Could flash memory replace DVD/Hard Drives if this pans out?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > For disk access. That doesn't matter when operations
    | > are being done in RAM rather than page/swap file, which
    | > is how things usually happen on newer machines.
    |
    | it depends what you're doing. most stuff is disk bound and will greatly
    | benefit from ssd.
    |

    If that's true you don't have enough RAM. "Most stuff"
    should be happening in RAM.

    | > Flash
    | > may be better, but if what you do now is close to instant
    | > then you're not going to see a difference for your money.
    |
    | you obviously haven't used a machine with ssd.
    |

    No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)

    Not to criticize flash storage. Just a reminder to
    people reading this thread that faster isn't always
    necessarily an improvement. An awfully lot of people
    buy 4+ GB RAM and high-end CPUs because they think
    newer and more expensive is better.... Then they
    go and write MS Word docs or send emails, using only
    a small fraction of their PC's power.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 5, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9ofc8$ks$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | > For disk access. That doesn't matter when operations
    > | > are being done in RAM rather than page/swap file, which
    > | > is how things usually happen on newer machines.
    > |
    > | it depends what you're doing. most stuff is disk bound and will greatly
    > | benefit from ssd.
    >
    > If that's true you don't have enough RAM. "Most stuff"
    > should be happening in RAM.


    once it's been read from disk it is, and then it needs to be written
    back to disk. you do want to save your documents, right? plus there are
    numerous ancillary files, such as preferences, cache, etc. and then
    there's swap.

    the reality is that ssd makes a big difference in just about every
    circumstance.

    > | > Flash
    > | > may be better, but if what you do now is close to instant
    > | > then you're not going to see a difference for your money.
    > |
    > | you obviously haven't used a machine with ssd.
    >
    > No.


    just as i thought.

    > Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)


    install an ssd and *then* comment.

    > Not to criticize flash storage. Just a reminder to
    > people reading this thread that faster isn't always
    > necessarily an improvement. An awfully lot of people
    > buy 4+ GB RAM and high-end CPUs because they think
    > newer and more expensive is better.... Then they
    > go and write MS Word docs or send emails, using only
    > a small fraction of their PC's power.


    what does that have to do with anything? people overbuy specs for a lot
    of products, including cameras.

    how many people who buy a 36 mp nikon d800 actually *need* 36
    megapixels? are they making billboards? are they even printing at all??
    or do they just want it because it's a bigger number than what they
    used to have?
     
    nospam, Dec 5, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Rob Guest

    On 6/12/2012 8:47 AM, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > For disk access. That doesn't matter when operations
    > | > are being done in RAM rather than page/swap file, which
    > | > is how things usually happen on newer machines.
    > |
    > | it depends what you're doing. most stuff is disk bound and will greatly
    > | benefit from ssd.
    > |
    >
    > If that's true you don't have enough RAM. "Most stuff"
    > should be happening in RAM.
    >
    > | > Flash
    > | > may be better, but if what you do now is close to instant
    > | > then you're not going to see a difference for your money.
    > |
    > | you obviously haven't used a machine with ssd.
    > |
    >
    > No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)
    >
    > Not to criticize flash storage. Just a reminder to
    > people reading this thread that faster isn't always
    > necessarily an improvement. An awfully lot of people
    > buy 4+ GB RAM and high-end CPUs because they think
    > newer and more expensive is better.... Then they
    > go and write MS Word docs or send emails, using only
    > a small fraction of their PC's power.
    >
    >



    I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.

    SSD are not affordable for the average person.

    I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.

    The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.

    I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.
     
    Rob, Dec 5, 2012
    #23
  4. RichA

    Rob Guest

    On 6/12/2012 9:13 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k9ofc8$ks$>, Mayayana
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> | > For disk access. That doesn't matter when operations
    >> | > are being done in RAM rather than page/swap file, which
    >> | > is how things usually happen on newer machines.
    >> |
    >> | it depends what you're doing. most stuff is disk bound and will greatly
    >> | benefit from ssd.
    >>
    >> If that's true you don't have enough RAM. "Most stuff"
    >> should be happening in RAM.

    >
    > once it's been read from disk it is, and then it needs to be written
    > back to disk. you do want to save your documents, right? plus there are
    > numerous ancillary files, such as preferences, cache, etc. and then
    > there's swap.
    >
    > the reality is that ssd makes a big difference in just about every
    > circumstance.
    >
    >> | > Flash
    >> | > may be better, but if what you do now is close to instant
    >> | > then you're not going to see a difference for your money.
    >> |
    >> | you obviously haven't used a machine with ssd.
    >>
    >> No.

