Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:SSD Time (Score 1) 353

by RegularFry (#38334894) Attached to: PC Makers Run Short of Popular Drives

Why on *earth* would you expect that? It's a *completely* different technology, with completely different failure modes.

Well, almost everyone is saying how reliable SSDs are because they have no moving parts to wear out. Also, since I do not really care about the speed, the only reason I would buy a SSD (instead of a cheaper HDD) would be reliability. If that SSD failed before a hard drive that has been already spinning for 7 years, I would be disappointed.

SSD lifetimes aren't measured in years, they're measured in *writes*. If you had an SSD powered on for 10 years but never written to, it might well have another 10 years left in it (barring failures that are common to all electronic devices, that is). Keeping a platter spinning for that long would be asking for trouble.

That being said, the reliability of an SSD isn't so much in that they last for a long time, it's that you can know with a fair degree of precision *for your use case* when they are going to fail *after*, so you can budget to replace them *before they fail*. This is necessary because, unlike hard drives which often fail gradually while giving you a chance to pull your data off, SSDs fail instantly and completely.

Comment: Re:SSD Time (Score 1) 353

by RegularFry (#38325416) Attached to: PC Makers Run Short of Popular Drives

It's not about the backup, or the data. When I buy something, I want it to last (especially if it is expensive), because I do not like paying for stuff that breaks soon.

Even if I make a backup three times a day, when the drive beaks, my computer crashes. Then, I have to order a new drive and wait a day for it to arrive (hopefully, the drive did not break on Friday afternoon). When it arrives, I have to install it, restore the backup and restart my PC. Oh, I also had to pay for the new drive.
Well, I could buy two drives and keep one as a spare, but then I will be paying twice the money for the same space and some part of the hassle still remains. On a desktop, I could use RAID1 but I would still need to buy two drives. Laptops usually do not have the space or the battery capacity to afford RAID1.

Same is true for other devices (for example power supplies).

Ok, here's a little economics for you: convenience costs money. Between the two extremes of paying as little as possible and having as little downtime as possible, you have to find a point where you are comfortable with the amount you are spending, the downtime you incur when it happens, and how predictable that downtime is. As you've placed yourself on the former extreme, you're saying that your personal time to recover from a downtime, and your ability to predict when that will be, is worth less to you than the money it would cost you to mitigate your situation.

SSDs cost more than HDDs, so I would expect them to last longer

Why on *earth* would you expect that? It's a *completely* different technology, with completely different failure modes.

(and since my hard drives are quite reliable, a SSD would have to work at least 10 years). As the technology is new, nobody knows how long SSDs will last, so I will have to wait and see.

The technology isn't that new: right now you can pay extra to get SSD drives which are guaranteed for a given number of writes. How long they last will depend on your usage patterns, but I've seen specs for drives which are guaranteed for *years* of continuous writes. Not only that, but *they'll tell you when they need replacing*.

Comment: Re:Some what similar (Score 1) 31

by RegularFry (#37056500) Attached to: Portable, Super-high-resolution 3-D Imaging

You can easily compensate for light placement if you've got a target object of known shape (and optical properties) in the scene. I use a three-sided pyramid with a right-angled apex; it makes the maths almost trivial, and it's very easy to fold a decent one out of printer paper if you haven't got a premade one handy.

Comment: Re:Maybe a million monkeys (Score 1) 335

by RegularFry (#36746188) Attached to: Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

For a photo that includes artwork still in copyright, yes, the photo you take in the museum is covered by the painter's copyright. It's *also* covered by yours.

For reference photos of artwork, whether the photographer gets copyright or not actually depends on the jurisdiction. They don't in the US, thanks to a case in the 90s, but they do in Europe. That's why, for instance, MOMA has two different licensing arrangements: they use artres.com for the US, and scalarchives.com for everywhere else.

Polymer physicists are into chains.

Working...