"100,000 times faster than today's" ... hard drives.
Not RAM. Or Flash.<p>Plus, I'm very skeptical of claims that contain weasel-words like "may" and "could" and "possibly".
Did it strike anyone else as intellectually dishonest (or really sloppy?) that that entire article seemed to come from a parallel reality where SSDs don't exist?<p>I get that this would be an improvement over current SSDs. But to not even mention them while at the same time saying thigns like:<p>"In a first step, one could envisage attacking the Flash market and replacing the USB sticks with something much faster..."<p>"One could imagine the technology being useful for both small mobile devices (such as smartphones) and large systems (such as servers)."<p>Yes! If only there were some sort of non-volatile, low power, shock resistant, storage technology which were orders of magnitude faster than rotating hard disks! We could call it some sort of Solid State Drive, and it would totally change the storage market!
The article did not make this clear, but this is non-volatile memory (according to Wikipedia). Anyone know this compares to memristors? Or is that apples and oranges?
You have to wonder about someone working on "memory of the future" who makes analogies like this:<p><i>" "It’s like reading an entire VHS cassette in less than a second."</i><p>I don't know about the rest of you but I think we're close to done using magnets to store data...
This reminds me a little of reel-to-reel tape storage. It seems to me that the throughput could be enormous but the seek time would vary according to how physically long the race track was, so if you double the capacity you double the seek time. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?