    >
    > just as i thought.
    >
    >> Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    >> and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)

    >
    > install an ssd and *then* comment.
    >
    >> Not to criticize flash storage. Just a reminder to
    >> people reading this thread that faster isn't always
    >> necessarily an improvement. An awfully lot of people
    >> buy 4+ GB RAM and high-end CPUs because they think
    >> newer and more expensive is better.... Then they
    >> go and write MS Word docs or send emails, using only
    >> a small fraction of their PC's power.

    >
    > what does that have to do with anything? people overbuy specs for a lot
    > of products, including cameras.
    >
    > how many people who buy a 36 mp nikon d800 actually *need* 36
    > megapixels? are they making billboards? are they even printing at all??
    > or do they just want it because it's a bigger number than what they
    > used to have?
    >



    I want it because it makes a decent image, yes I print large, I crop, I
    appreciate the image quality. there are quite a few extra pixels to play
    with.
     
    Rob, Dec 5, 2012
    #24
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > I would need a 3TB 2.5" drive, or at least a 2TB one.


    why do you need 2-3tb in a laptop?
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
    #25
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9om2q$kdj$>, Rob <>
    wrote:

    > I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.


    depends what they're doing. some do, some don't.

    > SSD are not affordable for the average person.


    nonsense. of course they are and have been for a couple of years.

    > I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.


    others do.

    > The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.


    sweet spot of what?

    > I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.


    two different things.
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
    #26
  7. RichA

    Rob Guest

    On 6/12/2012 3:47 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k9om2q$kdj$>, Rob <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.

    >
    > depends what they're doing. some do, some don't.
    >
    >> SSD are not affordable for the average person.

    >
    > nonsense. of course they are and have been for a couple of years.
    >


    Capacity V's price



    >> I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.

    >
    > others do.
    >


    No need for speed and its the OS that generally goes to the HDD


    >> The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.

    >
    > sweet spot of what?

    As mentioned price range can't you read?

    >
    >> I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.

    >
    > two different things.
    >

    \No its not
     
    Rob, Dec 6, 2012
    #27
  8. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 05/12/2012 23:41, Rob wrote:
    []
    > I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.
    >
    > SSD are not affordable for the average person.
    >
    > I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.
    >
    > The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.
    >
    > I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.


    Yes, maxing out the memory is usually the best way to improve speed on a
    PC, although /if/ you are doing something which is very disk I/O
    intensive getting a faster disk may be the better choice. Even to the
    extent of using the extra RAM as a RAMdisk and saving the results once
    they are complete.

    The best combination with today's prices is a relative small SSD for the
    operating system (60-120 GB) and however many 2-3 TB hard disks you need
    for data storage. Just possibly getting one of the HDs with a built-in
    few GB of SSD cache may be a good compromise - I've not seen many
    real-world test, though. Example


    http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/laptop-hard-drives/momentus-xt-hybrid/#

    http://www.seagate.com/files/static...c/momentus-xt-data-sheet-ds1704-4-1205-us.pdf

    Although, in terms of productivity, the best gain I ever made was buying
    a second monitor!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 6, 2012
    #28
  9. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:47:37 PM UTC, Mayayana wrote:
    >
    > No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)


    Depends what you are running.

    Loading OS, not instant, starting a 100Mb program, not instant, browsing fast through 5Mb JPG's, not instant.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 6, 2012
    #29
  10. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:41:05 PM UTC, Rob wrote:
    > On 6/12/2012 8:47 AM, Mayayana wrote:
    >
    > > | > For disk access. That doesn't matter when operations

    >
    > > | > are being done in RAM rather than page/swap file, which

    >
    > > | > is how things usually happen on newer machines.

    >
    > > |

    >
    > > | it depends what you're doing. most stuff is disk bound and will greatly

    >
    > > | benefit from ssd.

    >
    > > |

    >
    > >

    >
    > > If that's true you don't have enough RAM. "Most stuff"

    >
    > > should be happening in RAM.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > Flash

    >
    > > | > may be better, but if what you do now is close to instant

    >
    > > | > then you're not going to see a difference for your money.

    >
    > > |

    >
    > > | you obviously haven't used a machine with ssd.

    >
    > > |

    >
    > >

    >
    > > No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,

    >
    > > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Not to criticize flash storage. Just a reminder to

    >
    > > people reading this thread that faster isn't always

    >
    > > necessarily an improvement. An awfully lot of people

    >
    > > buy 4+ GB RAM and high-end CPUs because they think

    >
    > > newer and more expensive is better.... Then they

    >
    > > go and write MS Word docs or send emails, using only

    >
    > > a small fraction of their PC's power.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.


