The end of the Hard Disks

[Zenith]

Like I said, I had problems with page, temporary, and work files wearing through SSD endurance too quickly.

I use SSDs with a couple of Linux systems - I don't use MS.  A few years back limiting writes and over-provisioning was a big thing, you don't hear so much of it these days, but there are a few things worth doing. One is limiting the amount that Firefox writes to disk to recover your current tabs, if you like the feature, it doesn't have to be done every 15 seconds. Another is the updates don't have to be checked every fifteen minutes. Another is that you don't want a system with heavy memory pressure swapping to an SSD. Enough RAM avoids some of this, and you may be able to put temporary files on a ramdisk.

[David Hess]

Like I said, I had problems with page, temporary, and work files wearing through SSD endurance too quickly.

I use SSDs with a couple of Linux systems - I don't use MS.  A few years back limiting writes and over-provisioning was a big thing, you don't hear so much of it these days, but there are a few things worth doing. One is limiting the amount that Firefox writes to disk to recover your current tabs, if you like the feature, it doesn't have to be done every 15 seconds. Another is the updates don't have to be checked every fifteen minutes. Another is that you don't want a system with heavy memory pressure swapping to an SSD. Enough RAM avoids some of this, and you may be able to put temporary files on a ramdisk.

On the system where I could do it, I added as much RAM as I could.  On my new workstation where I first noticed the problem, I moved my work volume to the RAID.  Before that I went through 9% of the SSD endurance in 1 month.  Now I go through 4% in maybe 6 months, but I could improve that; it has taken this long to get a meaningful measurement.

I have been using Crucial B500, M500, and P5 drives so 3D-TLC with an endurance of 350 to 600 (1) depending on model and size, but arguably sufficient for the cost.  MLC drives have 5 to 10 times better endurance but are hard to find, older, and cost a lot more.  QLC is worse by 3.

The Intel S4510 is an oddball 3D-TLC with 10 times the specified endurance of other 3D TLC drives, so I am not sure what is going on with that.

(1) Ratio of endurance to capacity, so 350 to 600 GB per GB.

[Mechatrommer]

i'm not sure whats the endurance figure is that about? but you people seem to worry too much about ssd endurance? i have ssd (os) that work for years with everyday browsers do the caching things, mere 8GB RAM etc. once i've backup my windows installation into hdd using backup tool, i dont have to worry anymore. if ssd fails, i'll buy another ssd and restore the backup, but so far i've not encounter such situation.

[Zenith]

For most people SSD endurance doesn't matter. Even a cheap SSD, without DRAM cache and with QLC, is going to become obsolete and there'll be cheaper, better replacements, long before the TBW limit is reached. How much use is a 64GB SSD these days? Some of this is a hangover from the days when SSDs were small and expensive.

For some situations and some applications, it does matter.

[Halcyon]

For most people SSD endurance doesn't matter. Even a cheap SSD, without DRAM cache and with QLC, is going to become obsolete and there'll be cheaper, better replacements, long before the TBW limit is reached. How much use is a 64GB SSD these days? Some of this is a hangover from the days when SSDs were small and expensive.

For some situations and some applications, it does matter.

Exactly, I have an old 160 GB Intel X25-M SSD in one of my machines with over 40 TB written. According to Intel's own data, this equates to only 7% wear. That SSD is approaching 14 years old now and was used in an everyday desktop PC (now I only use it from time to time when I need to run legacy software). There is plenty of life left in these old SSDs, unless you are an extremely heavy user that's constantly writing a lot of data to them.

[Kjelt]

I have got a 480GB Samsung DC SSD now for over eight years used for downloading and parring and unrarring usenet files.
I can not read the TBW since it is a pro drive but my estimate would be around a thousand TB.
The thing still works, data I write to it is compared 100% with the original with bcompare AFAICT BUT it toggles bits sometimes. So it is now completely unreliable.
I see this during the parring phase, it completes the build then tries to unrar and poof fails. Running the par sw again it reveals suddenly again damaged blocks. Really weird but replacing the ssd witha new one it was fixed.
So becarefull with old highly used ssd's. It is not always obvious they are dying and it would wreck havoc on your binaries.

[tooki]

I think the tipping point is here.  I was surprised by how fast CRTs disappeared after introduction of LCDs.  Hard drives won't die quite as quickly, but I think if you look around in five years you will find spinning disks only in specialty markets.

Except that the CRT to LCD transition wasn’t all that quick. It happened over the course of about 20 years. Much like SSDs, it happened first in portable computers, then high end desktops, then mainstream. It took a long time for LCDs to become a) good enough and b) cheap enough to displace CRTs.

