Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (5402)	10/23/2006 2:36:16 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

This isn't a valid test -- depending on the platform, the bottleneck is apt to be in the interface, not the speed of the memory itself. It is a fact that it may be a while before flash replaces server applications of traditional hard disks; but we are at the very earliest stage of seeing flash-based devices for high-end portable uses; as prices drop and performance improves, flash-based devices will become the mainstay for portable devices (notebook pcs, portable music players, etc.). Agreed. As with most data storage devices, the interface is usually the bottleneck. Personally, I use U320 SCSI with 15K spin drives in my systems. But, there is little doubt that the use in battery operated devices will continue to be a high growth market. My point was that I don't see Flash replacing the desktop/server market anytime soon. The power concerns are not there for the desktop/server market, nor is the transfer raten (server), or the price per megabyte for the desktop/server market. For instance, A couple of weeks ago, I purchased 4 146GB 15K spin U320 drives for a graphics server that was used on the ALCS and will be doing World Series in St. Louis. The system uses a pair of striped drives to provide transfer rates to playback HD Clyps. I paid $345 per drive That pretty cheap storage. PCSTEL