Anyway...I bought a SSD yesterday & feel that soon the only people who need HDDs will be people with massive media collections (ignoring servers etc). Even things like Steam libraries on SSDs are starting to become feasible.
128GB may seem like enough but I am sure most people will go past that. We'll find something to eat up all that extra space.
Technically even if you only go the SSD route, you are also using an HDD - it is just that the HDD is at Google/Valve/Apple.
Indeed. My current approach is to use hardlinks for Steam (Which is the only thing that is large & needs to ideally be on the SSD). The way I figure it, HDDs suck at small files so those go on the SSD. Media & gigabyte sized Steam files go onto the HDD & get hardlinked into the steam folder.
I wish I knew how Steam treats the gig sized GCF files though. Does it read them primarily sequentially or randomly?
The $50 tier of conventional hard drives does include 500GB models, but that only benefits a different type of customer.
Furthermore if a customer is trying to save $50, and has very light storage needs, there are 60GB SSDs that can be found for $50.
I was talking about the SSD vs HDD decision. Not about people who don't have the money to do either.
People in the market for new PCs would typically start off with a HDD, before shelling out more money for an SSD.
Ah yes of course. I'm prone to seeing tech decisions from a more technical perspective only. I see what you mean though, the less technically sophisticated people probably drive more of the demand based on numbers alone.