[Mechatrommer]

CRT to LCD was a quick change for me. much much earlier than the ssd existence in our market... weight and size of CRT was the big issue, price iirc was comparable so it was a no brainer for me, except in the beginning, my biggest issue with LCD was with a slight change of viewing angle, the color can change visually, i am sensitive to this (beside dead pixels) as photo editing is my trade, but those issues are long gone with latest LCD tech.

[Zenith]

It's hard to say how long these transitions take. I'm sure I saw the first LCD displays on laptops in the early 80s. Around 1990 I saw a colour LCD screen on a LAN analyser. Subjectively, for the mainstream, they came in in the late 90s, but I never thought they were worth buying. As I recall transition to the point where LCD displays really were worth having and CRT displays disappeared, was around 2006.

Apparently SSDs have been around since 1991. They were probably very expensive and only suited to a few niche markets. Just as a casual recollection, the mainstream computer suppliers started to stock SSDs about 12 years ago.

[free_electron]

i don't see spinning rust disappear any time soon.
last time i went on vacation my laptop needed a spinning drive.. (two actually) simply to keep a backup of the memory cards in my cameras.
i uses 256G memory cards to shoot video and pictures. they fill up fast . making a backup is necessary. a 4 terabyte ssd is very expensive. a 5 terabyte usb hdd is 50$ ...

[Mechatrommer]

if i dont be careful with selfie videos, things can get out of hand in a matter of days. that earlier meme will apply pretty quickly.

[tooki]

CRT to LCD was a quick change for me. much much earlier than the ssd existence in our market...

The switch to SSDs came much later in every market.

weight and size of CRT was the big issue, price iirc was comparable so it was a no brainer for me, except in the beginning

There was only a short period of time where the prices were comparable: for the longest time, CRTs were significantly cheaper. For any given size of display, once LCDs became comparable in cost and image quality, CRTs vanished fairly quickly. This happened progressively across display sizes, because the biggest LCDs have always been disproportionately expensive compared to smaller ones.

But until that very brief period where LCDs and CRTs of a given size coexisted at similar cost, the LCD was invariably significantly more expensive. The first desktop LCD with a modern widescreen resolution was the 1998 Silicon Graphics 1600SW (1600x1024px, 17.3”) at $2500 (over $4500 today). At the time, a top-quality 17” (4:3) CRT cost $500, and a top-quality 21” CRT could be had for $1300. The same $1300 also got you a 15” 1024x768 LCD that was inferior to the 17” CRT in every way possible other than thickness and weight.

[Kjelt]

Still some gamers still prefer a HD Sony trinitron above any flatscreen.
Prices of those sky rocketed out of proportion.

[james_s]

Still some gamers still prefer a HD Sony trinitron above any flatscreen.
Prices of those sky rocketed out of proportion.

I still have one of those, it's a great monitor but I replaced it in regular use with a LCD years ago. Maybe I should try to sell it again since it's just taking up space, it would be a nightmare to try to ship it anywhere though.

[Zenith]

I bought a secondhand IIyama 21" CRT monitor in 2004. I didn't rate any of the remotely affordable LCD monitors then. When it died a couple of years later, the market had changed and there may not have been any CRT monitors around.  It certainly made sense to buy an LCD monitor then. I don't recall CRT monitors even survived in niche markets much.

Those old 21" CRT monitors were huge, and took a lot of desk space.

[Mechatrommer]

I bought a secondhand IIyama 21" CRT monitor in 2004.

i think i switched during this time as well but i dont think i've ever spent more than $600 on 24"++ LCD...

But until that very brief period where LCDs and CRTs of a given size coexisted at similar cost, the LCD was invariably significantly more expensive. The first desktop LCD with a modern widescreen resolution was the 1998 Silicon Graphics 1600SW (1600x1024px, 17.3”) at $2500 (over $4500 today). At the time, a top-quality 17” (4:3) CRT cost $500, and a top-quality 21” CRT could be had for $1300. The same $1300 also got you a 15” 1024x768 LCD that was inferior to the 17” CRT in every way possible other than thickness and weight.

so thats probably a 6 years timespan into the demise of CRT. i didnt quickly made the upgrade since i was satisfied with my 17 (or 19?) inch CRT, until it started playing up. my first ssd is like 10 years ago, price gap maybe closing in but data retention for ssd storage/backup purpose is still questionable, 1 year retention is quite a pathetic figure.

[tooki]

I bought a secondhand IIyama 21" CRT monitor in 2004. I didn't rate any of the remotely affordable LCD monitors then. When it died a couple of years later, the market had changed and there may not have been any CRT monitors around.  It certainly made sense to buy an LCD monitor then. I don't recall CRT monitors even survived in niche markets much.

