"Sony will replace hard disks with flash memory when it launches a new model of its Vaio U laptop next week, it said today. The computer will be one of the first on the market that uses flash memory in place of magnetic storage. "
Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't sound terribly appealing.
"The Vaio UX90 will come with 16GB of flash memory storage in place of the 30GB hard drive on the original model. It will cost around $1805, or about $345 more expensive than the disk-based model, and go on sale in Japan on July 3."
I can imagine markets for hardened systems that can take significant physical abuse but that requires ground-up design - you can't just drop flash memory in place of a hard disk and declare a higher G-force rating for the system.
One problem is that flash memory only has a limited number of lifetime write cycles, 100,000 or so as I recall. That's not a problem for a camera, but Windows is something else - it expects to scribble all over the disk, all the time. I'd wonder how long the warranty runs, and if it covers the flash memory simply wearing out within a year or two, or less...
Industrial computers have need for high shock ratings, but laptop form is not needed. The extra money would not be paid. Some flash memory is only rated for 10K write cycles, though not this. Flash memory is better utilzed in those SCSI sticks.
Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00
Posted - Jul 1 2006 : 11:09PM
I'm looking for a new Mac laptop, but the latest models don't have a 12" screen option, and I really prefer a smaller laptop, so I would go for the new model mainly for screen size, overall size and weight.
People who want to do extreme sports while on wi-fi? More likely somebody who wants to use a computer in a vehicle. There is a small professional market for that. Then again, it is also a way to keep the brats quiet as the SUV makes it through the rough roads of suburbia.
Business travelers. I travel quite a bit on the road. Shaving off as ounces helps every bit. My computer is only 4 lbs (13 inch widescreen) but it wears on you after 8 hours.
Ack, I hate the loss of performance. Besides, when I traveled for work, I wasn't literally carrying stuff all day. There was all that time in planes and cars, the waiting and such. But I was always willing to carry more to get stuff done.
RAM is easily upgradeable for cheap outside. A dedicated graphics card is overrated if you don't play games or need to do something like CAD (mine came with one though). It adds weight and consumes more power.
I do carry my computer in my backpack everywhere though. Add some more weight to the backpack for camera equipment or stacks of papers; and well, you get the drift.
For my business travel needs, I care about battery life (my comp lasts around 4-5 hours on a regular battery), weight, and size dimensions (specifically for the plane trip), and then maybe the lcd (for presentation). I just need something that can run Office and Photoshop. Anything else is just a luxury.
It's been up around 1,000,000 minimum write cycles for a few years now with the NAND type flash chips produced by Toshiba and Samsung. These chips also include a built-in ECC data area that can be used by the disk controller. Combine ECC with a good wear-leveling algorhythm and the write cycle performance really isn't much of an issue for most applications. Of course you really don't want to use Flash drives for a swap partition, that could be problematic.
Has flash memory read/write and throughput times really increased that much? I thought they topped out at maybe 12-15 megs a second. Of course flash is faster from the perspective of access times. You don't have to wait for the read/write heads to fly out to where the data actually resides on the disk and search, you just read the sectors directly.
I've heard of add in controller cards for desktops that allow you to drop in regular desktop DDR 400 or similar which is actually MUCH faster than a hard disck, Flash, on the other hand doesn't work the same way and gives up a LOT of speed and throughput for protection from power loss.
I for one am curious to see how it goes. The disk has always been the limiting factor in a computer.
Yeah, it's been a few years, and my designs were all with 512 Kbit and 1 Mbit chips.
I should have done the arithmetic: a 16 GB device is rated at 1.6 petabytes of writes via wear-leveling even at only 100,000 writes per cell. Since the design lifespan for a PC is usually about 1,250 work days that's 1.2 terabytes per day, so it's probably going to outlive the chassis fans anyway.
If it needs to be faster just do more than one write at once, in parallel. That's already what's going on – it take more than a microsecond to program a single cell, but nobody has ever done that. They've always done at least 8 cells at once, and I suspect that modern memory cards do not less than 256 bits at once. The device in this case might well write as many as 2048 cells at once. I would not be at all surprised to see it beat rotating magnetic drives in sequential read and write performance.