What is Digg?114 Comments
- tvanwyk, on 07/02/2008, -9/+195http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes
Just wondering what belongs to "Shorten." - tehhowch, on 07/02/2008, -3/+91Here's the direct link to the story on Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-batter ... - mweflen, on 07/02/2008, -4/+80Gizmodo blogspam shortens my personal battery life, too.
- thespanielator, on 07/02/2008, -0/+44Slasdot is running the same story, the following is lifted from one of the comments:
"Unfortunately, the article comes to miserably faulty conclusions, and nobody seems to have noticed it. One thing everybody needs to note is this: the test that Tom's ran was designed to run a program to completion over and over again. All that Tom's came up with, thanks to that test, is that the computer with the SSD ran out of power faster. What they SHOULD have noticed, and what any sane and logical tester would have done, is counted the number of times the program RAN. A system with an SSD will run the program a significantly higher number of times because of its increased speed and lack of moving parts. With the higher number of runs, the CPU STAYS MORE ACTIVE, sucking more power out of the system and thus causing it to power down earlier. The only reason the HDD system died later is because the CPU idles waiting for it to retrieve data. The SSD may have chewed up your battery faster, but it did, comparatively, run through that program a BUNCH more times. I am willing to bet the work per watt was much better out of the SSD system than the HDD - and once again, Tom's Hardware's scientific testing system proves itself anything but." - fluidfoundation, on 07/02/2008, -5/+43She's gone from suck to blow!
- Duositex, on 07/02/2008, -4/+35buried for gizmodo. Diggers are lazy. Finding only main stream sources for articles while countless sources exist. Do some footwork. Investigate. Stop submitting regurgitated article summaries as originals.
Who am I kidding.. - buba1243, on 07/02/2008, -3/+33Give SSDs time they will start to work on power saving technologies and then far surpass magnetic drives.
- MarkDenali, on 07/02/2008, -0/+27Poster should just link to the source.
- kinglenster, on 07/02/2008, -3/+27I think it was 'it'
- Iwantawii, on 07/02/2008, -1/+22What about the fact that the CPU is busier because it's not being blocked by IO? The article doesn't mention this. They just stated that they "ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook" without saying how many times each drive completed each test, or if they even counted. Maybe they just let it spin and went to lunch.
But this is a huge factor, the article is mostly worthless without that info. - exscape, on 07/02/2008, -2/+22Hell yes. :-)
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleshi ...
9 SSDs in RAID 0. Data safety? Pff. 820MB/s sustained read! - sockpuppets, on 07/02/2008, -2/+20An undersea, unexplained mass sponge migration.
- DeFex, on 07/02/2008, -0/+18what happened in 02?
- VIPAccess, on 07/02/2008, -6/+23I'm pretty sure this has been debunked. And who the ***** believes Tom's Hardware? Their creditability died back in '02.
- Hockey13, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17Maybe he was just referring to Hubert von Shorten's IT department. Have you ever thought of that?
- sandiegodude, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17Take an external drive and 10 inch drop test it while its running.
Now do the same with the SSD.
SSD's have the benefit of no moving parts which makes them suitable for many applications where disk drives are too fragile.
Power savings will come with time, you're talking brand new technology versus something that has been around for 40+ years. - VIPAccess, on 07/02/2008, -0/+14There was some of manipulation of numbers between AMD and Intel in one of their articles in Intel's favor that proved to be false. At the time the site was plastered with Intel ads. It may have been early '03 I can't remember. But I'm pretty sure before Athlon 64.
- verkon, on 07/02/2008, -1/+15SSD's fail on the "inexpensive" part.
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -2/+15There's no need for an s anyway because the word shorten is referring to the plural, drives.
- chispito, on 07/02/2008, -1/+13Well less power = lower temps.
- rblancarte, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12I can't fully agree with the findings of the article. The main thing they did was run Mobilemark 07 until the laptop died. HOWEVER consider this:
SSD is faster than magnetic hard drives, thus it can pass more data to the system, thus keeping the whole system under load more. It is possible that this data would keep the CPU loaded etc.
Another thing, let's say that the test is getting data, running calculations, and saving data. The SSDs are faster, thus maybe over time they actually pass around twice the data of a magetic HD. Sure, Battery life is down 1 hour, BUT if you passed more data, then that 1 hour isn't lost in the same way.
There is a flat out chart that shows:
SanDisk drive power usage - idle - .5 watts loaded 1.0 watts vs a Hitachi magnetic drive 1.1 watts idle, 3.2 watts loaded
Because of this, the results make no sense.