Those old 21" CRT monitors were huge, and took a lot of desk space.

At the first computer store I ever worked at (in early 1999), my boss had the 24" Sony widescreen CRT (GDM-FW900). Now THAT was a beast! But honestly, while the color quality of those Trinitrons is great, the edge-to-edge sharpness and geometry struggled with that aspect ratio in the flat-CRT construction. The short neck doesn't help (but was necessary to make it fit on a halfway ordinary desk).

[free_electron]

Those old 21" CRT monitors were huge, and took a lot of desk space.

And heavy ! i had a nokia 445X  that thing could run 1600x1200

https://www.ebay.com/itm/125353103895?hash=item1d2fa09217:g:qswAAOSwt1Rim~7U

i used a number-nine systems video card GX64 pro. with the 4Meg VRAM. i could run Windows 3.1 in 1600x1200 and autotrax using the VESA driver at high resolution. that was great for PCB design. everyone else was cramped at 640x480 or 800x600 ...

[Mechatrommer]

and very difficult to carry around on its center of gravity, thats why my transition was quick, i was afraid to lose a backbone.

[tooki]

But until that very brief period where LCDs and CRTs of a given size coexisted at similar cost, the LCD was invariably significantly more expensive. The first desktop LCD with a modern widescreen resolution was the 1998 Silicon Graphics 1600SW (1600x1024px, 17.3”) at $2500 (over $4500 today). At the time, a top-quality 17” (4:3) CRT cost $500, and a top-quality 21” CRT could be had for $1300. The same $1300 also got you a 15” 1024x768 LCD that was inferior to the 17” CRT in every way possible other than thickness and weight.

so thats probably a 6 years timespan into the demise of CRT. i didnt quickly made the upgrade since i was satisfied with my 17 (or 19?) inch CRT, until it started playing up. my first ssd is like 10 years ago, price gap maybe closing in but data retention for ssd storage/backup purpose is still questionable, 1 year retention is quite a pathetic figure.

Yeah. I mean, 2002 is when Apple switched the iMac to LCD, but they were on the early side. 2005 is when I got my first desktop LCD, a Dell 2405FPW, a lovely 24" LCD (which I still own and occasionally use as an extra display) that was exceptionally well-priced for the time.

I know Apple introduced its first (optional) SSD in 2008, in the original MacBook Air, because I was working for Apple at the time and actually staffed the Apple booth at the Macworld Expo where the Air was introduced. IIRC it cost $1000 extra to upgrade the 120GB HDD to the 64GB SSD when custom ordering. Very, very nice product at the time. (Incidentally, the original MB Air used a 1.8" hard disk, like the iPods, because even the thinnest 2.5" HDDs were too big!) Just two and a half years later, SSD became standard in the MacBook Air.

My first SSD was a 256GB upgrade installed into my MacBook to replace the hard disk, followed shortly by a 512GB one installed into my Mac Pro (tower). The only hard disks I've bought since then are multi-terabyte units strictly for backups.

[tooki]

and very difficult to carry around on its center of gravity, thats why my transition was quick, i was afraid to lose a backbone.

Yep! When I worked as a computer tech full-time in 1999 and 2001/02 (and sporadically through 2008), most of my clients were in the graphic arts, so many had 21" CRTs. Whenever possible we'd move those with two people.

Any time you carry a CRT on your own, though, it's imperative to have the screen facing you, so you can lean it onto your chest for stability. Makes it far easier to carry than any other orientation.

[CatalinaWOW]

When the first flat screens came out in the 90s the thinness advantage was obvious, but pundits predicted CRTs would be around for a long time because of the fully capitalized manufacturing base and the associated economies of scale.  But as sales volume for LCDs grew that economy of scale equation started tipping.  Things like shipping cost and warehousing volume requirements started really hurting CRTs.  All the same kind of things are in play with SSDs.  The speed advantage in desktop and laptop applications is obvious.  Prices are converging.  If you strongly prefer spinning rust, buy it soon.  A decade from now (and maybe much sooner) it will be like analog oscilloscopes, a fond memory and a collectors item.

[james_s]

I have no particular attachment to "spinning rust", what I do like is rock bottom cost per TB and large multi-TB drives. When the cost per TB for SSD drops below that of mechanical drives, I'll switch to SSD for my bulk storage and backup needs.

[SiliconWizard]

I have no particular attachment to "spinning rust", what I do like is rock bottom cost per TB and large multi-TB drives. When the cost per TB for SSD drops below that of mechanical drives, I'll switch to SSD for my bulk storage and backup needs.

Which is again going to take a... while.

[Mechatrommer]

well like others said, magnetic tapes still exist, even if its only for niche market, i believe we still can get them if we need to...