Kingston: Solid State Drives Will Finally Supplant Hard Drives in Second Half of 2012



+ Add a Comment


So if I want a 3TB drive I'll only have to pay $3,000 for it instead of $250 for a mechanical drive? Where do I sign up? Morons. Prices have to come way down for us to make the permanent switch.



"Su readily admits that the high cost of flash has hampered SSD adoption"

Yeah. That and the high failure rate out of the box, not to mention that these drives give no warning when they're on the verge of failure, unlike my HDD have. Look at the reviews on Newegg. It seems, on average, that 10-20% or so have a single egg due to firmware issues, lack of decent online support, and low lifespan.



I think it's very likely actually. The average user doesn't have much need for over 100GB of storage, but they do appreciate their OS and applications starting up within milliseconds as oppossed to seconds. Basically, everybody directly benefits from an SSD in the form of greatly improved performance (an upgrade to an SSD results in a dramatically larger real-world performance increase compared to a CPU or RAM upgrade), whereas only specific users benefit from a large capacity HDD.

In the mobile market SSD's will begin to become standard because, again, everybody benefits from an SSD. User's who need large amounts of storage will then fall into two categories. The first group is large scale media consumer's who have large amounts of music, movies, and photo's that they view and/or edit, and they will just migrate towards external drives (especially now with USB 3). The second group is high-performance user's who need a lot of processing power and therefore aren't very worried about mobility, and they don't get any benefit with an external drive because the data they're storing is specific to that computer, mainly gamers and many software developers will fall into this category as well. For these user's cost and mobility are usually of very little concern so they will often opt for a system with both an SSD for their boot drive and an HDD for additional storage.

In the desktop market things will probably switch over slower, but it will generally still follow the same direction as the mobile market. Everybody benefits from an SSD so they will start to become more standard, and users who do need additional storage will generally fall into the more high-end market where they're likely to go for both an SSD and an HDD.  



Hmm... on my netbook, I have about 35GB used on the OS partition, and 12GB on my data one. Yeah, I could put a 64GB SSD in that and still be ok. On my desktop, however, I have 400GB used, about 40GB of which is the OS and programs. However, I have a bunch of VMs and torrents taking up that space. Even so, there's still a lot of music, videos, and movies on there. I could do some cleaning up though.



1TB HD can be bought for way under $100.  SDD is far from replacing standard HD's.  There will always be people willing to pay a premium to have the fastest anything but most people will stick to standard HD's.


I Jedi

Not everyone, though, needs a terabyte of memory. Most are contempt with having over 100 GB of permanent storage. This will probably become more prevalent in computers sold by Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc, as the price point is now about to hit a pretty reasonable ground for S.S.D.'s. H.D.D. are going to become something that people and businesses with mass storage needs are going to want. So don't be fooled, the average consumer will gladly pay $100 for a nice S.S.D. as opposed to an H.D.D.


I Jedi

While I agree with you two that H.D.D. with bigger capacity are going to look more attractive than a much more smaller S.S.D. for the same price for us geeks, I disagree with what the consumer will ultimately go with. Most consumers are simple folk when it comes to PCs. They don't ask a lot of questions, and always look to the Best Buy representative for help in making a purchase. Laptops, as much as I hate them for everyday use, are becoming the "in" thing to have amongst most consumers, rather than a bulky tower. I have asked several of my friends which type they would prefer - a regular sized PC or a laptop? The answer is always the latter of the two. Why do I bring up laptops? Because on a price comparison, they are considerably more expensive per dollar when compared to similar PC hardware, so this means consumers get less potential out of a laptop per dollar amount than they would with a regular sized PC. When consumers see that they can get a 100 GB S.S.D. for a little over $100 bucks, they're going to opt in for that option because they'll believe in what it has to offer, which is ultimately speed and performance vs. a 100 GB H.D.D. that runs slower, which ultimately affects the whole system in terms of load times.

Your guy's assumption is that the market will continue to praise capacity over performance and brand. And with the flooding in Thailand, which has now devastated the H.D.D. market, it has never been a better opportunity for S.S.D. makers to artificially lower the price, if not already, to increase adoption of S.S.D.s. I don't necessarily think that the majority of consumers are retarded, but I also don't think they're as tech-savvy as you two would like to believe. I can ask a consumer at the store if they think a 3.3Ghz processor is always faster than a 2.6Ghz processor, and I'm sure 9 out of 10 will say yes without realizing there are a number of factors that make a processor better than another one, such as cache capacity. Finally, most consumers, not us, do not play games on the PC and don't have terabytes of information needing space. There are millions of gamers on the PC, but for that million, there are 10 fold that many who only use their computers to pay the bills, research online, and watch movies through iTunes.

Trust me, H.D.D. are going to be around for a long time. Even I plan to build a new rig with two H.D.D.'s with a capacity of each having two terabytes, but for the average consumer, they'll be contempt with 100 GB S.S.D. In fact, I think consumers are actually scared to purchase movies online and download them to their PC for the simple reason that its not a physical copy in their hands, so the security of knowing you own it for the rest of your life is not there. Even I get a little scared to think of all my Steam games I'll never have a physical copy to. There are merits to everyone's point here, so only time will tell how the market ultimately will react.



Maybe you don't think you need it, but I completely agree with furiousdc. To say that SSDs will surpass HDD sales in late 2012 might be technically correct since they are more attractive options for mediums that normally see lower amounts of storage space like notebooks, netbooks, and tablets (which when grouped together make up the bulk of computer sales), it will be far from a reality in the normal desktop PC sector. People aren't stupid and in these modern times of HD video and large game installs, save for the high-end market (which makes up a small percentage of it all) most people will still be vying for the 1-2 TB HDD over the 100-150 GB SSD for the same price, especially since the smaller SSDs don't give nearly the same speed improvements the larger, more expensive versions offer.

I don't expect the desktop SSD market to be much different than it is now. The overall SSD market is already booming though and definitely poised to overtake HDDs, just not on desktops.



Most people will probably stick with a HDD instead of an SSD for the simple reason of marketing. Seeing that 2 TB sticker looks way more impressive than the 256 GB sticker to the chump buying a computer at Wal*Mart; despite the fact that the SSD is much faster.


For most daily computer tasks, an SSD is a very attractive option for reliability, resilience, and the extra speed. The only computers that really need the capacity of a HDD are ones where you keep all your music and movies.



Depends on the demographic. The average consumer who can go shopping for a computer without fear will likely recognize and use up that storage.

My parents barely use 5 gigs. And an SSD would save me from having to teach them to defragment and to stop installing molasses-slow browser toolbars with everything.



On the other hand, if they show off startup times and improved battery life, that might help.

I previously thought SSDs are stupid, given the price and stuff, but with the HD prices I have to admit, they are looking like a good option. Maybe I'll consider them sometime.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.