long to delay writes per folder.<br>I mean my RAM disk solution is really the same thing..<br>I am just forcing certian files into the cache and specifying very delayed writes.</p><p>But it works, its on the correct side of the Bus for the CPU and it made a big difference in my compile times.</p><p>But hey what do I know..  maybe all the hardisks will die of bird flu soon.</p><p>Chris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been looking for faster performing disk for along time.I 'm a developer and compiling code is very disk intensive.Sadly , almost all the SSD drives are slow on write.The solution I am currently using is a RAMDISK..The guys at superspeed provide a really nice RAM disk for windows that is blazingly fast.It even backs/restores durring restart operations.We need a much better disk cache.. maybe somthing the end user can give clues to.The operating system could allow changing the cache algorithm on a folder by folder basis.It would be nice to suggest to the disk cache that certain folders should be kept in ram always.Maybe even specifying how long to delay writes per folder.I mean my RAM disk solution is really the same thing..I am just forcing certian files into the cache and specifying very delayed writes.But it works , its on the correct side of the Bus for the CPU and it made a big difference in my compile times.But hey what do I know.. maybe all the hardisks will die of bird flu soon.Chris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been looking for faster performing disk for along time.I'm a developer and compiling code is very disk intensive.Sadly, almost all the SSD drives are slow on write.The solution I am currently using is a RAMDISK..The guys at superspeed provide a really nice RAM disk for windows that is blazingly fast.It even backs/restores durring restart operations.We need a much better disk cache.. maybe somthing the end user can give clues to.The operating system could allow changing the cache algorithm on a folder by folder basis.It would be nice to suggest to the disk cache that certain folders should be kept in ram always.Maybe even specifying how long to delay writes per folder.I mean my RAM disk solution is really the same thing..I am just forcing certian files into the cache and specifying very delayed writes.But it works, its on the correct side of the Bus for the CPU and it made a big difference in my compile times.But hey what do I know..  maybe all the hardisks will die of bird flu soon.Chris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586944</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269371400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agreed there, but you forgot "Registers" or "Register File" at the top of that speed progression.</p><p>Flash is going to run into the quirky nature of low-nanometer electronics before long, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agreed there , but you forgot " Registers " or " Register File " at the top of that speed progression.Flash is going to run into the quirky nature of low-nanometer electronics before long , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agreed there, but you forgot "Registers" or "Register File" at the top of that speed progression.Flash is going to run into the quirky nature of low-nanometer electronics before long, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589470</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornographers.</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269339660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you giving an endorsement then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you giving an endorsement then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you giving an endorsement then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586876</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornographers.</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1269371160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure they are already on top of that. I'd imagine a jumper cable would make a great charge pump. Now we just need to convince them that it only works in a flooded room while wearing metal shoes; then I'd say the circuit is complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure they are already on top of that .
I 'd imagine a jumper cable would make a great charge pump .
Now we just need to convince them that it only works in a flooded room while wearing metal shoes ; then I 'd say the circuit is complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure they are already on top of that.
I'd imagine a jumper cable would make a great charge pump.
Now we just need to convince them that it only works in a flooded room while wearing metal shoes; then I'd say the circuit is complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589516</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1269339960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody whoosh me because I have no idea why this was modded +5 insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody whoosh me because I have no idea why this was modded + 5 insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody whoosh me because I have no idea why this was modded +5 insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589670</id>
	<title>Re:Disks are dying -- AGAIN...</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1269340740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... decades?</p><p>But somehow, the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology, thin film heads, headerless architectures, increased spindle speeds, bigger caches, perpendicular recording, 4k sectors, continuing advances in encoding and ECC, continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming.</p><p>And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway? Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all?  Isn't that what Intel promised us?</p></div><p>But despite all of those improvement, over <i>decades</i>, the minimum and average access speeds of drives hasn't improved significantly. A random read still takes milliseconds, which is a simply enormous time for a modern computer to wait. This in turn reduces the throughput in comparison to the streaming speed, making even the 'fastest' hard drives quite slow in practice for most workloads. I've seen benchmarks for 'enterprise' drives doing only a few hundred KB/sec for random reads. This is 2010! Computers can process data just a *tad* faster than that!</p><p>In comparison, most SSDs have random read times under a millisecond already, and some PCI-E versions are in the dozens of microseconds range. The random read throughput can be as high as 50\% of the streaming throughput, and some drives are closer to 90\%.</p><p>That's a night &amp; day difference. It's like going from VHS to DVD.</p><p>And it's still not fast enough. A modern CPU can process IO data at rates of up to gigabytes per second, easily*. Physical drives have fallen woefully behind, and even SSDs aren't quite there yet unless you RAID a bunch of them.</p><p>*) For example, a SUN Thumper, which is just two average quad-core AMD Opterons, can send 1GB/sec (not gigabit, gigabyte) of iSCSI traffic down the wire. That includes reading from disk, decoding the ZFS structures, verifying the hashes, processing the iSCSI commands, and talking to the network card at 10Gbps. In comparison, the best consumer SSDs are still around the 250MB/sec mark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for ... decades ? But somehow , the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology , thin film heads , headerless architectures , increased spindle speeds , bigger caches , perpendicular recording , 4k sectors , continuing advances in encoding and ECC , continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming.And whatever happened to bubble memory , anyway ?
Was n't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all ?
Is n't that what Intel promised us ? But despite all of those improvement , over decades , the minimum and average access speeds of drives has n't improved significantly .
A random read still takes milliseconds , which is a simply enormous time for a modern computer to wait .
This in turn reduces the throughput in comparison to the streaming speed , making even the 'fastest ' hard drives quite slow in practice for most workloads .
I 've seen benchmarks for 'enterprise ' drives doing only a few hundred KB/sec for random reads .
This is 2010 !
Computers can process data just a * tad * faster than that ! In comparison , most SSDs have random read times under a millisecond already , and some PCI-E versions are in the dozens of microseconds range .
The random read throughput can be as high as 50 \ % of the streaming throughput , and some drives are closer to 90 \ % .That 's a night &amp; day difference .
It 's like going from VHS to DVD.And it 's still not fast enough .
A modern CPU can process IO data at rates of up to gigabytes per second , easily * .
Physical drives have fallen woefully behind , and even SSDs are n't quite there yet unless you RAID a bunch of them .
* ) For example , a SUN Thumper , which is just two average quad-core AMD Opterons , can send 1GB/sec ( not gigabit , gigabyte ) of iSCSI traffic down the wire .
That includes reading from disk , decoding the ZFS structures , verifying the hashes , processing the iSCSI commands , and talking to the network card at 10Gbps .
In comparison , the best consumer SSDs are still around the 250MB/sec mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pundits have been tolling the death knell of rotating storage for ... decades?But somehow, the rotating storage business manages to innovate its way back to relevance -- Winchester technology, thin film heads, headerless architectures, increased spindle speeds, bigger caches, perpendicular recording, 4k sectors, continuing advances in encoding and ECC, continuing advances in media -- the advances keep coming.And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway?
Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all?
Isn't that what Intel promised us?But despite all of those improvement, over decades, the minimum and average access speeds of drives hasn't improved significantly.
A random read still takes milliseconds, which is a simply enormous time for a modern computer to wait.
This in turn reduces the throughput in comparison to the streaming speed, making even the 'fastest' hard drives quite slow in practice for most workloads.
I've seen benchmarks for 'enterprise' drives doing only a few hundred KB/sec for random reads.
This is 2010!
Computers can process data just a *tad* faster than that!In comparison, most SSDs have random read times under a millisecond already, and some PCI-E versions are in the dozens of microseconds range.
The random read throughput can be as high as 50\% of the streaming throughput, and some drives are closer to 90\%.That's a night &amp; day difference.
It's like going from VHS to DVD.And it's still not fast enough.
A modern CPU can process IO data at rates of up to gigabytes per second, easily*.
Physical drives have fallen woefully behind, and even SSDs aren't quite there yet unless you RAID a bunch of them.
*) For example, a SUN Thumper, which is just two average quad-core AMD Opterons, can send 1GB/sec (not gigabit, gigabyte) of iSCSI traffic down the wire.
That includes reading from disk, decoding the ZFS structures, verifying the hashes, processing the iSCSI commands, and talking to the network card at 10Gbps.
In comparison, the best consumer SSDs are still around the 250MB/sec mark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591926</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Confuse Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1269350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Floppy disk drives (0.1 to 3MB), ZIP drives (100 to 750MB) have been totally replaced now by solid-state drives (in the form of USB memory sticks) - and re-writable CDs and re-writable DVDs are pretty much dead except for specialist cases (maybe medium-term archiving or transfering data to other devices like DVD-players or CD music players ; but for data-transfer an 8GB USB stick is far more convenient than burning a DVD).</p><p>Read-Only media for mass distribution is another matter entirely : physically stamping out the data in disks that can be spun past the reading mechanism like in a CD or DVD is unlikely to be superceded by something without moving parts for a while - although it is not unfeasible to imagine something like a CD but with the media stationary and the reader moving / directing its reading mechanism / beam accross it in 2 (or 3...) dimensions its a lot simpler / cheaper currently just to spin the disk around to provide one dimension of scanning (Simplifying the complicated / expensive movement of the heads to just one dimension while still allowing access to the whole 2D surface)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Floppy disk drives ( 0.1 to 3MB ) , ZIP drives ( 100 to 750MB ) have been totally replaced now by solid-state drives ( in the form of USB memory sticks ) - and re-writable CDs and re-writable DVDs are pretty much dead except for specialist cases ( maybe medium-term archiving or transfering data to other devices like DVD-players or CD music players ; but for data-transfer an 8GB USB stick is far more convenient than burning a DVD ) .Read-Only media for mass distribution is another matter entirely : physically stamping out the data in disks that can be spun past the reading mechanism like in a CD or DVD is unlikely to be superceded by something without moving parts for a while - although it is not unfeasible to imagine something like a CD but with the media stationary and the reader moving / directing its reading mechanism / beam accross it in 2 ( or 3... ) dimensions its a lot simpler / cheaper currently just to spin the disk around to provide one dimension of scanning ( Simplifying the complicated / expensive movement of the heads to just one dimension while still allowing access to the whole 2D surface )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Floppy disk drives (0.1 to 3MB), ZIP drives (100 to 750MB) have been totally replaced now by solid-state drives (in the form of USB memory sticks) - and re-writable CDs and re-writable DVDs are pretty much dead except for specialist cases (maybe medium-term archiving or transfering data to other devices like DVD-players or CD music players ; but for data-transfer an 8GB USB stick is far more convenient than burning a DVD).Read-Only media for mass distribution is another matter entirely : physically stamping out the data in disks that can be spun past the reading mechanism like in a CD or DVD is unlikely to be superceded by something without moving parts for a while - although it is not unfeasible to imagine something like a CD but with the media stationary and the reader moving / directing its reading mechanism / beam accross it in 2 (or 3...) dimensions its a lot simpler / cheaper currently just to spin the disk around to provide one dimension of scanning (Simplifying the complicated / expensive movement of the heads to just one dimension while still allowing access to the whole 2D surface)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589718</id>
	<title>Love my SSD</title>
	<author>jamesyouwish</author>
	<datestamp>1269340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am running a Intel X25m and Win7 boots in under 30 seconds to desktop.  Still have 1TB Spindle for storage but 80GB is fine for the OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am running a Intel X25m and Win7 boots in under 30 seconds to desktop .
Still have 1TB Spindle for storage but 80GB is fine for the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am running a Intel X25m and Win7 boots in under 30 seconds to desktop.
Still have 1TB Spindle for storage but 80GB is fine for the OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588370</id>
	<title>End of HDDs? Not likely soon.</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1269377460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q: "SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media?" A: No</p><p>Let's face it, a hard drive to hard drive is currently the backup method of choice. Anyone who denies it can be pointed to a plethora of, "Ask Slashdot: How do I store my data?" discussions. Just like when tape drives could store more than the systems hard disk, a hard disk offers to hold more than the average SSD. Never mind the fact that when an SSD fails, it's more than likely end-game for your data. But when a HDD fails, there's any number of data recovery companies at hand to restore it.</p><p>The introduction of SSDs will add pep to the computers we use, but hard drives will continue to be the workhorse for storing the bulk of our data for a long while to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : " SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media ?
" A : NoLet 's face it , a hard drive to hard drive is currently the backup method of choice .
Anyone who denies it can be pointed to a plethora of , " Ask Slashdot : How do I store my data ?
" discussions .
Just like when tape drives could store more than the systems hard disk , a hard disk offers to hold more than the average SSD .
Never mind the fact that when an SSD fails , it 's more than likely end-game for your data .
But when a HDD fails , there 's any number of data recovery companies at hand to restore it.The introduction of SSDs will add pep to the computers we use , but hard drives will continue to be the workhorse for storing the bulk of our data for a long while to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: "SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media?
" A: NoLet's face it, a hard drive to hard drive is currently the backup method of choice.
Anyone who denies it can be pointed to a plethora of, "Ask Slashdot: How do I store my data?
" discussions.
Just like when tape drives could store more than the systems hard disk, a hard disk offers to hold more than the average SSD.
Never mind the fact that when an SSD fails, it's more than likely end-game for your data.
But when a HDD fails, there's any number of data recovery companies at hand to restore it.The introduction of SSDs will add pep to the computers we use, but hard drives will continue to be the workhorse for storing the bulk of our data for a long while to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587436</id>
	<title>60 Gig = 127</title>
	<author>crazyfrenchmen</author>
	<datestamp>1269373020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, today at newegg you get a 60Gig SATA II for 127 after MIR:<br>http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227461</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , today at newegg you get a 60Gig SATA II for 127 after MIR : http : //www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16820227461</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, today at newegg you get a 60Gig SATA II for 127 after MIR:http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227461</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587780</id>
	<title>maybe</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1269374460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's behind the +TB drive race is home media and consumer servers don't need anything like the speed advantages of chip based storage. spinning platters easily serve content throughout the house where size/cost and the ability to hold giant files is the determining purchase factor. i paid $65 for an external 1TB drive last fall because i had to have something at least that big for my content, and 2TBs under $150 are now available. meanwhile an acquaintance just finished design work on asml's next generation chip fabber and if i can't reveal the specific sizes i can report they're shockingly small. however i just don't see silicon storage beating the price/density advantages of platters anytime soon, regardless of the author's predictions.</p><p>cheap and huge. when it comes to multi terabytes that's what most families need.</p><p> - js.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's behind the + TB drive race is home media and consumer servers do n't need anything like the speed advantages of chip based storage .
spinning platters easily serve content throughout the house where size/cost and the ability to hold giant files is the determining purchase factor .
i paid $ 65 for an external 1TB drive last fall because i had to have something at least that big for my content , and 2TBs under $ 150 are now available .
meanwhile an acquaintance just finished design work on asml 's next generation chip fabber and if i ca n't reveal the specific sizes i can report they 're shockingly small .
however i just do n't see silicon storage beating the price/density advantages of platters anytime soon , regardless of the author 's predictions.cheap and huge .
when it comes to multi terabytes that 's what most families need .
- js .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's behind the +TB drive race is home media and consumer servers don't need anything like the speed advantages of chip based storage.
spinning platters easily serve content throughout the house where size/cost and the ability to hold giant files is the determining purchase factor.
i paid $65 for an external 1TB drive last fall because i had to have something at least that big for my content, and 2TBs under $150 are now available.
meanwhile an acquaintance just finished design work on asml's next generation chip fabber and if i can't reveal the specific sizes i can report they're shockingly small.
however i just don't see silicon storage beating the price/density advantages of platters anytime soon, regardless of the author's predictions.cheap and huge.
when it comes to multi terabytes that's what most families need.
- js.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587356</id>
	<title>Re:Ram Disks</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1269372780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oh yes... remember how RAM "disks" would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram, and all that extra ram was unneeded?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Um, no.</p><p>RAM disks -- being RAM -- aren't permanent storage, and were never held up as a replacement for any kind of permanent storage. They were always a work around for permanent storage being too slow for applications that had a demand for responsiveness and could accept the risk of data loss to acheive it, and even then were largely useful for applications that had been designed for older (relatively) constrained RAM situations, and therefore did stuff "on disk" not because it needed stored at that point, but to avoid keeping too much in RAM at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes... remember how RAM " disks " would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram , and all that extra ram was unneeded ?
Um , no.RAM disks -- being RAM -- are n't permanent storage , and were never held up as a replacement for any kind of permanent storage .
They were always a work around for permanent storage being too slow for applications that had a demand for responsiveness and could accept the risk of data loss to acheive it , and even then were largely useful for applications that had been designed for older ( relatively ) constrained RAM situations , and therefore did stuff " on disk " not because it needed stored at that point , but to avoid keeping too much in RAM at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes... remember how RAM "disks" would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram, and all that extra ram was unneeded?
Um, no.RAM disks -- being RAM -- aren't permanent storage, and were never held up as a replacement for any kind of permanent storage.
They were always a work around for permanent storage being too slow for applications that had a demand for responsiveness and could accept the risk of data loss to acheive it, and even then were largely useful for applications that had been designed for older (relatively) constrained RAM situations, and therefore did stuff "on disk" not because it needed stored at that point, but to avoid keeping too much in RAM at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</id>
	<title>This just in!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!</p><p>Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity! But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!</p><p>Can I be a tech pundit yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles , just as soon as their poor $ $ /mile traveled ratio reaches parity , but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now ! Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry , just as soon as their poor $ $ /watt ratio reaches parity !
But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW ! Can I be a tech pundit yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity!
But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!Can I be a tech pundit yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596560</id>
	<title>Re:32-40 GB isn't bad</title>
	<author>Kotten</author>
	<datestamp>1269440280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree</p><p>My laptop has a 30GB Vertex drive. I bought it a year ago because it was fast and cheaper/performance than velociraptor (which could not be put into the laptop anyway because of power consumption and heat). I run Ubuntu 9.10 64bit on it and using VirtualBox to run the other OS'es I need/want:
</p><ul>
<li>Ubuntu 9.04 32bit</li><li>Maemo SDK image (Ubuntu 8.04)</li><li>Windows XP</li><li>Haiku</li></ul><p>
Yes I am considering buying an Intel 80Gb SSD but OTOH I could ditch XP as I am not really using it.</p><p>PS. I stream music and film from the net or from my server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agreeMy laptop has a 30GB Vertex drive .
I bought it a year ago because it was fast and cheaper/performance than velociraptor ( which could not be put into the laptop anyway because of power consumption and heat ) .
I run Ubuntu 9.10 64bit on it and using VirtualBox to run the other OS'es I need/want : Ubuntu 9.04 32bitMaemo SDK image ( Ubuntu 8.04 ) Windows XPHaiku Yes I am considering buying an Intel 80Gb SSD but OTOH I could ditch XP as I am not really using it.PS .
I stream music and film from the net or from my server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agreeMy laptop has a 30GB Vertex drive.
I bought it a year ago because it was fast and cheaper/performance than velociraptor (which could not be put into the laptop anyway because of power consumption and heat).
I run Ubuntu 9.10 64bit on it and using VirtualBox to run the other OS'es I need/want:

Ubuntu 9.04 32bitMaemo SDK image (Ubuntu 8.04)Windows XPHaiku
Yes I am considering buying an Intel 80Gb SSD but OTOH I could ditch XP as I am not really using it.PS.
I stream music and film from the net or from my server</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587914</id>
	<title>More space!!</title>
	<author>Humus B. Chittenbee</author>
	<datestamp>1269375180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My son - admittedly a music major - has over 100G of music on his laptop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... from an extensive classical and opera collection to death metal (of many varieties) and jazz (his particular interest) and every other possibility [except I do not think he has any country/western.]  I am a lightweight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I only have a little over 20G.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My son - admittedly a music major - has over 100G of music on his laptop ... from an extensive classical and opera collection to death metal ( of many varieties ) and jazz ( his particular interest ) and every other possibility [ except I do not think he has any country/western .
] I am a lightweight ... I only have a little over 20G .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son - admittedly a music major - has over 100G of music on his laptop ... from an extensive classical and opera collection to death metal (of many varieties) and jazz (his particular interest) and every other possibility [except I do not think he has any country/western.
]  I am a lightweight ... I only have a little over 20G.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587880</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269375000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I have 1.5 TB's of storage space. Why am I going to buy another? Thats right.. I'm not..<br>
<br>
I am guessing that your porn collection grows so fast that you are always shopping around for another terabyte or two? Thats not how the real world operates.<br>
<br>
In the real world, we don't try to find someone retailing laptops with terabytes of disk space. In the real world, that SSD looks damn attractive in that stock laptop. <i>Fast? yeah.. very fast.. Big enough? yeah.. big enough.. Wont turn into a worthless platter the moment I drop the laptop? yeah.. the G forces these things withstand is VERY impressive.. The laptop costs about the same as that other laptop with that mechanic drive? yeah.. prices are similar.<br>
<br>
Welcome to the real world, rapid porn collector.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I have 1.5 TB 's of storage space .
Why am I going to buy another ?
Thats right.. I 'm not. . I am guessing that your porn collection grows so fast that you are always shopping around for another terabyte or two ?
Thats not how the real world operates .
In the real world , we do n't try to find someone retailing laptops with terabytes of disk space .
In the real world , that SSD looks damn attractive in that stock laptop .
Fast ? yeah.. very fast.. Big enough ?
yeah.. big enough.. Wont turn into a worthless platter the moment I drop the laptop ?
yeah.. the G forces these things withstand is VERY impressive.. The laptop costs about the same as that other laptop with that mechanic drive ?
yeah.. prices are similar .
Welcome to the real world , rapid porn collector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I have 1.5 TB's of storage space.
Why am I going to buy another?
Thats right.. I'm not..

I am guessing that your porn collection grows so fast that you are always shopping around for another terabyte or two?
Thats not how the real world operates.
In the real world, we don't try to find someone retailing laptops with terabytes of disk space.
In the real world, that SSD looks damn attractive in that stock laptop.
Fast? yeah.. very fast.. Big enough?
yeah.. big enough.. Wont turn into a worthless platter the moment I drop the laptop?
yeah.. the G forces these things withstand is VERY impressive.. The laptop costs about the same as that other laptop with that mechanic drive?
yeah.. prices are similar.
Welcome to the real world, rapid porn collector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587636</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please, Get over your aesthetic snobbery, luddite.</p><p>Velvia and Kodachrome produced exposure styles that are fairly trivial to reproduce in both Gimp and Photoshop- Film locks you in to an entire set of aesthetic preferences by brand, Digital gives you a raw capture and leaves it to the photographer to apply the aesthetics after the fact (or Batch Apply, if you find a style you like).</p><p>If anything, these days, the 'consumer aesthetic style' of film is being replaced by the camera bodies themselves: Measurebators spend endless hours debating and posting samples from each camera, pointing out the tiniest minutae of style differences so that other people can choose cameras that handle particular situations (specular highlight clipping being the most important to me).</p><p>I've been doing artistic and semi-professional photography for a decade and a half, starting by manually developing film from nikon bodies in the 90s, and then moving in to digital photojournalism early this decade. I know a lot of photographers, I am a photographer, and I will absolutely assert that "(digital cameras) compared to film are simply outmatched" is blatantly and patently false. The simple fact is that modern digital sensors capture a technically much larger envelope of information across the spectrum of imaging: More resolution, Larger colorspace, Higer signal to less noise with equivalent, or even Higher Dynamic Range, etc (not even touching the far cleaner workflow, the added advantage of immediate image review for stylistic learning, etc). The simple, linear exposure model of modern digital cameras is far superior for capturing the information actually in front of the cameras lens. With Digital, the color balance and dynamic range of your photograph does not depend on the precise temperature of the film manufacture, and/or developing, something you probably had no control over). Name a SINGLE axis on which Velvia or Kodachrome produce more information about the exposure than your modern full-frame digital sensor.  Go on, try, I dare you.</p><p>Shooting Film is like shooting JPG, you lock in all of your style information and throw out a huge portion of your exposure data the moment the shutter closes. Maybe if your a luddite who lacks basic post-processing skills, you won't understand that this is all information you can trivially throw out later with the right curve, color balance and exposure profiles to produce the \_exact\_ same image you would have gotten with film, but at least you have the option to 'undo', or take the image in a completely different direction after the fact if necessary.</p><p>Film will remain a luxury niche product for well heeled aesthetic snobs stuck with their highschool dark-room days' photography expertise whom are willing to pay a premium so that they don't have to bother learning how to get the same results from modern technology, but the rest of the world has left yall behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please , Get over your aesthetic snobbery , luddite.Velvia and Kodachrome produced exposure styles that are fairly trivial to reproduce in both Gimp and Photoshop- Film locks you in to an entire set of aesthetic preferences by brand , Digital gives you a raw capture and leaves it to the photographer to apply the aesthetics after the fact ( or Batch Apply , if you find a style you like ) .If anything , these days , the 'consumer aesthetic style ' of film is being replaced by the camera bodies themselves : Measurebators spend endless hours debating and posting samples from each camera , pointing out the tiniest minutae of style differences so that other people can choose cameras that handle particular situations ( specular highlight clipping being the most important to me ) .I 've been doing artistic and semi-professional photography for a decade and a half , starting by manually developing film from nikon bodies in the 90s , and then moving in to digital photojournalism early this decade .
I know a lot of photographers , I am a photographer , and I will absolutely assert that " ( digital cameras ) compared to film are simply outmatched " is blatantly and patently false .
The simple fact is that modern digital sensors capture a technically much larger envelope of information across the spectrum of imaging : More resolution , Larger colorspace , Higer signal to less noise with equivalent , or even Higher Dynamic Range , etc ( not even touching the far cleaner workflow , the added advantage of immediate image review for stylistic learning , etc ) .
The simple , linear exposure model of modern digital cameras is far superior for capturing the information actually in front of the cameras lens .
With Digital , the color balance and dynamic range of your photograph does not depend on the precise temperature of the film manufacture , and/or developing , something you probably had no control over ) .
Name a SINGLE axis on which Velvia or Kodachrome produce more information about the exposure than your modern full-frame digital sensor .
Go on , try , I dare you.Shooting Film is like shooting JPG , you lock in all of your style information and throw out a huge portion of your exposure data the moment the shutter closes .
Maybe if your a luddite who lacks basic post-processing skills , you wo n't understand that this is all information you can trivially throw out later with the right curve , color balance and exposure profiles to produce the \ _exact \ _ same image you would have gotten with film , but at least you have the option to 'undo ' , or take the image in a completely different direction after the fact if necessary.Film will remain a luxury niche product for well heeled aesthetic snobs stuck with their highschool dark-room days ' photography expertise whom are willing to pay a premium so that they do n't have to bother learning how to get the same results from modern technology , but the rest of the world has left yall behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please, Get over your aesthetic snobbery, luddite.Velvia and Kodachrome produced exposure styles that are fairly trivial to reproduce in both Gimp and Photoshop- Film locks you in to an entire set of aesthetic preferences by brand, Digital gives you a raw capture and leaves it to the photographer to apply the aesthetics after the fact (or Batch Apply, if you find a style you like).If anything, these days, the 'consumer aesthetic style' of film is being replaced by the camera bodies themselves: Measurebators spend endless hours debating and posting samples from each camera, pointing out the tiniest minutae of style differences so that other people can choose cameras that handle particular situations (specular highlight clipping being the most important to me).I've been doing artistic and semi-professional photography for a decade and a half, starting by manually developing film from nikon bodies in the 90s, and then moving in to digital photojournalism early this decade.
I know a lot of photographers, I am a photographer, and I will absolutely assert that "(digital cameras) compared to film are simply outmatched" is blatantly and patently false.
The simple fact is that modern digital sensors capture a technically much larger envelope of information across the spectrum of imaging: More resolution, Larger colorspace, Higer signal to less noise with equivalent, or even Higher Dynamic Range, etc (not even touching the far cleaner workflow, the added advantage of immediate image review for stylistic learning, etc).
The simple, linear exposure model of modern digital cameras is far superior for capturing the information actually in front of the cameras lens.
With Digital, the color balance and dynamic range of your photograph does not depend on the precise temperature of the film manufacture, and/or developing, something you probably had no control over).
Name a SINGLE axis on which Velvia or Kodachrome produce more information about the exposure than your modern full-frame digital sensor.
Go on, try, I dare you.Shooting Film is like shooting JPG, you lock in all of your style information and throw out a huge portion of your exposure data the moment the shutter closes.
Maybe if your a luddite who lacks basic post-processing skills, you won't understand that this is all information you can trivially throw out later with the right curve, color balance and exposure profiles to produce the \_exact\_ same image you would have gotten with film, but at least you have the option to 'undo', or take the image in a completely different direction after the fact if necessary.Film will remain a luxury niche product for well heeled aesthetic snobs stuck with their highschool dark-room days' photography expertise whom are willing to pay a premium so that they don't have to bother learning how to get the same results from modern technology, but the rest of the world has left yall behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587652</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1269373860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, my work laptop, with Windows XP, is using just 12 GB. (But I don't have anything on it but Office and a few web browsers. But I'm a web programmer and do most of my work SSH'd into a Linux web server.)

My home computer with Ubuntu uses, like, 4GB.

I don't store pictures or music or movies on them, so I guess that's the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , my work laptop , with Windows XP , is using just 12 GB .
( But I do n't have anything on it but Office and a few web browsers .
But I 'm a web programmer and do most of my work SSH 'd into a Linux web server .
) My home computer with Ubuntu uses , like , 4GB .
I do n't store pictures or music or movies on them , so I guess that 's the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, my work laptop, with Windows XP, is using just 12 GB.
(But I don't have anything on it but Office and a few web browsers.
But I'm a web programmer and do most of my work SSH'd into a Linux web server.
)

My home computer with Ubuntu uses, like, 4GB.
I don't store pictures or music or movies on them, so I guess that's the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590220</id>
	<title>Re:Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269343260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?</p> </div><p>Imagine how quickly you could access any random scene in your collection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection ?
Imagine how quickly you could access any random scene in your collection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?
Imagine how quickly you could access any random scene in your collection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589562</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269340260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 128GB Samsung SLC SSD in my debian laptop and its at least 7/8th full at all times. That is because I am not a well-fare case like you and actually use my laptop for enjoyment (music, TV, movies) as well as productivity (i.e. work).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 128GB Samsung SLC SSD in my debian laptop and its at least 7/8th full at all times .
That is because I am not a well-fare case like you and actually use my laptop for enjoyment ( music , TV , movies ) as well as productivity ( i.e .
work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 128GB Samsung SLC SSD in my debian laptop and its at least 7/8th full at all times.
That is because I am not a well-fare case like you and actually use my laptop for enjoyment (music, TV, movies) as well as productivity (i.e.
work).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587280</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better analogy might be drawn to modern pizzas. For maximizing macronutrient + sodium intake versus time and expense, you simply can't beat frozen pizzas. But there's definitely still a market for less convenient hand-tossed pizza. I think you're right about where we're headed. In the future, I fully expect hard disks to become a specialized boutique product, cherished by users with aesthetic concerns like musicians or cinematographers. As you've said it yourself, digital filters are a poor substitute for the real thing. And in this case, the real thing is a spinning platter -- whether made of a magnetic substrate vapor-deposited on an aluminum platter, or made of pizza dough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better analogy might be drawn to modern pizzas .
For maximizing macronutrient + sodium intake versus time and expense , you simply ca n't beat frozen pizzas .
But there 's definitely still a market for less convenient hand-tossed pizza .
I think you 're right about where we 're headed .
In the future , I fully expect hard disks to become a specialized boutique product , cherished by users with aesthetic concerns like musicians or cinematographers .
As you 've said it yourself , digital filters are a poor substitute for the real thing .
And in this case , the real thing is a spinning platter -- whether made of a magnetic substrate vapor-deposited on an aluminum platter , or made of pizza dough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better analogy might be drawn to modern pizzas.
For maximizing macronutrient + sodium intake versus time and expense, you simply can't beat frozen pizzas.
But there's definitely still a market for less convenient hand-tossed pizza.
I think you're right about where we're headed.
In the future, I fully expect hard disks to become a specialized boutique product, cherished by users with aesthetic concerns like musicians or cinematographers.
As you've said it yourself, digital filters are a poor substitute for the real thing.
And in this case, the real thing is a spinning platter -- whether made of a magnetic substrate vapor-deposited on an aluminum platter, or made of pizza dough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587140</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1269372000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Music you say? We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.</p></div><p>Fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music you say ?
We 're talking about " needing " ... You do n't " need " music on your laptop , unless that 's your profession , but that does n't make you a typcial user.Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music you say?
We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.Fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591264</id>
	<title>Innovator's Dilemma</title>
	<author>rschuetzler</author>
	<datestamp>1269347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the Innovator's Dilemma. Spinning mechanical hard disks will continue to get larger and larger, but they will be far above the requirements of most users. Some people will want a 4 TB hard drive for their laptop, but for most people 500 GB is more than enough.

SSDs will get larger and cheaper until they fit the average consumer's taste. Also, SSDs are faster and more energy efficient, so they will be providing additional benefits on top of size. Thus, my bet is that SSDs will probably move to replace spinning hard disks over the next 5-10 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the Innovator 's Dilemma .
Spinning mechanical hard disks will continue to get larger and larger , but they will be far above the requirements of most users .
Some people will want a 4 TB hard drive for their laptop , but for most people 500 GB is more than enough .
SSDs will get larger and cheaper until they fit the average consumer 's taste .
Also , SSDs are faster and more energy efficient , so they will be providing additional benefits on top of size .
Thus , my bet is that SSDs will probably move to replace spinning hard disks over the next 5-10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the Innovator's Dilemma.
Spinning mechanical hard disks will continue to get larger and larger, but they will be far above the requirements of most users.
Some people will want a 4 TB hard drive for their laptop, but for most people 500 GB is more than enough.
SSDs will get larger and cheaper until they fit the average consumer's taste.
Also, SSDs are faster and more energy efficient, so they will be providing additional benefits on top of size.
Thus, my bet is that SSDs will probably move to replace spinning hard disks over the next 5-10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772</id>
	<title>32-40 GB isn't bad</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1269370860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While most computers come with bigger disks (because the cost of making spinning disks makes the marginal cost bigger, and bigger numbers are always easier to sell), I've had 30-40 GB Linux setups on dual-boot machines where the primary was Windows, and never really had space problems. And lots of the things that eat up space on consumer machines (like video) are stuff that is better on a hard disk anyway. So I could easily see computers that aren't heavily used for video or similar applicaitons going to SSDs if 32-40 GB SSD are affordable, and computers with a 32-40 GB primary SSD as well as an HDD, where the HDD is mainly used for things where sequential transfer speed rather than random access time is key. The trick for the latter is getting a good configuration/UI setup that makes it "just work" for the most common applications without the user manually choosing locations (mapping locations appropriately, and maybe implementing MIME-type-based defaults for download locations), while giving power users precise control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While most computers come with bigger disks ( because the cost of making spinning disks makes the marginal cost bigger , and bigger numbers are always easier to sell ) , I 've had 30-40 GB Linux setups on dual-boot machines where the primary was Windows , and never really had space problems .
And lots of the things that eat up space on consumer machines ( like video ) are stuff that is better on a hard disk anyway .
So I could easily see computers that are n't heavily used for video or similar applicaitons going to SSDs if 32-40 GB SSD are affordable , and computers with a 32-40 GB primary SSD as well as an HDD , where the HDD is mainly used for things where sequential transfer speed rather than random access time is key .
The trick for the latter is getting a good configuration/UI setup that makes it " just work " for the most common applications without the user manually choosing locations ( mapping locations appropriately , and maybe implementing MIME-type-based defaults for download locations ) , while giving power users precise control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While most computers come with bigger disks (because the cost of making spinning disks makes the marginal cost bigger, and bigger numbers are always easier to sell), I've had 30-40 GB Linux setups on dual-boot machines where the primary was Windows, and never really had space problems.
And lots of the things that eat up space on consumer machines (like video) are stuff that is better on a hard disk anyway.
So I could easily see computers that aren't heavily used for video or similar applicaitons going to SSDs if 32-40 GB SSD are affordable, and computers with a 32-40 GB primary SSD as well as an HDD, where the HDD is mainly used for things where sequential transfer speed rather than random access time is key.
The trick for the latter is getting a good configuration/UI setup that makes it "just work" for the most common applications without the user manually choosing locations (mapping locations appropriately, and maybe implementing MIME-type-based defaults for download locations), while giving power users precise control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590358</id>
	<title>Re:32-40 GB isn't bad</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. You can't make less than a platter worth of disk with some obsolete density, which means about 250GB per 3.5" platter and 120GB per 2.5" platter today. Some vendors may make 1/2 platter sized disks from drives with a failed head or leaving one head off, but with good yield the economics don't work out.<br>Oh and no matter what you do, the manufacturing cost of the lowest end hard drive will always be around $50. You can't make them any cheaper. A SSD OTOH, which is just a PCB, a few chips and some plastic, has a lot of room below that. Just look at USB sticks. They are SSDs too - just very crappy ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
You ca n't make less than a platter worth of disk with some obsolete density , which means about 250GB per 3.5 " platter and 120GB per 2.5 " platter today .
Some vendors may make 1/2 platter sized disks from drives with a failed head or leaving one head off , but with good yield the economics do n't work out.Oh and no matter what you do , the manufacturing cost of the lowest end hard drive will always be around $ 50 .
You ca n't make them any cheaper .
A SSD OTOH , which is just a PCB , a few chips and some plastic , has a lot of room below that .
Just look at USB sticks .
They are SSDs too - just very crappy ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
You can't make less than a platter worth of disk with some obsolete density, which means about 250GB per 3.5" platter and 120GB per 2.5" platter today.
Some vendors may make 1/2 platter sized disks from drives with a failed head or leaving one head off, but with good yield the economics don't work out.Oh and no matter what you do, the manufacturing cost of the lowest end hard drive will always be around $50.
You can't make them any cheaper.
A SSD OTOH, which is just a PCB, a few chips and some plastic, has a lot of room below that.
Just look at USB sticks.
They are SSDs too - just very crappy ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587496</id>
	<title>Re:This just in!</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269373260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you can not.</p><p>Those other things have inefficiencies built into them that cause their cost to remain relatively high.</p><p>There's no visible floor for the price of NVRAM.  Currently the price of a device is high because the industry is recouping R&amp;D.  But as the learning curve progresses, the only way for them to keep the price of Flash die above the pennies-per-gigabyte level is to induce you to upgrade continually, the way CPU manufacturers do it.  But even then, the pricing pressure is relentlessly downward.  Intel and AMD have resorted to packaging 4 or 6 CPUs in one package just to get 20\% of the price they used to get for one core that ran 30\% as fast as each of the cores they're now shipping.  Take a moment and research the cost of CF or SD memory cards over the past few years.  I distinctly remember paying $200/GB and thinking it was a good deal (and it was, in 2002).  Now you can get a 2 GB device with an MP3 player added on for $5.</p><p>I see no reason that SSD secondary storage won't follow the same slide into "need one? take one; got one? leave one" status.</p><p>So no, your tech punditry is the quality of vending-machine Borscht.  No buzz for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you can not.Those other things have inefficiencies built into them that cause their cost to remain relatively high.There 's no visible floor for the price of NVRAM .
Currently the price of a device is high because the industry is recouping R&amp;D .
But as the learning curve progresses , the only way for them to keep the price of Flash die above the pennies-per-gigabyte level is to induce you to upgrade continually , the way CPU manufacturers do it .
But even then , the pricing pressure is relentlessly downward .
Intel and AMD have resorted to packaging 4 or 6 CPUs in one package just to get 20 \ % of the price they used to get for one core that ran 30 \ % as fast as each of the cores they 're now shipping .
Take a moment and research the cost of CF or SD memory cards over the past few years .
I distinctly remember paying $ 200/GB and thinking it was a good deal ( and it was , in 2002 ) .
Now you can get a 2 GB device with an MP3 player added on for $ 5.I see no reason that SSD secondary storage wo n't follow the same slide into " need one ?
take one ; got one ?
leave one " status.So no , your tech punditry is the quality of vending-machine Borscht .
No buzz for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you can not.Those other things have inefficiencies built into them that cause their cost to remain relatively high.There's no visible floor for the price of NVRAM.
Currently the price of a device is high because the industry is recouping R&amp;D.
But as the learning curve progresses, the only way for them to keep the price of Flash die above the pennies-per-gigabyte level is to induce you to upgrade continually, the way CPU manufacturers do it.
But even then, the pricing pressure is relentlessly downward.
Intel and AMD have resorted to packaging 4 or 6 CPUs in one package just to get 20\% of the price they used to get for one core that ran 30\% as fast as each of the cores they're now shipping.
Take a moment and research the cost of CF or SD memory cards over the past few years.
I distinctly remember paying $200/GB and thinking it was a good deal (and it was, in 2002).
Now you can get a 2 GB device with an MP3 player added on for $5.I see no reason that SSD secondary storage won't follow the same slide into "need one?
take one; got one?
leave one" status.So no, your tech punditry is the quality of vending-machine Borscht.
No buzz for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587956</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269375360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and "their computer" is really their phone or portable media device.</p><p>Most users don't need to carry around gigs and gigs of music on their laptops when they have a portable media player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and " their computer " is really their phone or portable media device.Most users do n't need to carry around gigs and gigs of music on their laptops when they have a portable media player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and "their computer" is really their phone or portable media device.Most users don't need to carry around gigs and gigs of music on their laptops when they have a portable media player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590354</id>
	<title>Re:Damned fast, worth the price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to inform you but the Kingston branded SSDs are god awful. The performance will get worse over time, enjoy. Shoulda bought a Samsung SLC or Intel SLC/MLC if you actually cared about performance.</p><p>No offense but, if you are doing photo work on a laptop you are not serious about photo work. I've used dual-core MBPs w/ 4+GB RAM on extended shoots, but photo crunching is still a painful affair at best, best left for big iron workstations. Though by the look of the poor optical quality on some of your wide angle shots, I'd wager you aren't serious about photography anyway. Nikon makes some very good wide angles, you certainly do not have one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to inform you but the Kingston branded SSDs are god awful .
The performance will get worse over time , enjoy .
Shoulda bought a Samsung SLC or Intel SLC/MLC if you actually cared about performance.No offense but , if you are doing photo work on a laptop you are not serious about photo work .
I 've used dual-core MBPs w/ 4 + GB RAM on extended shoots , but photo crunching is still a painful affair at best , best left for big iron workstations .
Though by the look of the poor optical quality on some of your wide angle shots , I 'd wager you are n't serious about photography anyway .
Nikon makes some very good wide angles , you certainly do not have one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to inform you but the Kingston branded SSDs are god awful.
The performance will get worse over time, enjoy.
Shoulda bought a Samsung SLC or Intel SLC/MLC if you actually cared about performance.No offense but, if you are doing photo work on a laptop you are not serious about photo work.
I've used dual-core MBPs w/ 4+GB RAM on extended shoots, but photo crunching is still a painful affair at best, best left for big iron workstations.
Though by the look of the poor optical quality on some of your wide angle shots, I'd wager you aren't serious about photography anyway.
Nikon makes some very good wide angles, you certainly do not have one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31593072</id>
	<title>My irrelevant thoughts</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1269358440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>It tuns out if you look at Intel's and OCZ's new offerings, they're inexpensive simply because they chintz out on storage capacity. Intel's $125 SSD stores 40GB. OCZ's sub-$100 SSD is 32GB. So the cost per gigabyte hasn't really gone down - it's still about $3/GB. At that price, that sub-$200 1 Terabyte Western Digital hard drive would cost you $3,000 using similar SSD technology.</p></div></blockquote><p>This has always been the argument against SSDs, and it's always been wrong. Pundits are under the impression that it should be possible to get speed, capacity, and affordability all in one go. To use a car analogy, they're asking for a 12-cylinder sports car that gets 40mpg and costs under $30k.</p><p>For as long as there have been SSDs, consumers have been waiting for lower-capacity versions that were affordable. It's not that hard to do: just take your "low-end" 160GB version, leave a few chips off the PCB, and voila. The manufacturers so far have been hitting the overclocker and enthusiast crowd who will pay any amount of money for the latest and greatest and the companies are just now realizing that hey, average Joes might buy these things too if we can meet a reasonable price point.</p><p>I've personally been waiting for an affordable SSD for my laptop and desktop machines but so far the options have been:</p><p>1) A mini-PCIe thing that barely holds an OS and doesn't perform any better than a mechanical disk<br>2) A fast 2.5" SATA SSD with about 4x more space than I need and costs 2x more than I'm willing to pay</p><p>I'm one of those people who doesn't store a crap-ton of data on my computers. 95\% of the data on my computers is OS and applications. All of my important or bulk data goes on a file server which is accessed over the network and hence does not need to be available within less than a milisecond.</p><p>The day someone sells a fast, reliable, low-capacity SSD (20GB is fine) for under $100 is the day I'll buy three.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : It tuns out if you look at Intel 's and OCZ 's new offerings , they 're inexpensive simply because they chintz out on storage capacity .
Intel 's $ 125 SSD stores 40GB .
OCZ 's sub- $ 100 SSD is 32GB .
So the cost per gigabyte has n't really gone down - it 's still about $ 3/GB .
At that price , that sub- $ 200 1 Terabyte Western Digital hard drive would cost you $ 3,000 using similar SSD technology.This has always been the argument against SSDs , and it 's always been wrong .
Pundits are under the impression that it should be possible to get speed , capacity , and affordability all in one go .
To use a car analogy , they 're asking for a 12-cylinder sports car that gets 40mpg and costs under $ 30k.For as long as there have been SSDs , consumers have been waiting for lower-capacity versions that were affordable .
It 's not that hard to do : just take your " low-end " 160GB version , leave a few chips off the PCB , and voila .
The manufacturers so far have been hitting the overclocker and enthusiast crowd who will pay any amount of money for the latest and greatest and the companies are just now realizing that hey , average Joes might buy these things too if we can meet a reasonable price point.I 've personally been waiting for an affordable SSD for my laptop and desktop machines but so far the options have been : 1 ) A mini-PCIe thing that barely holds an OS and does n't perform any better than a mechanical disk2 ) A fast 2.5 " SATA SSD with about 4x more space than I need and costs 2x more than I 'm willing to payI 'm one of those people who does n't store a crap-ton of data on my computers .
95 \ % of the data on my computers is OS and applications .
All of my important or bulk data goes on a file server which is accessed over the network and hence does not need to be available within less than a milisecond.The day someone sells a fast , reliable , low-capacity SSD ( 20GB is fine ) for under $ 100 is the day I 'll buy three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:It tuns out if you look at Intel's and OCZ's new offerings, they're inexpensive simply because they chintz out on storage capacity.
Intel's $125 SSD stores 40GB.
OCZ's sub-$100 SSD is 32GB.
So the cost per gigabyte hasn't really gone down - it's still about $3/GB.
At that price, that sub-$200 1 Terabyte Western Digital hard drive would cost you $3,000 using similar SSD technology.This has always been the argument against SSDs, and it's always been wrong.
Pundits are under the impression that it should be possible to get speed, capacity, and affordability all in one go.
To use a car analogy, they're asking for a 12-cylinder sports car that gets 40mpg and costs under $30k.For as long as there have been SSDs, consumers have been waiting for lower-capacity versions that were affordable.
It's not that hard to do: just take your "low-end" 160GB version, leave a few chips off the PCB, and voila.
The manufacturers so far have been hitting the overclocker and enthusiast crowd who will pay any amount of money for the latest and greatest and the companies are just now realizing that hey, average Joes might buy these things too if we can meet a reasonable price point.I've personally been waiting for an affordable SSD for my laptop and desktop machines but so far the options have been:1) A mini-PCIe thing that barely holds an OS and doesn't perform any better than a mechanical disk2) A fast 2.5" SATA SSD with about 4x more space than I need and costs 2x more than I'm willing to payI'm one of those people who doesn't store a crap-ton of data on my computers.
95\% of the data on my computers is OS and applications.
All of my important or bulk data goes on a file server which is accessed over the network and hence does not need to be available within less than a milisecond.The day someone sells a fast, reliable, low-capacity SSD (20GB is fine) for under $100 is the day I'll buy three.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587702</id>
	<title>Re:Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>hotkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269374100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection? Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...</p></div><p>Who are you and how did you get into my home?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection ?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...Who are you and how did you get into my home ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?
Unless you have 12 monitors running porn simulcasting...Who are you and how did you get into my home?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588056</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1269375720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where is Kodachrome?</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Discontinued</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is Kodachrome ?
      Discontinued</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is Kodachrome?
      Discontinued
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589274</id>
	<title>Re:HDDs are Done When Google Says They Are Done</title>
	<author>mooglez</author>
	<datestamp>1269338520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously.  Google is (believed to be) the largest single user of consumer hard drives.  When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs, I will consider HDDs to be done.  I wonder what price differential the power savings (don't forget the power for cooling) will cover?</p></div><p>They started planning that, 2 years ago?</p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/systems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207602745" title="informationweek.com">http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/systems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207602745</a> [informationweek.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Google is ( believed to be ) the largest single user of consumer hard drives .
When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs , I will consider HDDs to be done .
I wonder what price differential the power savings ( do n't forget the power for cooling ) will cover ? They started planning that , 2 years ago ? http : //www.informationweek.com/news/storage/systems/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 207602745 [ informationweek.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Google is (believed to be) the largest single user of consumer hard drives.
When they start replacing hard drives with SSDs, I will consider HDDs to be done.
I wonder what price differential the power savings (don't forget the power for cooling) will cover?They started planning that, 2 years ago?http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/systems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207602745 [informationweek.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590194</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269343140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, i'm amateur sound engineer and I'd more than welcome big cheap storage that makes no noise. Both in my laptop and in my workstation, admitting the latter can be fed with spinning NAS from the basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , i 'm amateur sound engineer and I 'd more than welcome big cheap storage that makes no noise .
Both in my laptop and in my workstation , admitting the latter can be fed with spinning NAS from the basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, i'm amateur sound engineer and I'd more than welcome big cheap storage that makes no noise.
Both in my laptop and in my workstation, admitting the latter can be fed with spinning NAS from the basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589068</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269337560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but how much music?  I know some people who have several hundred gigabytes of music, which I find unimaginable since I only have around 12 GB.  (It's not like I'm new to this stuff, but music is expensive and I don't pirate.)  I can get by on a 40 GB hard drive in my laptop.
</p><p>So definitely part of the question is, what's "typical"?
</p><p>On the other hand, I'm just talking about my laptop; my home server is a different story.  There I have &gt;4TB of storage hooked up.  So maybe there's a place for both for the time being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but how much music ?
I know some people who have several hundred gigabytes of music , which I find unimaginable since I only have around 12 GB .
( It 's not like I 'm new to this stuff , but music is expensive and I do n't pirate .
) I can get by on a 40 GB hard drive in my laptop .
So definitely part of the question is , what 's " typical " ?
On the other hand , I 'm just talking about my laptop ; my home server is a different story .
There I have &gt; 4TB of storage hooked up .
So maybe there 's a place for both for the time being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but how much music?
I know some people who have several hundred gigabytes of music, which I find unimaginable since I only have around 12 GB.
(It's not like I'm new to this stuff, but music is expensive and I don't pirate.
)  I can get by on a 40 GB hard drive in my laptop.
So definitely part of the question is, what's "typical"?
On the other hand, I'm just talking about my laptop; my home server is a different story.
There I have &gt;4TB of storage hooked up.
So maybe there's a place for both for the time being.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589568</id>
	<title>wake me up when</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1269340260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wake me up when you can buy  a 1 TB SSD for like $200.<br>The reason I like spinning media is that it can do practically infinite number of read-write ops, while an SSD sector can only take about a million writes. I know there's a load-levelling algorithm, and also 1 million is too many to worry about anyway, but when you consider its use for swap it really might not be. Call me strange but I don't like the idea of my expensive drive shrinking significantly over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wake me up when you can buy a 1 TB SSD for like $ 200.The reason I like spinning media is that it can do practically infinite number of read-write ops , while an SSD sector can only take about a million writes .
I know there 's a load-levelling algorithm , and also 1 million is too many to worry about anyway , but when you consider its use for swap it really might not be .
Call me strange but I do n't like the idea of my expensive drive shrinking significantly over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wake me up when you can buy  a 1 TB SSD for like $200.The reason I like spinning media is that it can do practically infinite number of read-write ops, while an SSD sector can only take about a million writes.
I know there's a load-levelling algorithm, and also 1 million is too many to worry about anyway, but when you consider its use for swap it really might not be.
Call me strange but I don't like the idea of my expensive drive shrinking significantly over time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31647696</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269794940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But like capacity, speed is also irrelevant in many situations.</p><p>However, how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music?</p></div><p>You don't even need a <i>computer</i> to do those things, so that's a silly argument.</p><p>When I say they're worth it, I assume you're doing actual work with your PC. If you're just going for music, games and movies, get yourself an iPod and an XBox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But like capacity , speed is also irrelevant in many situations.However , how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music ? You do n't even need a computer to do those things , so that 's a silly argument.When I say they 're worth it , I assume you 're doing actual work with your PC .
If you 're just going for music , games and movies , get yourself an iPod and an XBox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But like capacity, speed is also irrelevant in many situations.However, how fast of a hard drive do I need to watch a movie or listen to music?You don't even need a computer to do those things, so that's a silly argument.When I say they're worth it, I assume you're doing actual work with your PC.
If you're just going for music, games and movies, get yourself an iPod and an XBox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</id>
	<title>Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269370380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time: Access speed and Durability. Storage space is still not up to par, and cost is definitely a weak point. However, technology progresses and we're hitting the limits of the current hard disk technology. SSD technology is definitely the future of most personal storage.</p><p>But it won't replace it in all areas. There are still "obsolete" technologies in widespread use due to technical superiority over perceived convenience. No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy, but compared to film, they are simply outmatched. Where is Velvia for digital? Where is Kodachrome? These films have no equal in the digital world except as poorly implemented filters in Photoshop.</p><p>Spinning media is going to be with us for a while, and I expect, like film, that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time : Access speed and Durability .
Storage space is still not up to par , and cost is definitely a weak point .
However , technology progresses and we 're hitting the limits of the current hard disk technology .
SSD technology is definitely the future of most personal storage.But it wo n't replace it in all areas .
There are still " obsolete " technologies in widespread use due to technical superiority over perceived convenience .
No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy , but compared to film , they are simply outmatched .
Where is Velvia for digital ?
Where is Kodachrome ?
These films have no equal in the digital world except as poorly implemented filters in Photoshop.Spinning media is going to be with us for a while , and I expect , like film , that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only two advantages SSD has over spinning media at this time: Access speed and Durability.
Storage space is still not up to par, and cost is definitely a weak point.
However, technology progresses and we're hitting the limits of the current hard disk technology.
SSD technology is definitely the future of most personal storage.But it won't replace it in all areas.
There are still "obsolete" technologies in widespread use due to technical superiority over perceived convenience.
No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy, but compared to film, they are simply outmatched.
Where is Velvia for digital?
Where is Kodachrome?
These films have no equal in the digital world except as poorly implemented filters in Photoshop.Spinning media is going to be with us for a while, and I expect, like film, that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591612</id>
	<title>Laptops and dual bays</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1269349140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wish that laptops would come with one 2.5" bay and one 1.8" bay.</p><p>Right now i'd love to throw an SSD into my laptop for the OS, but am highly portable with my laptop (it travels roughly 6 or 7 miles a day, often in 3 or 4 legs) and don't want to deal with a cramped internal storage situation. If I could simply get a 500GB internal spinner and an 80GB internal flash drive, I would be in heaven. Note to laptop makers, please make this happen. You could even just throw it into the monitor enclosure. But i'd love an extra 1.8" slot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish that laptops would come with one 2.5 " bay and one 1.8 " bay.Right now i 'd love to throw an SSD into my laptop for the OS , but am highly portable with my laptop ( it travels roughly 6 or 7 miles a day , often in 3 or 4 legs ) and do n't want to deal with a cramped internal storage situation .
If I could simply get a 500GB internal spinner and an 80GB internal flash drive , I would be in heaven .
Note to laptop makers , please make this happen .
You could even just throw it into the monitor enclosure .
But i 'd love an extra 1.8 " slot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish that laptops would come with one 2.5" bay and one 1.8" bay.Right now i'd love to throw an SSD into my laptop for the OS, but am highly portable with my laptop (it travels roughly 6 or 7 miles a day, often in 3 or 4 legs) and don't want to deal with a cramped internal storage situation.
If I could simply get a 500GB internal spinner and an 80GB internal flash drive, I would be in heaven.
Note to laptop makers, please make this happen.
You could even just throw it into the monitor enclosure.
But i'd love an extra 1.8" slot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216</id>
	<title>Not so fast.</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1269372300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be fooled, people: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Disadvantages" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Disadvantages</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be fooled , people : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state \ _drive # Disadvantages [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be fooled, people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Disadvantages [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586686</id>
	<title>not yet</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1269370560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article seems to be making the point that if the average price becomes reasonable ie. 100 $$ then somehow people will start replacing their existing 500GB drives with 30-50 GB SSDs which is ridiculous.  SSDs still need to be able to compete with hard drives at the $/GB level if they are to replace hard drives.  Now that isn't to say that SSDs wouldn't have a niche like netbooks and SSD/hard drive hybrid setups but I seriously doubt we'll see SSDs take over the market in a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to be making the point that if the average price becomes reasonable ie .
100 $ $ then somehow people will start replacing their existing 500GB drives with 30-50 GB SSDs which is ridiculous .
SSDs still need to be able to compete with hard drives at the $ /GB level if they are to replace hard drives .
Now that is n't to say that SSDs would n't have a niche like netbooks and SSD/hard drive hybrid setups but I seriously doubt we 'll see SSDs take over the market in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to be making the point that if the average price becomes reasonable ie.
100 $$ then somehow people will start replacing their existing 500GB drives with 30-50 GB SSDs which is ridiculous.
