I think my post came across different than I intended. I was actually not trying to criticize you. Instead, I was making a more general comment directed at Samsung. Thank you, though, for a follow-up explanation of your perspective!

Sure. But I didn’t write the Samsung statement (as in original author), nor am I defending it.

I appreciate your response. But I fail to see where software is an issue. A TCG/Opal-compliant drive should encrypt and de-encrypt data completely independent of the motherboard, the operating system, and any installed software. Maybe Samsung should pick up the phone and call Seagate. Seagate offers mechanical SEDs that are TCG/Opal-compliant. Seagate obviously gets their SEDs to work without software. I don’t think Samsung is being completely straight or honest with their answer.

Seriously! They have repeatedly stated that capability and now they just back down. The drive was not cheap!

I am also dissapointed by this. Today, I checked again and I found this following statement in the revised 1.2 june 2016 data sheet at https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/downloads/document/Samsung_SSD_950_PRO_Data_Sheet_Rev_1_2.pdf:
†† The plan to provide a firmware update to enable TCG/OPAL and IEEE1667 has been put on hold due to the currently very
restricted availability of commercial security software.

It still mentions that it offers AES 256-bit for User Data Encryption, but the way I understand is that TCG’s OPAL is the specification that Windows Bitlocker and Samsung use for Self Encrypting Drives / Hardware encryption, see for example https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/commonly-asked-questions-answers-self-encrypting-drives/.

So we don’t actually have or will get this “AES 256-bit for User Data Encryption”. I am not going to switch to the Class 0 BIOS alternative as I understand that’s too easy to bypass. So unluckily I will also have to stick to software encryption and using Windows Bitlocker (although VeraCrypt would also be a nice software encryption alternative). It sucks as it was indeed the main reason for getting the 950 Pro as there are other similarly fast drives such as the Samsung SM951.

Generally I hope that manufacturers get this thing straight and also properly documented (which is not the case right now). Purchased 4 Samsung in a row in the last few years but will definitely be hesitant to purchase a Samsung again with their promised features.