Ron Schenone

Toshiba Introduces Laptop With 512 GB SSD

Posted by on May 14, 2009 | 8 Comments

Toshiba is introducing their newest notebook computer with a whopping 512 GB SSD drive. Toshiba claims that this is the worlds largest SSD to date being offered to the market place. Toshiba is also offering this computer for sale at their online store.

Toshiba issued the following statement about the new system:

Toshiba Corporation (TOKYO: 6502), reinforcing its “dynabook SS RX2 series” of notebook PCs offering light weight, slim lines, and long-lasting battery operation, today announced the introduction of the top-of-the-range “dynabook SS RX2/WAJ,” world’s first(1) PC integrating 512GB SSD (Solid State Drive). The new model is available in two versions from today at Toshiba’s on-line shop for the Japanese market.

The new, Toshiba-developed 512GB SSD employs a 2-bit-per-cell multi-level NAND flash memory to realize, the world’s largest capacity SSD, with four times the density of SSD integrated into currently available products(2). Furthermore, a new controller that realizes high-speed parallel processing with the multi-level NAND flash memory boosts data access speeds by approximately 230%(3) for read (max. 230MB per sec) and 450%(3) for write (max.180MB per sec), compared with SSD integrated into current PCs. It also boosts data access speed by approx. 300%(3) for read and 250%(3) for write, compared to a hard disk drive (HDD)(4). SSDs are free of mechanical structures such as a rotating disc, and ideal for integration into mobile notebook PCs, making them more resistant to vibration and shock.

The dynabook SS RX2 is a mobile notebook PC created to the design concept of “true mobility”. Its light (approx.1,095g), thin (19.5mm to 25.5mm) design integrates capabilities essential for mobile notebook PCs, including long-time battery operation (12 hours)(5) and a ruggedness that sailed through tests(6) by an independent certification organization. Integration of an SSD reinforces the hallmark performance excellence of the RX2, making the notebook perfect for use on the go. The RX2 also achieves an energy-saving design that cuts power consumption by adopting an ultra-low voltage CPU, a transreflective LCD that uses natural sunlight to make screen images more visible even without switching on the backlight, not to mention the power-efficient SSD.

Toshiba will continue to meet users’ needs by developing and commercializing notebook PCs integrating advanced features and functionality.

Now the first thing you want to know is how much? Toshiba lists the system at 423,000 yen which is about $4,400 in US dollars. Pricey unit.

Comments welcome.

Source.

  • tidyj

    Toshiba tend to have pretty good build quality, so it might be worth risking their terrible after sale support to get one of these… if it was a couple of large cheaper

  • http://www.twitter.com/thomasfrank09 Thomas Frank

    I suppose it all comes down to what you’re trying to get out of uploading a video. Personally, I love people who upload photos under a CC license on Flickr – I can use them on my blog. With videos, I’m not so sure.

  • http://www.twitter.com/thomasfrank09 Thomas Frank

    I suppose it all comes down to what you’re trying to get out of uploading a video. Personally, I love people who upload photos under a CC license on Flickr – I can use them on my blog. With videos, I’m not so sure.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/mickeleh Michael Markman (Mickeleh)

    Brandon… how does the revenue flow here? Are you getting a share?

  • http://zagorath.wordpress.com Zagorath

    Woh, woh, woh. Slow down dude. You clearly don’t have a CLUE what Creative Commons is about. This is a great way to help content creators who WANT to allow people to use their content (and potentially gain more exposure because of it), but at the same time want credit for their work. Personally, I would like more control than what YouTube allows, as my license of choice is CC-BY-NC-SA. YouTube (so far) only offers CC-BY. However, I feel that this is a great step on the way to allowing users more control over their own content.

    • Anonymous

      Well put

    • Anonymous

      Well put

  • Anonymous

    I’m a YouTube partner, and I use Creative Commons content in my videos and selectively attach CC licenses to videos on YouTube. So allow me to give my take on this, and where this blog doesn’t quite succeed.

    The first problem is, as Zagorath points out, that the author doesn’t seem to understand what Creative Commons is and how it is used by content creators. This is understandable, by trying to work in harmony with copyright legislation that makes it difficult to share content, CC uses six licenses, and it takes two or three minutes of concentration to get your head around – too long for most people, but recommendable if you are going to post a blog about the subject.

    The purpose of creative commons is twofold – it offers a pool of content for creators to draw on for new creative works, with clear guidelines that make it easy for reusers to adopt without violating the rights of fully protected content (most often, commercial content). The other purpose is that it allows people without access to conventional content distribution networks, such as radio, television, or commercially sponsored web based advertising and featuring, to get their own works seen and enjoyed, either for the reward of having your work seen without return, or in the hope that allowing others to distribute your work for you will raise your own profile. Basically, it is there as a way of authorizing viral distribution of content, for those who wish to go that route.

    Of course CC offers different licenses to prevent modification, or prevent monetized reuse so artists don’t lose out on revenue, but YouTube has chosen, I am guessing primarily for the sake of initial simplicity, to go with the most open license that allows complete freedom to remix and monetize such work. It’s up to users to choose whether they are comfortable opting in. While it is definitely a bad idea for people concerned about how their video is reused, or privacy, or who are making revenue off an existing video, choosing a CC-BY license might not seem like such a good idea. However, for the vast majority of people who don’t make money off YouTube, or partners who have old content no longer gaining views, and who don’t mind seeing what interesting things others can do with their work, they benefit at least from the increased profile they will get from the reuse, which of course has to be with attribution to the creator.

    The second problem, that I find even more baffling, is that the author appears to have an extremely narrow definition of “content” and “creators” that I’m afraid I don’t understand entirely. Even more baffling, the author doesn’t seem to understand YouTube, or the partnership program.

    To put it simply, a small but growing minority of commercial or high profile content creators on YouTube receive personal invitations to join the partnership program where they can receive a cut of the revenue earned from their videos. For the vast, VAST majority of partners, the payments they get would barely fill a tank of gas each month. Of the hundreds of millions of users of YouTube, the number of people earning enough money to scrape a survival off YouTube and nothing else is a countable number. It would be roughly the top half of the globally most subscribed 100 partners.

    These people are clearly content creators of course, but the definition used here seems limited to them, which is not really accurate.

    Although there are content creating media companies like NHK, BBC, Al Jazeera, Wikipedia, that use CC licenses, and commercial artist like 9 Inch Nails who distribute their work with CC licenses, it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who create CC content on the web are amateur, who do not expect to make much money, and enjoy the “social” experience of sharing creativity with others on the web through direct collaboration, or making their work open for others to use and adapt. Even if I wanted to put Brittney Spears music on my videos, I probably couldn’t negotiate licensing rights even if I was willing to pay. But there are plenty of bands just happy to be heard that license their music in a way that allows me to share it for them on my videos – and more people find them as a result. Some don’t like doing that without reward, some don’t mind, and some use creative commons strategically as a way to boost their profile.

    Point is that creative commons allows commercial content creators, and sharing content creators, without remixers having to step on the toes or infringe protected commercial content.

    The suggestion to give up hope of finding social communities on YouTube, the suggestion that CC-BY licensed content that is reused is “pirated”, and suggestion that ordinary people lose money from this – this isn’t just factually incorrect. The tone appears directed to actually discourage ordinary non-commercial digital content creators from using the web – and is borderline trolling. There are plenty of arguments to put for and against using the licenses. People should learn them and understand them before writing something that reads like deliberately misleading propaganda.