Other World Computing Building Pricey 3.5" 2TB SSD for Desktop Workstations

[macingman]

Originally Posted by needfx

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.

[needfx]

Originally Posted by All Taken

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

[All Taken]

Originally Posted by needfx

I LOLed!! While I changed it 3 days ago, I couldn't really find anything expressive enough

[qamaro]

Originally Posted by Dwalls90

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.

[Dwalls90]

Originally Posted by qamaro

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.

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.

[charlieegan3]

Originally Posted by needfx

thats not an attractive color

I thought the opposite. Seems colors are subjective...

[el-John-o]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

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!

I think the main reason is marketability. Even now SSDs don't outsell spinning drives, and a 2.5" equivalent size drive fits BOTH. So they need only engineer and maintain one product.

----------

Originally Posted by Dwalls90

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.

Absolutely. OWC's pricing is outrageous with seemingly no particular advantages or ways in which their products are unique and worth the price premium.

They are playing (or preying) on two things. One; unfamiliar apple users purchasing their products under an understanding that the competition is not compatible with their computers (thus they only need to compete with apples also outrageous upgrade prices). And two; components for which there is no competition, like rMBP SSD blades.

[righteye]

inaccurate comment, withdrawn

[anthony11]

Originally Posted by nsayer

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.

... and then you go on to ask for expensive storage infrastructure:

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.

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.

In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules.

I should think SATA is cheap enough, but the chassis and backplane are going to cost regardless of the interface standard.

Groups 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

Just like HBA's have done for years

for a NAS.

Why bring NAS into it? That's only going to slow it down, might as well stick with spinning rust.

[alternateroute]

What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

[Oracle1729]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

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.

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-rev...press-ssd.html

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by needfx

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?

[All Taken]

Originally Posted by JHankwitz

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?

I think you need to read a little about SSD's to get an answer that gives your question justice. In short it's a vast answer given IOPS, file size, controller version etc etc. Now if you had a SSD purely for loading the OS anything above 300MB/s is generally considered excessive as you won't notice a performance increase. Accessing other media or even using it as a swap disk would be an important factor in your decision regarding speed.

----------

Originally Posted by qamaro

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.

OWC sell overpriced components, a cheaper per GB SSD from another firm will not change this strategy. They rely on the ignorance of users.

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by needfx

thats not an attractive color

It also needs to be thinner, lighter and have a annoying glossy surface.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by Oracle1729

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-rev...press-ssd.html

At that price wouldn't a second GPU be way more beneficial than a PCIe SSD?

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/released...leaseID=732650

Now your talking'. Pop 2 of those in my MacPro and I'm good to go.

[Oracle1729]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

At that price wouldn't a second GPU be way more beneficial than a PCIe SSD?

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.

[uhmorphous]

Originally Posted by alternateroute

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

Funniest reply in thread. I can even hear the voice.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by Oracle1729

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.

True, but then you'd be limited by the number of PCIe slots available on the motherboard and how thick the GPU is x)

[needfx]

Originally Posted by charlieegan3

I thought the opposite. Seems colors are subjective...

1 (aka True)

Originally Posted by Bubba Satori

It also needs to be thinner, lighter and have a annoying glossy surface.

I can't see it blending

[starflyer]

I would rather have this:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/P...Accelsior/RAID

[charlieegan3]

Originally Posted by needfx

1 (aka True)

That took way too long for me to work out! CS student too!

[needfx]

Originally Posted by charlieegan3

That took way too long for me to work out! CS student too!

Challenged Science student? LOL

[Emanuel1]

Seems to come out direct from Tony Stark Co.

[InuNacho]

If OWC is gonna make 3.5 SSDs why can't they make a 3.5 Hybrid-drive like the Momentus XT? I'd be far more interested in a desktop version of the XT instead of an expensive SSD.