Not really worth the hassle. SSD's are incredibly fast, especially the latest batch, even in singular installations.
We've already had a couple of SSD's die and had to RMA them, so they're not bulletproof. Also, you have to use them correctly, and there are guides on setting up a machine that has an SSD. Follow them, or your SSD faces an early demise.
Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
I'm guessing you've had Sandforce drives. I bought a 60GB SSD second hand off Trademe about a year ago and haven't had any issues with it. All you need to do differently on a SSD is remove the page file to save space if you have enough RAM, disable hibernation to save space and disable disk defragging as that causes unnecessary write cycles to the drive for no performance gain. There is no other difference to setup a SSD compared to a HDD with either Windows 7 or modern versions of Ubuntu based OS's. Not sure about other OS's.
As for the early demise, defragging on a regular basis will do that, but modern SSD's have wear levelling built in to significantly increase the lifespan.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo x 10^ fucking lots
I've had the joy of correcting a Win 2003 server that some "expert" had setup with raid0 instead of 1. Guy that owned it blew a gasket when I mentioned double chance of failure. With modern OS's, controller caching and a fuckload of ram, you'll see next to fuck all difference in performance. Raid 1/5 (never used the other flavors) is great but if you've only got 2 drives then do yourself a favor and use the second one for a backup as raid is no substitute for backups.
Unless you're running some high performance DB server or need the tickbox that says "HP" or "IBM" etc for an onsite server warranty, then why the hell would a home user buy super expensive 15000rpm drives these days? For desktops, the Seagate XT hybrid drives are a good compromise as you don't need the ruggedness. Proper SSD's....they make startup and loading seriously quick. But in fairness, most users now do a proper cold boot about once a month (99% of the time they're coming out of standby) and unless they're doing something data intensive, who gives a monkeys if it takes 1 second or 2 to load your browser ?
Originally Posted by Kickha
Originally Posted by Akzle
I built up an i7 rig last year with a 6970, and it was great for gaming, and gave good benchmark results, but the whole system felt slow in general day to day use. It didn't feel any better than an ordinary, cheap computer for 1/3 of the price. Then I put a SSD in (only a SF1200 model), and it made a huge difference. The whole thing felt significantly faster and it was the best value upgrade I've ever spent my money on.
Then my main computer killed another motherboard last month so I put the SSD out of that into my spare Pentium 4 Linux box. With a HDD the Linux computer is almost unusable because it's so slow, but with a SSD it's like comparing a GN250 with a GSXR1000. So yes, a SSD is by far the best value for money upgrade money can buy.
My SSD only has a sequential read speed of 200MB/s, so it's no where near as quick as the modern ones which give over 500MB/s sequential read.
Bought three over the last two months on the strength of their motherboard performance over the years (been good boards for me, as have Gigabyte). Two 53s and one of the aluminum cased super thin jobbies with an SSD. The keyboard on the thin one is cheap crap, but other than that can't fault them yet. Two are replacing Acers, one a Toshiba, none of which have ever given any trouble. Oh, and WMP Play To stopped working on one after a Windows Update. Weird, but not really brand related, JOOTT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks