"Solid State" is a term that's been applied to almost anything that's marched forward from tubes to transistors, especially when it also included a move away from the mechanical -- as we did when we dropped rotary tuners in favor of phased lock loop chips.
It gets better now as we gut the traditional hard drive of everything normally found inside and stuff it full of NAND memory chips, replicating its storage ability without one single moving part. Enter the Solid State Disk (SSD), epitomized, for right now at least, by Samsung's 1.8-inch 32GB SSD.
Typically, you'll hear of "hybrid drives" -- a mix of solid state and traditional mechanical components -- that can be used in laptops and desktops. It's the best of both worlds, with their solid-state components slashing boot times and providing "Ready Boost" services for Vista and the relatively high cost of NAND memory offset by the relative cheap cost per gigabyte of a standard hard disk platter.
Producing a totally solid state drive is a bit of a gamble for Samsung but the potential benefits are attractive (see "Computex: Solid-state disks coming on strong"). At the very least, a solid-state drive uses much less power than a standard hard disk, meaning your portable's battery will breathe easier. As well, mechanical hard disks tend to fragment data over time, decreasing their speed. That's not very likely with a solid-state device. But there are downsides as well.
At 32GB, its capacity hardly competes with the 1.8-inch hard drives inside current generation 60GB or 80GB iPods or even the little 40GB drive inside the iRiver H340. As well, Samsung's SSD commands pricing that hovers around US$500 for just its 32GB model. That's hardly a value point for anything -- except perhaps sub-notebook or ultra-light portables where the ultimate convenience trumps premium pricing.
You also don't want to just buy this drive by itself unless you're really a hardcore geek looking to also acquire a lineup of interface and power adapters and have some duct and electrical tape handy -or unless you already have an older ultra-lite that you're looking to upgrade. The extra bits you'll need to install it anywhere else -as in anything that doesn't already have a 1.8-inch drive-- are available but the result is neither pretty nor practical.
You'll need an adapter to get it to 2.5-inch interface spec, and another to raise that to 3.5-inch IDE compatibility if you're thinking desktop. Then you'll need a tray to sit it in, a hold down bracket to keep it in the tray, and an adapter bracket if you're trying for a 3.5-inch bay. Of course, attempting to stuff any of that into the cramped confines of a portable is equally daunting. As well, try as we might, we couldn't get the drive to cohabitate on the same cable as another drive so count on re-installing your OS and all its drivers.
Still, if you do hanker after one of those ultra-portables and you're thinking about taking the easy way out by finding one with an SSD already installed, you're probably wondering what to expect. Theoretically, the answer is speed -and lots of it. Theory is nice. Fact is always better. Unfortunately, there aren't any equipped devices available at the moment. So we did the next best thing: We got our hands on a PATA version of Samsung's 32GB SSDs, glued, stapled, and taped a string of interfaces to transform its 1.8-inch connector into a standard 40-pin IDE configuration, Velcroed it to the side of a desktop system, and took it for a spin ... er, test.
Using Simpli Software's HD Tach benchmark testing software, the standard 120GB hard drive -- a Western Digital WD12000JB -- inside the desktop computer was the first victim. Compared to a Seagate ST98823AS hard disk we had previously tested in a laptop computer, the Western Digital drive had 1.5msec faster random access, a scant 2 percent CPU utilization compared to the Seagate's 10 percent, and ran out 43.2Mbit/sec in average read against the Seagate's lesser 30.6Mbit/sec.
That's all well and good and should tell you that desktop hard drives are faster than those typically found in portables. Everyone knows that already. Sit down, however, the Samsung SSD results embarrass those drives handily. Its random access rating was a miniscule 0.2msec. CPU utilization, you wonder: Just 1 percent. And the average read rate? How does 51Mbit/sec sound to you?
Still, you're thinking, "Well, its solid state. It should be faster!" You're right. So we clocked it against Corsair's Voyager GT, which many claim is the fastest USB drive in the known universe. But while the Voyager GT was a lesson in rapid data transit (0.9msec random access, 5 percent CPU utilization, and 32.4Mbit/sec average read), it wasn't even close to the Samsung SSD's speed
Samsung, of course, is quick to point out that PATA is an old interface standard and Serial ATA (SATA) with its 3.0Gb/sec rated transfer speed is faster still. It is, and there is a SATA version of the Samsung SSD in the works. It just wasn't available now. When it is (and hopefully the overall cost of NAND chips will settle down a bit), simple drool will turn to rampant lust and there will be a run on glue, staples, and electrical tape as we all rush to brag that we have the fastest (solid state) drive in the world.
This story, "Samsung's SSD Drive is the Fastest Yet" was originally published by Computerworld.