    It's not that difficult to understand.
    As with most things in life if you have more speed you can get things done quicker or do more or have spare time.

    >
    >
    >
    > SSD are not affordable for the average person.


    Yes they are, that's why people are buying them both to install as replacements for HDDs or in new computers.


    > I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.


    Well I can, but I haven't, but I don't edit as many photos as photographersmight. But in the past vI@ve had to resize 100s of images at a time so canunderstand why some might want to save time doing such things.

    >
    >
    >
    > The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.


    The sweet spot is difernt for difernt people just like purchasing cars or most products ther';s a range of options to suit.


    >
    > I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.

    So go for it, but filling the memeory slots won't make your computer boot faster in fact it'll boot slower with more memory as the bootup process (unless disabled) checks the RAM. So congratualtions you have found a way to slow your computer down and spendignn more money in the process.
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 6, 2012
    #30
  11. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | >> I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.
    | >
    | > others do.
    | >
    |
    | No need for speed and its the OS that generally goes to the HDD
    |

    nospam is saving tens of milliseconds every time
    he saves a giant photo to disk. By the end of the
    day he's saved enough time to render a brief,
    dogmatic statement. I'm sure that's worth the money
    to him. :)
     
    Mayayana, Dec 6, 2012
    #31
  12. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    | > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)
    |
    | Depends what you are running.
    |
    | Loading OS, not instant, starting a 100Mb program, not instant, browsing
    fast through 5Mb JPG's, not instant.
    |

    That's true. If I want to move 1 GB between disk
    partitions it's going to take a bit longer with hard disks.
    Perhaps even a full second longer. :) And there may be
    a slight lag loading/displaying a 5 MB photo. (Though
    most of that lag will actually be the work of the software
    rendering the display. Disk I/O is extremely fast.)

    I don't see any reason to see this as a contest
    between hard disks and flash storage. I don't claim
    that you won't be able to discern any difference.
    I'm just saying put it in context. My point was
    only that people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that
    faster and more expensive is better.

    With 99% of what I do, the response is pretty
    much instant, and in most cases operations are mainly
    in RAM. As long as I don't feel like I'm waiting I'd say
    the machine is fast enough. If your PC isn't responsive
    then it's likely to be excessive services and startup
    programs that are the problem....or loaded TEMP folders
    on Windows.... or a number of other causes that have
    nothing to do with the disk I/O speed.

    As for loading the OS, I've never understood that
    obsession. The media is gaga lately over Windows 8
    load time, which is achieved by putting the OS into
    a sort of hibernation when it's shut off. My PC boots
    in about 30 seconds. I don't find that tries my patience.
    I leave it in "sleep" most of the time, anyway.

    When people start using boot time as a reason to
    spend hundreds of dollars on flash memory I have
    to assume they've either been reading too many
    marketing press releases or they just have time and
    money to burn.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 6, 2012
    #32
  13. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/12/2012 18:07, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <k9pl0o$13n$>, David Taylor says...
    >> Yes, maxing out the memory is usually the best way to improve speed on a
    >> PC, although /if/ you are doing something which is very disk I/O
    >> intensive getting a faster disk may be the better choice.

    >
    > The problem with SSDs is that they are not so suitable for disk I/O
    > intensive operations due to the wear on the memory cells. It's better
    > having lots of RAM, so that page swapping is minimised.


    ... and hence the dilemma of just which disk to get - a fast mechanical
    one or an SSD which may wear out more quickly. Will be more likely to
    affect videographers than stills photographers.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 6, 2012
    #33
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    DanP <> wrote:

    > > No. Then again, my machine responds instantly,
    > > and I've never seen anything faster than instant. :)

    >
    > Depends what you are running.
    >
    > Loading OS, not instant, starting a 100Mb program, not instant, browsing fast
    > through 5Mb JPG's, not instant.


    three situations where ssd will make a dramatic difference.
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
    #34
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Yes, maxing out the memory is usually the best way to improve speed on a
    > > PC, although /if/ you are doing something which is very disk I/O
    > > intensive getting a faster disk may be the better choice.

