The future of SSDs

  • 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (1723 posts) -

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

#52 Posted by IvanElk (3776 posts) -

@GummiRaccoon said:

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

Not necessarily, and kinda a false assumption you just made. In fact, SSD's can indefinitely last longer than an HDD depending on how it is used.
Look up wear leveling with SSD's.

Actually, read this thread, it does an okay job explaining it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283327-32-life-span

#53 Posted by C_Rule (9739 posts) -

If you're looking for a good price/performance SSD, get this while it's on sale.

I was going to get two, until I realised RAID0 SSDs is a stupid waste of time. Unless I find a good deal on a better SSD, I think I'll just pick up a Samsung EVO 500GB.

#54 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@GummiRaccoon said:

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

We really don't know since SSDs are a new technology, but nothing lasts forever so it doesn't matter either way.

A HDD can die in a month.

#55 Posted by vfibsux (4026 posts) -

@C_Rule said:

If you're looking for a good price/performance SSD, get this while it's on sale.

I was going to get two, until I realised RAID0 SSDs is a stupid waste of time. Unless I find a good deal on a better SSD, I think I'll just pick up a Samsung EVO 500GB.

An actual thread contribution, thank you. This actually has me tempted.....

#56 Edited by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

@GummiRaccoon said:

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

Most SSDs are rated to last about 5 years if you write 20GB a day. I have upgraded every single hard drive I have ever owned before it got to the 5 year mark.

#57 Edited by PredatorRules (6474 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@GummiRaccoon said:

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

Most SSDs are rated to last about 5 years if you write 20GB a day. I have upgraded every single hard drive I have ever owned before it got to the 5 year mark.

If you put your PC on sleep with SSD, it will die much faster - that's a fact; A thing that won't happen to HDD.

#58 Posted by kraken2109 (12682 posts) -

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

#59 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

@GummiRaccoon said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@GummiRaccoon said:

An SSD is one of those things that once you use a computer with one, you can't go back to the old way.

I've heard way too many negative things about SDD's, like they don't last as long as HDD's. and whatnot.

Most SSDs are rated to last about 5 years if you write 20GB a day. I have upgraded every single hard drive I have ever owned before it got to the 5 year mark.

If you put your PC on sleep with SSD, it will die much faster - that's a fact; A thing that won't happen to HDD.

Why would you sleep a PC with an SSD?

#60 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

And what I and others are saying is that for those of us who don't use heavy duty programs, it's a waste of money.

Literally the only things I do on my home PC are play videogames, surf the internet, and browse iTunes.

So really, what's the point?

The point is that it's a faster component in your PC than a normal HDD, but like I said depends on the usage and budget.

If you can afford a stronger video card out of two choices, wouldn't you go for it?

If you can afford a faster CPU out of two choices, wouldn't you buy it?

Same goes with HDDs. If you can afford the faster SSD then go for it.

And SSDs aren't a waste of money with gaming either. Games load much faster, both at the start of the game (compare BF4 in loading a level for example), or during the game when it caches more areas.

In BF4 for example I have captured 2 points before the rest of the people have even loaded the level.

Again, depends on budget of each person, but to anyone saying an SSD isn't worth it when you can afford one is just incorrect.

Ah that sounds like heaven. I dont think its worth it though even if I did have the money. Its just wayyyy too expensive for the consumer when it is so cheap for them to make.

#61 Edited by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

It is recommended to NOT use sleep modes with SSDs. I turned off my one on Windows.

#62 Posted by kraken2109 (12682 posts) -
#63 Edited by IvanElk (3776 posts) -

@kraken2109 said:

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

It is recommended to NOT use sleep modes with SSDs. I turned off my one on Windows.

*Cough cough* Ahem.

Hibernation is the problem good sir. Not sleep. Hibernation writes a file everytime you do it to boot up from and it is temp so it is a write then delete sort of thing (not something "Good" for SSD's life span). It honestly wouldn't make a huge difference either way. Sleep shouldn't be an issue as I don't believe it stores the state via the hard drive.

