Slashdot Mirror
Intel Intros 310 Series Mini SSDs
crookedvulture writes "Intel has added a couple of tiny 310 Series solid-state drives to its storage lineup. Measuring just 51 x 30 x 5.8mm, the mini-SATA SSDs are about a tenth the size of a standard notebook hard drive. Impressively, their performance ratings track with full-sized SSDs. Intel is pushing the 310 Series as a solution for dual-drive notebooks that combine solid-state and mechanical storage to give users the best of both worlds. Next-gen notebooks just got a little more interesting."
I was excited as these appear to be Mini PCIe cards, but then I was disappoint as it looks like it's a SATA connector that shares the form factor. It's not entirely clear, though.
Why is it impressive that a smaller solid state drive performs as well as a standard size one? What does the size have to do with anything relating to these performance benchmarks?
Perhaps you don't know that Windows (Vista confirmed, 7 should too) can map a seperate drive to a folder instead of a drive letter, if you tell it to. It is rather easy to do. You can even setup multiple paths for a single drive if you want.
If mounted upright, these guys would be just a little too tall for a 1U; but a 2U could fit several hundred... With the economies of scale enjoyed by something designed to be shoved into consumer laptops, a shelf or two of these little puppies could, with the right controller, make fibre channel stuff that costs a factor of ten or two as much wet itself...
Sorry to repost this, but I accidentally posted it as AC, and nobody is going to see it at -1.
I can't believe it either ... but there is a whole industry dedicated to dealing with windows. But it's the way our world works, sadly.
We create artificial scarcity, force people to use an inferior and limited technology, that has ridiculous drawbacks, and requires a tremendous workforce around it just to keep it functional. And we keep people using it even when there are cheaper, infinitely better, more reliable and future-proof technologies. The reason is simple: Through artificial scarcity, we keep the money flowing in a certain direction, we keep control in the same hands, and we create hugely profitable but completely pointless industries.
Think about it, we could be running 100% on clean, future-proof, secure and cheap nuclear energy. Instead, we rely on oil. The infrastructure that oil demands is huge, the drawbacks are incredible, we are polluting the environment, drilling the oceans to get some more black juice out of the earth at a huge risk.
We could also have moved all of our communications to ip-based networks, cutting down costs, and removing the need for so many different networks. We could have a single infrastructure that would provide us with high-bandwidth, low-latency internet everywhere, and put everything from phone calls to TV through that network. Instead, we are running different networks for each purpose, and within each purpose different networks for each provider. If we re-purposed all cellphone towers from all providers to give us just internet access, we could have 100% coverage everywhere in the world. Instead, we have huge overlapping (areas serviced by several providers), and huge areas with no coverage at all.
We could also be using just Free Software. It's open, transparent, reliable, cheap, and ethical. Instead, most people use windows. That means triplicating new hardware purchases, cutting 70% on hardware's lifespan, spending incredible resources in pointless activities like antivirus production/sale/deployment, and an IT structure several times bigger than required, not to mention all the lost time and profit due to preventable downtime.
But it's the way the economy works. It's the way the usual people keep getting richer, while keeping the majority of the world in line, quite and productive.
It's absolutely sad, but it's not just something that happens only in software, and it's certainly no accident.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?