QUOTE(darkskies @ Nov 11 2012, 09:59 PM)
Consumers weren't fools either. We are very well awared that the quality WD and Seagate been producing after the flood is unreliable.
That's why warranty wise triumph over anything else. These manufacturers knew it too. It's them who move us to their direction. Which is a reason why they are reducing the warranty duration. Themselves arent even confidence enough to have large enough quantity HDD making pass 3yrs test without problems. Reducing the warranty would mean those who pass the 1 to 2 yrs QC test will sold as product. Thus improving the yield to keep up the supply with the demand, it is an easy way out to increase supply without add production capacity + cutting the cost + more profit, this is just business.
At the end of the day it is the consumer are suffering, this is already dualpoly business. I am going to see how long they can sustain this kind of dualpoly. It seems they are "helping" the SSD adoption rate
QUOTE(dma0991 @ Nov 11 2012, 10:36 PM)
It's the method that SSDs read and write that causes the NAND chips to fail after some time. The method is applicable to all current SSDs and it will not change unless there is a new method of storing bits.
SSDs wear out as you use them but the amount of read/write that you would have to do is a lot before it shows fatigue. Just to give you an example of how much of read/write must be done, go
here. This should pretty much sum up that SSDs are quite reliable in the long term as this test emulates unrealistic amounts of read/write that a normal user will do throughout the lifespan of the SSD.
they are still tuning firmware as we speak now. SSD technology may be a lot more reliable these days than a few years ago. The benchmark are not showing any data in mass quantity testing for >10yrs. short term hard test =/= long testing. That why I said in theory they "should" be more reliable.
So I dont think I will be the one to be soo quick to jump to say "SSD is definite more reliable than HDD". IMO there are still a grey line between these 2 storage technologies on long term realiabilty.
u are right about the increase density of the HDD might have the impact of its reliability, we do not know if they could last as long as the old ones but it is still a >40yrs old technology that is proven.
Added on November 12, 2012, 12:29 amQUOTE(darkskies @ Nov 12 2012, 12:19 AM)
Anyway i still prefer HDD over SSD. How fast to load my application or boot up windows doesnt make a diff . I'm too poor to afford this kind of riches. At least my current setup could store 4tb loads of "ahem" stuffÂ
win8 + cheap RAM just suddenly make SSD less attractive then b4. Boottime is no longer the solid reason to upgrade to SDD on desktop(may be still applies on Laptop since 2.5 HDD are still rather slow). If a 80GB old HDD can do 30secs bootime, 103SJ probably can do a lot faster. how many more u think we can cut with SSD? lol.
With the price still high now, I think we still can wait them to "perfect" the technology, and may be a capacity that is not we can live without HDD @ affordable price (I think am fine with 512GB, just the price need to be a little friendlier)
This post has been edited by Boldnut: Nov 12 2012, 12:35 AM 
Feb 2 2012, 01:20 PM
Quote
0.0228sec
0.41
7 queries
GZIP Disabled