#64 Posted by osan0 (12375 posts) -

@kraken2109: I would also like to know.

i had a look around for recent information and the general consensus seems to be that sleep is fine.

however hybrid sleep and hibernate should not be used with an SSD due to using quite a lot fo writes. so make sure hybrid sleep is disabled in the power settings (under the advanced options) for every power plan.

the only other issue that came up was that the SSD may become unresponsive when the computer wakens from sleep and the user would need to restart (in a couple of instances the drive did not recover). however that sounds to me like its a hardware and/or firmware issue (sandforce controllers with old firmware came up). it also seems to affect older drives more. So if you have an SSD from 2010 or something then perhaps it may be a good idea to disable sleep. even then it seems rare though.

in my own experience i did come accross an issue with my crucial M500 where windows 8.1 would become unresponsive for 5-10 seconds when waking from sleep. a firmware update for the SSD resolved the issue though.

so perhaps there was an issue with older SSDs and sleep which has since been resolved with newer models.

still if anyone does have information to the contrary then i am all eyes.

#65 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@kraken2109 said:

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

It is recommended to NOT use sleep modes with SSDs. I turned off my one on Windows.

*Cough cough* Ahem.

Hibernation is the problem good sir. Not sleep. Hibernation writes a file everytime you do it to boot up from and it is temp so it is a write then delete sort of thing (not something "Good" for SSD's life span). It honestly wouldn't make a huge difference either way. Sleep shouldn't be an issue as I don't believe it stores the state via the hard drive.

I should have been more specific. I meant hybrid sleep which is the default that comes ON with Windows 8. It's a combination of hibernation and the old sleep mode. Either way, any sleep is pointless with an SSD since the OS starts up in seconds anyway from a cold boot.

#66 Posted by PredatorRules (6474 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@kraken2109 said:

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

It is recommended to NOT use sleep modes with SSDs. I turned off my one on Windows.

*Cough cough* Ahem.

Hibernation is the problem good sir. Not sleep. Hibernation writes a file everytime you do it to boot up from and it is temp so it is a write then delete sort of thing (not something "Good" for SSD's life span). It honestly wouldn't make a huge difference either way. Sleep shouldn't be an issue as I don't believe it stores the state via the hard drive.

I should have been more specific. I meant hybrid sleep which is the default that comes ON with Windows 8. It's a combination of hibernation and the old sleep mode. Either way, any sleep is pointless with an SSD since the OS starts up in seconds anyway from a cold boot.

Still can't beat the 1 sec awake from sleep; maybe with the 3Gb/s new PCIe SSDs that would be possible if no other hardware would bottleneck that speed :D

#67 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@kraken2109 said:

@PredatorRules: Why is that?

Sleep powers everything down but ram (IIRC). What does that have to do with storage?

It is recommended to NOT use sleep modes with SSDs. I turned off my one on Windows.

*Cough cough* Ahem.

Hibernation is the problem good sir. Not sleep. Hibernation writes a file everytime you do it to boot up from and it is temp so it is a write then delete sort of thing (not something "Good" for SSD's life span). It honestly wouldn't make a huge difference either way. Sleep shouldn't be an issue as I don't believe it stores the state via the hard drive.

I should have been more specific. I meant hybrid sleep which is the default that comes ON with Windows 8. It's a combination of hibernation and the old sleep mode. Either way, any sleep is pointless with an SSD since the OS starts up in seconds anyway from a cold boot.

Still can't beat the 1 sec awake from sleep; maybe with the 3Gb/s new PCIe SSDs that would be possible if no other hardware would bottleneck that speed :D

True, but you still have programs in memory and resident.

For my home PC I prefer to wait 7 seconds instead of 1 and have my memory cleared from a cold boot.

#68 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (23150 posts) -

I've had so many hard drive failures that I'd love to go SSD only. Yes SSDs have limited writes, but I leave my computers on 24/7 and I've had 1/4 of my hard drives fail... (I've had about 30 hard drives)

SSDs in my experience have been way more reliable.

I hate playing a game and then seeing my DPC latency spike up if there are too many random reads on hard drive. Gives microstuttering and even slight lockups in worst cases.

#69 Edited by vfibsux (4026 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

I've had so many hard drive failures that I'd love to go SSD only. Yes SSDs have limited writes, but I leave my computers on 24/7 and I've had 1/4 of my hard drives fail... (I've had about 30 hard drives)

SSDs in my experience have been way more reliable.

I hate playing a game and then seeing my DPC latency spike up if there are too many random reads on hard drive. Gives microstuttering and even slight lockups in worst cases.