SSDs still need to be able to compete with hard drives at the $/GB level if they are to replace hard drives.
Now that isn't to say that SSDs wouldn't have a niche like netbooks and SSD/hard drive hybrid setups but I seriously doubt we'll see SSDs take over the market in a few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31595298</id>
	<title>Re:Disks are dying -- AGAIN...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1269429720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway? Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all? Isn't that what Intel promised us?</p></div><p>I've never heard of that technology so I gave a quick read at Wikipedia article. Although the technology seems interesting, one of the wiki snippets at the end tells (me at least) why it is definitely a losing technology:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The Bubble System required a "warm-up" time of about 20 seconds (prompted by a timer on the screen when switched on) before the game was loaded, as bubble memory needs to be heated to around 30 to 40 C to operate properly.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And whatever happened to bubble memory , anyway ?
Was n't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all ?
Is n't that what Intel promised us ? I 've never heard of that technology so I gave a quick read at Wikipedia article .
Although the technology seems interesting , one of the wiki snippets at the end tells ( me at least ) why it is definitely a losing technology : The Bubble System required a " warm-up " time of about 20 seconds ( prompted by a timer on the screen when switched on ) before the game was loaded , as bubble memory needs to be heated to around 30 to 40 C to operate properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And whatever happened to bubble memory, anyway?
Wasn't that supposed to save the day and obsolete rotating storage once and for all?
Isn't that what Intel promised us?I've never heard of that technology so I gave a quick read at Wikipedia article.
Although the technology seems interesting, one of the wiki snippets at the end tells (me at least) why it is definitely a losing technology: The Bubble System required a "warm-up" time of about 20 seconds (prompted by a timer on the screen when switched on) before the game was loaded, as bubble memory needs to be heated to around 30 to 40 C to operate properly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587042</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornographers.</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1269371760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, just as today. Deep basements are the answer to their storage needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , just as today .
Deep basements are the answer to their storage needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, just as today.
Deep basements are the answer to their storage needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587558</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1269373500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;As TFA says, For $125 you get a 40GB SSD. Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a 1500GB hard disk drive - that's about 40 times more storage, for LESS!</p><p>Capacity is easy to get. I have a 500gig drive that I store stuff on and a 30gig SSD to run stuff on. I dont care about capacity, its a solved problem. I care about performance.  My biggest bottleneck is my hard drive, that's pretty typical of most users.  Its incredible what my SSD has done to my performance on a daily basis.  Heck, once the price drops a bit on 60gb or 120gb SSD, I'm buying it and putting the 30gb in my laptop.</p><p>My Win7 boots up in just a few seconds, game maps load very quickly, apps load very quickly, latency is pretty much gone, etc. Its such an upgrade, I'm kicking myself for waiting so long.  I'm not even one of those guys who is always upgrading.  I have an old 1.8ghz C2D OC'd to 2.2ghz and an aging board to match.</p><p>I suspect once people get a taste for SSDs they'll consider spinning disks to be a pretty big downgrade.  I never want to go back the same way I dont want to go back to single cores or 10mbps networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As TFA says , For $ 125 you get a 40GB SSD .
Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a 1500GB hard disk drive - that 's about 40 times more storage , for LESS ! Capacity is easy to get .
I have a 500gig drive that I store stuff on and a 30gig SSD to run stuff on .
I dont care about capacity , its a solved problem .
I care about performance .
My biggest bottleneck is my hard drive , that 's pretty typical of most users .
Its incredible what my SSD has done to my performance on a daily basis .
Heck , once the price drops a bit on 60gb or 120gb SSD , I 'm buying it and putting the 30gb in my laptop.My Win7 boots up in just a few seconds , game maps load very quickly , apps load very quickly , latency is pretty much gone , etc .
Its such an upgrade , I 'm kicking myself for waiting so long .
I 'm not even one of those guys who is always upgrading .
I have an old 1.8ghz C2D OC 'd to 2.2ghz and an aging board to match.I suspect once people get a taste for SSDs they 'll consider spinning disks to be a pretty big downgrade .
I never want to go back the same way I dont want to go back to single cores or 10mbps networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;As TFA says, For $125 you get a 40GB SSD.
Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a 1500GB hard disk drive - that's about 40 times more storage, for LESS!Capacity is easy to get.
I have a 500gig drive that I store stuff on and a 30gig SSD to run stuff on.
I dont care about capacity, its a solved problem.
I care about performance.
My biggest bottleneck is my hard drive, that's pretty typical of most users.
Its incredible what my SSD has done to my performance on a daily basis.
Heck, once the price drops a bit on 60gb or 120gb SSD, I'm buying it and putting the 30gb in my laptop.My Win7 boots up in just a few seconds, game maps load very quickly, apps load very quickly, latency is pretty much gone, etc.
Its such an upgrade, I'm kicking myself for waiting so long.
I'm not even one of those guys who is always upgrading.
I have an old 1.8ghz C2D OC'd to 2.2ghz and an aging board to match.I suspect once people get a taste for SSDs they'll consider spinning disks to be a pretty big downgrade.
I never want to go back the same way I dont want to go back to single cores or 10mbps networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589394</id>
	<title>Killer app ?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1269339240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is that SSDs are not really a revolution, just an evolution. A bit less power consumption, a bit less noise, a bit more performance, at the cost of mucho money, more performance variability, and an untested lifespan.</p><p>I personally am not in the market for an SSD yet. Gaining a handful of seconds every time I launch apps is irrelevant, since I no longer launch apps that much: Windows and Linux are stable enough to never require a reboot, so I start the PC, launch my apps... and they stay launched for a few days or weeks.</p><p>At work, I imagine there's plenty of tiered solutions already.</p><p>What would really make me think about it is some kind of ReadyBoost for SSDs, where the SSD acts as a cache for the HD. This way, even a smallish SSD (30 gigs ?) would provide a sizable performance gain. Right now, putting a whole OS or App on an SSD, while prolly only 1/3rd f their code gets read regularly, is majorly inefficient. Hopefully MS and Linux are working on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that SSDs are not really a revolution , just an evolution .
A bit less power consumption , a bit less noise , a bit more performance , at the cost of mucho money , more performance variability , and an untested lifespan.I personally am not in the market for an SSD yet .
Gaining a handful of seconds every time I launch apps is irrelevant , since I no longer launch apps that much : Windows and Linux are stable enough to never require a reboot , so I start the PC , launch my apps... and they stay launched for a few days or weeks.At work , I imagine there 's plenty of tiered solutions already.What would really make me think about it is some kind of ReadyBoost for SSDs , where the SSD acts as a cache for the HD .
This way , even a smallish SSD ( 30 gigs ?
) would provide a sizable performance gain .
Right now , putting a whole OS or App on an SSD , while prolly only 1/3rd f their code gets read regularly , is majorly inefficient .
Hopefully MS and Linux are working on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that SSDs are not really a revolution, just an evolution.
A bit less power consumption, a bit less noise, a bit more performance, at the cost of mucho money, more performance variability, and an untested lifespan.I personally am not in the market for an SSD yet.
Gaining a handful of seconds every time I launch apps is irrelevant, since I no longer launch apps that much: Windows and Linux are stable enough to never require a reboot, so I start the PC, launch my apps... and they stay launched for a few days or weeks.At work, I imagine there's plenty of tiered solutions already.What would really make me think about it is some kind of ReadyBoost for SSDs, where the SSD acts as a cache for the HD.
This way, even a smallish SSD (30 gigs ?
) would provide a sizable performance gain.
Right now, putting a whole OS or App on an SSD, while prolly only 1/3rd f their code gets read regularly, is majorly inefficient.
Hopefully MS and Linux are working on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156</id>
	<title>Damned fast, worth the price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I received a 128 Gb Kingston SSDnow as a gift from a friend, to put in my laptop. The laptop had a 320 Gb hard drive, so I've had to not lug 2 years of photos around, but it's well worth it because this this is <b>damned fast</b>. Things that had 10 second times now are sub-second. The thing boots Windows 7 in less than 10 seconds.</p><p>Capacity is nice, but once you get past 40Gb or so, you only need it to store images and things in bulk. It's like having the speed of a SAN in a laptop. SSD is an order of magnitude faster as far as the user experience goes, and if you can get one for less than $200, it's well worth doing, IMHO.</p><p>Once the end users see this in action, the price/Gb won't matter to them, because responsiveness is the name of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I received a 128 Gb Kingston SSDnow as a gift from a friend , to put in my laptop .
The laptop had a 320 Gb hard drive , so I 've had to not lug 2 years of photos around , but it 's well worth it because this this is damned fast .
Things that had 10 second times now are sub-second .
The thing boots Windows 7 in less than 10 seconds.Capacity is nice , but once you get past 40Gb or so , you only need it to store images and things in bulk .
It 's like having the speed of a SAN in a laptop .
SSD is an order of magnitude faster as far as the user experience goes , and if you can get one for less than $ 200 , it 's well worth doing , IMHO.Once the end users see this in action , the price/Gb wo n't matter to them , because responsiveness is the name of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I received a 128 Gb Kingston SSDnow as a gift from a friend, to put in my laptop.
The laptop had a 320 Gb hard drive, so I've had to not lug 2 years of photos around, but it's well worth it because this this is damned fast.
Things that had 10 second times now are sub-second.
The thing boots Windows 7 in less than 10 seconds.Capacity is nice, but once you get past 40Gb or so, you only need it to store images and things in bulk.
It's like having the speed of a SAN in a laptop.
SSD is an order of magnitude faster as far as the user experience goes, and if you can get one for less than $200, it's well worth doing, IMHO.Once the end users see this in action, the price/Gb won't matter to them, because responsiveness is the name of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588524</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269334980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $90. But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $45 or a 250GB drive for $22.50. There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Good point. Even a 1 MB hard drive must have the platter, head, servo, drive electronics, and enclosure. A 1 MB SSD just needs the controller chip and a tiny memory chip. It's easier to assemble too, just a couple of SMT components on a board.

</p><p>BTW, consider using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">paragraphs</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $ 90 .
But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $ 45 or a 250GB drive for $ 22.50 .
There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive .
Good point .
Even a 1 MB hard drive must have the platter , head , servo , drive electronics , and enclosure .
A 1 MB SSD just needs the controller chip and a tiny memory chip .
It 's easier to assemble too , just a couple of SMT components on a board .
BTW , consider using paragraphs [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now you can buy a 1TB drive for right around $90.
But you can not buy a 5ooGB drive for $45 or a 250GB drive for $22.50.
There is a limit to how cheap you can make a harddrive.
Good point.
Even a 1 MB hard drive must have the platter, head, servo, drive electronics, and enclosure.
A 1 MB SSD just needs the controller chip and a tiny memory chip.
It's easier to assemble too, just a couple of SMT components on a board.
BTW, consider using paragraphs [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</id>
	<title>...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time.  When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time .
When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time.
When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589416</id>
	<title>Re:Tiered Storage</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1269339420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.</p><p>That hasn't stopped anyone from buying yet.  Look at hard drives, the bigger they get the less reliable they are.  Used to be if a drive survived the first couple of weeks it would probably end up on a shelf somewhere with a bunch of other tech that is useless but ya just can't bring yourself to trash because it still works.</p><p>&gt; Seeing as how we've got 2TB in single disks now, and that capacity will likely continue to rise..</p><p>Or not.  How long ago did the first 1TB drive appear?  And we are still at 2 for the max?  Methinks the hard drive industry has determined two very important things:</p><p>1.  The demand for drives in the 1TB and larger size is fairly limited.  But the relentless downward drive in prices is removing the profit from selling anything smaller.</p><p>2.  SSD is increasing capacity per dollar purely on Moore's Law.  SSD capacity increases leverage the general R&amp;D investments in chip manufacturing processes.  Creating a new generation of super hard drives would require the couple of surviving disc makers to expend Sagans of cash.</p><p>So we have a self fulfilling prophecy coming to pass where the drive makers have wound down R&amp;D and are planning to reap profits while they still can.  Existing drive tech can be squeezed to provide a couple more incremental capacity increases but eventually SSD will beat spinning platters in both capacity and price/GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.That has n't stopped anyone from buying yet .
Look at hard drives , the bigger they get the less reliable they are .
Used to be if a drive survived the first couple of weeks it would probably end up on a shelf somewhere with a bunch of other tech that is useless but ya just ca n't bring yourself to trash because it still works. &gt; Seeing as how we 've got 2TB in single disks now , and that capacity will likely continue to rise..Or not .
How long ago did the first 1TB drive appear ?
And we are still at 2 for the max ?
Methinks the hard drive industry has determined two very important things : 1 .
The demand for drives in the 1TB and larger size is fairly limited .
But the relentless downward drive in prices is removing the profit from selling anything smaller.2 .
SSD is increasing capacity per dollar purely on Moore 's Law .
SSD capacity increases leverage the general R&amp;D investments in chip manufacturing processes .
Creating a new generation of super hard drives would require the couple of surviving disc makers to expend Sagans of cash.So we have a self fulfilling prophecy coming to pass where the drive makers have wound down R&amp;D and are planning to reap profits while they still can .
Existing drive tech can be squeezed to provide a couple more incremental capacity increases but eventually SSD will beat spinning platters in both capacity and price/GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.That hasn't stopped anyone from buying yet.
Look at hard drives, the bigger they get the less reliable they are.
Used to be if a drive survived the first couple of weeks it would probably end up on a shelf somewhere with a bunch of other tech that is useless but ya just can't bring yourself to trash because it still works.&gt; Seeing as how we've got 2TB in single disks now, and that capacity will likely continue to rise..Or not.
How long ago did the first 1TB drive appear?
And we are still at 2 for the max?
Methinks the hard drive industry has determined two very important things:1.
The demand for drives in the 1TB and larger size is fairly limited.
But the relentless downward drive in prices is removing the profit from selling anything smaller.2.
SSD is increasing capacity per dollar purely on Moore's Law.
SSD capacity increases leverage the general R&amp;D investments in chip manufacturing processes.
Creating a new generation of super hard drives would require the couple of surviving disc makers to expend Sagans of cash.So we have a self fulfilling prophecy coming to pass where the drive makers have wound down R&amp;D and are planning to reap profits while they still can.
Existing drive tech can be squeezed to provide a couple more incremental capacity increases but eventually SSD will beat spinning platters in both capacity and price/GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587890</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1269375000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely agree here.  The vast majority of 'average Joe' computers that I come across have a 160-500GB hard drive, of which they've generally used less than 20-25GB, including all of their apps, music, etc.  Unless they have an absolutely massive music collection or like to play a whole bunch of high-end games, a 40-80GB SSD is PLENTY.</p><p>Even a more tech-oriented person like myself doesn't need a ton of space.  I keep all of my files on a server at home, which I access from my other computers when I want something.  If I'm going on a trip, I can put the important stuff on my laptop, with all of my music and whatever videos/games I feel like I want for entertainment.  That easily fits within my arbitrary 80GB and it would not take much effort to fit into 40GB.  How much information can a person really need, especially for short trips?  Are people really using 2TB of files on their laptop when they leave the house?  (Short of possible work-related stuff)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely agree here .
The vast majority of 'average Joe ' computers that I come across have a 160-500GB hard drive , of which they 've generally used less than 20-25GB , including all of their apps , music , etc .
Unless they have an absolutely massive music collection or like to play a whole bunch of high-end games , a 40-80GB SSD is PLENTY.Even a more tech-oriented person like myself does n't need a ton of space .
I keep all of my files on a server at home , which I access from my other computers when I want something .
If I 'm going on a trip , I can put the important stuff on my laptop , with all of my music and whatever videos/games I feel like I want for entertainment .
That easily fits within my arbitrary 80GB and it would not take much effort to fit into 40GB .
How much information can a person really need , especially for short trips ?
Are people really using 2TB of files on their laptop when they leave the house ?
( Short of possible work-related stuff )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely agree here.
The vast majority of 'average Joe' computers that I come across have a 160-500GB hard drive, of which they've generally used less than 20-25GB, including all of their apps, music, etc.
Unless they have an absolutely massive music collection or like to play a whole bunch of high-end games, a 40-80GB SSD is PLENTY.Even a more tech-oriented person like myself doesn't need a ton of space.
I keep all of my files on a server at home, which I access from my other computers when I want something.
If I'm going on a trip, I can put the important stuff on my laptop, with all of my music and whatever videos/games I feel like I want for entertainment.
That easily fits within my arbitrary 80GB and it would not take much effort to fit into 40GB.
How much information can a person really need, especially for short trips?
Are people really using 2TB of files on their laptop when they leave the house?
(Short of possible work-related stuff)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594762</id>
	<title>I need SSDs for Porn!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1269462420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?</p></div><p>Me.  Well, kind of.  I'd use it in a hybrid way.</p><p>For every video and audio file, I'd store the first X miliseconds worth of data on the SSD and the rest on the HDD, where X is chosen such that I can fetch another hunk of data from the HDD within those X miliseconds with probability p, say for p = 99\%.</p><p>In that way, I would have playback start instantly (the promise of SSDs) and I would store all my stuff cheaply (the promise of HDDs).  It won't be optimally fast or optimally cheap, but it'd be like a 90/90 going against a 50/100 and a 100/50 (for certain anally extracted values of 90, 50 and 100).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really , who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection ? Me .
Well , kind of .
I 'd use it in a hybrid way.For every video and audio file , I 'd store the first X miliseconds worth of data on the SSD and the rest on the HDD , where X is chosen such that I can fetch another hunk of data from the HDD within those X miliseconds with probability p , say for p = 99 \ % .In that way , I would have playback start instantly ( the promise of SSDs ) and I would store all my stuff cheaply ( the promise of HDDs ) .
It wo n't be optimally fast or optimally cheap , but it 'd be like a 90/90 going against a 50/100 and a 100/50 ( for certain anally extracted values of 90 , 50 and 100 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really, who needs an expensive big SSD for your porn collection?Me.
Well, kind of.
I'd use it in a hybrid way.For every video and audio file, I'd store the first X miliseconds worth of data on the SSD and the rest on the HDD, where X is chosen such that I can fetch another hunk of data from the HDD within those X miliseconds with probability p, say for p = 99\%.In that way, I would have playback start instantly (the promise of SSDs) and I would store all my stuff cheaply (the promise of HDDs).
It won't be optimally fast or optimally cheap, but it'd be like a 90/90 going against a 50/100 and a 100/50 (for certain anally extracted values of 90, 50 and 100).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587200</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1269372240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Insightful</p><p>Excluding niche uses, this is exactly how the mainstream transition from platters to SSD will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 InsightfulExcluding niche uses , this is exactly how the mainstream transition from platters to SSD will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 InsightfulExcluding niche uses, this is exactly how the mainstream transition from platters to SSD will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596030</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1269436980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive. I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that's it. It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media.</p></div><p> <a href="http://download.cnet.com/Windows-7-USB-DVD-Download-Tool/3000-18513\_4-10972600.html" title="cnet.com">It is.</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>(FWIW installing Linux from USB is, if anything, even more <a href="http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">straightforward</a> [sourceforge.net].)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive .
I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that 's it .
It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media .
It is .
[ cnet.com ] ( FWIW installing Linux from USB is , if anything , even more straightforward [ sourceforge.net ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive.
I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that's it.
It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media.
It is.
[cnet.com](FWIW installing Linux from USB is, if anything, even more straightforward [sourceforge.net].
