While I would love to see how memristor-based SSDs will perform against conventional NAND-based SSDs and own one, I would guess that the initial price will be where NAND-based SSDs were originally priced at: sky-high.

I'm ambivalent about putting memristor in the RAM or the CPU however, because of its non-volatile nature. Non-volatile memory will enable our operating systems to have the feature of instant off, as in unpowered or unplugged, and instant on; much faster than the slow 'hibernate' or power consuming 'sleep'. However, items like unencrypted passwords or your porn can remain in the memory, where they can be read by attackers with the proper training and equipment. Lost your laptop? Better change all your passwords and hope that your porn, company or government secret data isn't in the 32GB of memristor RAM.

Bad enough that our current volatile RAM can keep data long enough to be transferred if it is cooled. Memristors will make such exploits much easier and potentially more commonplace. Hopefully our OS and hardware developers can come up with good solutions before it is too late, ones that don't cost too much in terms of performance.

That was two months old. I am pretty sure that any advantages that the Kingston SSD had is gone by now. You should look at it as yet another SandForce-based SSD now.

Yeah, NAND Flash is so last year.

Maybe he is asking how to skip the password login?

Windows XP should be slower than Windows 7 to boot. Windows 8 will be even faster because it will be using a new pseudo-boot-sleep-hibernate hybrid.

This post has been edited by everling: Oct 20 2011, 07:22 PM

Viewnet has Vertex 2 120GB going for RM589. If the firmware is good, I'd buy that over their RM539 Intel 80GB.

Not at all. You only need to worry if you had hit 31TB in four months, but since you only hit 1.09TB in four months, I would not worry in the slightest when it comes to your SSD's write lifespan.

Another way of seeing it is that you need to write 263GB a day to your 160GB SSD. If you write less, you're safe.

No negative effects.

And it is at a nice price too. RM1,179 for a 256GB. And it even gives you 238GiB for storage instead of setting aside a lot of spare area, which is very nice. I hope the "beta testing" goes well, as I am interested in buying one of these.

That SSD of yours is a 120GB SSD.

Did you used the SATA 6.0 Gbps port to connect your SSD? Because the ATTO benchmark suggests that you may be accidentally using SATA 3.0 Gbps instead.

Going by the age alone (the laptop has a review in 2007), it has only SATA 3.0Gbps and not SATA 6.0Gbps (introduced in 2009).

Please keep in mind that SSD-to-SSD return on investment is much smaller than HDD-to-SSD. Thus if your X25-M is a 120GB SSD or your primary reason for a new SSD is performance, it will not be worth it. If you're using the 80GB edition and need more capacity, then any cheap and decent 120GB SSD will do just fine. Like Intel's 120GB (reliability) or OCZ's Agility 3 120GB (performance).

What about OCZ's Agility 3 120GB?

Here's a performance review: http://www.anandtech.com/print/4421

Unfortunately the Intel 320 120GB isn't benchmarked in that review.

I heard that the BSOD issue was fixed, but I don't know much about the matter. If reliability is your primary concern, then the Intel SSD would be a good choice.

Where are you getting that price from?

It says RM599 in my copy, dated 27-12-2011.

No problem.

I agree. I would rather buy a cheap 120GB SSD, three times the capacity for only twice the price.

What is this "script"?