Samsung SSD

[#1]

I've just replaced my Crucial C300's with a Plextor M5 pro based on the Tomshardware roundup from last month: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269-6.html
Gonna raid another one when I can afford it, but even at present just that one drive (I went for the 128GB version) is actually faster than the two 64GB C300's I had before. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
If you do have an intel motherboard, the latest iteration of their raid/system drivers does have a LOT of SSD optimisations on it - I'll try and find the link for it.
On a side note, those Samsung 840s come off very well in the Tomshardware hierarchy chart (near the bottom of the page I linked above). Nearly went for one of them but the Plextor was slightly cheaper.
ETA: Link to intel raid drivers: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=21730

[#2]

Am I right in thinking that these SSDs operate in the same way as SD cards, or Micro-SD cards; that they are, in essence, the same thing? And if so, doesn't that also mean there are problems with regard to data recovery and erasure?
That aside, it would be nice to have a 2TB one for my data, but I can't see that for a long time yet at the current prices for the laughable sizes available.

[#3]

It's flash memory, though the controller chips and memory tend to be more optimised for faster transfer than USB sticks do. Not heard of any issues regarding data recovery and erasure though?
It'd be a total waste getting one for storage though given SSDs are all about access speed, stored data doesn't need to be accessed anywhere near as quickly as an OS or installed games.

[#4]

Quote from: Matt

I've just replaced my Crucial C300's with a Plextor M5 pro based on the Tomshardware roundup from last month: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269-6.html Gonna raid another one when I can afford it, but even at present just that one drive (I went for the 128GB version) is actually faster than the two 64GB C300's I had before. I cannot recommend it highly enough. If you do have an intel motherboard, the latest iteration of their raid/system drivers does have a LOT of SSD optimisations on it - I'll try and find the link for it. On a side note, those Samsung 840s come off very well in the Tomshardware hierarchy chart (near the bottom of the page I linked above). Nearly went for one of them but the Plextor was slightly cheaper. ETA: Link to intel raid drivers: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=21730

And this is the kind of speed that can be got with the Intel raid drivers...
http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,111347.0.html

[#5]

Does this mean that I should buy a few 64GB USB 2.0 flash drives (£24 each) from Amazon for backup purposes?
It's a lot less bother than this cloud storage thing. 

[#6]

Quote from: Matt

It'd be a total waste getting one for storage though given SSDs are all about access speed, stored data doesn't need to be accessed anywhere near as quickly as an OS or installed games.

The speed at which I can transfer data is dependent upon both the read speed of one drive and the write speed of the other. When I'm backing up large amounts of data it's still relevant for me to have fast access speed. Beside that, as I understand it, it's not just about accessing data; SSDs are about eliminating moving parts and so reducing the likelihood of disk failure (which also interests me). I can't see how it could then be considered a total waste.

[#7]

Fair enough, though I'm still not convinced about the longevity of SSDs as yet my main objection to using it for storage would be price - if you can afford it though, go for it

[#8]

I'm still not convinced about the longevity either, and the exorbitant costs make me hold off. I certainly wouldn't invest until the costs come right down and the sizes go right up. I should imagine that by that time I'll have a whole new system set up and blu-ray will have been superseded by something along the lines of Super-high definition and monitors will be perfectly flat and roughly 1mm 'thick', pasted onto the wall probably ... the whole wall.

[#9]

Quote

IBM 350 RAMAC mechanism at Computer History Museum The IBM 350 disk storage unit, the first disk drive, was announced by IBM as a component of the IBM 305 RAMAC computer system on September 13, 1956. Simultaneously a very similar product, the IBM 355 was announced for the IBM 650 RAMAC computer system. RAMAC stood for "Random Access Method of Accounting and Control." Its design was motivated by the need for real time accounting in business. The 350 stored 5 million 6-bit characters (3.75 megabytes). It had fifty 24-inch (610 mm) diameter disks with 100 recording surfaces. Each surface had 100 tracks. The disks spun at 1200 RPM. Data transfer rate was 8,800 characters per second. An access mechanism moved a pair of heads up and down to select a disk pair (one down surface and one up surface) and in and out to select a recording track of a surface pair. This first ever disk drive was initially cancelled by the IBM Board of Directors because of its threat to the IBM punch card business but the IBM San Jose laboratory continued development until the project was approved by IBM's President. The 350's cabinet was 60 inches (152 cm) long, 68 inches (172 cm) high and 29 inches (74 cm) deep. IBM had a strict rule that all its products must pass through a standard 29.5 inch (75 cm) doorway. Since the 350's platters were mounted horizontally, this rule presumably dictated the maximum diameter of the disks. The RAMAC unit weighed over a ton, had to be moved around with forklifts, and was delivered via large cargo airplanes. According to Currie Munce, research vice president for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (which acquired IBM's storage business), the storage capacity of the drive could have been increased beyond five megabytes, but IBM's marketing department at that time was against a larger capacity drive, because they didn't know how to sell a product with more storage.