I don't know what kind of drives you are using, but they sound like pieces of shit. I have been building PC's since 1994ish and I have had ONE hard drive fail on me before I replaced it, and I assure you that is not often at all as I have had my current drive for about 5 years and it replaced the one that failed. I don't get these stutters in games you are talking about either, let alone lockups. My guess is you have more issues than just your hard drive, perhaps some other cheap hardware, perhaps your memory. I don't go cheap/generic on a single component in my pc. And leaving your PC on is easier on hardware than a daily cold boot.

What I want to know is.....what is up with the other 23 drives you have had that did not fail? I have maybe had 10 drives in the last 20 years (very liberal guess), why would you have 30? Even if 1/4 failed that is only about 7....why buy so many when you have had 23 not failing?

Finally.....as expensive as SSD's are and you sounding as if you do not use conventional drives anymore....what size SSD are you using as your main drive?

#70 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23150 posts) -

no, there are two computers with 20 hard drives in raid 6 + 2 hot spares

with 5 years of on time, i've had like 6 drives fail

was running freebsd on it, hard drives suck.

Then on my desktop, I have 2x3tb seagate 3tb, and 2x500 gb wd enterprise

One of the seagates failed, and one of the wd's just failed.

WD was only three years old (24/7 ish), and the seagate was only 6 months of on time.

I don't turn my computers off.

Hard drive temperatures are below 45c.

#71 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

no, there are two computers with 20 hard drives in raid 6 + 2 hot spares

with 5 years of on time, i've had like 6 drives fail

was running freebsd on it, hard drives suck.

Then on my desktop, I have 2x3tb seagate 3tb, and 2x500 gb wd enterprise

One of the seagates failed, and one of the wd's just failed.

WD was only three years old (24/7 ish), and the seagate was only 6 months of on time.

I don't turn my computers off.

Hard drive temperatures are below 45c.

For computers that are on 24/7 like yours stick with good enterprise drives, like WD Red or Black. Anything less and you're asking for trouble.

HDDs fail, especially for a PC that never gets turned off (servers), that's why hot swappable RAID was invented.

Now, going all SSD isn't going to fix everything. I've seen SSDs already start to fail as well. Difference is SSDs for now it's a lot harder to recover data.

#72 Posted by GarGx1 (2227 posts) -

SSD's are new tech and as such cost more. HDD's were no different in fact in 1980, 1Gb of storage space would have cost you around $193,000.00.

Oddly enough I put a Samsung Evo 250Gb SSD in my system a couple of months ago and I really wouldn't want to go back to booting from an HDD. In the same way as once I went to booting from and HDD instead of Floppies, I never went back again.

I still wouldn't get an SSD as a primary storage device but for Booting and Games they are ideal.

#73 Edited by thphaca (202 posts) -

An SSD is mainly beneficial with productivity. Time is the most valuable thing you have because it cannot be saved or regained, unlike money. All of those extra seconds that you save with an SSD add up, especially when dealing with a large amount of small files. That's where an HDD tends to stumble.

In the context of gaming, an SSD will have little impact. You may get quicker load times, but framerates won't be affected much.

#74 Edited by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

i find it funny "well,rude" that just because someone dosent want to use ss they are called idiots..thats plain stupid on your part. maybe you are an idiot for not liking the same things as them..AND ss hasnt proven to be safe form of saving data "to my knowledge" so for me they are worthless all the way around. why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc? HDD's have proven effective over the past and i'll stick with them until they finally perfect ss OR the next big thing. ALSO,i was told that ss isnt good for storage because it loses its memory after a while of no power. if true,then yes..ss are just a passing fad.

Nothing I hate more than online tough guys name calling and acting like they know everything..

#75 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (23150 posts) -
#76 Edited by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -
#77 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (23150 posts) -

No, your opinion has no basis.

You have to have had used both. You are claiming SSDs are not proven to be reliable--citing no evidence.

You said that SSDs are not worth it because they make applications load faster, well then why don't we just go back to 3 megabit DSL?

Maybe because people want things done faster?

The performance difference between a SSD and a HD is night and day. We have used SSDs before--you have not. So, how can you say they are not worth it?

#78 Posted by reiti_net (5 posts) -

I actually do not completely understand all that buzz about SSDs.

Speed: They are faster as an HDD - fact - and we do not talk about writing speed, we do talk about access speed, which will MASSIVLY improve system performance. So getting your System on a 120 GB SSD does the trick, everything else can go to normal HDD - cause there is no reason to use SSD for stuff that is just lying around. You can easily root the user dirs to your HDD, no need to put them on the SSD.

