But again, your benchmark results confirm what I had found on the RunCore Pro IV SSDs (they are specified as a 125 MB/s Read, 90 MB/s Write and the 64GB costs 247 U$D which is a lot more expensive than other competitors .

Instead, I upgraded my eeePC with a Sabertooth 64GB SSD (155/100 MB R/W specified speeds) for 165 EUR which is a lot less expensive, and I got 122 MB/s R, 71 MB/s W speeds ; you’ll find all the details on http://www.fecj.org/extra/eeePC_901_single_16GB_SSD_upgrading_64GB.htm

HTH

Instead, I upgraded my eeePC with a Sabertooth 64GB SSD for 165 EUR and I got 122 MB/s R, 71 MB/s W speeds ; you’ll find all the details on http://www.fecj.org/extra/eeePC_901_single_16GB_SSD_upgrading_64GB.htm

HTH

I’m glad you like my solution and the way I present it. I don’t know if anyone who finds this page actually reveals the first hint and then goes back to figure it out, but I think it is better to give people the choice.

I don’t know if I would have come up with a complete solution on my own, but I enjoyed the puzzle a lot anyway and I think even if one knows the solution there is still a lot of fun in store. For example, one could code a more elegant solver, as my approach is rather brute force, or dive into the mathematical background of the puzzle.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to comment!

I came across your “36 Cube” solution page and enjoyed it a great deal. I don’t know whether my name is familiar, but it might be if you read the very fine print on either the puzzle packaging or the rules pamphlet, where I’m cited as the inventor of the puzzle.

Truth be told, I once rued the very concept of solution pages such as yours, but I liked the way you handled the process and slowly unwrapped the solution. I couldn’t have asked for more, and I certainly hope that you enjoyed the puzzle.

Although the puzzle has been out for a year-plus now, I have yet to see the solution process described as I originally described it to ThinkFun. Specifically, I was envisioning that people would get to 34, either repeatedly on their own or perhaps with computer assistance. (Yes, I took some pleasure in the fact that the puzzle couldn’t be solved by computer alone.) There are many different ways to achieve 34 correct towers, and the common denominator is that they all have an intractable set of four towers that are just plain wrong — two colors and two heights, but no way to make them flat. Of course, that’s the situation in a 2×2 version of this puzzle, and in fact the 2×2 and 6×6 sizes are the only cases where no “Euler square” exists. But once you reduce to the 2×2 case you can see that you can make the towers flat with a little hijinx. That’s precisely what I did in designing my original prototype, and I thought that maybe the characterization of the “34s” would be a common route to success, but thus far I haven’t heard it mentioned.

Anyway, congrats and thanks again for the write-up.

Derrick