hard drives store bits magnetically , ssd's store bits electrically. You could call both solid state if the SSD wasn't specifically named due to its close relation to dram and cache lines that need active power. I would also consider hard drives more solid than ssd's if you tested for how long each could resist entrophy if there was no source of low entrophy.
Ahh so the data on this cooler can be read without moving parts, interesting.
OP was talking about the definition of solid state in a broader sense. In that broader definition (useful outside of computer hardware) "solid state" could refer to the parts that don't require constant power to maintain state.
OP was demonstrating how the term could be reasonably used to mean different things in different ways meaning that "solid state" is not a very useful term in it's own, it needs context to be meaningful.
there is already a perfect term for that:
nonvolatile
non·vol·a·tile [nänˈvälədl] ADJECTIVE not volatile.
computing (of a computer's memory) retaining data even if there is a break in the power supply
I never said data, I said state. If you're getting hung up where I said “written” just think “changed” instead.
> In that broader definition (useful outside of computer hardware) "solid state" could refer to the parts that don't require constant power to maintain state.
This particular “broader definition” is not used in any domain, nor is it at all useful.
Nor was OP talking about any domain outside of computer hardware. They were talking specifically about hard drives and SSDs.
> OP was demonstrating how the term could be reasonably used to mean different things in different ways meaning that "solid state" is not a very useful term in it's own, it needs context to be meaningful.
They were demonstrating that if you make up definitions arbitrarily then nothing means anything. Regardless, “solid state” is a well-understood term with a specific widely understood meaning in the domain we’re all obviously discussing.
That's so wrong it's hilarious.
For a write-intensive workload, SSDs certainly die much faster than HDDs.
Otherwise, HDDs die faster, but modern SSDs die much faster than flash memories made with old technologies, which can have a lifetime of 10 to 20 years, while few SSDs can be expected to have a lifetime much longer than 5 years.
Some of my hard drives that failed when that way, sudden unexpected disappearance from the bus, but most of them provided signs of upcoming disaster, which could likely have been averted if the signs were considered in a timely way.
The failure rate of the SSDs was much lower than the HDDs, but the means of failure was more troublesome.
I do have an Inland 1TB with garbage performance that I can't figure out why, but it was super cheap, so at least I didn't pay much for it.
Most of the time the SSD just completely stops, never to communicate with anything ever again. :(
"Read only" mode would be a welcome improvement. :)