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590180</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269343080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?</p></div><p>Yes but nobody in a sane state of mind uses them for storage or backup.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu Ray and CDs are still " spinning media " are n't they ? Yes but nobody in a sane state of mind uses them for storage or backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?Yes but nobody in a sane state of mind uses them for storage or backup.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587540</id>
	<title>Re:This just in!</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1269373440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After upgrading one of my systems to a SSD, I went through and replaced <b>all</b> boot drives in all my systems with them. I can't stand using mechanical disks these days--waiting for things to load just derails my train of thought and damages my productivity.</p><p>These were the best speed upgrades per dollar I've ever spent. And thanks to you, I not only enjoy the performance boost, but also the feel of flying a solar-powered helicopter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After upgrading one of my systems to a SSD , I went through and replaced all boot drives in all my systems with them .
I ca n't stand using mechanical disks these days--waiting for things to load just derails my train of thought and damages my productivity.These were the best speed upgrades per dollar I 've ever spent .
And thanks to you , I not only enjoy the performance boost , but also the feel of flying a solar-powered helicopter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After upgrading one of my systems to a SSD, I went through and replaced all boot drives in all my systems with them.
I can't stand using mechanical disks these days--waiting for things to load just derails my train of thought and damages my productivity.These were the best speed upgrades per dollar I've ever spent.
And thanks to you, I not only enjoy the performance boost, but also the feel of flying a solar-powered helicopter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588024</id>
	<title>Easy solution:</title>
	<author>w00tsauce</author>
	<datestamp>1269375600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>120gb ssd for boot/apps/games
1tb raid-1 nas for movies/music, linked to 25mbps fios

What more could anyone need?</htmltext>
<tokenext>120gb ssd for boot/apps/games 1tb raid-1 nas for movies/music , linked to 25mbps fios What more could anyone need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>120gb ssd for boot/apps/games
1tb raid-1 nas for movies/music, linked to 25mbps fios

What more could anyone need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589026</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be fooled, people: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Advantages" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Advantages</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be fooled , people : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state \ _drive # Advantages [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be fooled, people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state\_drive#Advantages [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587776</id>
	<title>But they told me the cloud is the computer now.</title>
	<author>fastbiker</author>
	<datestamp>1269374400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't everybody supposed to be storing everything in The Cloud soon?  Capacity won't matter and it will be available all the time and it will just work over the all encompassing, ever reliable, internet?  Web apps for everybody!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't everybody supposed to be storing everything in The Cloud soon ?
Capacity wo n't matter and it will be available all the time and it will just work over the all encompassing , ever reliable , internet ?
Web apps for everybody !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't everybody supposed to be storing everything in The Cloud soon?
Capacity won't matter and it will be available all the time and it will just work over the all encompassing, ever reliable, internet?
Web apps for everybody!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588296</id>
	<title>Re:This just in!</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1269377160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems reasonable to me that active data and programs (items used day to day) will be stored on SSD, and perhaps spinning hard drives will remain parts of systems with their role being to store all the programs and data that we want available, but only use infrequently or never.  Perhaps the OS will only spin the hard drive up once on system startup (to build a directory on SSD), and then again if anything on the drive is actually needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems reasonable to me that active data and programs ( items used day to day ) will be stored on SSD , and perhaps spinning hard drives will remain parts of systems with their role being to store all the programs and data that we want available , but only use infrequently or never .
Perhaps the OS will only spin the hard drive up once on system startup ( to build a directory on SSD ) , and then again if anything on the drive is actually needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems reasonable to me that active data and programs (items used day to day) will be stored on SSD, and perhaps spinning hard drives will remain parts of systems with their role being to store all the programs and data that we want available, but only use infrequently or never.
Perhaps the OS will only spin the hard drive up once on system startup (to build a directory on SSD), and then again if anything on the drive is actually needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586716</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1269370680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, so then use them for appropriate uses.  I don't need 2TB on my laptop (I barely need 40gb).  But on my home file server, I could use the spinning disks for brute capacity.  So perhaps what we may start seeing is more and more computers shipped with a 20 or 40gb SSD boot disk with a 500gb or 1TB "data disk"...  But to say that spinning disks will go away is kinda short sighted...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , so then use them for appropriate uses .
I do n't need 2TB on my laptop ( I barely need 40gb ) .
But on my home file server , I could use the spinning disks for brute capacity .
So perhaps what we may start seeing is more and more computers shipped with a 20 or 40gb SSD boot disk with a 500gb or 1TB " data disk " ... But to say that spinning disks will go away is kinda short sighted.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, so then use them for appropriate uses.
I don't need 2TB on my laptop (I barely need 40gb).
But on my home file server, I could use the spinning disks for brute capacity.
So perhaps what we may start seeing is more and more computers shipped with a 20 or 40gb SSD boot disk with a 500gb or 1TB "data disk"...  But to say that spinning disks will go away is kinda short sighted...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587550</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You conveniently forget FDDs, that (used to) fit in-between HDDs and tape; yet we don't have them anymore. Why? By your logic they should still be around. Yet they were done in when flash RAM became cheap enough.</p><p>Even if various storage mediums stay static relative to each other (a dubious claim at best over any length of time) that does not mean that their relative suitability for various requirements will not change - which is in fact exactly what TFA is saying will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You conveniently forget FDDs , that ( used to ) fit in-between HDDs and tape ; yet we do n't have them anymore .
Why ? By your logic they should still be around .
Yet they were done in when flash RAM became cheap enough.Even if various storage mediums stay static relative to each other ( a dubious claim at best over any length of time ) that does not mean that their relative suitability for various requirements will not change - which is in fact exactly what TFA is saying will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You conveniently forget FDDs, that (used to) fit in-between HDDs and tape; yet we don't have them anymore.
Why? By your logic they should still be around.
Yet they were done in when flash RAM became cheap enough.Even if various storage mediums stay static relative to each other (a dubious claim at best over any length of time) that does not mean that their relative suitability for various requirements will not change - which is in fact exactly what TFA is saying will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</id>
	<title>Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>-kyz</author>
	<datestamp>1269370620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As TFA says, For $125 you get a 40GB SSD. Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a <b>1500GB</b> hard disk drive - that's about <b>40 times more storage</b>, for LESS!</p><p>Unless SSD suddenly becomes 40 times cheaper, it's unlikely to wipe out regular HDDs. And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.</p><p>There has always been a sliding scale in computing with "faster, less storage" on one end and "slower, more storage" on the other.</p><p>Cache RAM -- RAM -- Flash RAM -- SSD -- HDDs -- tape.</p><p>As time goes on, everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As TFA says , For $ 125 you get a 40GB SSD .
Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a 1500GB hard disk drive - that 's about 40 times more storage , for LESS ! Unless SSD suddenly becomes 40 times cheaper , it 's unlikely to wipe out regular HDDs .
And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.There has always been a sliding scale in computing with " faster , less storage " on one end and " slower , more storage " on the other.Cache RAM -- RAM -- Flash RAM -- SSD -- HDDs -- tape.As time goes on , everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list .
Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As TFA says, For $125 you get a 40GB SSD.
Today on Newegg I can pay 110 for a 1500GB hard disk drive - that's about 40 times more storage, for LESS!Unless SSD suddenly becomes 40 times cheaper, it's unlikely to wipe out regular HDDs.
And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.There has always been a sliding scale in computing with "faster, less storage" on one end and "slower, more storage" on the other.Cache RAM -- RAM -- Flash RAM -- SSD -- HDDs -- tape.As time goes on, everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list.
Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589500</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Phred T. Magnificent</author>
	<datestamp>1269339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends entirely on your usage pattern.  It sounds like your laptop use fits the "carry on bag" pattern -- you throw a few files in the "carry on bag" laptop, go hop on an airplane, and sync up with the "mothership" later.  (That's pretty much exactly the market that netbooks and the MacBook Air target.)</p><p>There are other patterns out there.  Mine would be more the "Winnebago" usage pattern -- I certainly <i>could</i> keep some of my stuff on a server elsewhere, but I'd rather have everything right there with me and live on my laptop full time.  (Sadly, I only have a 500 GB drive at the moment, but that may change depending on what happens with prices.)  This also influences choices like the 17 inch screen and full keyboard.</p><p>I'm sure you'll find opinions to the contrary, but I'm going to insist that neither way is "wrong".  Do what works, but don't expect the same thing to work for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends entirely on your usage pattern .
It sounds like your laptop use fits the " carry on bag " pattern -- you throw a few files in the " carry on bag " laptop , go hop on an airplane , and sync up with the " mothership " later .
( That 's pretty much exactly the market that netbooks and the MacBook Air target .
) There are other patterns out there .
Mine would be more the " Winnebago " usage pattern -- I certainly could keep some of my stuff on a server elsewhere , but I 'd rather have everything right there with me and live on my laptop full time .
( Sadly , I only have a 500 GB drive at the moment , but that may change depending on what happens with prices .
) This also influences choices like the 17 inch screen and full keyboard.I 'm sure you 'll find opinions to the contrary , but I 'm going to insist that neither way is " wrong " .
Do what works , but do n't expect the same thing to work for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends entirely on your usage pattern.
It sounds like your laptop use fits the "carry on bag" pattern -- you throw a few files in the "carry on bag" laptop, go hop on an airplane, and sync up with the "mothership" later.
(That's pretty much exactly the market that netbooks and the MacBook Air target.
)There are other patterns out there.
Mine would be more the "Winnebago" usage pattern -- I certainly could keep some of my stuff on a server elsewhere, but I'd rather have everything right there with me and live on my laptop full time.
(Sadly, I only have a 500 GB drive at the moment, but that may change depending on what happens with prices.
)  This also influences choices like the 17 inch screen and full keyboard.I'm sure you'll find opinions to the contrary, but I'm going to insist that neither way is "wrong".
Do what works, but don't expect the same thing to work for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588210</id>
	<title>Don't forget heat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My laptop runs much cooler with an SSD drive in it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My laptop runs much cooler with an SSD drive in it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My laptop runs much cooler with an SSD drive in it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586886</id>
	<title>Ram Disks</title>
	<author>drumcat</author>
	<datestamp>1269371220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yes...  remember how RAM "disks" would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram, and all that extra ram was unneeded?

There will be a time in the near future when you start seeing common augmentation (+1 for boobies being first).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes... remember how RAM " disks " would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram , and all that extra ram was unneeded ?
There will be a time in the near future when you start seeing common augmentation ( + 1 for boobies being first ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes...  remember how RAM "disks" would soon rule once we got to a gig of ram, and all that extra ram was unneeded?
There will be a time in the near future when you start seeing common augmentation (+1 for boobies being first).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589420</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269339480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anand paints is a little bit differently, he implies that (good) ssds should absolutely last 5 years, not just make it there:</p><p><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&amp;p=4" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&amp;p=4</a> [anandtech.com]</p><p>And that's writing 20 GB per day to the drive.</p><p>So you might still be on that first SSD after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anand paints is a little bit differently , he implies that ( good ) ssds should absolutely last 5 years , not just make it there : http : //www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3403&amp;p = 4 [ anandtech.com ] And that 's writing 20 GB per day to the drive.So you might still be on that first SSD after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anand paints is a little bit differently, he implies that (good) ssds should absolutely last 5 years, not just make it there:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&amp;p=4 [anandtech.com]And that's writing 20 GB per day to the drive.So you might still be on that first SSD after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590858</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1269345780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.</i></p><p>Actually, no, they don't.  The access times on HDDs haven't improved at all in years, and the sequential rates haven't improved much either.  These are governed by physical characteristics: how fast the head can move to any point on the platter, and how fast the platter spins.  Today's 2TB drives can't seek any faster than 10GB drives from a decade ago, and since they spin at the same speed, their higher areal density is the only thing that improves their sequential transfer rates.</p><p>The only thing that's improved drastically in HDDs is their capacity.  That's only one factor in choosing a storage medium for a given workload.</p><p>Don't worry; I don't see HDDs going away any time soon for storing giant amounts of data, especially media (like HD video), as their sequential rates are very good and access time isn't important for these tasks.  But for other things, I think we're going to see SSDs taking over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.Actually , no , they do n't .
The access times on HDDs have n't improved at all in years , and the sequential rates have n't improved much either .
These are governed by physical characteristics : how fast the head can move to any point on the platter , and how fast the platter spins .
Today 's 2TB drives ca n't seek any faster than 10GB drives from a decade ago , and since they spin at the same speed , their higher areal density is the only thing that improves their sequential transfer rates.The only thing that 's improved drastically in HDDs is their capacity .
That 's only one factor in choosing a storage medium for a given workload.Do n't worry ; I do n't see HDDs going away any time soon for storing giant amounts of data , especially media ( like HD video ) , as their sequential rates are very good and access time is n't important for these tasks .
But for other things , I think we 're going to see SSDs taking over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it has to cope with the fact HDDs get better every year too.Actually, no, they don't.
The access times on HDDs haven't improved at all in years, and the sequential rates haven't improved much either.
These are governed by physical characteristics: how fast the head can move to any point on the platter, and how fast the platter spins.
Today's 2TB drives can't seek any faster than 10GB drives from a decade ago, and since they spin at the same speed, their higher areal density is the only thing that improves their sequential transfer rates.The only thing that's improved drastically in HDDs is their capacity.
That's only one factor in choosing a storage medium for a given workload.Don't worry; I don't see HDDs going away any time soon for storing giant amounts of data, especially media (like HD video), as their sequential rates are very good and access time isn't important for these tasks.
But for other things, I think we're going to see SSDs taking over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587584</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1269373620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you refuse to use VerifiedByVisa in which case you will not only not get either but Visa will also shut down your account for fraud even if you have a multi year history of buying stuff from newegg.
<br> <br>
I will NOT use VbV because I think it sends the wrong message to websites that it is a great idea to insert an unknown website in the middle of the checkout process that asks for enough information to carry out full on identity fraud.  Every now and then I remind Newegg they have lost my business over this but they don't seem to care.  I guess most people are willing to participate in this bogus program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you refuse to use VerifiedByVisa in which case you will not only not get either but Visa will also shut down your account for fraud even if you have a multi year history of buying stuff from newegg .
I will NOT use VbV because I think it sends the wrong message to websites that it is a great idea to insert an unknown website in the middle of the checkout process that asks for enough information to carry out full on identity fraud .
Every now and then I remind Newegg they have lost my business over this but they do n't seem to care .
I guess most people are willing to participate in this bogus program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you refuse to use VerifiedByVisa in which case you will not only not get either but Visa will also shut down your account for fraud even if you have a multi year history of buying stuff from newegg.
I will NOT use VbV because I think it sends the wrong message to websites that it is a great idea to insert an unknown website in the middle of the checkout process that asks for enough information to carry out full on identity fraud.
Every now and then I remind Newegg they have lost my business over this but they don't seem to care.
I guess most people are willing to participate in this bogus program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592194</id>
	<title>STARE</title>
	<author>DarkXale</author>
	<datestamp>1269352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thousands of geeks are currently watching you, apple reviewers.

Can you feel our stare?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thousands of geeks are currently watching you , apple reviewers .
Can you feel our stare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thousands of geeks are currently watching you, apple reviewers.
Can you feel our stare?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586896</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269371220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time. When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.</p></div><p>It will be a long, protracted death. I anticipate seeing HDD for mass storage for another decade bare minimum. SSD will be for the stuff that has to be fast, HDD will be for the stuff that can be slower but SSD is too expensive for. (someone look this up in ten years and laugh at me.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time .
When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB , etc.It will be a long , protracted death .
I anticipate seeing HDD for mass storage for another decade bare minimum .
SSD will be for the stuff that has to be fast , HDD will be for the stuff that can be slower but SSD is too expensive for .
( someone look this up in ten years and laugh at me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time.
When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.It will be a long, protracted death.
I anticipate seeing HDD for mass storage for another decade bare minimum.
SSD will be for the stuff that has to be fast, HDD will be for the stuff that can be slower but SSD is too expensive for.
(someone look this up in ten years and laugh at me.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</id>
	<title>Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media?</p></div><p>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?  I think I've seen many holographic storage disc products (touted to be THE FUTURE) that were spinning as well.  I agree that our mechanical media may be just atop the apex or turning point but our non-mechanical disc based media is most likely set to be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_high\_definition\_optical\_disc\_formats" title="wikipedia.org">some form of spinning disc</a> [wikipedia.org] for at least a few years longer.  If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution, I just don't see it happening real soon or even now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media ? Blu Ray and CDs are still " spinning media " are n't they ?
I think I 've seen many holographic storage disc products ( touted to be THE FUTURE ) that were spinning as well .
I agree that our mechanical media may be just atop the apex or turning point but our non-mechanical disc based media is most likely set to be a some form of spinning disc [ wikipedia.org ] for at least a few years longer .
If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution , I just do n't see it happening real soon or even now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD Price Drops Signaling End of Spinning Media?Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?
I think I've seen many holographic storage disc products (touted to be THE FUTURE) that were spinning as well.
I agree that our mechanical media may be just atop the apex or turning point but our non-mechanical disc based media is most likely set to be a some form of spinning disc [wikipedia.org] for at least a few years longer.
If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution, I just don't see it happening real soon or even now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587116</id>
	<title>Just get one...</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1269372000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  I've got small ones on my main machines, (just the OSes and pgms - plenty big enough) plus a bigger one on the laptop.<br>Internal or external classic HDDs give plenty of cheap space.  With SATA, even external drives are fast enough.<br>Forget about springing for the latest multi-core gonzohertz CPU; these things have make a real difference to everyday usability.<br>OK you only boot once per day, but application and big datasets load fast...laptops hibernate and reload fast too...nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
I 've got small ones on my main machines , ( just the OSes and pgms - plenty big enough ) plus a bigger one on the laptop.Internal or external classic HDDs give plenty of cheap space .
With SATA , even external drives are fast enough.Forget about springing for the latest multi-core gonzohertz CPU ; these things have make a real difference to everyday usability.OK you only boot once per day , but application and big datasets load fast...laptops hibernate and reload fast too...nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
I've got small ones on my main machines, (just the OSes and pgms - plenty big enough) plus a bigger one on the laptop.Internal or external classic HDDs give plenty of cheap space.
With SATA, even external drives are fast enough.Forget about springing for the latest multi-core gonzohertz CPU; these things have make a real difference to everyday usability.OK you only boot once per day, but application and big datasets load fast...laptops hibernate and reload fast too...nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587976</id>
	<title>in laptops first, then in desktops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269375420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People always compare SSD to 3.5" desktop hard drives. Desktop HDD are in the 320GB-2TB range. But laptops HDD, which are 2.5" just like most SSD, are in the 160-640GB range, which is closer to the SSD's (32-256GB).<br>Having a quick 64 or 128GB SSD in a laptop, plus a big 1.5TB HDD in a desktop for storage, or in an external enclosure if you don't have a desktop, is already starting to be appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People always compare SSD to 3.5 " desktop hard drives .
Desktop HDD are in the 320GB-2TB range .
But laptops HDD , which are 2.5 " just like most SSD , are in the 160-640GB range , which is closer to the SSD 's ( 32-256GB ) .Having a quick 64 or 128GB SSD in a laptop , plus a big 1.5TB HDD in a desktop for storage , or in an external enclosure if you do n't have a desktop , is already starting to be appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always compare SSD to 3.5" desktop hard drives.
Desktop HDD are in the 320GB-2TB range.
