We have over 250 now installed and never had a failure.
wouldn't get OCZ drives.
We have Intel 320 Series SSDs in our Art PCs with zero failures so far.
Try finding a hard disk with a 0.1% failure rate!!Quote:
SSD Return Rates
- Intel 0.1% (as against 0.3%)
- Crucial 0.8% (as against 1.9%)
- Corsair 2.9% (as against 2.7%)
- OCZ 4.2% (as against 3.5%)
Intel confirms its position at the top with a very impressive rate. It is followed by Crucial, which has improved its rate significantly but it has to be said that the M225 previously affected things quite a bit – on the C300s alone its rate was 1%. Corsair’s and especially OCZ’s returns are up however and OCZ is still clearly bringing up the rear. 8 SSDs have rates of over 5%:
Interestingly, many hard drives have failure rates higher than OCZ's SSD failure rate...
When I was looking at SSD's I was looking at either Intel or OWC ( memoryc.com do the OWC SSD's )
got to be said its the best upgrade i ever put in my old laptop (easrly core 2 due) went from approx 3 min boot time to about 1 (cloned across so same image etc).
Anyone tried one in a netbook as im fed up of people complaining they are slow (which they are to be fair but what do you expect from something that cheap?)
as to wether its worth putting them in an old p4 to extend their liofe why not you can always when you retire them move the ssd to the next worse machines that dont have ssds. Performance wise i went from an intel 945 chipset laptop to a new one (cant remember chipset but its an i7) and windows hdd rating diddnt change hugely 7.2 - 7.7 iirc better but not exactly as huge as going from a hdd to an ssd in the first place.
Also how do ssds cope with xp i just cant bring myself to win7 a netbooks that are xp it takes too long
I would not put XP on a standard SSD as it is rather primative and does not support TRIM so would bog down rather quickly with usage. I run 7 ultimate on an Atom CPU just fine with desktop drives so it should be quick enough on an SSD. The CPUs themselves have a decent amount of cache and support modern extentions making it work fine.
Not read every post but I wanted to add my 2p worth -
Gaming PC - i5, OCZ Vertex 3 120Gb
Laptop - C2D (a pretty decent one, cant remember what) 500Gb SATA drive
I can power both on at the same time, boot into Win 7, load steam, load Skyrim and start playing before the laptop hits the logon screen on the laptop.
Things load so fast you don't have time to read splash screens (again Skyrim as an example) and PS rendering and Sony Vegas video editing are hugely faster.
You can pick up the above SSD for sub £100 and would be a fool not to... its THAT much of an improvement!
After reading this thread i bought a Crucial M4 and installed it into one of the 3 year old pc's in an IT suite. Comparing the 2 machines there is not enough of a speed increase to justify the cost. Boot/login/logoff are quicker, maybe a second or 2 than the SATA machine. Opening of office applications i could barely see a difference, actually on some test the SATA was quicker. At the moment i am yet to be impressed.
Do I have this wrong please do correct me if so - whilst SSD's are all well and good but dont they have a certain amount of writes on them before you need to replace it ?
Looking at the lifetime on my old Vertx 2 I have 84% remaning, on the same ammount of writes on my new Vertex 3 I haven't even used a single resurve block yet.
Thats under heavy IT tech style use with a few VMs now and again :)
Is it SATA 2? What OS? Is it set up correctly?