[Freakazoid]

i.e. solid state drives...
anyone?

[GreenPlease]

Got a couple of them. Makes a huge difference. Go corsair or intel IMO.

[335e92tx]

Naw, I don't have the heart (to hammer you with lmgtfy.com)
try newegg.com friend.

[abisson]

What do you mean lolll They still exists and better than ever?

[Freakazoid]

sorry... those responses were deserved...lol
by saying what happened to them, I mean what happened to them being in retail computers?

I don't think there's a single 'retail' brand that even has OPTIONS for SSD anymore... a few years ago, they were in everything.

THAT is what I meant by what happened... they were revolutionary and awesome for like a year... but then nobody uses them? Don't even hear much about 'em

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by GreenPlease

Got a couple of them. Makes a huge difference. Go corsair or intel IMO.

So you'd actually recommend it? This is why I posted this as welll... I was curious because I hadn't heard anything further.... wiki essentially claims they're shit haha.

[335e92tx]

a lot was done to improve win7 startup times. Kind of reduced the need for OEMs

[lib]

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

So you'd actually recommend it? This is why I posted this as welll... I was curious because I hadn't heard anything further.... wiki essentially claims they're shit haha.

I would. I threw one in a laptop (Thinkpad W500) and it was a massive improvement.

[335iheLLraiseR]

not much is going to happen on the consumers or oem side till the prices come down. Apple has an option for SSDs though.

[Verbiage]

They cost more?

[abisson]

They are a LOT more expensive for the capacity. Therefore a low brand like HP or Compaq and so on, won't throw a 64 Gb SSD in their average consumer desktop or laptop since they know the people will be turned off.

On the other hand, if you go with high-end models in the companies (I am not saying they are not rip off ) like dell XPS, Alienware, Apple... they all have options for it. I just checked.

[kyleb350]

I like the access speeds, but when I'm pricing out a computer with one, it's like twice the price for half the capacity.

[BMW F22]

As far as I know, Sony still has options for solid state drives in their laptops. I don't know about the other models but their Z series comes standard with SSD.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by kyleb350

I like the access speeds, but when I'm pricing out a computer with one, it's like twice the price for half the capacity.

I'm biased because I like Sony Vaio but I think for mobility, performance, weight, and looks, it's pretty nice. It's pretty expensive but you're always paying a premium for sony (kinda like buying a bmw). If you look at all the features it's actually not that bad.

[Freakazoid]

interesting... so they're still supposed to be decent? good to hear... I don't need the ridiculous space... that's what I have a NAS device for. I'd take paying a few more bucks for a faster hard drive

[escobar929]

they are great, they will reduce boot time drastically

you just dont see them as much because of how expensive they still are

[f=ma]

i can boot up in 12 seconds.

[Maestro]

SSD are still expense, and the only way to make the cheap is to use MLC flash technology, but as this gets cheaper they become less reliable. As an example the best flash which is SLC you can write and erase data to each cell 100K times before the cell wears out, on the current MLC it is 3K going to 1.5K in the next generation. This works well in an MP3 player since you usually write once and read many times.

Well in modern PC which are always writing and erasing data you could find that your data is getting corrupted as the device wears out and you get no warning about this either it just happen. Hell some SSD manufacturers turn the SSD in to ROM when it hits a certain wear-out point, which is okay since you did not loose anything but your PC will fail to run since the when booting does try to write to the drive and if can not it fails.

So HDD do fail but their cost per GB is about $0.07 verses SSD at $2.50 and you can write and erase and HDD as many times as you like and never worry if the data is there.

Yeah as someone pointed out the boot time is fast, but that only true at first over time SSD slow down due to what is know as wear leveling to help reduce one or a group of cells being written all the time, The SSD will start spending lots of time moving data around and this impacts the performance.

Basically, it was the Flash memory markets attempt to sell you all more flash and put all your data at risk, It was poor fit and PC industry finally figure it out.

You would be better off buying a 7200 RPM drive, it will not be faster on boot up than an SSD but your overall performance will be better and you can get 2 of those drive for the price of a low cost MLC SSD.

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by Maestro

SSD are still expense, and the only way to make the cheap is to use MLC flash technology, but as this gets cheaper they become less reliable. As an example the best flash which is SLC you can write and erase data to each cell 100K times before the cell wears out, on the current MLC it is 3K going to 1.5K in the next generation. This works well in an MP3 player since you usually write once and read many times.

Well in modern PC which are always writing and erasing data you could find that your data is getting corrupted as the device wears out and you get no warning about this either it just happen. Hell some SSD manufacturers turn the SSD in to ROM when it hits a certain wear-out point, which is okay since you did not loose anything but your PC will fail to run since the when booting does try to write to the drive and if can not it fails.

So HDD do fail but their cost per GB is about $0.07 verses SSD at $2.50 and you can write and erase and HDD as many times as you like and never worry if the data is there.

Yeah as someone pointed out the boot time is fast, but that only true at first over time SSD slow down due to what is know as wear leveling to help reduce one or a group of cells being written all the time, The SSD will start spending lots of time moving data around and this impacts the performance.

Basically, it was the Flash memory markets attempt to sell you all more flash and put all your data at risk, It was poor fit and PC industry finally figure it out.

You would be better off buying a 7200 RPM drive, it will not be faster on boot up than an SSD but your overall performance will be better and you can get 2 of those drive for the price of a low cost MLC SSD.

thanks for the retort... you actually sound like the wiki article, which is why I posted this

I'm leaning more towards 10k rpm harddrive actually... still debating if I want to use a SSD as the primary drive... for OS, games, etc... use the nas device for the rest?

[Hawkeye]

All macbooks have that as an option AFAIK. At least the Pro versions do!

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

All macbooks have that as an option AFAIK. At least the Pro versions do!

ya I've heard that actually...but I hate macbooks, they don't count

(and for anyone curious... I own one... most buggy POS I've ever owned)

[kaykay]

Just bought a Western Digital 64GB SSD from Newegg.com for about $120-130 or something like that.

Made it a portable HDD via USB (yes, USB 2.0 does slow down the IO performance). Waiting for some USB 3.0 enclosures soon.

SSD's are great, very fast read/write times (although PC Pers did a review vs. a WD Caviar Black and the results were very close). They have MTBF higher than conventional HDDs, data integrity is better, they're a tad bit faster than most drives, great for OS installs on the primary disk.