SSD: For those who agonize over upgrading

[COPOHawk]

Tom's Review:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-hdd-performance,3023.html

Answer: Yes...SSD's are better for an OS drive

 

[Anonemous]

It's the price that people agonize over...

 

[Zap]

It's the price that people agonize over...

Partly that. Also, I've actually encountered people that won't use SSDs because they don't understand them. You know the type... they have their favorite products that they will use until pried from their dead hands, and all other products are "crap."

 

[Remobz]

It's the price that people agonize over...

Price!! Price!! Price!

Well said. I want to take the plunge and would probably buy a 128gb SSD for the operating system.

 

[COPOHawk]

I agree about the price...some people just won't buy until it reaches X GB per $...which is fine. Personally, I am not upgrading my Intel 80GB G2 for a bit yet (almost 2 years old now) because it isn't worth the $$$ right now for me to go to a 256GB SSD....yet....

What I think is funny are those who post threads here every week or two, that just re-hash the topic to death

It isn't a problem for me if someone can't/won't spend money on an SSD for their personal computer...I just like this review because it shows definitively why the SSD is better for performance.

Again, this isn't new info...just nice to find an article/review that specifically addresses this topic.

 

[ViviTheMage]

IMO, DUH is the only thing that comes to mind...SSD is the best bang for the buck to upgrade, unless you're talking about gaming, then a significant GPU bump would be better.

 

[GoStumpy]

I want an SSD so bad, but I can't justify $100+ for one that MAY be big enough

 

[Blitz1776]

Z68 SRT Caching, been working great for the computer I built for my dad (would not trust him to manage a partition well). Has most of the benefit of an ssd while allowing one to run a large platter.

 

[timoseewho]

For me it's definitely the price, I have no doubt in its performance boost over the good old HDD's.

 

[GoStumpy]

When building a machine it's hard to justify since you still have to buy a storage HDD, so essentially that SSD is $60 more than it's price

 

[Emulex]

dunno i scored two kingston V+100 128gb for $80 each - nice 500/500 in raid-0 - great GC on these drives so no trim is okay. the 96gb averages $95 - these v+ series are awesome for single tasking and mac's. they support trim. go deal hunting. all samsung inside. not the best but great quality for the buck!

 

[Remobz]

When building a machine it's hard to justify since you still have to buy a storage HDD, so essentially that SSD is $60 more than it's price

Everyone is different I guess.

I have a 4 year old machine with an old WD 150gb drive. I only have about 42gb of used space after 4 years. I have only 2 games (never save more than 2 at a time on my HDD) saved on my HDD now.

Heck, I don't even have any Full DVD movies or music on my HDD as well.

Hmmmm.....I think a single 160gb SSD would do me fine. I can always add a secondary HDD later on if need be.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Photoshop and Illustrator load in two seconds. BUH-bye.

 

[M0RPH]

For laptop users there's a 2nd reason besides price... space. Unless you can cram 2 drives in your laptop that's a big tradeoff in storage space.

 

[nycromes]

Two reasons I haven't bought an SSD for my machine:
1. Price
2. The technology was changing very rapidly for a while, which looks to finally be slowing down indicating some level of maturity.

That being said, both of my reasons are rapidly disappearing and I think I will be making an addition to my primary rig in the coming months. I think people who are looking at SSDs see their benefits, the cost vs benefit ratio isn't always enough to sway someone over to buying an SSD. We will see, but as prices creep down you should see wider adoption of SSDs.

 

[pcslookout]

I have Left 4 Dead 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 installed of my 128 GB Crucial M4 and it is only using a total of 31.2 GB. The difference is huge being able to switch a server so much quicker. Otherwise no big difference. Still I prefer it like this sense I don't install a lot of games. Even if I did it doesn't mean you couldn't fit 100 games on a smallish SSD. Just depends on what games they are.

 

[Sunburn74]

I want an SSD so bad, but I can't justify $100+ for one that MAY be big enough

So right now 100 can buy you an 80gb first gen intel drive which will last you 10+ years

140 can buy you a sf2200 120gb adata drive

That should be enough. Anyone who tells me that 120gb isn't enough to hold all their games misunderstands the point. SSDs are for what you use, not what you want to keep around. Most non game programs are very small. Games however can be massive but not enough to really cripple a 100+gb drive. The most number of games I can play at once is like 4. Thats like 30gb if they are massive games. You're telling me you play 120gb worth of games all day everyday?

I know SSDs are cheap because I'm considering sticking a 140 dollar SSD in my laptop, my gf's laptop, and replacing both my intel x-25 gms with 2 raid-o 120 gb drives/ 140 dollar drives. I don't make that much money (< 30k a year if you want to know) but its still very very feasible and really the only thing holding me back is that some of the ssds I've been eyeing have some reliability reports that concern me slightly. At the very least, they are going in my laptop because the thing about laptops is you typically are on a schedule when you really need to use them (ie in the airport trying to pull out some ticket info, walking into a conference and need to pull out a report) and knowing you can be bang in and bang out is well worth the cash.

 

[pcslookout]

That has me thinking what kind of hard drives or storing device do tablets use ?

 

[rbk123]

I've actually encountered people that won't use SSDs because they don't understand them. You know the type... they have their favorite products that they will use until pried from their dead hands, and all other products are "crap."

Or the one poster that refused to upgrade until he could upgrade all his storage drives with SSD's as well. It was an all or nothing move for him.

 

[JimKiler]

Or the one poster that refused to upgrade until he could upgrade all his storage drives with SSD's as well. It was an all or nothing move for him.

that is silly. I do not feel like i am waiting for the data on my HDD's.

 

[dpodblood]

Where are people finding 120 GB SSDs for $140? They all seem to be more in the ~$180-$220 range.

 

[Eug]

I updated both my laptops to SSD. The improvement on those was huge, and I don't use a lot of space on them anyway. For my MacBook Pro, it's 128 GB. For my Win 7 laptop, it's 96 GB.

I didn't bother with my iMac because:
1) I'd have to pay an authorized dealer to install it. I can't install it myself in the iMac.
2) I want a 256 GB boot drive.
3) 1+2 = $$$$

 

[pcslookout]

The improvement will always be bigger on laptops sense they have the slowest drives and they have inferior hardware. Not to mention battery life will be better.

 

[tornadog]

I still cant think of the need for an ssd, I am happy with the 7200 rpm TB drives that I can throw in there...

 

[videopho]

The improvement will always be bigger on laptops sense they have the slowest drives and they have inferior hardware. Not to mention battery life will be better.

+1
Desktop is mostly a luxury, not a necessity.
SSD sale never takes off, not until its gb/$ equals the HDD or slightly higher, say in the neighborhood of 10-15&#37;.