    >
    > The problem with SSDs is that they are not so suitable for disk I/O
    > intensive operations due to the wear on the memory cells. It's better
    > having lots of RAM, so that page swapping is minimised.


    the number of cycles for ssd is *very* high.

    some ssds come with *ten* year warranties, which is far more than any
    hard drive. in fact, hard drive makers *reduced* their warranty period,
    and 1 year is now typical.

    in other words, ssd is a much better choice for disk intensive
    operations. you'll see a significant benefit since seek time is zero
    and longetivity is a non-issue. you'll probably replace the computer
    before the ssd wears out.
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
    #35
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9q7q6$34k$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > nospam is saving tens of milliseconds every time
    > he saves a giant photo to disk. By the end of the
    > day he's saved enough time to render a brief,
    > dogmatic statement. I'm sure that's worth the money
    > to him. :)


    it's more than ten milliseconds. the difference is huge.

    the point is that the overall user experience is much nicer. it's like
    driving a sports car versus a family sedan, even if you're driving on a
    city street at 30 mph.

    also, having ssd means the cpu & gpu doesn't need to be as fast for
    similar performance, which means the product can be cheaper, run cooler
    and have longer battery life.
     
    nospam, Dec 6, 2012
    #36
  17. David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 06/12/2012 18:07, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <k9pl0o$13n$>, David Taylor says...
    >>> Yes, maxing out the memory is usually the best way to improve speed on a
    >>> PC, although /if/ you are doing something which is very disk I/O
    >>> intensive getting a faster disk may be the better choice.

    >>
    >> The problem with SSDs is that they are not so suitable for disk I/O
    >> intensive operations due to the wear on the memory cells. It's better
    >> having lots of RAM, so that page swapping is minimised.

    >
    >.. and hence the dilemma of just which disk to get - a fast mechanical
    >one or an SSD which may wear out more quickly.



    I had no choice. If I wanted a MacBook Pro with a Retina display, the
    choice was between a 128 GB SSD or a 256 GB SSD.

    I chose the former. Actually, I chose it twice because I picked up my
    second yesterday. I now have a 15" and a 13". If I can manage with
    the 13" I will be selling the larger one.

    It will be interesting to see how the 128 GB SSD lasts. I am backing
    up all documents every evening to cloud storage and two HDDs.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 6, 2012
    #37
  18. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/12/2012 20:37, nospam wrote:
    []
    > it's more than ten milliseconds. the difference is huge.
    >
    > the point is that the overall user experience is much nicer. it's like
    > driving a sports car versus a family sedan, even if you're driving on a
    > city street at 30 mph.
    >
    > also, having ssd means the cpu & gpu doesn't need to be as fast for
    > similar performance, which means the product can be cheaper, run cooler
    > and have longer battery life.


    It depends on what you are doing. If you are encoding videos, for
    example, CPU/GPU power is by far the most important factor. There is no
    single "correct" answer - each use needs to be evaluated on its own.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 7, 2012
    #38
  19. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/12/2012 20:37, nospam wrote:
    []
    > the number of cycles for ssd is *very* high.
    >
    > some ssds come with *ten* year warranties, which is far more than any
    > hard drive. in fact, hard drive makers *reduced* their warranty period,
    > and 1 year is now typical.
    >
    > in other words, ssd is a much better choice for disk intensive
    > operations. you'll see a significant benefit since seek time is zero
    > and longetivity is a non-issue. you'll probably replace the computer
    > before the ssd wears out.


    For disk operations where the majority of operations are /read/, yes.
    But the number of write cycles (including erase etc.) is limited, so
    SSDs may not be the best choice where a high write throughput is
    required. Choose your device carefully.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 7, 2012
    #39
  20. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/12/2012 23:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
    []
    > I had no choice. If I wanted a MacBook Pro with a Retina display, the
    > choice was between a 128 GB SSD or a 256 GB SSD.
    >
    > I chose the former. Actually, I chose it twice because I picked up my
    > second yesterday. I now have a 15" and a 13". If I can manage with
    > the 13" I will be selling the larger one.
    >
    > It will be interesting to see how the 128 GB SSD lasts. I am backing
    > up all documents every evening to cloud storage and two HDDs.


    Yes, I have the same issue with the iPad - SSD or nothing. On the other
    hand, I'm not editing videos on the iPad, or doing anything else which
    requires a lot of disk write operations, so I'm hoping it will be OK. I
    backup to iTunes on one PC from time to time, the applications are
    mostly stored on the stores I bought them from and the settings
    reasonable easily recoverable. There are very few critical documents
    created by me on the iPad which aren't stored elsewhere.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 7, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris

    Could hardware repeatedly knack hard drives?

    Chris, May 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    396
    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
    May 3, 2004
  2. habshi
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,234
    AZ Nomad
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    768
  4. Ian

    How often should you replace hard drives?

    Ian, Nov 2, 2007, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,356
  5. Frank

    Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown

    Frank, Feb 6, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    508
    Rev Turd Fredericks
    Feb 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page