Lifetime: If you do not fill up your SSD you should be fine for DECADES. It does absolutely NOT matter if you put your PC to sleep every day. Benefit: If the SSD dies some day, you will STILL be able to READ it .. you know the fun, when a HDD dies - woohoo!

Pro-Tipp: Get yourself another pair of RAM and setup an RAMDRIVE (8GB+)- put your temp there, your virt. memory and all other often-changing-not-persistent things like caches whatsoever. The RAMDRIVE can be saved at shutdown and is saved when you put your rig to sleep - so overall Drive Access Times are nearly nothing.

If you want speed, get an SSD for your system (and ONLY your system), a RAMDRIVE for temps and cache and a HDD for longtime storage. The later needs no speed

PS: When using a RAMdrive be aware that there may be an issue with windows updates from time to time, because MS is sometimes using the TEMP-Dir for persistent File saving between reboots - which is pretty stupid but some devs there may have no idea about "temp". If this happens (the update fails and rolls back) shut off ramdrive and try again. it will work. reactivate after update and you are fine.

#79 Edited by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?

Well why aren't you still using Floppy Disks then for booting?

#80 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -
, well then why don't we just go back to 3 megabit DSL?

Don't you bag 3 Megabit DSL, lots of people still have that since it's the only thin available in that area.

why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?

Well why aren't you still using Floppy Disks then for booting?

#81 Edited by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:
, well then why don't we just go back to 3 megabit DSL?

Don't you bag 3 Megabit DSL, lots of people still have that since it's the only thin available in that area.

@VanDammFan said:

why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?

Well why aren't you still using Floppy Disks then for booting?

lol..because my os is on a disc.if W7 came on floppy I might use it. BUT arent you going a lil overboard? WAY more of a workaround when using floppy then there is ss to hdd..ss is great sure..but not OMG I HAVE TO USE IT great. hdd does the same thing and nearly as fast and as far as we know as reliable. excuse me while i dont lose sleep over this issue.

#82 Edited by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@VanDammFan said:

@VanDammFan said:

why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?

Well why aren't you still using Floppy Disks then for booting?

lol..because my os is on a disc.if W7 came on floppy I might use it. BUT arent you going a lil overboard? WAY more of a workaround when using floppy then there is ss to hdd..ss is great sure..but not OMG I HAVE TO USE IT great. hdd does the same thing and nearly as fast and as far as we know as reliable. excuse me while i dont lose sleep over this issue.

".if W7 came on floppy I might use it."

WTF? is that meant to be a joke?

"why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?"

I'M the one going overboard? By that standard then we all should be booting from floppy disks still.

Don't take this the wrong way but you have no clue about what you are saying. People used to boot off floppy disks or cassettes, then Hard Drives came along so people moved onto them because they were faster and more reliable than floppy. Same applies here, SSDs came along cause they are faster and more reliable than HDDs so people use them now. In 50 years time there will be something better than SSDs and so people will move onto that, it's called advancements in technology.

"hdd does the same thing and nearly as fast and as far as we know as reliable. excuse me while i dont lose sleep over this issue."

Again totally incorrect. The speeds of an SSD are nothing similar to a HDD. I need to know something here, have you even USED an SSD Operating System? If not then please stop saying ridiculous things. And no one is loosing sleep over this issue. Up until 4 months ago I was still using HDDs, but to say an SSD isn't worth it because the speeds are similar is the most stupid thing I've read all week on these forums.

#83 Posted by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

@VanDammFan said:

@VanDammFan said:

why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?

Well why aren't you still using Floppy Disks then for booting?

lol..because my os is on a disc.if W7 came on floppy I might use it. BUT arent you going a lil overboard? WAY more of a workaround when using floppy then there is ss to hdd..ss is great sure..but not OMG I HAVE TO USE IT great. hdd does the same thing and nearly as fast and as far as we know as reliable. excuse me while i dont lose sleep over this issue.

".if W7 came on floppy I might use it."

WTF? is that meant to be a joke?

"why buy into something just for a faster boot time? OR the speed in which it opens ,etc?"

I'M the one going overboard? By that standard then we all should be booting from floppy disks still.

