You're used to 2 categories and this is not either. You are trying to judge cars by the criteria of bicycles and aeroplanes, because you've never seen a car before and you're not used to thinking about cars. They are better for totally different things than aeroplanes. To say that cars are bad bikes, or bad aeroplanes, means that you have failed to understand that cars are not either.Ĭars are better for some things than bicycles.
These are different vehicles with different characteristics for different types of transport. It's like criticising cars because they are not good bicycles and they are not good aeroplanes. It is traditional in IT to make comparisons with automobiles. Thus it is a fallacy to compare the price, or performance, or price:performance of a new tech that eliminates the primary/secondary split with either primary or secondary storage. Optane is not even neither type: it's both. As a result they can only think in terms of two different types. It's not Flash: Flash is not word-writable and thus cannot be primary storage.īecause of decades of technical debt in C21 IT people do not know this vital primary/secondary distinction well. It is not secondary storage, that is, storage requiring any kind of block-based controller handling. But it can be used as primary storage, that is, appearing in the CPU memory map. It's not RAM: RAM is volatile, Optane is nonvolatile. It is not in the same product category as either DRAM or Flash. I think that's a conflation of multiple category errors. Yours seems to be that the kit wasn't competitive.
TYPO NOTEBOOKS FULL
My argument is that it flopped because of the monoculture of C21 OS design that means we lack OSes that can take full advantage of persistent-memory computers. I have to ask: did you read the article? All of it?īecause what you're offering as a comment is sort of a backwards version of the argument I'm making in the article. The market is so small that despite Intel was giving away its optane product and selling it at zero margin they still couldn't fill the minimum orders commitment to Micron and had to paid its penalty. Both of these doesn't fit into Optane Roadmap. The future of memory is either extremely low power on Mobile SoC or Ultra High Bandwidth in the server with 128 Cores. Imagine when DRAM and NAND are back to normal. Micron wasn't even the cheer leader, they were only happy to play along with Intel because Intel made the commitment to buy enough capacity for Micron to sustain the business.Īnd Optane could barely compete when DRAM and NAND price were at its peak, making zero profits on most of its revenue. There were roadmaps for power, reliability, performance and density improvement, literally everything except cost. Optane had its shining moment when DRAM and NAND ( both are commodities like ) skyrocketed 3x the price, at one point making Samsung the most profitable company even surpassing Apple. Neither Intel or Micron could make it cost competitive. That is just not true, in any shape or form.
0 kommentar(er)
