• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel x-25 $399 at newegg

Originally posted by: taltamir
It will be quite some time
Click to expand...

Well, for those of us 30+, we'll be able to brag that our first computers didn't have hard drives. Then we'll be able to brag that our current computers don't have hard drives!

 
when I installed Vista for the first time almost 2 years ago I couldn't believe it took up something like 70GB for a clean install.

I will wait until the SLC SSD get much larger than they currently are because you can't even install Vista!

 
i can't remember if my first computer had a harddrive when i bought it, or did i purchase one as an upgrade... i also can't remember if it was 60MB or 600MB hardrive... i do remember that i started with the 5 inch floppies, and 1MB of ram... and later upgraded by putting in another 8MB for a total of 9MB of ram.
 
Originally posted by: nenforcer
when I installed Vista for the first time almost 2 years ago I couldn't believe it took up something like 70GB for a clean install.

I will wait until the SLC SSD get much larger than they currently are because you can't even install Vista!
Click to expand...

vista never took 70GB for a full install... vista and ALL my installed programs take 44GB on my HDD right now... and most of it is programs and their data...
 
Damn...makes the "deal" i got on mine a couple months ago, well, it's no longer a deal...
 
Vista + Office 2007 + Onenote + Photoshop CS2 + bunch of other programs = 27GB (less probably if I cleaned out the shadow copies and the system restore points)

did you mean 7GB for a Vista clean install without any programs? that is probably correct.
 
Originally posted by: n7
Damn...makes the "deal" i got on mine a couple months ago, well, it's no longer a deal...
Click to expand...

ah, but you got it back than, a couple of months ago 🙂, you paid extra 200$ for the privilege of having it 2 months before anyone who buy it now... Don't worry, it will be worthless in about a year 🙂
 
what? you know how it is when you are an early adopter 🙂, you pay an arm and a leg and it devalues so fast afterwards...
Sorry if that came out mean.
 
mmm, it took 4 months... so that is only 50$ per month drop in price for the intel X25-M... i pay twice as much for the maid.
 
LOL i am well aware of the cost of being an early adopter.

Let me wallow in my pity though 😛
 
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.
 
Originally posted by: Majic 7
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that quite dated Pentium 4 processor is actually running those benches in a way that taxes the disk sub-system anything like what the majority of people have in their computers nowadays.

I pity the fool that puts $2k of SSD gear into a 3-4 year old computer system.

The disk-reviews on techreport are really lacking robustness.

The Acard review they did was on the same craptastic 2005 computer system using software raid on an antiquated ICHR7 (!!!) raid chipset. I mean for the love of god they got $10k worth of Acard review gear in-house and they bung-hole it for lack of a modern $100 LGA775 mobo.

Show me a comparison of SSD's and spindle disks using a modern 45nm processor combined with a hardware raid card that is designed for speed (something like an areca with a couple GB of cache on it) and then we'll see if the benefits of $2k worth of SSD kit make the rest of your invest a little speedier.

In the meantime I'm hoping techreport can step up to a $300 upgrade and put something a little more modern to work in their reviews. It's really quite embarrassing, if I were Intel I'd send the guys a fully loaded i7 and ask them to redo the review.
 
Crud, I didn't even check the test page. They must be using it so they can keep all the old data they got with it over the years. Wouldn't want them to have to retest. All I wanted to know is will it will be worth it when capacity goes up and price comes down. Have to find another review I guess.
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Majic 7
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that quite dated Pentium 4 processor is actually running those benches in a way that taxes the disk sub-system anything like what the majority of people have in their computers nowadays.

I pity the fool that puts $2k of SSD gear into a 3-4 year old computer system.

The disk-reviews on techreport are really lacking robustness.

The Acard review they did was on the same craptastic 2005 computer system using software raid on an antiquated ICHR7 (!!!) raid chipset. I mean for the love of god they got $10k worth of Acard review gear in-house and they bung-hole it for lack of a modern $100 LGA775 mobo.

Show me a comparison of SSD's and spindle disks using a modern 45nm processor combined with a hardware raid card that is designed for speed (something like an areca with a couple GB of cache on it) and then we'll see if the benefits of $2k worth of SSD kit make the rest of your invest a little speedier.

In the meantime I'm hoping techreport can step up to a $300 upgrade and put something a little more modern to work in their reviews. It's really quite embarrassing, if I were Intel I'd send the guys a fully loaded i7 and ask them to redo the review.
Click to expand...

I noticed this too IDC. Initially, I did a "double-take" and thought I had happened upon a very old review. I certainly don't see any issues reviewing modern tech with a 4-year old computer (/sarcasm)...

Considering it is not that cost prohibitive to up their testing system to a 45nm quad with 4-8GB or RAM, I wonder what their rational is to keep this old bench system in their reviews? ICH7? Gimme a break!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top