Don't take this the wrong way but you have no clue about what you are saying. People used to boot off floppy disks or cassettes, then Hard Drives came along so people moved onto them because they were faster and more reliable than floppy. Same applies here, SSDs came along cause they are faster and more reliable than HDDs so people use them now. In 50 years time there will be something better than SSDs and so people will move onto that, it's called advancements in technology.

"hdd does the same thing and nearly as fast and as far as we know as reliable. excuse me while i dont lose sleep over this issue."

Again totally incorrect. The speeds of an SSD are nothing similar to a HDD. I need to know something here, have you even USED an SSD Operating System? If not then please stop saying ridiculous things. And no one is loosing sleep over this issue. Up until 4 months ago I was still using HDDs, but to say an SSD isn't worth it because the speeds are similar is the most stupid thing I've read all week on these forums.

actually I know exactly what im talking about. Ive been building ,working on and maintaining pcs since 1999. I dont know everything "nobody does even you"..but im pretty pc savvy and feel im doing just fine. We simply dont see things the same. You see SS as a MUST HAVE ..I see it as another alternative to a storage device..i see nothing more to talk about really.

#84 Edited by bonafidetk (3812 posts) -

Running your OS on a SSD compared to a HDD is like night and day. You'd have to be stupid to say otherwise. SSD have never been about value, they're about speed. Do what most people do, which is run the OS/programs on the SSD and have a few HDD in your tower for storage.

#85 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

actually I know exactly what im talking about. Ive been building ,working on and maintaining pcs since 1999. I dont know everything "nobody does even you"..but im pretty pc savvy and feel im doing just fine. We simply dont see things the same. You see SS as a MUST HAVE ..I see it as another alternative to a storage device..i see nothing more to talk about really.

Where did I say an SSD is a MUST HAVE? Maybe read my posts carefully next time. I said I didn't even have an SSD till 4 months ago.

If you really build and maintain PCs like you say, build one with an SSD and compare it with a HDD then come back here and talk about same speeds.

Here's one example but you can look at a hundred more on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84eEjP-RL4

#86 Posted by Junior_AIN (4542 posts) -

After trying SSD in this computer I'm using right now I can honestly say that there's huge difference between HDD. I still use them for storage because of the price but to play my games and system the SSD does wonders. Can't wait until they drop in price to upgrade to a larger version.

#87 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

I've had so many hard drive failures that I'd love to go SSD only. Yes SSDs have limited writes, but I leave my computers on 24/7 and I've had 1/4 of my hard drives fail... (I've had about 30 hard drives)

SSDs in my experience have been way more reliable.

I hate playing a game and then seeing my DPC latency spike up if there are too many random reads on hard drive. Gives microstuttering and even slight lockups in worst cases.

I don't know what kind of drives you are using, but they sound like pieces of shit. I have been building PC's since 1994ish and I have had ONE hard drive fail on me before I replaced it, and I assure you that is not often at all as I have had my current drive for about 5 years and it replaced the one that failed. I don't get these stutters in games you are talking about either, let alone lockups. My guess is you have more issues than just your hard drive, perhaps some other cheap hardware, perhaps your memory. I don't go cheap/generic on a single component in my pc. And leaving your PC on is easier on hardware than a daily cold boot.

What I want to know is.....what is up with the other 23 drives you have had that did not fail? I have maybe had 10 drives in the last 20 years (very liberal guess), why would you have 30? Even if 1/4 failed that is only about 7....why buy so many when you have had 23 not failing?

Finally.....as expensive as SSD's are and you sounding as if you do not use conventional drives anymore....what size SSD are you using as your main drive?

I haven't had any harddrives fail personally, however I have had a lot of users harddrives fail. They are almost always in a laptop and beyond that almost always in a macbook.

#88 Edited by vfibsux (4026 posts) -

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

#89 Edited by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

#90 Posted by IvanElk (3776 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

Yeah probably going to have a SOL on that, most of those services for SSDS are expensive as hell. My suggestion would be to do the logical thing and back your important stuff up.

#91 Posted by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

Yeah probably going to have a SOL on that, most of those services for SSDS are expensive as hell. My suggestion would be to do the logical thing and back your important stuff up.

