This is somethin thats been annoying me for some while now. I recently tested a program called Virtual RAM Disk, this creates a new hard drive partition in windows but uses your RAM for storage space instead. After doing a few tests with this setup i noticed that using RAM as a hard drive is much faster with little to no loading times. So why hasnt a company invented a technology that uses RAM as a hard drive? I am very aware of the gigabyte I-RAM but this only uses the 150mb/s SATA interface. Why doesnt a company just make an interface that can run at the full speed of RAM but use the interface as a bootable storage interface? Even the cheapest DDR200 would but a whole lot faster than a hard drive. In theory, a company like intel could easily make a new solid state drive interface that uses solid state storage devices to their full potential. Someone please tell me why we are still using hard drives as a primary storage device when we could be using insanely fast SSD's
Because, it's expensive. The RAM you put in memory banks also requires juice to retain it's contents. 2GB of DDR2 is around $50-75. A hard drive in that price range holds 160, even up to 250GB. However, SSD hard drives are starting to come out now. Unfortunately, they're still on the expensive side (like around $400 for a 32GB SSD), so they are cost prohibitive for many. You can get a traditional 1TB hard drive for less than a 64GB SSD drive. Sure, the SSD drive is faster, but it's too costly for most people. Yes, we do have the technology, but the big issue currently is pricing. It will come down and the capacities will go up.
DDR2 wouldnt be required, the slowest DDR would increase speed alot. Understandibly it would still cost more than a hard drive, but you wouldnt use this technology for storing files, just for programs and files that need to be accessed quickly. If someone was to bring out a technology that offers near instant loading, big companies would invest in it to speed up their productivity. I would happily buy a 64GB SSD instead of a 1TB HDD if it offered loading times similar to RAM. Well, i would buy a HDD for storage and an SSD for windows and programs that take long to load
But DDR2 is currently the most economical. DDR1 prices are higher because of less demand. It's not to say using one as more of a cache function isn't impossible, as something like the Gigabyte iRAM exists. Secondly, not everyone is looking to drop that kind of cash on a drive. You would, but that doesn't speak for everyone. Some businesses may, but not all. Not all companies need a computer with a super speedy drive as they're just for basic functions. Not all companies need a hard drive like that, and don't need to spend $800 on a hard drive.
Im not saying use actual RAM modules, i mean if a company like intel makes a new interface for RAM SSDs and builds it into new chipsets, they would eventually own the market. intel could easily make a new interface standard for SSDs just like they made PCI. wot im sayin is they will make a dual processor board that only holds a CPU that costs like $1800 each and 4 GPUs (skulltrail) but they wont make an interface that will eliminiate the slow HDD problem of all future computers. For the world of technology to move to a next level, this has to be done Agreed, not everyone will be willing to pay a little more money for a 64GB SSD when they could get a 1TB HDD. But i see 15K RPM SCSI drives more expensive than SSDs
