TDK joint venture first victim of very competitive SSD market



I just posted the article TDK joint venture first victim of very competitive SSD market.

The Taiwanese website Digitimes reports that SSD joint venture CoreSolid Storage has ceased operations.

Click to read the full article here: [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


[QUOTE=DoMiN8ToR;2667836]I just posted the article [url=]TDK joint venture first victim of very competitive SSD market[/QUOTE]

I don’t know - I think TDK have made a good call on this decision to pull out of the SSD market. Though for the average layman who favours raw capacity over booting times, which when both compared are negligible at best (or at least most people won’t notice the speed difference) SSD still remain far too pricey for people to really buy into it - and their still new technology where we can’t accurately determine it’s useful working life.

That, and why would I want a 120GB SSD, when I can buy a 1TB hard drive for less? And by the time SSD come down to reasonable prices, that 120GB will be virtually outdated anyway…

Right now, SSDs are just too small capacity for how much manufacturers want for it. Though they will become cheaper - I’m non plussed by it. A reliable hard drive goes on and on…


Personally, I’d be afraid to buy a SSD drive, simply because I know that within a certain amount of time, it will start slowing down, as the drive wears out.

IMHO, a better solution would be to defrag the heck out of your hard drive as often as possible. There are some defrag programs that can be added to the Task Scheduler, and be set to run when the computer is inactive. For example, you could program a defragger to run at midnight, or better yet, as soon as your computer has been idle for a certain number of minuets.


boot time with ssd - 8 seconds.
boot time with 10k rpm hdd - 30 seconds.

Imho, current best solution for desktop machine is 128GB SSD as boot, with separate storage drive.

current best solution for laptop is, either 240GB SSD, or Hybrid HDD, or HDD with SSD cache.


[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2668157]Personally, I’d be afraid to buy a SSD drive, simply because I know that within a certain amount of time, it will start slowing down, as the drive wears out…[/QUOTE]

Well if you’re afraid of that, then you don’t know much about tech I’m afraid. It’s not going to slow down after time because it’s wearing out. I’ve had and worked with SSD’s for a few years and none have done what you say. There are some SSD models that have had as high as 10% failure rates but most modern SSD’s are just as reliable as mechanical drives. You still backup no matter which format you use.
By the way, defragging the shit out of your mechanical drive will wear it out. A mechanical drive needs defragging about once a month.
As Debro says, use an SSD for the OS and programs and a mechanical drive for other storage and all is sweet.


Personally on my own system I have 2tb of internal storage (2 - 750gb and a 500gb HDD) and another 2tb of external storage (2tb via eSATA)

My system drive is a 120gb Kingston that I paid $59(shipped) for.
The day that I bought it was actually cheaper than a hard drive
the same size and in point of fact than any HDD sold on Newegg
that day.

IF I get as long as two years out of it I’ll be happy with it, but I fully intend to replace it with a 256gb as soon as I can get one for what I am willing to pay for it.
In short that equals a 256gb Vertex4 or similar for <$120, I figuire that’ll
happen in 2-3 months.

Longevity and performance of an SSD is pretty much related to the USED space relative to the TOTAL space.
if you are running an older Motherboard that only supports SATA-3.0 you should still buy a SATA-6.0 drive, even though you will not get full performance out of it you might when you upgrade to a newer computer that does support SATA-6.0

On a SATA-3.0 controller the additional performance offered by a larger
SSD likely isn’t noticeable.

Plus there is always the temptation with a larger SSD (a 512gb)
to use it for storage, which IMO is a mistake.

a 240gb or 256gb is what I currently consider “ideal” for a windows7 operating system running on a SATA 3.0 controller.

NOTE: I bought a 120gb because it was CHEAP and I considered any SSD smaller
than 120gb to be not worth owning let alone buying.

In my case it cut my boot time by 75% (I recently discovered an intermittent SATA cable to one of my HDD’s that was slowing drive recognition time) and cut the time for my older stand alone e-mail program to load (it is installed on a 2gb partition on the SSD) by 90%

I’m sure if anyone disagrees with what I’ve just said here they will
say so, and I’d like to see if there are any flaws in my logic and
understanding of the various factors for choosing the "right"
SSD for “the average user”.