How spoiled are people with SSD's?

[alaricljs]

Faster anti-virus scanning ? That's worth how much ? $0.

It's not just faster anti-virus, it's faster and almost no impact to what you're already doing. My corporate AV used to be scheduled for noon since they figured everyone would go to lunch at that time (not me!). I was killing it within 5 seconds because it brought my ability to work to a halt. With an SSD it goes by unnoticed.

 

[Bauss]

I'm an SSD nay-sayer. More so in laptops than desktops.

Not because I doubt the speed is "noticeable". But because with some exceptions like the video files example, it isn't significant.

Sleep mode is faster boot than an SSD, and costs nothing.
Faster anti-virus scanning ? That's worth how much ? $0.

Anyway the bottom line is-
1. They cost too much for what they deliver.
2. They aren't proven to be reliable enough as primary storage. Which means they require the use of hard drives anyway, so at best they are redundant.
3. For a laptop they require compromises in storage space/ or optical drive functionality.

For some purposes I can see SSDs make sense, for a boot drive in a desktop, or for a special purpose notebook.

I just don't agree with them being universally recommended.

Not suitable in a notebook? Madness!

One of the best advantages to owning an SSD in a notebook is their incredibly low idle power consumption.

What's more important is that that they're invulnerable to shock. If you've ever travelled with a laptop for work on a daily basis, you'd know that shock is a big factor when it comes to the endurance of laptop drives. Having a drive built of no moving parts completely eliminates that issue.

I don't usually say this, but you really couldn't be more wrong. Having an SSD in a laptop is probably the best thing you can EVER do for it--and for reasons completely unrelated to performance.

With regards to your other points:

1) Nobody is recommending them to absolutely everyone. But if you have the money, more often than not, you likely won't see a better bang for your buck.

2) Really? Failure is not an SSD exclusive issue. Have you ever had a drive fail? Have you ever lost work-critical info due to data loss? I know a few people that have, myself included. NOTHING is reliable enough for primary storage. That's why it's sensible to back things up regardless of your primary storage format.

3) Not a universal truth. I do more with my laptop than most, and I require only 180 of my 250GB Intel 510. Of course I have external storage, but that was the case with my larger HDDs too. I just don't like carrying EVERYTHING with me. I'll chalk this one up as an inaccurate assumption.

As for copying of video files, have you ever tried doing something on your computer when you HDD is being fully utilized in a copy operation? It's pretty painful--Even for the best HDDs, as they're only capable of so much multitasking. They essentially need to stop copying data to fetch what you need. This slows down both operations and can really slow down your computing experience regardless of your computer specs.

However, SSDs simply don't have that limitation. With 20-100 times the IO capability of a hard drive so the not only do they copy much faster, but their absence of any seek time allows all that to happen without really reducing latency.

Anyone who doesn't believe in an SSD's ability to transform your computing experience either doesn't do that much storage bottlenecked stuff, or simply doesn't understand how SSDs can benefit them.

 

[Edrick]

It is funny actually. All these people speaking out agaisnt SSDs. Most never even had one. But the arguement always comes down to price.

I want to know who, given the choice, would choose a HD over a SDD if price were not a factor. (Assuming the same size)

 

[Tom]

Not suitable in a notebook? Madness!

One of the best advantages to owning an SSD in a notebook is their incredibly low idle power consumption.

What's more important is that that they're invulnerable to shock. If you've ever travelled with a laptop for work on a daily basis, you'd know that shock is a big factor when it comes to the endurance of laptop drives. Having a drive built of no moving parts completely eliminates that issue.

I'd like to see some real world evidence to back up that first statement. Like how much longer a notebook will run with an SSD versus a hard drive in normal useage ? I have my doubts it's any different at all, but maybe I'm wrong ?

The shock thing. In my personal experience I've never seen or heard of a failed hard drive from shock. I have seen broken screens and dislodged memory. In those cases, the hard drives were fine even though there had been plenty of shock.

 

[alaricljs]

Having been responsible for ~35 laptops in business for a 4 year stretch I can vouch that the added stresses *over time* kill laptop drives at a higher rate. Being that it was a small business and we all got to know each other rather well I could figure out which laptops would need new drives based on whose most recently failed.

Some of the drives suffered stupidity failure: leave the laptop in the car overnight in freezing weather, then bring it into the nice humid lab and start it right up... insta-crash. Didn't take too long for people to realize they shouldn't repeat the mistake.

Others failed simply because the user treated the laptop just like their paper notebook. Toss it on the desk like it's a brick that can take it. Throw the laptop bag through the open car window into the seat. Although that's a lot more cushioned this way, wait til they miss the seat, or the window, or they don't notice the window isn't open far enough if at all.

