I like the hybrid approach. As one of those users who now considers 500 GB to be the absolute minimum disk size, I would prefer to have enough flash to store the OS for fast booting, but have a large, low-cost HDD to store everything else.
Fast boot, small size and a little longer battery life is definitely cool.
I just don't think it is on the side of mainstream purchasing decisions which usually favor the cheapest good enough technology.
I agree with your point that HDD costs half the money while providing double the capacity.
But your argument misses a key point - SSD is not only for power saving but most importantly for its speed!
You definitely sound like you have not joined the "Flash" side to experience the thrill of booting your system within 20 seconds from pushing the power button to fully operating and the responsiveness of having any app up and running right away.
SSD is not going to compete with HDD on the price. It always will be more expensive. But the gap is closing fast!
Battery life improvement is only one part of the story. The main thing with SSD is speed. It is widely reported that 3 year old pc with an SSD is faster than a brand new computer with HDD.
Boot up time with HDD : ~1 min
Boot time with SSD : 10-15 sec.
Application load speed, copy files etc are MUCH faster compared to an HDD. And the speeds of HDDs have saturated, while SSDs are just starting.
See the video for a speed comparison.
I agree with you Rick. I don't see the point in purchasing a HD with significantly less space for more money. Economically it doesn't make sense.
Also, knowing that I won't have to make a special trip to Staples, or BestBuy in the near future is always comforting.
NASA's Orion Flight Software Production Systems Manager Darrel G. Raines joins Planet Analog Editor Steve Taranovich and Embedded.com Editor Max Maxfield to talk about embedded flight software used in Orion Spacecraft, part of NASA's Mars mission. Live radio show and live chat. Get your questions ready.
Brought to you by