You get way more space for the same amount of money. Obviously Nintendo wouldn't be paying retail prices, but I bet their prices are proportional.
You get what you pay for. I would prefer paying more for a superior product, personally. Also, you shouldn't need more than 32 gigs anyway, unless Nintendo starts doing lots of DLC.
Hmm, since the Wii U is gonna have XBOX 360 style games on it, I guess it's possible they will have DLC. Nintendo 1st party titles better not have DLC, or I'm gonna be upset.
Inazuma wrote:You get what you pay for. I would prefer paying more for a superior product, personally. Also, you shouldn't need more than 32 gigs anyway, unless Nintendo starts doing lots of DLC.
But flash memory is not a superior product. It has faster read/write speeds but that comes with a smaller size, higher price, and a much shorter lifetime to it. Many companies state 10,000 cycles before it starts to get flaky. Lord knows when I had to use a jumpdrive every day for work I would burn through one in six months before it started to CRC files.
Inazuma wrote:You get what you pay for. I would prefer paying more for a superior product, personally. Also, you shouldn't need more than 32 gigs anyway, unless Nintendo starts doing lots of DLC.
But flash memory is not a superior product. It has faster read/write speeds but that comes with a smaller size, higher price, and a much shorter lifetime to it. Many companies state 10,000 cycles before it starts to get flaky. Lord knows when I had to use a jumpdrive every day for work I would burn through one in six months before it started to CRC files.
Yep. I've got a few dead USB sticks on my desk, not to mention ones from users. SSDs are designed to rotate through memory to keep read/write cycles to a minimum.
'course, I can build a little mini fort on my desk with failed HDDs...so...neither is perfect.
Inazuma wrote:You get what you pay for. I would prefer paying more for a superior product, personally.
Honestly, that sounds like bull. You can't compare SDDs and HDDs because their completely different products. Different strokes for different, well, applications. So I don't see how you could label either as a "superior product".
Inazuma wrote:You get what you pay for. I would prefer paying more for a superior product, personally.
Honestly, that sounds like bull. You can't compare SDDs and HDDs because their completely different products. Different strokes for different, well, applications. So I don't see how you could label either as a "superior product".
I got a new PC a few months ago and went with an SSD for my OS and programs. I have all my porn on a regular HDD.
It's so fast. I love how fast the PC boots up, shuts down and loads programs. When I first boot up the pc, I start up about 4 or 5 programs at the same time and they all load instantly. Dungeon Fighter Online loads everything very fast too, which is great. Everything just works so well on SSD.
Then when I go to watch a video or something from my HDD, it feels so slow and horrible, not to mention it is very loud compared to the completely silent SSD. I can't wait for SSDs to get higher storage and cheaper prices, so I can stop using HDDs in my computers.
SSDs are a fair comparison to HDDs because they basically fit where a HDD would fit. They're great for some things, terrible for others (like cost/GB).
isiolia wrote:SSDs are a fair comparison to HDDs because they basically fit where a HDD would fit. They're great for some things, terrible for others (like cost/GB).
SD cards, however, are not SSDs.
I figured they used the same technology and would be pretty much the same. I have used SD cards and flash thumb drives and everything seemed to work fine.
