Sir Clive Sinclair talks "SSD" in 1985

[DivideBYZero]

He called it "Wafer Scale Integration" at the time, and describes a method of creating storage but keeping it all on the original wafer, then using it as a replacement for the 'Winchester' (HDDs for younger viewers...!) drives, completely jumping past tape and floppy drives. Way ahead of his time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XwnE4z_jnI&feature=player_detailpage#t=273s

Here is an article on the early SSDs based on Sir Clives tech through his Anamartic company:

http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/3043/Anamartic-Wafer-Scale-160MB-Solid-State-Disk/

 

[DivideBYZero]

Oh well, I thought it was pretty interesting.

 

[dac7nco]

It is interesting, but it's like reading an Asimov book where in the future they have something akin to Google. Some technologies are seemingly inevitable.

Daimon

 

[DivideBYZero]

It is interesting, but it's like reading an Asimov book where in the future they have something akin to Google. Some technologies are seemingly inevitable.

Daimon

Yeah, but in this case he was actually making them in 1989.

 

[DaveSimmons]

RAM disks date back to 1979 so the SSD idea was at least 5-6 years old by then.

 

[DivideBYZero]

But nobody equates a RAM disk to an SSD.

 

[Idontcare]

But nobody equates a RAM disk to an SSD.

Why would you ever state this? What I mean to say is what on earth gave you this idea? You do know what the acronym "SSD" stands for, yes?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Why would you ever state this? What I mean to say is what on earth gave you this idea? You do know what the acronym "SSD" stands for, yes?

*sigh* Why do people talk like this in forums, proving the seven rules of debating over and over. Stop being so argumentative, ffs.


RAM Disks are not persistent, SSD's are.

 

[DaveSimmons]

> RAM Disks are not persistent, SSD's are.

Static RAM (SRAM) disks were, and so were battery-backed RAM disks. That's nit-picking, but also they were effectively persistent for servers that stayed on 24/7.

Back in the day, people had batch scripts to load up the RAM disk with application files at boot time, which was another way of making them effectively persistent.

> But nobody equates a RAM disk to an SSD.

Maybe it's an old-timer viewpoint, but to me the idea and usage is the same, the new SSDs are just a little more convenient.

 

[DivideBYZero]

> RAM Disks are not persistent, SSD's are.

Static RAM (SRAM) disks were, and so were battery-backed RAM disks. That's nit-picking, but also they were effectively persistent for servers that stayed on 24/7.

Back in the day, people had batch scripts to load up the RAM disk with application files at boot time, which was another way of making them effectively persistent.

> But nobody equates a RAM disk to an SSD.

Maybe it's an old-timer viewpoint, but to me the idea and usage is the same, the new SSDs are just a little more convenient.

OK, OK, well let's just consider the thread derailed prior to your post anyway, I'll not enter this place again lest the clique round upon thee and nitpick to try and sound like smart arses. Jesus.