I am not saying that their story isn't true, because I don't know.
HOWEVER, I think it would be better to compare very like results to like results. IMHO, the above situations are possible. But how about a simple test - read data off the drive constantly and see which dies first. - dhughes, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12 Yes, it's just a drive, and I think Tom's did it, I've read about someone doing that but forget who it was if it wasn't Tom's. Check Ars Technica, may have been them.
- cnot3, on 07/02/2008, -1/+12Large capacity solid state drives are still relatively new technology, I'm sure hard drives were less efficient than tape drives when they came out, too. Plus there is still the advantage of no moving parts. And that blogspam neglected to show that the access time on the solid state drives was less than 1% of the access time on the hard drive. Faster video cards eat up battery life, too, but no one would argue that we should all use Intel GMA.
- burnedtubes, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11Agreed. Their testing methods leave a lot to be desired.
- OmarJasso, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11In that case, this kid needs to drop the apostrophe placement class and focus on capitalizing procedures.
- grexeo, on 07/02/2008, -2/+13First they claimed superior performance, but it turned out that random-access was substantially slower than conventional hard drives.
Secondly they claimed SSD to be lighter, but on a per-GB comparison with modern capacities they're heavier, especially when compared to 500GB+ conventional drives.
Thirdly they claimed SSD would be more reliable, but the current failure rate is substantially higher than conventional drives. Some manufacturers are seeing failure rates as high as 1 in 3.
And now it turns out they use more power than conventional drives too.
I don't doubt that SSD's will eventually replace conventional drives, but we're a lot further away from it then the manufacturers want you to believe. - makenshin, on 07/02/2008, -1/+10I never thought SSD saved power. My interest in them is all for how fast SS is. OS and hardware designed around SSD usage could probably lower power consumption.
- zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9Its a problem when it stops rotating.
- rblancarte, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9Woa, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
Oops, my bad, I thought this was Slashdot. - chrispr0, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7The testing methods Tom's used do not prove the hypothesis & headline. If you need this explained, read the comments on Tom's. Buried for ignorance.
- DeFex, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9how hard can it be to go to the bottom and find the original article.
- dobesov, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Actually, much like how THEY changed the V in DVD to "Versatile" the I in RAID is now considered "Independent"
- cnot3, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9Yeah, that glorified playskool computer should never be used in a reputable benchmark.
- tidu, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9That's the point of the submission... that it has better performance but they "Don't Extend Battery Life - Shorten's It" (sic) ;)
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Buried as inaccurate.
- LR2_, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Dammit dude, you are so screwed.
- stealthc, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7I'm with DeFex. What exactly happened in '02? I bought a laptop hard drive based on their recommendation and couldn't be happier.
- superkendall, on 07/02/2008, -3/+8"Shorten Is It"?
Come on. - caseycoold, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6moving parts+gravity=$#@!$!!
- seandfeeney, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5With solid state, I am not too worried about the battery life issue, I'd just plug the laptop in anyways. I want SSD's because 5200 RPM's suck!
- Hockey13, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5He might fall victim to the dreaded über-bury.
- DifferentAngle, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Tom's Hardware is a garbage site. Every one of their "experiments" are mythbusters quality.
- zadadka, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5They'll need to keep temperatures down.....that may be a struggle......
- tnoy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Yes, and all laptop drives have been using the same voltage for over a decade.
Sorry for not doing the math for you. - shaka999, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4If you look at the mean time before failure the SSD drives are superior to traditional drives. The re-write issue just isn't relevant.
- Dubbsacc, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6So coin a new term "RAED".
Why not, we need more acronyms. - PATSCRU, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4smash the blogspam.
- RusskiGuy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I don't like the experiment, because it apparently compared various SSD's to only one conventional HD. If power consumption varies for SSD's, I would assume it also does for HD's. I wouldn't be surprised if some HD's in fact consumed more power than some of the more efficient SSD's.
- drunknmunky1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?
No, our results are definitely correct.
... =/ - Niz1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4For me its not really about the power saving its about it not breaking when dropped as easily (ive dropped a 250GB bye bye from 2 feet) and also about speed . At the moment the cost the price for these data "luxuries" are just too great and also the capacity to price. 1TB HDDs cost about £100 if not cheaper the rest of the world, i cant imagine beating that price for storage, or even go that high?, maybe when im 40? (in 20 years)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is