(i.e. technology that everyone hyped up but never really caught on due to impracticability)
Why the fuck would you have SSDs on there dumb fuck? Just because you're too much of a stupid fucking faggot that can't afford one doesn't mean they haven't caught on. I have one I have a couple and fuck you let me tell you they're awesome so for you to waste your goddamn time and say they're on par with Laserdiscs and Betamax god rest their souls well, FUCK YOU! yeah, have fun with your shitty HDD and floppy drives and stay stuck in the past you faggot piece of fucking shit!
>Not being able to see an obvious difference between spinning and solid state drive performance
>Not being able to afford SSD's so shitposting about it and trying to make people who bought it look bad.
I had a roommate that had about 50 movies on HD DVD for the xbox 360 HD DVD Player. It was the first and only time I ever saw the HD DVD player and discs.
So the SSD thing is a meme.
I've been here for maybe 5 years and i've never understood the meme thing is this sense. Unless it's like a bot or something doing it who is wasting their time perpetuating this? What do you get out of it? What is actually going through you mind when you post "SSD is shit" or post that banana thing on /b/.
I just don't know what the payoff is. What do you get out of it? What does it mean?
Absolutely. Let's make way for the future.
Poor enough that they can't conceive of using two separate drives. Size:price is the only thing they see, and the idea of using a SSD for the OS and programs with a HDD for storage is too complicated for them.
It's not that I disagree with you, OP is as always a faggot. It's just SSDs aren't exactly beyond the reach of anyone working a shitty job. They cost more dollar per gb than SATA HDDs but you can get 250gb SSD for about the same price as a 2TB HDD.
Zip disks. They weren't really rare, but they weren't commonplace, either. They were kind of expensive. And, inless you had a built-in drive, in the pre-USB days, transferring files over parallel port was agonizing. Also, iomego kept releasing newer formats (Jazz, the 250-MB Zip) that usually weren't compatible with each of.
Minidiscs. I got a MD player back when hard drive MP3 players were expensive, and glash based oned topped out at 512 MB. The idea of having fuve hours of music on a $1.50 reusable disc was great. (And, the player ran forever on a single AA battery.) But holy shit was the Sonic aoftware awful.
Also, Minidiscs could've been everything Zip disks weren't, but I don't think they ever even made them available for general file storage.
Why do you fucking retards jump on this shitty bait every time? Are desktop SSD users ultra-insecure about their preferences in mass storage or something? This is like literally the most low-effort replies-guaranteed bait you can post on /g/ right now.
Ever seen a 1080 capable LaserDisc player?
LD actually did fairly well in Japan, just not all that great in the West due to cost, lack of recordability, and the dominance of VHS.
Despite its failure in the Western markets, LD was also the first to feature Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1, as well as aforementioned HD capability (Japan only).
Here's a good one... DTheater DVHS. It wasn't flawed technology, it just failed hard, probably because HD wasn't that ubiquitous at the time, and because expensive VHS players were probably a hard sell.
The HM-DT100U retailed for $1,200 in 2005.
And I'm serious, not like the anti ssd shitposter. Why?
1 - keep it on WAV because nowadays we have large data support, you don't need convert you CDs for a little gain of space. This format is useless
2 - format like Opus, OGG/vorbis or AAC at very high bitrate** have the same quality that the original. If you hear a difference, it's a fucking placebo
I wouldn't say either.
I think what really did them in was the fact that the PS3 had a built in bluray player, a year after the PS3 launched retail stores/blockbuster started to drop HDDVD.
>Storing audio uncompressed
>format like Opus, OGG/vorbis or AAC at very high bitrate** have the same quality that the original
The fact that they're lossy at all makes them unsuitable as archival formats.
why bother ? no one will ever been seeking out your uncompressed WAVs, if they will be after anything it will be unreleased material, master recordings and stuff that never made it to itunes
Dunno, I don't want make mistake and overwrite accidentally the originals files. With dbpoweramp I like mastering my music with VSTs: multiband compressor (like the loud sound of fm radio stations), soft eq or stereo enhancer depending of my output/device (bad amp/good amp/cell phone/music player/shitty speaker etc)
What's the point of lying about technology? It's not as if it's something objective. I knew the answer but this literally took five seconds to google up the proof that you're wrong.
Are you really that retarded that you think we can't just google to prove/disprove you?
Do you need help, anon? Have you taken your meds?
I randomly just picked the first results that came up, but I'm sure you will find that consistently read/write speeds for SSDs are higher than mechanical HDs,
The only thing SSDs got might be their idle wattage numbers, but we are talking about a .3w difference between SSDs and HDDs.
In the end I suspect the difference in battery life between the two to be negligible, although the end user experience will be better with the SSD.
SSDs make more sense than HDs even if you ignore the power and speed difference just because you're eliminating a complicated, failure-prone mechanical system.
>I randomly just picked the first results that came up, but I'm sure you will find that consistently read/write speeds for SSDs are higher than mechanical HDs,
>The only thing SSDs got might be their idle wattage numbers, but we are talking about a .3w difference between SSDs and HDDs.
Here's the thing: the SSD will spend a tiny fraction of the time reading and writing as an HD performing the same operations, and as >>52377003 says an SSD can go from 100% to 0% in a couple microseconds, which no HD can even hope to compete with.