 

[nanaki333]

The shock thing. In my personal experience I've never seen or heard of a failed hard drive from shock. I have seen broken screens and dislodged memory. In those cases, the hard drives were fine even though there had been plenty of shock.

i think it's more of when people have laptops powered on and drop their laptops while the HDD is still spinning that have that problem.

 

[Tom]

It is funny actually. All these people speaking out agaisnt SSDs. Most never even had one. But the arguement always comes down to price.

I want to know who, given the choice, would choose a HD over a SDD if price were not a factor. (Assuming the same size)

What if HDs were faster than SSDs ?

You take away 2 significant drawbacks of SSDs, price and size, and of course it will change minds.

But, that isn't reality, yet.

 

[techs]

The issue of price is interesting.
I remember when an 8 Gb. hard drive was well over a hundred dollars and a new computer was 1200-2000 dollars. And that was in like 1999 dollars.

When you consider that a relatively small SSD used as a boot drive adds anywhere from 120 to 200 dollars to the cost of computer that now costs only about 500 dollars its pretty laughable to get crazy about the cost of the SSD.

 

[Bauss]

I'd like to see some real world evidence to back up that first statement. Like how much longer a notebook will run with an SSD versus a hard drive in normal useage ? I have my doubts it's any different at all, but maybe I'm wrong ?

The shock thing. In my personal experience I've never seen or heard of a failed hard drive from shock. I have seen broken screens and dislodged memory. In those cases, the hard drives were fine even though there had been plenty of shock.

Here's the latest SSDs:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20653/9

And the latest notebook and desktop drives:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20255/9

As you'll find, idle and load consumption is generally lower on an SSD than a notebook drive. There are exceptions, but generally, trend favors SSDs.

You never hear of shock/vibration damage, but it does lead to higher instances of drive corruption and failure among drives. SSDs are not vulnerable to this. It's one of those over time killers of drives. Just ask the 2 HDDs my MBP had before I moved to SSDs.

The only thing keeping SSDs out of everyone's PCs is price. It's now the only advantage that these drives have anymore. If you can get past that you'll find the same thing every SSD owner finds about their purchase: there's no going back.

 

[Edrick]

What if HDs were faster than SSDs ?

You take away 2 significant drawbacks of SSDs, price and size, and of course it will change minds.

It is fine if people say they simply can not afford an SSD as a reason not to have one. Nothing wrong with that. And I agree they are not as cheap as they will be in the years to come. But some people make up other excuses (to cover up the fact they do not want to spend the money), which is what drives me crazy. When the bottom line is SSDs are faster in almost all real world situations. You just have to pay for that performance.

 

[Tom]

It is fine if people say they simply can not afford an SSD as a reason not to have one. Nothing wrong with that. And I agree they are not as cheap as they will be in the years to come. But some people make up other excuses (to cover up the fact they do not want to spend the money), which is what drives me crazy. When the bottom line is SSDs are faster in almost all real world situations. You just have to pay for that performance.

it isn't just price. it's price for what good it is.
it's also capacity and unproven reliability.

Are you all gonna rush out and drop an extra $100 for a coffee pot that makes coffee 30 seconds faster, but makes one cup at a time ?

 

[jimhsu]

it isn't just price. it's price for what good it is.
it's also capacity and unproven reliability.

Are you all gonna rush out and drop an extra $100 for a coffee pot that makes coffee 30 seconds faster, but makes one cup at a time ?

People do that in fact, hence why you have automatic espresso machines that cost upwards of two thousand dollars. I.e. http://capresso.com/automatic-coffee-centers.shtml

Not saying it's a good investment, but just saying.

 

[Weenoman]

it isn't just price. it's price for what good it is.
it's also capacity and unproven reliability.

Are you all gonna rush out and drop an extra $100 for a coffee pot that makes coffee 30 seconds faster, but makes one cup at a time ?

Nice, when I don't have a leg to stand on I usually fall-back to strawmans myself. It's a good way to get someone to insult you so you can storm out of an argument before you get completely cornered.

OT: Yes people are spoiled with SSD's, and with no moving parts, reliability is already good, and only going to get better as time goes on.

 

[alaricljs]

When something is new reliability is always a concern. In my experience: 4GB Seagate drives (when that was the largest drive in existence and they were 3.5" full height), IBM's pixie dust, Intel's first consumer SSD firmware, DLP and their color wheels...

The list continues and so does the improvements made to all those technologies. Early adopters must deal with the increased cost and uncertainty of having the latest thing. For once (in a long time) the early adopters are so enthused that they want everyone to experience what they feel is such a great thing.

You'll have to accept it or quietly walk away. I don't see anyone arguing with those street evangelists, this is no different.

 

[Tom]

Here's the latest SSDs:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20653/9

And the latest notebook and desktop drives:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20255/9

As you'll find, idle and load consumption is generally lower on an SSD than a notebook drive. There are exceptions, but generally, trend favors SSDs.