But laptops HDD, which are 2.5" just like most SSD, are in the 160-640GB range, which is closer to the SSD's (32-256GB).Having a quick 64 or 128GB SSD in a laptop, plus a big 1.5TB HDD in a desktop for storage, or in an external enclosure if you don't have a desktop, is already starting to be appealing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591660</id>
	<title>Actually, the title was CmdrTaco's not mine</title>
	<author>robertgiam</author>
	<datestamp>1269349380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote the <a href="http://www.gadgetopolis.com/posts/7567" title="gadgetopolis.com" rel="nofollow">original story</a> [gadgetopolis.com]. In the article, I didn't talk about optical storage. Slashdot chose to use a different title over here.

But, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure that BluRay will be as long lived as DVD. But it won't be because of SSD. It'll get knocked off by streaming and download services. But pricing is a major issue there. If studios allowed for better rental terms for 1080p VOD from Amazon, Netflix, etc. BluRay would be suffering now - at least amongst folks with 10+ Mbps Internet connections. You can already get high quality downloads to your DVR, PS3, or other box.

So better rental terms (like 72 hours instead of 24) + More pervasive high speed broadband + BluRay/DVD-like Interactivity (languages, subtitles, commentaries, etc) = no need for BluRay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote the original story [ gadgetopolis.com ] .
In the article , I did n't talk about optical storage .
Slashdot chose to use a different title over here .
But , now that I think about it , I 'm not so sure that BluRay will be as long lived as DVD .
But it wo n't be because of SSD .
It 'll get knocked off by streaming and download services .
But pricing is a major issue there .
If studios allowed for better rental terms for 1080p VOD from Amazon , Netflix , etc .
BluRay would be suffering now - at least amongst folks with 10 + Mbps Internet connections .
You can already get high quality downloads to your DVR , PS3 , or other box .
So better rental terms ( like 72 hours instead of 24 ) + More pervasive high speed broadband + BluRay/DVD-like Interactivity ( languages , subtitles , commentaries , etc ) = no need for BluRay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote the original story [gadgetopolis.com].
In the article, I didn't talk about optical storage.
Slashdot chose to use a different title over here.
But, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure that BluRay will be as long lived as DVD.
But it won't be because of SSD.
It'll get knocked off by streaming and download services.
But pricing is a major issue there.
If studios allowed for better rental terms for 1080p VOD from Amazon, Netflix, etc.
BluRay would be suffering now - at least amongst folks with 10+ Mbps Internet connections.
You can already get high quality downloads to your DVR, PS3, or other box.
So better rental terms (like 72 hours instead of 24) + More pervasive high speed broadband + BluRay/DVD-like Interactivity (languages, subtitles, commentaries, etc) = no need for BluRay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594814</id>
	<title>Let's have a closer look</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1269463320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTF WP A:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs has security implications. For example, encryption of existing unencrypted data on flash-based SSDs cannot be performed securely due to the fact that wear leveling causes new encrypted drive sectors to be written to a physical location different from their original location</p></div><p>Fail.  Really, this is about deletion, not encryption: you still get to have E(x), but you don't have it <em>rather than</em> x, you get to have both.</p><p>And the same issue presents itself on HDDs if you use journaling file systems.  And if you don't, you get slow fsck operations, plus your data could be better protected at non-noticeable cost.  Your disk may work twice as hard (doubly writing everything), but it does so when you look away and don't notice it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTF WP A : Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs has security implications .
For example , encryption of existing unencrypted data on flash-based SSDs can not be performed securely due to the fact that wear leveling causes new encrypted drive sectors to be written to a physical location different from their original locationFail .
Really , this is about deletion , not encryption : you still get to have E ( x ) , but you do n't have it rather than x , you get to have both.And the same issue presents itself on HDDs if you use journaling file systems .
And if you do n't , you get slow fsck operations , plus your data could be better protected at non-noticeable cost .
Your disk may work twice as hard ( doubly writing everything ) , but it does so when you look away and do n't notice it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTF WP A:Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs has security implications.
For example, encryption of existing unencrypted data on flash-based SSDs cannot be performed securely due to the fact that wear leveling causes new encrypted drive sectors to be written to a physical location different from their original locationFail.
Really, this is about deletion, not encryption: you still get to have E(x), but you don't have it rather than x, you get to have both.And the same issue presents itself on HDDs if you use journaling file systems.
And if you don't, you get slow fsck operations, plus your data could be better protected at non-noticeable cost.
Your disk may work twice as hard (doubly writing everything), but it does so when you look away and don't notice it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588482</id>
	<title>Re:Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>pebs</author>
	<datestamp>1269377940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who (as an end user) needs <i>any</i> kind of storage medium for porn.  Porn is in the "cloud" these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who ( as an end user ) needs any kind of storage medium for porn .
Porn is in the " cloud " these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who (as an end user) needs any kind of storage medium for porn.
Porn is in the "cloud" these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31593622</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1269362820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parts cost on an HDD and SSD is pretty close, though. Including two drives would be a premium feature in larger laptops.</p><p>I also disagree with whoever said 40GB is enough. 40GB isn't enough - not if you have a modern OS, anyway. Even my parents use more than 40GB, and they don't play any games or do any video work. Just photos from their camera, and documents, and programs. Mind you, it did take them 2 years to fill it.</p><p>To overtake HDDs, SSDs also have to beat them in price - not just match them. They're not going to match them in space (and consumers love big numbers), so it has to come down to price. Right now a low end 160GB drive probably costs OEMs about $30 or less per unit. While I could see an OEM replacing that drive with an SSD, I doubt they'll do it if it adds a lot to the cost, pushing it into the premium laptop/netbook range. Assuming $80 OEM pricing on an SSD... $50 is a big difference. Would you buy a $350 netbook if a $299 netbook was right next to it? Add to that that 40GB isn't enough space for a "Premium" model, and you have a "Pass" from OEMs, for at least one more generation.</p><p>But when Intel can provide 60GB/80GB  SSDs to OEMs for ~$0.80/GB, that'll be the flipping point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parts cost on an HDD and SSD is pretty close , though .
Including two drives would be a premium feature in larger laptops.I also disagree with whoever said 40GB is enough .
40GB is n't enough - not if you have a modern OS , anyway .
Even my parents use more than 40GB , and they do n't play any games or do any video work .
Just photos from their camera , and documents , and programs .
Mind you , it did take them 2 years to fill it.To overtake HDDs , SSDs also have to beat them in price - not just match them .
They 're not going to match them in space ( and consumers love big numbers ) , so it has to come down to price .
Right now a low end 160GB drive probably costs OEMs about $ 30 or less per unit .
While I could see an OEM replacing that drive with an SSD , I doubt they 'll do it if it adds a lot to the cost , pushing it into the premium laptop/netbook range .
Assuming $ 80 OEM pricing on an SSD... $ 50 is a big difference .
Would you buy a $ 350 netbook if a $ 299 netbook was right next to it ?
Add to that that 40GB is n't enough space for a " Premium " model , and you have a " Pass " from OEMs , for at least one more generation.But when Intel can provide 60GB/80GB SSDs to OEMs for ~ $ 0.80/GB , that 'll be the flipping point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parts cost on an HDD and SSD is pretty close, though.
Including two drives would be a premium feature in larger laptops.I also disagree with whoever said 40GB is enough.
40GB isn't enough - not if you have a modern OS, anyway.
Even my parents use more than 40GB, and they don't play any games or do any video work.
Just photos from their camera, and documents, and programs.
Mind you, it did take them 2 years to fill it.To overtake HDDs, SSDs also have to beat them in price - not just match them.
They're not going to match them in space (and consumers love big numbers), so it has to come down to price.
Right now a low end 160GB drive probably costs OEMs about $30 or less per unit.
While I could see an OEM replacing that drive with an SSD, I doubt they'll do it if it adds a lot to the cost, pushing it into the premium laptop/netbook range.
Assuming $80 OEM pricing on an SSD... $50 is a big difference.
Would you buy a $350 netbook if a $299 netbook was right next to it?
Add to that that 40GB isn't enough space for a "Premium" model, and you have a "Pass" from OEMs, for at least one more generation.But when Intel can provide 60GB/80GB  SSDs to OEMs for ~$0.80/GB, that'll be the flipping point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31599536</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1269452700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For our work, 120GB is about the minimum size for laptops.  40-60GB would be way too small for our tastes.<br>
<br>
Personally, I need an affordable 500GB SSD before I can switch off of rotational media.  Although I might try it when the 250GB SSDs finally drop below $300.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For our work , 120GB is about the minimum size for laptops .
40-60GB would be way too small for our tastes .
Personally , I need an affordable 500GB SSD before I can switch off of rotational media .
Although I might try it when the 250GB SSDs finally drop below $ 300 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For our work, 120GB is about the minimum size for laptops.
40-60GB would be way too small for our tastes.
Personally, I need an affordable 500GB SSD before I can switch off of rotational media.
Although I might try it when the 250GB SSDs finally drop below $300.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587190</id>
	<title>Capacity doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article assumes that more space translates proportionally into more value.  But my laptop has for years been using 18GB, including swap, out of 32 total.  My big files are all on a networked media server.  So as far as my laptop is concerned, anything over 32GB is wasted space.  Since spinning drives (besides the odd special) tend to bottom out at around $50, the SSD premium is effectively $50.  That's well-worth the performance, noise and power-consumption benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article assumes that more space translates proportionally into more value .
But my laptop has for years been using 18GB , including swap , out of 32 total .
My big files are all on a networked media server .
So as far as my laptop is concerned , anything over 32GB is wasted space .
Since spinning drives ( besides the odd special ) tend to bottom out at around $ 50 , the SSD premium is effectively $ 50 .
That 's well-worth the performance , noise and power-consumption benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article assumes that more space translates proportionally into more value.
But my laptop has for years been using 18GB, including swap, out of 32 total.
My big files are all on a networked media server.
So as far as my laptop is concerned, anything over 32GB is wasted space.
Since spinning drives (besides the odd special) tend to bottom out at around $50, the SSD premium is effectively $50.
That's well-worth the performance, noise and power-consumption benefits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592392</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1269353760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are the laptops that offer a (1.8" or smaller?) SSD and a big slow inexpensive rotating platter, that's what I want to know (and where can I get one?).</p><p>And if anyone wants to produce this idea I have for a generic drive cradle that plugs into that slimline SATA DVD drive, I've got some initial drawings for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the laptops that offer a ( 1.8 " or smaller ?
) SSD and a big slow inexpensive rotating platter , that 's what I want to know ( and where can I get one ?
) .And if anyone wants to produce this idea I have for a generic drive cradle that plugs into that slimline SATA DVD drive , I 've got some initial drawings for free : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the laptops that offer a (1.8" or smaller?
) SSD and a big slow inexpensive rotating platter, that's what I want to know (and where can I get one?
).And if anyone wants to produce this idea I have for a generic drive cradle that plugs into that slimline SATA DVD drive, I've got some initial drawings for free :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588016</id>
	<title>Why can't we have multiple reading head ...</title>
	<author>kai6novice</author>
	<datestamp>1269375540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't we have multiple reading head spinning media to increase access speed and reduce spinning = reduce energy cost &amp; reduce the chance of damage.
For example, instead of a single harddrive arm, we have 2 or 3, same for optical device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we have multiple reading head spinning media to increase access speed and reduce spinning = reduce energy cost &amp; reduce the chance of damage .
For example , instead of a single harddrive arm , we have 2 or 3 , same for optical device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we have multiple reading head spinning media to increase access speed and reduce spinning = reduce energy cost &amp; reduce the chance of damage.
For example, instead of a single harddrive arm, we have 2 or 3, same for optical device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586510</id>
	<title>In 5 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one will remember disk drives used to have moving parts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one will remember disk drives used to have moving parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one will remember disk drives used to have moving parts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603660</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1269425220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One downside I see of the two drive setups is the user eduction requirement. I bet most lusers will think their computer is full when they fill up c: (i'm assuming c: is the HDD and a higher drive letter is the SSD).</p><p>Plus dual drives isn't really an option in laptops unless you go for the really big monster machines.</p><p>It's a good option for the power users but it's not a setup I expect to see much in off the shelf systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One downside I see of the two drive setups is the user eduction requirement .
I bet most lusers will think their computer is full when they fill up c : ( i 'm assuming c : is the HDD and a higher drive letter is the SSD ) .Plus dual drives is n't really an option in laptops unless you go for the really big monster machines.It 's a good option for the power users but it 's not a setup I expect to see much in off the shelf systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One downside I see of the two drive setups is the user eduction requirement.
I bet most lusers will think their computer is full when they fill up c: (i'm assuming c: is the HDD and a higher drive letter is the SSD).Plus dual drives isn't really an option in laptops unless you go for the really big monster machines.It's a good option for the power users but it's not a setup I expect to see much in off the shelf systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587832</id>
	<title>sooner or later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269374700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good, now please put a processor, a graphic processor, ram and rom (ssd or the like) on the same die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , now please put a processor , a graphic processor , ram and rom ( ssd or the like ) on the same die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, now please put a processor, a graphic processor, ram and rom (ssd or the like) on the same die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586708</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>200GB ought to be enough for anybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>200GB ought to be enough for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200GB ought to be enough for anybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589220</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1269338280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy, but compared to film, they are simply outmatched.</i> <br> <br>SLR digital cameras exceed SLR 35 mm cameras.  The film stuff you are talking about is an issue of filters.  Yes, you say you have crappy filters in software.  But whether on the film or in software, it's a perversion.  It's like the electric guitar amp.  A digital amp would perform better in all ways, but they don't use them.  Why?  Because they want the amp to fail, and it's the manner of failure in the amp that generates what they are looking for.  No mistake about it, it is a failure, but it is a specific controlled failure that is desired.  Film is the same.  It's the attempt to capture what the photographer wants, not the accurate representation of what's there, that gives any value to film.  Film stores a perverted copy, but perverted in a preferred way.  That isn't accuracy, that's creative freedom.<br> <br>When you want your stored bits exercising creative freedom, then you'd have a point.  But we want an accurate representation.  And for that, your argument is irrelevant.<br> <br> <i>Spinning media is going to be with us for a while, and I expect, like film, that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals.</i> <br> <br>Aside from price, there is no benefit to spinning media.  Regardless of price, some people like "old" audio and video tech.  The old audio and video tech is "worse" in every measurable way (including price), but fails in desired ways.  Storing bits can't ever do that.  So, if SSDs were cheaper than spinning disks and available in the same size with the current parameters, I assert that we'd have no spinning disks (unless some tiny market happened to remain for places where mechanical disks were superior for environmental reasons, like being easier to shield against an EMP for military use or other such very specific and tiny markets).  For general use consumer laptops, desktops and servers, we'd be 100\% SSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy , but compared to film , they are simply outmatched .
SLR digital cameras exceed SLR 35 mm cameras .
The film stuff you are talking about is an issue of filters .
Yes , you say you have crappy filters in software .
But whether on the film or in software , it 's a perversion .
It 's like the electric guitar amp .
A digital amp would perform better in all ways , but they do n't use them .
Why ? Because they want the amp to fail , and it 's the manner of failure in the amp that generates what they are looking for .
No mistake about it , it is a failure , but it is a specific controlled failure that is desired .
Film is the same .
It 's the attempt to capture what the photographer wants , not the accurate representation of what 's there , that gives any value to film .
Film stores a perverted copy , but perverted in a preferred way .
That is n't accuracy , that 's creative freedom .
When you want your stored bits exercising creative freedom , then you 'd have a point .
But we want an accurate representation .
And for that , your argument is irrelevant .
Spinning media is going to be with us for a while , and I expect , like film , that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals .
Aside from price , there is no benefit to spinning media .
Regardless of price , some people like " old " audio and video tech .
The old audio and video tech is " worse " in every measurable way ( including price ) , but fails in desired ways .
Storing bits ca n't ever do that .
So , if SSDs were cheaper than spinning disks and available in the same size with the current parameters , I assert that we 'd have no spinning disks ( unless some tiny market happened to remain for places where mechanical disks were superior for environmental reasons , like being easier to shield against an EMP for military use or other such very specific and tiny markets ) .
For general use consumer laptops , desktops and servers , we 'd be 100 \ % SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is going to say digital cameras are lousy, but compared to film, they are simply outmatched.
SLR digital cameras exceed SLR 35 mm cameras.
The film stuff you are talking about is an issue of filters.
Yes, you say you have crappy filters in software.
But whether on the film or in software, it's a perversion.
It's like the electric guitar amp.
A digital amp would perform better in all ways, but they don't use them.
Why?  Because they want the amp to fail, and it's the manner of failure in the amp that generates what they are looking for.
No mistake about it, it is a failure, but it is a specific controlled failure that is desired.
Film is the same.
It's the attempt to capture what the photographer wants, not the accurate representation of what's there, that gives any value to film.
Film stores a perverted copy, but perverted in a preferred way.
That isn't accuracy, that's creative freedom.
When you want your stored bits exercising creative freedom, then you'd have a point.
But we want an accurate representation.
And for that, your argument is irrelevant.
Spinning media is going to be with us for a while, and I expect, like film, that eventually prices will go back up and this technology will be a specialty market targeted at high-end users and professionals.
Aside from price, there is no benefit to spinning media.
Regardless of price, some people like "old" audio and video tech.
The old audio and video tech is "worse" in every measurable way (including price), but fails in desired ways.
Storing bits can't ever do that.
So, if SSDs were cheaper than spinning disks and available in the same size with the current parameters, I assert that we'd have no spinning disks (unless some tiny market happened to remain for places where mechanical disks were superior for environmental reasons, like being easier to shield against an EMP for military use or other such very specific and tiny markets).
For general use consumer laptops, desktops and servers, we'd be 100\% SSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587052</id>
	<title>Re:Nikon F6 and FM10</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269371760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Durability?  Umm, yes and no.</p><p>You can beat a properly-built and operating SSD with a stick and there's a very low likelihood of damage, while the spinning hard drive will almost die an immediate and horrible death.  And as long as the controller holds up, whatever data is on the SSD will almost certainly be OK on it.  So, physically, a well-built SSD is a tough little rascal.</p><p>But the media contained in it has a lifespan of somewhere on the order of five years of relatively ordinary use.  The spindles might not fail, since it has none, but you'll find slowly diminishing capacity and performance near the end of the lifespan of the drive.  Compare this to spinning hard drives, where I have a 20GB drive I bought when 20GB drives were new (late 90s) that still performs as well as the day I purchased it.  I have SMART monitoring on and it keeps coming up all-green.  It's been in continuous use for well over ten years.  I use it only for an OS drive and don't keep any data on it any more because one of these days it's just going to die, but I'd be nearing end-of-life on my <b>second</b> SSD drive by now.</p><p>Now, there is one advantage of SSDs.  They fail earlier, but the failure is usually in the form of loss of capacity and performance.  Drive failures are rarely as dramatic as a spindle lockup or head crash, so you can usually get your data off the drive while it still works fine.  Data-loss failures do occur, but they are (AFAIK) somewhat rare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Durability ?
Umm , yes and no.You can beat a properly-built and operating SSD with a stick and there 's a very low likelihood of damage , while the spinning hard drive will almost die an immediate and horrible death .
And as long as the controller holds up , whatever data is on the SSD will almost certainly be OK on it .
So , physically , a well-built SSD is a tough little rascal.But the media contained in it has a lifespan of somewhere on the order of five years of relatively ordinary use .
The spindles might not fail , since it has none , but you 'll find slowly diminishing capacity and performance near the end of the lifespan of the drive .
Compare this to spinning hard drives , where I have a 20GB drive I bought when 20GB drives were new ( late 90s ) that still performs as well as the day I purchased it .
I have SMART monitoring on and it keeps coming up all-green .
It 's been in continuous use for well over ten years .
