<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Solid state drives deliver poor performance, super reliability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/02/15/solid-state-drives-deliver-poor-performance-super-reliability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2008/02/15/solid-state-drives-deliver-poor-performance-super-reliability/</link>
	<description>Top Technology news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:30:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Gardner</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2008/02/15/solid-state-drives-deliver-poor-performance-super-reliability/comment-page-1/#comment-76769</link>
		<dc:creator>George Gardner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2008/02/15/solid-state-drives-deliver-poor-performance-super-reliability/#comment-76769</guid>
		<description>This article seems to be a bit biased and mis-informed. Despite what this article  says, the benchmark showed the SSD was said to have slower WRITE times only; the READ times actually benchmarked higher.

You failed to mention the lack of compatibility between the operating system and the SSD, which was said to make SSDs &quot;look enormously better than a hard disk drive.&quot; You also failed to mention the brand of the SSD used in the benchmark, a detail that could clearly make a difference in tests. For example, Samsungs NAND offers speeds nearly 5 times greater than that of Intel’s NAND memory.

In addition to your list of &quot;only&quot; advantages to the SSD, you failed to mention that these drives emit significantly less noise, are not susceptible to humidity or temperature, and offer a much higher level of security, as the deletion of a file on an SSD will leave no residual data that can be recovered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article seems to be a bit biased and mis-informed. Despite what this article  says, the benchmark showed the SSD was said to have slower WRITE times only; the READ times actually benchmarked higher.</p>
<p>You failed to mention the lack of compatibility between the operating system and the SSD, which was said to make SSDs &#8220;look enormously better than a hard disk drive.&#8221; You also failed to mention the brand of the SSD used in the benchmark, a detail that could clearly make a difference in tests. For example, Samsungs NAND offers speeds nearly 5 times greater than that of Intel’s NAND memory.</p>
<p>In addition to your list of &#8220;only&#8221; advantages to the SSD, you failed to mention that these drives emit significantly less noise, are not susceptible to humidity or temperature, and offer a much higher level of security, as the deletion of a file on an SSD will leave no residual data that can be recovered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