So how many extra hours will a notebook with an SSD run ?

 

[Tom]

Nice, when I don't have a leg to stand on I usually fall-back to strawmans myself. It's a good way to get someone to insult you so you can storm out of an argument before you get completely cornered.

OT: Yes people are spoiled with SSD's, and with no moving parts, reliability is already good, and only going to get better as time goes on.

Not a strawman, an analogy. Don't SSD ers get annoyed waiting for coffee to brew ?

What do you mean I don't have a leg to stand on ?

SSDs cost the same as hard drives?

There are 1 tb SSDs ?

My point about reliability is, it hasn't been around long enough to be as proven as hard drives. I agree it may get there, even probably will prove to be better, as you say.

 

[Edrick]

it isn't just price. it's price for what good it is.
it's also capacity and unproven reliability.

Price = capacity. You can get large SSDs if you spend the $$. And you can Raid a few together as well. So it all comes back to price.

As for reliability, that arguement is becoming less and less valid in 2011 as opposed to a few years ago. For every review you can show me about someone's SSD dying, I can show you a review about someone's HD dying. Especially the WD Raptors which can cost as much as an SSD.

So again, as per my original point, price is the only arguement people can make about SSDs (for now).

 

[Edrick]

What do you mean I don't have a leg to stand on ?

SSDs cost the same as hard drives?

There are 1 tb SSDs ?

'High Performance HDs' can come very close to SSD in cost, but still not surpass them in speed.

And yes there are 1TB SSDs. They are just rather expensive.

 

[Pohemi]

When I purchased my 120GB Vertex 2 SSD it was for my HP DV7 laptop. With the 500GB 7200rpm HDD, the 9 cell battery lasted about 6.5-7hrs...with the Vertex 2 installed and all the same programs running, it lasted close to 9hrs. A noticeable difference, but not the most important to me. My laptop was essentially a DTR for a while.

Now that I've built a new tower and reinstalled the SSD as my system drive once again, boot times are insanely fast (maybe 12 sec from post screen initializing to a useable desktop). Also a treat is how fast intensive programs load up.

Was totally worth the money spent...more noticeable difference overall than any other upgrade I've ever installed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Are you all gonna rush out and drop an extra $100 for a coffee pot that makes coffee 30 seconds faster, but makes one cup at a time ?

Actually it is more like $130, but if I tried to make my wife go back to the old coffee pot after being spoiled with a Tassimo she would kill me:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...82579AAH5N3Q19

I get your point though- size and maturity of the technology needs to be taken into consideration. I don't think that is the complaint though.

The complaint is that there are many people, without SSDs, who argue that one isn't needed because a HD is "just as fast" or "as fast as anyone could need." These people are trying to delude themselves into thinking that their limited budget gives them some sort of superior insight to those of us who have SSDs, experienced how they are easily the biggest computer upgrade in a generation (since the move to dual core), and refuse to go back.

 

[Weenoman]

Not a strawman, an analogy.

No, it's a strawman.

 

[sandorski]

Still waiting on Price drops. I'm sure that once I make the move I'll be impressed, but like anything Ignorance is bliss and I choose to remain blissful until such a time it becomes more Cost worthy.

 

[ochadd]

Don't need faster/bigger/better motorcycles, processors, video cards, speakers, televisions, etc. Try going backwards. Can always do without but don't want to.

 

[Drsignguy]

When the 7200Rpm Hdd was introduced to be implemented into our desktops from the 5400Rpm drives there were some that thought they were the greatest thing. Some thought that the price for speed difference wasn't justified. Then the rapture drives came into play and the were 10,000Rpm, and wow what great speed over the 7200Rpm(er) and the price for GB wasn't justified for that either. Now that SSDs are here, we are going through the same thing. It is the way of the future and there isn't any turning back. Someday, all you SSD non believers will eventually jump on the "Bandwagon" and then will tell your stories of how much a performance upgrade you have just made and why didn't you do this earlier. All boils down to price. Yup, they are expensive, for now. And as for reliability, well I think if you use your SSD like it is intended for, it will be.

 

[Bauss]

So how many extra hours will a notebook with an SSD run ?

Less power consumed will equal more battery life, so, more. Your original point was that SSDs make no sense in laptops. I was just pointing out that not only do they make sense in laptops, but laptops are where they make the most sense.

Anyways, to keep attacking SSDs viability on the grounds of cost will net you zero good discussion, because nobody is debating that SSDs are an expensive and premium upgrade. That said, there's no other way to justify not having one, and there's no point in trying to invent one. Not performance, not reliability, not even capacity, for most. Cost is the only thing keeping people away.

To the OP, yes. We are spoiled by SSDs. SSDs represent the first time since mass storage was introduced on the PC that one's productivity in virtually all tasks can actually be limited by factors other than a component in one's computer. So, if you have the cash, get one.