I try to upload 900+ pictures from my 4s and it outright stopped working. It's a rubbish system, and now I have to install iTunes to transfer my photos which is even worse than Google.
While I agree with what you're saying is true, it depends on the workload being performed.
All the articles im finding about battery life and SSDs are very old so its hard to say just how much of an impact and SSD will take on battery life with todays hardware.
Will there be a boost in battery life ? Sure I agree there will be.
What is debatable is how much.
But even if the battery life stays exactly the same SSD vs HDD, SSDs still offer much better performance that the user can really feel when using their PC.
>Not using your SSD for swap when working in Photoshop
>Not using your SSD to speed up compilation times for your programs
>Not using your SSD for system files to increase boot/resume times
>Not using your SSD to improve your I/O speeds for your porn DB
Installing OSes from ISOs on your SSD to VMs on your SSD is also pretty amazing. You can have a huge array of VMs running different OSes in less than an hour. Shit's pretty amazing.
Dude... when we all ascend into the singularity here in a few years, you're going to regret not having lossless audio to listen to with your virtualized cyber-ears for eternity.
It's not really difficult to understand that you need to consume more tower to actually spin the disk, be it in desktop or mobile HDD, compared to operating SSD, which has no moving parts.
Don't forget that those discs have to keep spinning and the reader head has to keep jutting around until the read/write operation is finished, and with HDs that can be quite a while.
good idea, but;
- dvd's are physically smaller
- dvd's don't need to be rewound
- dvd's don't get eaten
higher resolution is cool and all, but the benefits of small discs kept people waiting on hddvd/bluray over dtheater dvhs
if HDTV's were common a few years sooner it might have had a chance to preempt optical disc alternatives
CD's aren't "wav", they store raw PCM with no header/container
that said, the only difference between raw cd audio and an equivalent wav of it is the header, which simply provides the convinience of most players recognizing it
unless a device you use for playback isn't powerful enough to decode flac however, there's absolutely no reason to use wav/raw pcm over flac
i'll repeat what i said 10 years ago;
"the day the xbox 360 shipped without an hd-dvd drive was the day hd-dvd died"
tons of people got onto (regular) dvd because of the PS2, which when new was probably the most cost-effective dvd players available, costing about the same as a standalone dvd player (only, y'know, could also play psx/ps2 games)
same with the ps3 and bluray
i was actually expecting hd-dvd to win before the xbox360 came out, purely on the basis that everyone was familiar with the "dvd" brand
unless your pc uses a 486 or something, it can most certainly encode flac faster than your cd drive can read data
therefore, ripping a cd to wav or flac should take the same amount of time
In addition to WAV, there's also AIFF/AIFF-C which has served as the Mac analogue to WAV since Macs became capable of playing audio CDs. If you rip an audio CD through the filesystem under modern OS X you'll get an AIFF-C file.
>be young, 13 maybe
>head to department store with dad
>see new display of large sleeves
>say, "wow, they started carrying records again?"
>"those are laser discs..." *looks disappointed in son's stupidity*
>feel extremely dumb
I distinctly remember looking at the "record" of Fox and the Hound, and wondering why the hell they made a record of it...
inb4 how old are you, old.
There was something more to the death of HD-DVD, but damned if I can remember what it was.
Something to do with licensing fees you had to pay to use their encoding, or something? I wish I could remember. Something happened and suddenly the tech media went, "oh shit, that's it, HD-DVD is dead as a doornail."
Screencap this for future reference.
Modern virtual reality headsets (Oculus, etc).
The technology itself was fine, it's just that to the values of the broader public the downsides were greater than the upsides and it failed to catch on.
Blue-ray got more support from movie companies because of better DRM, and consumers bought more blue-ray players because of the PS3. Blue-ray was winning by about 6 to 5 in 2007, but then Blockbuster decided to only do blue-ray which completely killed HD-DVD. Most people still rented movies in 2007.
why would I want to count the read and write cycles of my fucking storage device holy shit get meme'd faggots
The technology is not "fine".
The Oculus is just a slightly more advanced version of shit that's been out for a long time.
Until motion detection and haptic feedback get a lot better, it's still just a 3D display with a shitty wiimote built into it and no self-respecting futurist would dare to call it virtual reality.
The irony of people shitposting about how SSDs aren't that great is that they've spent possibly more time and energy complaining about them than it would've taken to earn the money to buy one.
I swear every new format that ever exists gets some new special edition bullshit that just doesn't exist anywhere else making it a collectors item.
Then they wonder why consumers are sick of this bullshit ?
Anyways, laserdisc was just too ahead of the curve.
I mean right now it seems so obvious to just make the disc smaller and user better compression but that shit just didn't exist back then to fit an entire movie on something the size of a CD.
>laserdisc uses the same wavelength as CDs
>laserdisc stores analog video
>he thinks you need to spend $500 on a drive to have fast boot times
This was my $350 rig from 2006.
No, wait, that was the same drive in my upgraded Phenom II X4 rig.
This was the $350 Dell.
>all of this bait
commercial companies and some other film studios still use beta tapes
considering i have 50+ laser disks, all popular movies like pulp fiction, independence day, all the aliens and die hard
i'd say it caught on pretty fucking well till something out classed it
>all these ultrabooks with ssds
yea ok, its caught on too
why did i even reply to such bait