I didn't say you had to like it. Just said the colour doesn't really mean much seeing it's inside the computer.true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?
I didn't say you had to like it. Just said the colour doesn't really mean much seeing it's inside the computer.true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?
Given your location I'd say it's imperative that you do like it.
I LOLed!! While I changed it 3 days ago, I couldn't really find anything expressive enough
It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000
Well hopefully the if Crucial follows through with their announcement to release their 980GB SSD (M500) at around $600, would force the price on the OWC one to come down. As 2 x M500 would be $1200 - $1400 verses an OWC 2TB est. at that 2K - 3K range. In fact you could get the OWC multi-mount bracket allows for 2 SSD's in the 3.5" bay.
thats not an attractive color
If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes
I've always wondered why there was no 3.5" SSD until now. More space would mean more room for organized circuits and heat dispersion. It seemed self-explanatory that higher-voltage high-performance and capacity SSDs would be possible in the traditional desktop drive format, yet no one made one until now!
To add to what I said before, OWC never really plays the price comparison game.
Look at their existing SSD line, they are as expensive if not more expensive than what's out there.
... and then you go on to ask for expensive storage infrastructure:Building large capacity rotating drives makes sense because a rather large fraction of the cost of the device is the storage infrastructure rather than the storage medium itself.
Flash storage turns that on its head. The vast majority of the cost is the storage medium itself.
SAS/SATA expanders can do that sort of thing, but the chassis/backplane for the above would be neither compact nor inexpensive, and a capable RAID HBA / embedded controller would be needed.What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.
I should think SATA is cheap enough, but the chassis and backplane are going to cost regardless of the interface standard.In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules.
Just like HBA's have done for yearsGroups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed
Why bring NAS into it? That's only going to slow it down, might as well stick with spinning rust.for a NAS.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000
I've always wondered why there was no 3.5" SSD until now. More space would mean more room for organized circuits and heat dispersion.
thats not an attractive color
Who cares? It gets mounted inside where no one can see it, but is very visible to service people that open the case. Looks like a great decision.
----------
Question is, how fast is it compared to other SSDs? I know there's a considerable difference in the speed of memory cards I can get for my camera. Is there this great a difference in SSDs?
Well hopefully the if Crucial follows through with their announcement to release their 980GB SSD (M500) at around $600, would force the price on the OWC one to come down. As 2 x M500 would be $1200 - $1400 verses an OWC 2TB est. at that 2K - 3K range. In fact you could get the OWC multi-mount bracket allows for 2 SSD's in the 3.5" bay.
thats not an attractive color
Because for a desktop, sticking an SSD in a 3.5" HDD size enclosure is the worst idea of 2013.
It's a desktop. Build a PCI-E card that will make the sata-3 connection look like a very tight bottle neck and leaving the chips outside an enclosure will improve heat dispersion. It's been available as long as the 2.5" enclosure versions. You know, sort of like this product: http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-revodrive-3-x2-pci-express-ssd.html
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650
At that price wouldn't a second GPU be way more beneficial than a PCIe SSD?
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.
That really depends what you're doing. And I'm sure when you're at these price points anyway you're doing commercial work and buying both the graphics card and SSD might be worthwhile.
I thought the opposite. Seems colors are subjective...
It also needs to be thinner, lighter and have a annoying glossy surface.
1 (aka True)
That took way too long for me to work out! CS student too!