I use it only for an OS drive and do n't keep any data on it any more because one of these days it 's just going to die , but I 'd be nearing end-of-life on my second SSD drive by now.Now , there is one advantage of SSDs .
They fail earlier , but the failure is usually in the form of loss of capacity and performance .
Drive failures are rarely as dramatic as a spindle lockup or head crash , so you can usually get your data off the drive while it still works fine .
Data-loss failures do occur , but they are ( AFAIK ) somewhat rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Durability?
Umm, yes and no.You can beat a properly-built and operating SSD with a stick and there's a very low likelihood of damage, while the spinning hard drive will almost die an immediate and horrible death.
And as long as the controller holds up, whatever data is on the SSD will almost certainly be OK on it.
So, physically, a well-built SSD is a tough little rascal.But the media contained in it has a lifespan of somewhere on the order of five years of relatively ordinary use.
The spindles might not fail, since it has none, but you'll find slowly diminishing capacity and performance near the end of the lifespan of the drive.
Compare this to spinning hard drives, where I have a 20GB drive I bought when 20GB drives were new (late 90s) that still performs as well as the day I purchased it.
I have SMART monitoring on and it keeps coming up all-green.
It's been in continuous use for well over ten years.
I use it only for an OS drive and don't keep any data on it any more because one of these days it's just going to die, but I'd be nearing end-of-life on my second SSD drive by now.Now, there is one advantage of SSDs.
They fail earlier, but the failure is usually in the form of loss of capacity and performance.
Drive failures are rarely as dramatic as a spindle lockup or head crash, so you can usually get your data off the drive while it still works fine.
Data-loss failures do occur, but they are (AFAIK) somewhat rare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</id>
	<title>Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article seems to assume that a typcial laptop user needs a 120Gig harddisk.  I don't think that's true.  I can most certainly live with a 20Gig to 40Gig harddisk in a laptop.  As a matter of fact, my current laptop (3 year old AMD Turion with "120Gig" HD) has two parts: about 16Gig fro WinXP MCE and the remaining 100Gig for Ubuntu.  The 16Gig has all the productivity apps I need + 1 game (Portal), which still leaves me 2Gig free for data.  If I didn't have the game, I'd have ~8Gig free for data.  For typcial data like word processing documents and the like that is more than enough.  It is perfectly usable for day to day tasks.  (The Ubuntu part is my playground, but it could live just as wel on a 16Gig partition)</p><p>If you enter digital pictures into the landscape, it does change  a bit.  Still, that's still a lot of pictures.  Besides, you don't want all your pictures on the move.  They're much safer at home on server and/or NAS.</p><p>Music you say?  We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.</p><p>While I don't think I'm going to shell out 100&euro; for a 32Gig SDD, because I'm a cheap bastard and what I have works, I could most certainly live with a 32Gig disk in my laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to assume that a typcial laptop user needs a 120Gig harddisk .
I do n't think that 's true .
I can most certainly live with a 20Gig to 40Gig harddisk in a laptop .
As a matter of fact , my current laptop ( 3 year old AMD Turion with " 120Gig " HD ) has two parts : about 16Gig fro WinXP MCE and the remaining 100Gig for Ubuntu .
The 16Gig has all the productivity apps I need + 1 game ( Portal ) , which still leaves me 2Gig free for data .
If I did n't have the game , I 'd have ~ 8Gig free for data .
For typcial data like word processing documents and the like that is more than enough .
It is perfectly usable for day to day tasks .
( The Ubuntu part is my playground , but it could live just as wel on a 16Gig partition ) If you enter digital pictures into the landscape , it does change a bit .
Still , that 's still a lot of pictures .
Besides , you do n't want all your pictures on the move .
They 're much safer at home on server and/or NAS.Music you say ?
We 're talking about " needing " ... You do n't " need " music on your laptop , unless that 's your profession , but that does n't make you a typcial user.While I do n't think I 'm going to shell out 100    for a 32Gig SDD , because I 'm a cheap bastard and what I have works , I could most certainly live with a 32Gig disk in my laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to assume that a typcial laptop user needs a 120Gig harddisk.
I don't think that's true.
I can most certainly live with a 20Gig to 40Gig harddisk in a laptop.
As a matter of fact, my current laptop (3 year old AMD Turion with "120Gig" HD) has two parts: about 16Gig fro WinXP MCE and the remaining 100Gig for Ubuntu.
The 16Gig has all the productivity apps I need + 1 game (Portal), which still leaves me 2Gig free for data.
If I didn't have the game, I'd have ~8Gig free for data.
For typcial data like word processing documents and the like that is more than enough.
It is perfectly usable for day to day tasks.
(The Ubuntu part is my playground, but it could live just as wel on a 16Gig partition)If you enter digital pictures into the landscape, it does change  a bit.
Still, that's still a lot of pictures.
Besides, you don't want all your pictures on the move.
They're much safer at home on server and/or NAS.Music you say?
We're talking about "needing"... You don't "need" music on your laptop, unless that's your profession, but that doesn't make you a typcial user.While I don't think I'm going to shell out 100€ for a 32Gig SDD, because I'm a cheap bastard and what I have works, I could most certainly live with a 32Gig disk in my laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586956</id>
	<title>Re:Who really needs SSDs for Porn?</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1269371460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>.SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files.</p></div><p>Exactly!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files.Exactly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .SSD speeds are really only needed for heavily accessed files.Exactly!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587062</id>
	<title>Extra tinkering still required</title>
	<author>jones\_supa</author>
	<datestamp>1269371820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's the reliability issue but then I find the babysitting annoying. Firmware updates, performance refresh utilities, partition alignment... With HDDs you didn't have to worry about any of this. I hope with future SSDs neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's the reliability issue but then I find the babysitting annoying .
Firmware updates , performance refresh utilities , partition alignment... With HDDs you did n't have to worry about any of this .
I hope with future SSDs neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's the reliability issue but then I find the babysitting annoying.
Firmware updates, performance refresh utilities, partition alignment... With HDDs you didn't have to worry about any of this.
I hope with future SSDs neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586942</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1269371400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IME the average laptop doesn't have WinCE, Ubuntu or games either. I don't expect your typical "home" laptop to start coming with an SSD for another year or two, but there's plenty of businesses that are drooling over the prospect of a) uber-fast laptop drives to make the loading of all that security bloatware bearable and b) laptop drives that are small and don't get stuffed full of files that should have been on the file server in the first place.</p><p>My "workstation" laptop has a 500GB drive, and I wouldn't give that up for the world - I need the space for VMs. But my knockabout laptop is a toshiba T110 with an aftermarket 60GB OCZ drive in it. I don't have to worry about it being jiggled, there's a noticeable improvement in battery life and, obviously, I/O responsiveness is much improved (which helps make the laptop feel faster than its wimpy single-core proc would have you believe). Extra space for media or similar is provisioned more easily in the way of USB keys or SD cards.</p><p>Moral of the story: IMHO people will go with a best-of-breed solution. Hard discs for people who need the storage, SSDs for people who don't. I think the article is right to assume that the majority of the laptop market can live inside 120GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IME the average laptop does n't have WinCE , Ubuntu or games either .
I do n't expect your typical " home " laptop to start coming with an SSD for another year or two , but there 's plenty of businesses that are drooling over the prospect of a ) uber-fast laptop drives to make the loading of all that security bloatware bearable and b ) laptop drives that are small and do n't get stuffed full of files that should have been on the file server in the first place.My " workstation " laptop has a 500GB drive , and I would n't give that up for the world - I need the space for VMs .
But my knockabout laptop is a toshiba T110 with an aftermarket 60GB OCZ drive in it .
I do n't have to worry about it being jiggled , there 's a noticeable improvement in battery life and , obviously , I/O responsiveness is much improved ( which helps make the laptop feel faster than its wimpy single-core proc would have you believe ) .
Extra space for media or similar is provisioned more easily in the way of USB keys or SD cards.Moral of the story : IMHO people will go with a best-of-breed solution .
Hard discs for people who need the storage , SSDs for people who do n't .
I think the article is right to assume that the majority of the laptop market can live inside 120GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IME the average laptop doesn't have WinCE, Ubuntu or games either.
I don't expect your typical "home" laptop to start coming with an SSD for another year or two, but there's plenty of businesses that are drooling over the prospect of a) uber-fast laptop drives to make the loading of all that security bloatware bearable and b) laptop drives that are small and don't get stuffed full of files that should have been on the file server in the first place.My "workstation" laptop has a 500GB drive, and I wouldn't give that up for the world - I need the space for VMs.
But my knockabout laptop is a toshiba T110 with an aftermarket 60GB OCZ drive in it.
I don't have to worry about it being jiggled, there's a noticeable improvement in battery life and, obviously, I/O responsiveness is much improved (which helps make the laptop feel faster than its wimpy single-core proc would have you believe).
Extra space for media or similar is provisioned more easily in the way of USB keys or SD cards.Moral of the story: IMHO people will go with a best-of-breed solution.
Hard discs for people who need the storage, SSDs for people who don't.
I think the article is right to assume that the majority of the laptop market can live inside 120GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586818</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1269370980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution, I just don't see it happening real soon or even now."<br>Oh no you are right. No one will ever download or stream music and or movies. And nobody will ever sell music on SD cards.<br>Actually I think we will see HDDs for some years yet but I actually think CDs and DVDs may have an even shorter lifespan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution , I just do n't see it happening real soon or even now .
" Oh no you are right .
No one will ever download or stream music and or movies .
And nobody will ever sell music on SD cards.Actually I think we will see HDDs for some years yet but I actually think CDs and DVDs may have an even shorter lifespan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the article thinks that movies and albums will switch to SSD based distribution, I just don't see it happening real soon or even now.
"Oh no you are right.
No one will ever download or stream music and or movies.
And nobody will ever sell music on SD cards.Actually I think we will see HDDs for some years yet but I actually think CDs and DVDs may have an even shorter lifespan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588530</id>
	<title>Reliability of NAND flash</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1269334980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read NAND flash datasheet as part of my job, and I'm really wondering what those guys are thinking and what it means for SSD.</p><p>There are two things I look at in the datasheet:<br>- Data Retention<br>- Program/Erase cycles.</p><p>Data Retention is how long the data on a flash will last before you need to refresh it.<br>Program/Erase cycles is how many times you can re-program a flash sector before it stops working.</p><p>It seems that, as NAND flash get bigger capacity, and as they move from SLC to MLC technology, the shorter data retention get, and the smaller the number of P/E cycles get.</p><p>Right now, I see 5000 P/E cycles and 5 years data retention. Roadmaps show both of these getting worse.</p><p>Now, 5 years data retention is probably still okay for most use where you dont keep devices more than 5 years. But 5000 P/E cycles seems very low for a PC or even smartphones. I would think that wear leveling algorithm can only do so much....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read NAND flash datasheet as part of my job , and I 'm really wondering what those guys are thinking and what it means for SSD.There are two things I look at in the datasheet : - Data Retention- Program/Erase cycles.Data Retention is how long the data on a flash will last before you need to refresh it.Program/Erase cycles is how many times you can re-program a flash sector before it stops working.It seems that , as NAND flash get bigger capacity , and as they move from SLC to MLC technology , the shorter data retention get , and the smaller the number of P/E cycles get.Right now , I see 5000 P/E cycles and 5 years data retention .
Roadmaps show both of these getting worse.Now , 5 years data retention is probably still okay for most use where you dont keep devices more than 5 years .
But 5000 P/E cycles seems very low for a PC or even smartphones .
I would think that wear leveling algorithm can only do so much... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read NAND flash datasheet as part of my job, and I'm really wondering what those guys are thinking and what it means for SSD.There are two things I look at in the datasheet:- Data Retention- Program/Erase cycles.Data Retention is how long the data on a flash will last before you need to refresh it.Program/Erase cycles is how many times you can re-program a flash sector before it stops working.It seems that, as NAND flash get bigger capacity, and as they move from SLC to MLC technology, the shorter data retention get, and the smaller the number of P/E cycles get.Right now, I see 5000 P/E cycles and 5 years data retention.
Roadmaps show both of these getting worse.Now, 5 years data retention is probably still okay for most use where you dont keep devices more than 5 years.
But 5000 P/E cycles seems very low for a PC or even smartphones.
I would think that wear leveling algorithm can only do so much....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587312</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1269372600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive. I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that's it. It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media.<br>
&nbsp; <br>As Netflix expands their streaming movie selection and increases the video quality of their streamed movies, I think Blu Ray is going to die, or at least wither quite a bit <i>in first world countries</i>. Sure the audio/videophiles and people who like to collect things (like movies) will still buy their favorite titles and Blu Ray will continue to live on,  but most people are content to skip the physical disc if they can get streaming videos ala carte at a flat rate. In third world countries VCD and DVD rental places are quite popular where broadband exists, but it still very slow, so I can see Blu Ray flourishing there once the rates for duplication and players comes down by at least 70\%. I don't think we live in a world where silicon memory chips and their controllers will ever be cheaper than $10 or so, which is significantly higher than the cost of a piece of plastic with some foil embedded in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive .
I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that 's it .
It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media .
  As Netflix expands their streaming movie selection and increases the video quality of their streamed movies , I think Blu Ray is going to die , or at least wither quite a bit in first world countries .
Sure the audio/videophiles and people who like to collect things ( like movies ) will still buy their favorite titles and Blu Ray will continue to live on , but most people are content to skip the physical disc if they can get streaming videos ala carte at a flat rate .
In third world countries VCD and DVD rental places are quite popular where broadband exists , but it still very slow , so I can see Blu Ray flourishing there once the rates for duplication and players comes down by at least 70 \ % .
I do n't think we live in a world where silicon memory chips and their controllers will ever be cheaper than $ 10 or so , which is significantly higher than the cost of a piece of plastic with some foil embedded in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive.
I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that's it.
It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media.
  As Netflix expands their streaming movie selection and increases the video quality of their streamed movies, I think Blu Ray is going to die, or at least wither quite a bit in first world countries.
Sure the audio/videophiles and people who like to collect things (like movies) will still buy their favorite titles and Blu Ray will continue to live on,  but most people are content to skip the physical disc if they can get streaming videos ala carte at a flat rate.
In third world countries VCD and DVD rental places are quite popular where broadband exists, but it still very slow, so I can see Blu Ray flourishing there once the rates for duplication and players comes down by at least 70\%.
I don't think we live in a world where silicon memory chips and their controllers will ever be cheaper than $10 or so, which is significantly higher than the cost of a piece of plastic with some foil embedded in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590240</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>evilWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1269343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSDs have fixed per-drive costs/requirements too. Chips to handle the SATA interface and internal wear leveling, for example. And the choice of memory chips is analogous to magnetic platter density. SSD makers spread the load over multiple memory chips, and spinning hard drive makers spread the load over 1-4 platters, but the makers of the chips and platters prefer to only churn out mass quantities of their one newest model. The investments for both factories are up front and then the marginal production cost per chip/platter is about the same, so why waste production capacity on the old model? That means, for both, that when capacity goes up, you may get a higher capacity drive for the same price, but you are unlikely to get an old-capacity drive for a lower price. There's a sweet spot around $75-$100 for hard drives and it hasn't changed much in ages, excepting discount selloffs of old stock when the new model's production has ramped up.</p><p>For example, checking newegg right now: cheapest 32 GB SATA SSD is $90, cheapest 16 GB SATA SSD is... $99. (Note that I'm comparing SSDs only, you'll have to skip by the expansion card drives). They declined to make cheap 16 GB MLC flash drives, instead doing SLC for those.</p><p>For comparison, if we hop over to the section on SD cards - which don't do anything fancy with drive controller chips in the card, they're pretty much just the memory chip in a plastic sleeve - we see the prices are much more closely related to capacity. 32 GB cards at $72, 16 GB at $32, 8 GB at $15.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSDs have fixed per-drive costs/requirements too .
Chips to handle the SATA interface and internal wear leveling , for example .
And the choice of memory chips is analogous to magnetic platter density .
SSD makers spread the load over multiple memory chips , and spinning hard drive makers spread the load over 1-4 platters , but the makers of the chips and platters prefer to only churn out mass quantities of their one newest model .
The investments for both factories are up front and then the marginal production cost per chip/platter is about the same , so why waste production capacity on the old model ?
That means , for both , that when capacity goes up , you may get a higher capacity drive for the same price , but you are unlikely to get an old-capacity drive for a lower price .
There 's a sweet spot around $ 75- $ 100 for hard drives and it has n't changed much in ages , excepting discount selloffs of old stock when the new model 's production has ramped up.For example , checking newegg right now : cheapest 32 GB SATA SSD is $ 90 , cheapest 16 GB SATA SSD is... $ 99. ( Note that I 'm comparing SSDs only , you 'll have to skip by the expansion card drives ) .
They declined to make cheap 16 GB MLC flash drives , instead doing SLC for those.For comparison , if we hop over to the section on SD cards - which do n't do anything fancy with drive controller chips in the card , they 're pretty much just the memory chip in a plastic sleeve - we see the prices are much more closely related to capacity .
32 GB cards at $ 72 , 16 GB at $ 32 , 8 GB at $ 15 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSDs have fixed per-drive costs/requirements too.
Chips to handle the SATA interface and internal wear leveling, for example.
And the choice of memory chips is analogous to magnetic platter density.
SSD makers spread the load over multiple memory chips, and spinning hard drive makers spread the load over 1-4 platters, but the makers of the chips and platters prefer to only churn out mass quantities of their one newest model.
The investments for both factories are up front and then the marginal production cost per chip/platter is about the same, so why waste production capacity on the old model?
That means, for both, that when capacity goes up, you may get a higher capacity drive for the same price, but you are unlikely to get an old-capacity drive for a lower price.
There's a sweet spot around $75-$100 for hard drives and it hasn't changed much in ages, excepting discount selloffs of old stock when the new model's production has ramped up.For example, checking newegg right now: cheapest 32 GB SATA SSD is $90, cheapest 16 GB SATA SSD is... $99. (Note that I'm comparing SSDs only, you'll have to skip by the expansion card drives).
They declined to make cheap 16 GB MLC flash drives, instead doing SLC for those.For comparison, if we hop over to the section on SD cards - which don't do anything fancy with drive controller chips in the card, they're pretty much just the memory chip in a plastic sleeve - we see the prices are much more closely related to capacity.
32 GB cards at $72, 16 GB at $32, 8 GB at $15.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594302</id>
	<title>Re:Damned fast, worth the price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269369000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should feel much quicker than a SAN. The SAN still has the same latency as a single spinning disk if not more. It just has higher throughput and can handle more concurrent requests. The change that all the heads will be on the right cylinder and that the platters will be rotated to the correct position is much greater for a random read on a single disk than having the proper alignment across the whole raid set. That is of course assuming that its a parity type configuration on the raid set as most are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should feel much quicker than a SAN .
The SAN still has the same latency as a single spinning disk if not more .
It just has higher throughput and can handle more concurrent requests .
The change that all the heads will be on the right cylinder and that the platters will be rotated to the correct position is much greater for a random read on a single disk than having the proper alignment across the whole raid set .
That is of course assuming that its a parity type configuration on the raid set as most are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should feel much quicker than a SAN.
The SAN still has the same latency as a single spinning disk if not more.
It just has higher throughput and can handle more concurrent requests.
The change that all the heads will be on the right cylinder and that the platters will be rotated to the correct position is much greater for a random read on a single disk than having the proper alignment across the whole raid set.
