Kingston 256GB Thumb Drive

**Funkin'** · 07-21-2009, 03:52 AM

$900 is just stupid.

**ulun64** · 07-21-2009, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Zip

I wouldn't trust that thing. 256gb on a stick can't be reliable.

If it's not reliable, Kingston won't sell it at all. They have a reputation to keep.

$900 for it...that's way too expensive.

**1000possibleclaws** · 07-21-2009, 04:31 AM

In a few years when these come down in price I'd love one. Would be real useful with laptops. Would not have to keep any media directly in the onboard memory.

**manu1991** · 07-21-2009, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by megabyteme

From what I understand, memory like this fails after data has been saved and deleted hundreds (or thousands) of times. Seems that a large capacity would last longer, because data could be stored on the drive instead of needing to be deleted and re-written due to lack of capacity.

Another limitation is that flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage

Practically it not much of an issue

**Stranger99** · 07-21-2009, 09:04 AM

Jesus 900$=Quad Core 8GB Ram PC

**megabyteme** · 07-21-2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by manu1991

Another limitation is that flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles. Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles, before the wear begins to deteriorate the integrity of the storage

Practically it not much of an issue

Thanks for the details, manu1991. Was going off of my own memory which has gone through way too many write-erase-write cycles.

It has been a potential issue for some of the Solid State drives used as HDD replacements. I imagine anything with this capacity would be used as a portable version, or could even contain a live version of an operating system and all data.

I agree with everyone else that there is no reason why it would be less reliable than any other drive of this type. My thought was potentially more reliable because of the fewer necessary over-writes.

**mbucari1** · 07-21-2009, 01:32 PM

At the rate I lose flash drives, anything over 4GB is a waste of money.

**manu1991** · 07-21-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Originally Posted by manu1991

Practically it not much of an issue

Thanks for the details, manu1991. Was going off of my own memory which has gone through way too many write-erase-write cycles.

It has been a potential issue for some of the Solid State drives used as HDD replacements. I imagine anything with this capacity would be used as a portable version, or could even contain a live version of an operating system and all data.

I agree with everyone else that there is no reason why it would be less reliable than any other drive of this type. My thought was potentially more reliable because of the fewer necessary over-writes.

No problem mate , the only problem i see with such a drive is that its USB 2.0 based which is very slow , they shouldve built in e-SATA or waited for USB 3.0