I thought putting data on a hdd was backing up? if SS is so great why arent we backing up to them? Im asking in all seriousness. Im in the process of finally deciding what I want to use to back up my data. I just bought a WD portable 500g hdd..and im getting 5 more of the same ones. 3 will have dup copies of my music..and 3 will have dup copies of my pics..PLUS I'll have all my music and pics on hdds im using in my pc to listen to and share.

I always hear good about ss..but it seems they are not good for backing up? Seems I was told here on GS that they dont hold the memory unless they are hooked up. That they lose their data after so long??

#92 Edited by vfibsux (4026 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

That is what I am waiting for. I just hate the thought of putting up money for a boot drive alone.

Let me ask you guys this, how beneficial is it outside of boot time and windows navigation to have just a small boot drive with Windows on it? If your games all have to be on a conventional drive isn't that counterproductive? Do you still see vast loading time improvements even when your games are on your HDD and not your SSD? If so, how much improvement over that would you see if everything was on a SSD?

#93 Edited by PumpkinBoogie (3357 posts) -

Interesting thread be interesting.....sike.

Over 2 pages of back-and-forth bickering the parties and it amazes me not ONCE did anybody mention the 'magical' common ground word: HYBRID DRIVES.

Seriously, y'all....we could've ended this freakin' thread along time and singing by the campfire in harmony, by now. It's amazing everybody in here acts like there's no middle ground on the matter or these options don't exist. <_<

#94 Edited by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

@VanDammFan said:

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

Yeah probably going to have a SOL on that, most of those services for SSDS are expensive as hell. My suggestion would be to do the logical thing and back your important stuff up.

I thought putting data on a hdd was backing up? if SS is so great why arent we backing up to them? Im asking in all seriousness. Im in the process of finally deciding what I want to use to back up my data. I just bought a WD portable 500g hdd..and im getting 5 more of the same ones. 3 will have dup copies of my music..and 3 will have dup copies of my pics..PLUS I'll have all my music and pics on hdds im using in my pc to listen to and share.

I always hear good about ss..but it seems they are not good for backing up? Seems I was told here on GS that they dont hold the memory unless they are hooked up. That they lose their data after so long??

Speed doesn't matter for a backup. SSDs are for speed, you pay a premium for that, why would you pay a premium for something that doesn't have an effect on what you are doing?

Also your technical understanding of SSDs is way off, I suggest you google and check out a few wikis.

#95 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

Interesting thread be interesting.....sike.

Over 2 pages of back-and-forth bickering the parties and it amazes me not ONCE did anybody mention the 'magical' common ground word: HYBRID DRIVES.

Seriously, y'all....we could've ended this freakin' thread along time and singing by the campfire in harmony, by now. It's amazing everybody in here acts like there's no middle ground on the matter or these options don't exist. <_<

Hybrid drives are bad.

#96 Posted by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

Interesting thread be interesting.....sike.

Over 2 pages of back-and-forth bickering the parties and it amazes me not ONCE did anybody mention the 'magical' common ground word: HYBRID DRIVES.

Seriously, y'all....we could've ended this freakin' thread along time and singing by the campfire in harmony, by now. It's amazing everybody in here acts like there's no middle ground on the matter or these options don't exist. <_<

Hybrid Drives are pretty useless actually (hence why they haven't become popular), I've tested them and since the SSD part is used as cache, the performance increase isn't that much better so you're better off just getting a HDD with a fast cache or going all SSD.

What is interesting as a sort of "hybrid" drive is this:

http://www.mwave.com.au/product/wd-black2-120gb-ssd-1tb-hdd-25-sata-iii-hard-drive-wd1001x06xdtl-ab52799?gclid=CLyZkpDC5bsCFU1QpAodxykAKA

#97 Edited by FelipeInside (24624 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

I thought putting data on a hdd was backing up? if SS is so great why arent we backing up to them? Im asking in all seriousness. Im in the process of finally deciding what I want to use to back up my data. I just bought a WD portable 500g hdd..and im getting 5 more of the same ones. 3 will have dup copies of my music..and 3 will have dup copies of my pics..PLUS I'll have all my music and pics on hdds im using in my pc to listen to and share.

I always hear good about ss..but it seems they are not good for backing up? Seems I was told here on GS that they dont hold the memory unless they are hooked up. That they lose their data after so long??

NOTHING is 100% secure for backing up, HDD, SDD, Tape, Server, Cloud etc.

