3.5" SSD Possible?

[zxcvbnmmssdh]

I don't understand why we don't have a high capacity 3.5" SSD. I mean, Linus' most recent unboxing of the flash drives shows that we can fit so much storage in such a small space. I don't know whether a 3.5' SSD is possible (can someone help me out on this) but we can have larger capacity SSD if you can fit 64 GB on your fingertip.

[Matsy]

• Demand. For the last few years, laptops have been outselling desktops. Want to make a product appeal to the largest possible audience? Make it work with a laptop.
• Compatibility. Since mounting kit adapters exist and are relatively inexpensive, making the drives 2.5" allows for the most users.
• Many new desktop and server case designs have at least 1 native 2.5" drive mount. In some cases it's to allow for SSD usage, in others it's simply a matter of density -- you can fit quite a few more 2.5" drives in the same space as 3.5" drives. You see this more in server cases than desktop cases though.
• Physical Space. Part of the reason that 3.5" hard drives still exist (besides inertia) is that they allow for larger platters, which allow for higher capacity drives. A large enough SSD to require a 3.5" design would be prohibitively expensive.
• Manufacturing. It costs less to build 1 enclosure design than it does 2.

Sure they could do it, but they have little reason to do it.

[cxz]

How would you fit it in a laptop =P

[miyabwah]

I don't understand why we don't have a high capacity 3.5" SSD. I mean, Linus' most recent unboxing of the flash drives shows that we can fit so much storage in such a small space. I don't know whether a 3.5' SSD is possible (can someone help me out on this) but we can have larger capacity SSD if you can fit 64 GB on your fingertip.

No. They're 2.5" because of convience.... It's also useless space. Why would they make a housing full of useless space while the SSD takes up barely 3/4 of it? Completely priceless.

[zxcvbnmmssdh]

No. They're 2.5" because of convience.... It's also useless space. Why would they make a housing full of useless space while the SSD takes up barely 3/4 of it? Completely priceless.

 

 

• Demand. For the last few years, laptops have been outselling desktops. Want to make a product appeal to the largest possible audience? Make it work with a laptop.
• Compatibility. Since mounting kit adapters exist and are relatively inexpensive, making the drives 2.5" allows for the most users.
• Many new desktop and server case designs have at least 1 native 2.5" drive mount. In some cases it's to allow for SSD usage, in others it's simply a matter of density -- you can fit quite a few more 2.5" drives in the same space as 3.5" drives. You see this more in server cases than desktop cases though.
• Physical Space. Part of the reason that 3.5" hard drives still exist (besides inertia) is that they allow for larger platters, which allow for higher capacity drives. A large enough SSD to require a 3.5" design would be prohibitively expensive.
• Manufacturing. It costs less to build 1 enclosure design than it does 2.

Sure they could do it, but they have little reason to do it.

 

I get it is appealing for the larger market, but what about the market on this forum. What about the PC building or high-end PC building companies that can use this. There can just be one company. Correct me if I'm wrong but you could fill the entire 3.5" drive with SSD storage

[Matsy]

I get it is appealing for the larger market, but what about the market on this forum. What about the PC building or high-end PC building companies that can use this. There can just be one company. Correct me if I'm wrong but you could fill the entire 3.5" drive with SSD storage

 

You need to realise the PC building/gaming etc community, isn't that large.

And sure one could, but then they are alienating many many people from using there SSD's, which is just bad business.

[zxcvbnmmssdh]

I shall create this 3.5" SSD 

 

 

I'm kidding, I have no thing building skills besides full computers

[cxz]

I would also assume that an SSD that size would cost an arm and a leg,  I hate paying the prices now lol.

[zxcvbnmmssdh]

No. They're 2.5" because of convience.... It's also useless space. Why would they make a housing full of useless space while the SSD takes up barely 3/4 of it? Completely priceless.

 

I would also assume that an SSD that size would cost an arm and a leg,  I hate paying the prices now lol.

 

You need to realise the PC building/gaming etc community, isn't that large.

And sure one could, but then they are alienating many many people from using there SSD's, which is just bad business.

The Question now is, is if money was not a problem (i.e you had infinite money) would you get 1 (it would be about 2-3 TB

[brob]

I get it is appealing for the larger market, but what about the market on this forum. What about the PC building or high-end PC building companies that can use this. There can just be one company. Correct me if I'm wrong but you could fill the entire 3.5" drive with SSD storage

 

Cost. Multi TB is possible in 2.5". With more than double the space available for chips in 3.5" it's doubtful enough enthusiasts would be willing to shell out the thousands needed to buy one of these drives.

[Alibaladin]

The SSD chips sometimes don't even take up half a 2.5" SSD. So there's no need for 3.5". Unless you're talking about WD Black Dual Drive that is 3.5". 

[wpirobotbuilder]

 

• Demand. For the last few years, laptops have been outselling desktops. Want to make a product appeal to the largest possible audience? Make it work with a laptop.
• Compatibility. Since mounting kit adapters exist and are relatively inexpensive, making the drives 2.5" allows for the most users.
• Many new desktop and server case designs have at least 1 native 2.5" drive mount. In some cases it's to allow for SSD usage, in others it's simply a matter of density -- you can fit quite a few more 2.5" drives in the same space as 3.5" drives. You see this more in server cases than desktop cases though.
• Physical Space. Part of the reason that 3.5" hard drives still exist (besides inertia) is that they allow for larger platters, which allow for higher capacity drives. A large enough SSD to require a 3.5" design would be prohibitively expensive.
• Manufacturing. It costs less to build 1 enclosure design than it does 2.

Sure they could do it, but they have little reason to do it.

 

In addition, in the storage industry, products that require high IOPS have for years been using 2.5" drives to get more IOPS per system, whereas 3.5" systems are for large amounts of storage. Hybrid and all-flash products just substitute 2.5" drives with SSDs in existing 2.5" systems.

 

No need to go inventing 3.5" SSDs there.

[flibberdipper]

Just take a bunch of regular SSDs and glue them together.

[looney]

There is no need for a 3.5" SSD unless you want a 10TB drive which will be way to pricey for consumers so they just use PCI for those or proprietary server interfaces.

2,5 is universal and can easily store enough, but it need to stay affordable.

[LDG]

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-colossus-series-sata-ii-3-5-ssd-eol.html