No, you are right m8. Time will prove you right. Doubt there will be a dedicated ssd just for storage though. I get what you are saying though. Why not just use old tech to make slow storage ssd's and all new tech goes into the super duper fast drives.

Nah, im totally with you. Even if the read / write speeds are half of that of normal ssd's, they will still be vastly surpirior to hdd's, due to not being mechanical... meaning no spinup time, no read / write latency etc.

It will all depend on price as to whether it will take off and atm 2-3TB SSD's will be so expensive that nobody will bother as they will just use a mechanical. It may change in the future but with current prices of large SSD's for storage its silly and a waste of cash. If the price can come down then yeah SSD's for storage is great. Thing is it no longer becomes a Storage drive does it once you start booting all your data from it.

Honestly, I think SSD's are still too new. HDD's have been around for decades, its tried and true technology. SSD's as a consumer prodcut however are still in their very infancy, and we have absolutely no idea whatsoever of how the technology will hold up in the long-term. Bear in mind that the concept behind SSD's has always been about speed and performance in computer systems, and never really about long-term data storage.

NAND and EEPROM have about as long of a history as the HDD. All have gone through many changes to the underlying technology. Even though HDDs seem 'tried and true' they still are subject to flaws - when Seagate was making their first 500G-2TB drives (first generation of perpendicular recording) they were infamous for how the platter coatings would flake off and destroy the drive. I believe this was when they started using glass platters with a magnetic coating. Around the corner in the HDD tech department, heat-assisted magnetic recording is expected to provide the next jump in data density. But I still expect some growing pains as they shake out the bugs in their designs. SSDs in normal end-of-life failures should revert to a read-only state iirc. If only we could be so lucky with a HDD.

Id like to see affordable 1 - 2TB SSDs for Storage. Let's say 100 - 150 Euros. - Reduced Speeds, but still atleast twice as fast as a traditional HDD. - Increased Cell Durability. But noooo, keep pushing and pushing the tech. We need to get rid of traditional HHDs, not make them larger.

We are long ways off from that one and $130/150 US dose sound nice for 1TB but it going be some time before see 2TB SSD size unless it on PCIe board or they start making them in 3.5 drive size in stead of 2.5 drive size.

Wonder what size platters they have...

I assume they have 6 platters and 1.33 TB/platter. I don't think there are 1.5 TB platters available and I don't think that is a way to get more than 6 platters on 3.5 format. Maybe we'll see HDDs on 5.25 format like DVD-RW and sizes up to 16 TB.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

I agree, on the other hand, it is an industry standard to measure in terabits instead of terabytes for hard drives; you're technically not being cheated out if all drives from all brands are do this. But still, 700GB alone is more than enough storage for everything I use and do. On an unrealted note, are these HDDs filled with helium? I know that's a new thing for super high-capacity drives, and it makes me wonder how much that's a good idea. Many companies with high-risk data (such as insurance companies) destroy hard drives on-site, and these companies are going to be the most interested in drives with capacities this high. Helium is a finite resource and we're running low. How are these companies going to salvage the helium? I'm not sure exactly why helium is used but I personally think it'd have been better to look into something like neon.

"8TB"... so about 7.3 actual TB if they go by the usual trend of being a bit over. Someone's going to be disappointed about having over 700GB less than expected. There really needs to be laws against advertising storage as SI units rather than binary.

I must admit, back in the day it didn't matter that much but now as HDD's are getting bigger and bigger that gap is getting bigger as well. We might understand why but some customer with no knowledge that buys a PC in a few years expecting a 8TB storage might just end up getting mad.

On an unrealted note, are these HDDs filled with helium? I know that's a new thing for super high-capacity drives, and it makes me wonder how much that's a good idea. Many companies with high-risk data (such as insurance companies) destroy hard drives on-site, and these companies are going to be the most interested in drives with capacities this high. Helium is a finite resource and we're running low. How are these companies going to salvage the helium? I'm not sure exactly why helium is used but I personally think it'd have been better to look into something like neon.

I don't think so. A company did it a while back as a "shortcut" to get to these sizes earlier on, but I think Seagate and WD are doing it without Helium (correct me if I'm wrong).

I agree, on the other hand, it is an industry standard to measure in terabits instead of terabytes for hard drives; you're technically not being cheated out if all drives from all brands are do this. But still, 700GB alone is more than enough storage for everything I use and do.

You mean SI units, bits would just multiply it out by 8. I just did the math to give a more precise number, the difference between 8TB (8*1024^4) and 8 trillion bytes is about 741.42GB. That's a ridiculous difference.

It will all depend on price as to whether it will take off and atm 2-3TB SSD's will be so expensive that nobody will bother as they will just use a mechanical. It may change in the future but with current prices of large SSD's for storage its silly and a waste of cash. If the price can come down then yeah SSD's for storage is great. Thing is it no longer becomes a Storage drive does it once you start booting all your data from it.

Well... atm im using a 256gb ssd, and 2x 3tb hdd's... one hdd contains all my games (roughly 2 tb) and the other contains my movies and music... especially the hdd containing my games would be WONDERFULL if it could all be moved over to a large ssd without read latency. But you are absolutely right that it depends on Price, but thats what we said from the start that we want to go Down, and what could help the Price go Down, is focus on modules that are larger, but have slower read / write speeds.

Well... atm im using a 256gb ssd, and 2x 3tb hdd's... one hdd contains all my games (roughly 2 tb) and the other contains my movies and music... especially the hdd containing my games would be WONDERFULL if it could all be moved over to a large ssd without read latency.

Access time isn't overly important when it comes to games, music or movies......