People are not using SSDs for data because the price is too high for big SSDs right now (a 1TB SSD goes for like $700AU). In a couple of years this price will go down and people will start to have SSDs as both boot and data drives. The best way to backup every time is to have MULTIPLE COPIES everywhere.

#98 Edited by C_Rule (9739 posts) -

@PumpkinBoogie said:

Interesting thread be interesting.....sike.

Over 2 pages of back-and-forth bickering the parties and it amazes me not ONCE did anybody mention the 'magical' common ground word: HYBRID DRIVES.

Seriously, y'all....we could've ended this freakin' thread along time and singing by the campfire in harmony, by now. It's amazing everybody in here acts like there's no middle ground on the matter or these options don't exist. <_<

Hybrid Drives are pretty useless actually (hence why they haven't become popular), I've tested them and since the SSD part is used as cache, the performance increase isn't that much better so you're better off just getting a HDD with a fast cache or going all SSD.

What is interesting as a sort of "hybrid" drive is this:

http://www.mwave.com.au/product/wd-black2-120gb-ssd-1tb-hdd-25-sata-iii-hard-drive-wd1001x06xdtl-ab52799?gclid=CLyZkpDC5bsCFU1QpAodxykAKA

This is the only hybrid drive worth caring about and even this one isn't that exciting. It costs about double what you'd pay if you were to buy the drives separately and would perform worse (due to both drives using the one connection).

The only place you'd really use this is in a laptop with only one 2.5" bay and no mSATA.

SSD prices are getting pretty low. $100 will get you something you can put your OS and all your non-game programs on. Even if you can't stick all your games on it, having everything else open quickly is definitely worth it.

#99 Posted by IvanElk (3776 posts) -

@VanDammFan said:

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

Yeah probably going to have a SOL on that, most of those services for SSDS are expensive as hell. My suggestion would be to do the logical thing and back your important stuff up.

I thought putting data on a hdd was backing up? if SS is so great why arent we backing up to them? Im asking in all seriousness. Im in the process of finally deciding what I want to use to back up my data. I just bought a WD portable 500g hdd..and im getting 5 more of the same ones. 3 will have dup copies of my music..and 3 will have dup copies of my pics..PLUS I'll have all my music and pics on hdds im using in my pc to listen to and share.

I always hear good about ss..but it seems they are not good for backing up? Seems I was told here on GS that they dont hold the memory unless they are hooked up. That they lose their data after so long??

Speed doesn't matter for a backup. SSDs are for speed, you pay a premium for that, why would you pay a premium for something that doesn't have an effect on what you are doing?

Also your technical understanding of SSDs is way off, I suggest you google and check out a few wikis.

Actually as far as that goes, SSD's are better for backing up, you write less to them they last a long time. However, the recovery services for them are too expensive so in the unlikely event that it does fail, you are looking at paying probably double to recover the data.

#100 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13587 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

@GummiRaccoon said:

@VanDammFan said:

@IvanElk said:

@FelipeInside said:

@vfibsux said:

I can't believe this is still going lol. We get it....your PC boots up fast. Your programs load fast.

Sounds great....when the prices come down I will join you.

And thankfully they are coming down pretty fast in comparison with HDD when they were released.

I see people using SSD as storage in a couple of years.

What worries me though is data recovery on them.

Yeah probably going to have a SOL on that, most of those services for SSDS are expensive as hell. My suggestion would be to do the logical thing and back your important stuff up.

I thought putting data on a hdd was backing up? if SS is so great why arent we backing up to them? Im asking in all seriousness. Im in the process of finally deciding what I want to use to back up my data. I just bought a WD portable 500g hdd..and im getting 5 more of the same ones. 3 will have dup copies of my music..and 3 will have dup copies of my pics..PLUS I'll have all my music and pics on hdds im using in my pc to listen to and share.

I always hear good about ss..but it seems they are not good for backing up? Seems I was told here on GS that they dont hold the memory unless they are hooked up. That they lose their data after so long??

Speed doesn't matter for a backup. SSDs are for speed, you pay a premium for that, why would you pay a premium for something that doesn't have an effect on what you are doing?

Also your technical understanding of SSDs is way off, I suggest you google and check out a few wikis.

Actually as far as that goes, SSD's are better for backing up, you write less to them they last a long time. However, the recovery services for them are too expensive so in the unlikely event that it does fail, you are looking at paying probably double to recover the data.

Except the cost per gigabyte is orders of magnitude higher.