That is of course assuming that its a parity type configuration on the raid set as most are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592350</id>
	<title>Re:Careful on Your Terminology There</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?</p></div><p>But they're dead already, aren't they? We're talking storage media here, not movies for mallbuyers who wouldn't download a car. Vinyl survived in nostalgia corners, because it's sexy. HDDs will survive in servers and NASes. Discs? Not a chance. They'll go the way of the floppy and the Zip drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu Ray and CDs are still " spinning media " are n't they ? But they 're dead already , are n't they ?
We 're talking storage media here , not movies for mallbuyers who would n't download a car .
Vinyl survived in nostalgia corners , because it 's sexy .
HDDs will survive in servers and NASes .
Discs ? Not a chance .
They 'll go the way of the floppy and the Zip drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they?But they're dead already, aren't they?
We're talking storage media here, not movies for mallbuyers who wouldn't download a car.
Vinyl survived in nostalgia corners, because it's sexy.
HDDs will survive in servers and NASes.
Discs? Not a chance.
They'll go the way of the floppy and the Zip drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588058</id>
	<title>Good spinning media is in high demand.</title>
	<author>bregmata</author>
	<datestamp>1269375720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife has plenty of spinning media.  She has two wheels and needs a constant supply of media to spin into yarn.  With the loom and plenty of knitting projects on the go, there is never a shortage of demand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has plenty of spinning media .
She has two wheels and needs a constant supply of media to spin into yarn .
With the loom and plenty of knitting projects on the go , there is never a shortage of demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has plenty of spinning media.
She has two wheels and needs a constant supply of media to spin into yarn.
With the loom and plenty of knitting projects on the go, there is never a shortage of demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31593958</id>
	<title>Best of both?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1269365580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there any laptops out there with two hard drive slots, so that I could have the system data and random files on SSD, and videos / VM images / other huge data on the platters?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any laptops out there with two hard drive slots , so that I could have the system data and random files on SSD , and videos / VM images / other huge data on the platters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any laptops out there with two hard drive slots, so that I could have the system data and random files on SSD, and videos / VM images / other huge data on the platters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587024</id>
	<title>YUO FAIL IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269371640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod points and ne7er heeded MAKES ME SICK JlUST The latest Netcraft</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod points and ne7er heeded MAKES ME SICK JlUST The latest Netcraft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod points and ne7er heeded MAKES ME SICK JlUST The latest Netcraft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589874</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269341760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical users steal music from the interwebs, are too lazy to burn it to disc, and too cheap to buy a new stand alone player that handles mp3.</p><p>So yeah, typical users need music on their PC.  I personally love deleting it when I repair their PCs, and tell them it couldn't be recovered.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//supports musicians</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical users steal music from the interwebs , are too lazy to burn it to disc , and too cheap to buy a new stand alone player that handles mp3.So yeah , typical users need music on their PC .
I personally love deleting it when I repair their PCs , and tell them it could n't be recovered .
//supports musicians</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical users steal music from the interwebs, are too lazy to burn it to disc, and too cheap to buy a new stand alone player that handles mp3.So yeah, typical users need music on their PC.
I personally love deleting it when I repair their PCs, and tell them it couldn't be recovered.
//supports musicians</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586722</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with your prediction somewhat.</p><p>I predict that SSD will slowly supplant HDD. And then the market will shift to SSDs with multiple platters of RAM with higher and higher rotational speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with your prediction somewhat.I predict that SSD will slowly supplant HDD .
And then the market will shift to SSDs with multiple platters of RAM with higher and higher rotational speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with your prediction somewhat.I predict that SSD will slowly supplant HDD.
And then the market will shift to SSDs with multiple platters of RAM with higher and higher rotational speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574</id>
	<title>Child pornographers.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1269370260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard drives and very powerful magnets will still be the #1 choice for child pornographers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard drives and very powerful magnets will still be the # 1 choice for child pornographers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard drives and very powerful magnets will still be the #1 choice for child pornographers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587738</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1269374280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please watch this video for a demonstration of the *40 times more performance* available with SSD:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=m&amp;search\_query=ssd+hdd&amp;search\_type=videos&amp;suggested\_categories=28&amp;uni=3" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=m&amp;search\_query=ssd+hdd&amp;search\_type=videos&amp;suggested\_categories=28&amp;uni=3</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please watch this video for a demonstration of the * 40 times more performance * available with SSD : http : //www.youtube.com/results ? uploaded = m&amp;search \ _query = ssd + hdd&amp;search \ _type = videos&amp;suggested \ _categories = 28&amp;uni = 3 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please watch this video for a demonstration of the *40 times more performance* available with SSD:http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=m&amp;search\_query=ssd+hdd&amp;search\_type=videos&amp;suggested\_categories=28&amp;uni=3 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586640</id>
	<title>Tiered Storage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The clock is certainly ticking, but it's got a long time to wind down. The largest barrier to the death of mechanical storage is the looming halt in NAND geometry shrinks, as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.</p><p>Seeing as how we've got 2TB in single disks now, and that capacity will likely continue to rise, I suspect we'll see capacity increases for SSDs slow for a while as new NVM tech comes online. Instead, prices will simply fall and you'll (hopefully) see some more consumer-oriented hybrid solutions where frequently accessed bits are stored in NAND and large, infrequently files will be out on your (hopefully RAID-6 protected) mechanical storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The clock is certainly ticking , but it 's got a long time to wind down .
The largest barrier to the death of mechanical storage is the looming halt in NAND geometry shrinks , as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.Seeing as how we 've got 2TB in single disks now , and that capacity will likely continue to rise , I suspect we 'll see capacity increases for SSDs slow for a while as new NVM tech comes online .
Instead , prices will simply fall and you 'll ( hopefully ) see some more consumer-oriented hybrid solutions where frequently accessed bits are stored in NAND and large , infrequently files will be out on your ( hopefully RAID-6 protected ) mechanical storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The clock is certainly ticking, but it's got a long time to wind down.
The largest barrier to the death of mechanical storage is the looming halt in NAND geometry shrinks, as processes get so small that it goes from being merely crap to wholly unreliable.Seeing as how we've got 2TB in single disks now, and that capacity will likely continue to rise, I suspect we'll see capacity increases for SSDs slow for a while as new NVM tech comes online.
Instead, prices will simply fall and you'll (hopefully) see some more consumer-oriented hybrid solutions where frequently accessed bits are stored in NAND and large, infrequently files will be out on your (hopefully RAID-6 protected) mechanical storage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594400</id>
	<title>Re:...Or an arms race</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1269370260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters. It is probably close right now.</p></div><p>Where can you find a 120G SSD for under $50? You can get an iPod with a 120Gb drive for $20, but an 8Gb SSD is still $60.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters .
It is probably close right now.Where can you find a 120G SSD for under $ 50 ?
You can get an iPod with a 120Gb drive for $ 20 , but an 8Gb SSD is still $ 60 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point SSDs in the 120Gb range will be cheaper than spinning platters.
It is probably close right now.Where can you find a 120G SSD for under $50?
You can get an iPod with a 120Gb drive for $20, but an 8Gb SSD is still $60.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587124</id>
	<title>OCZ? Aren't they scam artists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were uprating memory a while back. People still buy from them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were uprating memory a while back .
People still buy from them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were uprating memory a while back.
People still buy from them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603560</id>
	<title>Re:Reports of HDDs' demise greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1269424740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As time goes on, everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</i><br>No they don't, different technologies advance at different rates, and sometimes a technology gets squeezed out completely because another techonology fills thier niche better.</p><p>For example removable magnetic disks are mostly gone ( a few people are still using floppies for legacy reasons ) replaced by USB flash sticks and to a lesser extent external hard drives and optical drives (CDRW drives had a chance to take over the removable media market for a while but they were hampered by the non-standard status of packet writing software and by the large physical size of the disks).</p><p>Magnetic tape hasn't been completely pushed out but afaict only the enterprise backup market really uses it these days due to the huge cost of the drives</p><p>While the concept of solid state drives is nothing new solid state drives that are competitive enough that many people are seriously considering replacing hard drives with them are. The probablly won't completely replace hard drives in the next five years but beyond that it's hard to tell.</p><p>Punched cards and paper tape are gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As time goes on , everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list .
.No they do n't , different technologies advance at different rates , and sometimes a technology gets squeezed out completely because another techonology fills thier niche better.For example removable magnetic disks are mostly gone ( a few people are still using floppies for legacy reasons ) replaced by USB flash sticks and to a lesser extent external hard drives and optical drives ( CDRW drives had a chance to take over the removable media market for a while but they were hampered by the non-standard status of packet writing software and by the large physical size of the disks ) .Magnetic tape has n't been completely pushed out but afaict only the enterprise backup market really uses it these days due to the huge cost of the drivesWhile the concept of solid state drives is nothing new solid state drives that are competitive enough that many people are seriously considering replacing hard drives with them are .
The probablly wo n't completely replace hard drives in the next five years but beyond that it 's hard to tell.Punched cards and paper tape are gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As time goes on, everything gets faster and everything grows in storage capacity - but they all stay the same relative to each other on the list.
.No they don't, different technologies advance at different rates, and sometimes a technology gets squeezed out completely because another techonology fills thier niche better.For example removable magnetic disks are mostly gone ( a few people are still using floppies for legacy reasons ) replaced by USB flash sticks and to a lesser extent external hard drives and optical drives (CDRW drives had a chance to take over the removable media market for a while but they were hampered by the non-standard status of packet writing software and by the large physical size of the disks).Magnetic tape hasn't been completely pushed out but afaict only the enterprise backup market really uses it these days due to the huge cost of the drivesWhile the concept of solid state drives is nothing new solid state drives that are competitive enough that many people are seriously considering replacing hard drives with them are.
The probablly won't completely replace hard drives in the next five years but beyond that it's hard to tell.Punched cards and paper tape are gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591842</id>
	<title>Not going to buy one anyway.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they still wear out that fast, I&rsquo;m not putting any data that&rsquo;s worth anything on one of them. No thanks.<br>Also, it&rsquo;n not enough that they get on the same price/performance level, to justify a change. They have to be <em>better</em>.<br>And that means at least 2GB SSD disks for less than 100&euro;, with the same or better reliability and performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they still wear out that fast , I    m not putting any data that    s worth anything on one of them .
No thanks.Also , it    n not enough that they get on the same price/performance level , to justify a change .
They have to be better.And that means at least 2GB SSD disks for less than 100    , with the same or better reliability and performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they still wear out that fast, I’m not putting any data that’s worth anything on one of them.
No thanks.Also, it’n not enough that they get on the same price/performance level, to justify a change.
They have to be better.And that means at least 2GB SSD disks for less than 100€, with the same or better reliability and performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587590</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1269373680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must not be a developer.  Even casual development (say you want to manage a few packages for your favorite Linux distro, or track some of your favorite projects via git) can eat up the space pretty easily.  'git clone' enough repositories or set up enough build environments or virtual machines and 100 Gig is gone quickly.  Or maybe you are freelancing and need to keep the data for multiple clients on your laptop for site visits.  I can't imagine what kind of space a busy graphics artist might need.  Oh,wait.  Maybe you have a dual-boot machine.  60 gig per OS if you split it evenly?  Not enough.
<p>
This may not describe the 'very casual user' (aka my dog, because my mother-in-law is already too hardcore for your measly 120 gigs), but you don't need to be very hardcore nowadays to fill up 120 gigs.  If that doesn't work for you, then just imagine a teenager with a serious interest in gaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not be a developer .
Even casual development ( say you want to manage a few packages for your favorite Linux distro , or track some of your favorite projects via git ) can eat up the space pretty easily .
'git clone ' enough repositories or set up enough build environments or virtual machines and 100 Gig is gone quickly .
Or maybe you are freelancing and need to keep the data for multiple clients on your laptop for site visits .
I ca n't imagine what kind of space a busy graphics artist might need .
Oh,wait. Maybe you have a dual-boot machine .
60 gig per OS if you split it evenly ?
Not enough .
This may not describe the 'very casual user ' ( aka my dog , because my mother-in-law is already too hardcore for your measly 120 gigs ) , but you do n't need to be very hardcore nowadays to fill up 120 gigs .
If that does n't work for you , then just imagine a teenager with a serious interest in gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not be a developer.
Even casual development (say you want to manage a few packages for your favorite Linux distro, or track some of your favorite projects via git) can eat up the space pretty easily.
'git clone' enough repositories or set up enough build environments or virtual machines and 100 Gig is gone quickly.
Or maybe you are freelancing and need to keep the data for multiple clients on your laptop for site visits.
I can't imagine what kind of space a busy graphics artist might need.
Oh,wait.  Maybe you have a dual-boot machine.
60 gig per OS if you split it evenly?
Not enough.
This may not describe the 'very casual user' (aka my dog, because my mother-in-law is already too hardcore for your measly 120 gigs), but you don't need to be very hardcore nowadays to fill up 120 gigs.
If that doesn't work for you, then just imagine a teenager with a serious interest in gaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587288</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269372540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel the same way.  My wife's ASUS eeePC Netbook came with a 350GB 5400RPM hard drive.  It works OK, and of course an SSD would have jacked the price way up from the $300 price we got it for, but I'd still have preferred even a 16GB SSD drive on the thing.  She'll never store any serious data on it.</p><p>It does have an SD expansion slot - I may at some point pick up a 16GB SD chip for it and see if I can boot Mint off the SD chip instead, then see if I can power down the hard drive in the BIOS as an experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel the same way .
My wife 's ASUS eeePC Netbook came with a 350GB 5400RPM hard drive .
It works OK , and of course an SSD would have jacked the price way up from the $ 300 price we got it for , but I 'd still have preferred even a 16GB SSD drive on the thing .
She 'll never store any serious data on it.It does have an SD expansion slot - I may at some point pick up a 16GB SD chip for it and see if I can boot Mint off the SD chip instead , then see if I can power down the hard drive in the BIOS as an experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel the same way.
My wife's ASUS eeePC Netbook came with a 350GB 5400RPM hard drive.
It works OK, and of course an SSD would have jacked the price way up from the $300 price we got it for, but I'd still have preferred even a 16GB SSD drive on the thing.
She'll never store any serious data on it.It does have an SD expansion slot - I may at some point pick up a 16GB SD chip for it and see if I can boot Mint off the SD chip instead, then see if I can power down the hard drive in the BIOS as an experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594106</id>
	<title>Not price drops but spinning media itself</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1269367020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the SSD price drops so much as it is the spinning media - includingDVD, tape, and hard drives - themselves which are pushing people to SSDs.</p><p>Why? The older technologies are a pain in the ass:<br>1) They don't degrade consistently.<br>2) They offer poor performance.<br>3) They aren't getting any faster (a marginal concern in most scenarios due to insanely low RAM prices).<br>4) Most significantly, their reliability has been horrible for the past year+: everyone's seeing massive failure rates for every vendor in the larger capacity disks, with anywhere from 2\% to 50\% failure rates (per batch) in early-life.</p><p>The only thing the older magnetic/optical storage has to offer is capacity, and as that benefit disappears - due to increasingly large SSDs, lower prices, and unreliable large-capacity hard drives - people will stop buying them.</p><p>Of course, manufacturers are trying to push people towards SSDs, too: they're much higher profit margin. Though, just like with the CRT/LCD transition, both the new and old transitional technologies suffer in quality until the transition is complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the SSD price drops so much as it is the spinning media - includingDVD , tape , and hard drives - themselves which are pushing people to SSDs.Why ?
The older technologies are a pain in the ass : 1 ) They do n't degrade consistently.2 ) They offer poor performance.3 ) They are n't getting any faster ( a marginal concern in most scenarios due to insanely low RAM prices ) .4 ) Most significantly , their reliability has been horrible for the past year + : everyone 's seeing massive failure rates for every vendor in the larger capacity disks , with anywhere from 2 \ % to 50 \ % failure rates ( per batch ) in early-life.The only thing the older magnetic/optical storage has to offer is capacity , and as that benefit disappears - due to increasingly large SSDs , lower prices , and unreliable large-capacity hard drives - people will stop buying them.Of course , manufacturers are trying to push people towards SSDs , too : they 're much higher profit margin .
Though , just like with the CRT/LCD transition , both the new and old transitional technologies suffer in quality until the transition is complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the SSD price drops so much as it is the spinning media - includingDVD, tape, and hard drives - themselves which are pushing people to SSDs.Why?
The older technologies are a pain in the ass:1) They don't degrade consistently.2) They offer poor performance.3) They aren't getting any faster (a marginal concern in most scenarios due to insanely low RAM prices).4) Most significantly, their reliability has been horrible for the past year+: everyone's seeing massive failure rates for every vendor in the larger capacity disks, with anywhere from 2\% to 50\% failure rates (per batch) in early-life.The only thing the older magnetic/optical storage has to offer is capacity, and as that benefit disappears - due to increasingly large SSDs, lower prices, and unreliable large-capacity hard drives - people will stop buying them.Of course, manufacturers are trying to push people towards SSDs, too: they're much higher profit margin.
Though, just like with the CRT/LCD transition, both the new and old transitional technologies suffer in quality until the transition is complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589302</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting assumptions</title>
	<author>Beezlebub33</author>
	<datestamp>1269338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, I've got a 16G World of Warcraft directory!  And a 5G music collection.  And a couple of movies at several gigs for when I'm traveling (can't use DVD on plane, it dies too quickly).  And a couple of gigs of pictures and videos from the phone.  I've got at least 8G of development and testing work stuff (VS, and Eclipse, plus Tomcat, several database programs, log files, build and test directories, etc).   I've got all the reports, documents, and presentations I've given for the past couple of years, in multiple versions (2 G).  All told I've got 70G of 'stuff' that I don't really want to go delete, because it's just so convenient.
<br> <br>
So, it depends on the user.  For the average slashdot user, I'd say 30G is too small currently.  100 G feels about right, so you can have the stuff you need, and still defrag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , I 've got a 16G World of Warcraft directory !
And a 5G music collection .
And a couple of movies at several gigs for when I 'm traveling ( ca n't use DVD on plane , it dies too quickly ) .
And a couple of gigs of pictures and videos from the phone .
I 've got at least 8G of development and testing work stuff ( VS , and Eclipse , plus Tomcat , several database programs , log files , build and test directories , etc ) .
I 've got all the reports , documents , and presentations I 've given for the past couple of years , in multiple versions ( 2 G ) .
All told I 've got 70G of 'stuff ' that I do n't really want to go delete , because it 's just so convenient .
So , it depends on the user .
For the average slashdot user , I 'd say 30G is too small currently .
100 G feels about right , so you can have the stuff you need , and still defrag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, I've got a 16G World of Warcraft directory!
And a 5G music collection.
And a couple of movies at several gigs for when I'm traveling (can't use DVD on plane, it dies too quickly).
And a couple of gigs of pictures and videos from the phone.
I've got at least 8G of development and testing work stuff (VS, and Eclipse, plus Tomcat, several database programs, log files, build and test directories, etc).
I've got all the reports, documents, and presentations I've given for the past couple of years, in multiple versions (2 G).
All told I've got 70G of 'stuff' that I don't really want to go delete, because it's just so convenient.
So, it depends on the user.
For the average slashdot user, I'd say 30G is too small currently.
100 G feels about right, so you can have the stuff you need, and still defrag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31599536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31593622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31595298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31604850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31647696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1647239_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31604850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31595298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31593622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31599536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31592350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31591660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31596030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31647696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31594764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31588298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31603560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31586944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31590858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31587558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1647239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1647239.31589568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
