>le SSD shorter lifetime maymay
Guess it's time for you fuckers to change your strategy. The only quoted downside to SSD's was just proven patently false. SSD's are objectively better than hard drives in every way.
>my selective empirical evidence invalidates your collective empirical evidence
No it doesn't. How many people on /g/ have complained about SSDs randomly failing? Unless they're making it up, solid-state storage just isn't a very reliable technology.
>To make testing practical, we've limited ourselves to one example of each SSD
I would rather base my purchasing decisions on collected reviews and testimonials than one selective series of benchmarks. If these people decided to benchmark hundreds of SSDs over and over and then post their results, I'd be more inclined to take them into consideration. Currently, the empirical evidence from user testimonies and reviews outweighs this research by far.
>doesn't always work
>Unless they're making it up, solid-state storage just isn't a very reliable technology.
I've never seen a "my SSD died" thread in the past few years and you have nothing to back up your claim. Prove your claim with modern data.
I actually got one so that I COULD reinstall windows. I started with vista and I've been upgrading this whole time and it was really gross. Buying the ssd was a great excuse to start fresh
The SSDs with high failure rates were those with Sandforce controllers.
Crucial SSDs were recommended for a long time because they used Marvell controllers. Then Samsung SSDs were purpotedly a better alternative with their own custom controller. Now Samsung SSDs have been shamed, and it's back to Marvell.
Unless you have a business. Then it's Intel.
>testimonials and people complaining on /g/ are empirical evidence
There is a technical term for people like you, I believe you're called "idiots"
>But muh failure rates!
Are around the same as HDDs. Lower, for specific models but you'd probably start screaming about cherry picking.
>But those horrible drives!
And the IBM deathstar. You'll find dodgy models in every product line. SSDs are not remarkable in any way.
Something that doesn't account for AHCI drivers, which are a pain to get working without simply reinstalling.
That said, reinstalling is good to get a fresh start, especially when you are upgrading to an SSD.
>No it's still true, they're more expensive than HDDs.
>this far better and newer technology is more expensive than my older much worse technology
Shocking! Ever consider there are people out there where money isn't so fucking tight that they don't care that they have to spend more for something much better?
Ever since I bought my 1TB SSD for $350 I will never go back to hard drives.
I reinstall windows every 1-2 months because I'm autistic and I it feels stale after that/I want to start fresh without all the shit that I install over that time.
I wish I could be you.
i-if you could just spare 20GB at the end of your hard drive, you can use Window's build in image software and make a system image of exactly how it is at any time. You could then do one fresh install, do some updates, hell maybe even install some drivers. then make an image. 1-2 months later restore the image. i-if that's okay with you that is.
because they didn't do power cycling that happens with normal use. and many ssds have problems with that, somehow it fucks up the sata interface/controller on the ssd.
google "[popular ssd model] randomly disappearing from system".
you'll be surprised at how often this happens.
nand flash memory endurance is not the main problem of ssds, it never was.
Flash memory write cycles has always been the thing people are afraid of when they talk about SSDs. I've literally never heard anybody mention controller power cycles.
Meanwhile I do hear a lot about CLICK CLICK CLICK!
I have way too much shit I need constantly stored or things I'm working on to be able to do that, I used to resinstall windows all the time just to keep it from slowly killing itself through inefficiency.
crucial mx100, probably the most popular affordable ssd right now
(they released a firmware update a few days ago, problem persists)
>b-but get something more reliable, like an intel
same fucking problem
and many others
>Googling forum threads is now proof that a drive shouldn't be trusted
You have now proven every drive made since the dawn of the internet to be unreliable. What do you recommend we buy? Bear in mind that every drive from both western digital and seagate also has thread upon thread full of people complaining about issues.
>Not addressing the point, just getting hung up on that you were called out as an idiot for saying that a testimonial is empirical evidence
Just what, exactly, do you think empirical evidence is?
So what's the best SSD I can get? I want something ~512GB Or so. Samsung SSDs are constantly shilled but honestly they just seem really expensive, what are alternative brands?
>Extremely fast, much faster than HDD drives. Even the shittiest shit heap SSD crushes a 10,000RPM raptor drive
>Lower power usage (HDDs don't guzzle power but it's still less usage)
>Next to no heat output
>Shock and damage resistant
>Much more expensive
>Controllers significantly can impact performance
>Slows down over time, although this is time measured in decades it still happens
protip: MLC chips can be regenerated by heating them to about ~100 celsius dg
It depends, do you want something cheaper or more reliable? Samsung has a huge marketting budget so I wouldn't doubt paid shilling, but they also provide a fuckhuge warranty.
Crucial is good
Mushkin is cheap but uses shitty sandforce controllers (Look at reviews, some people report random drive dieing after a few weeks)
Intel is the top SSD but also super fucking expensive
Kill yourself. Intel SSDs check out as soon as their SMART wear leveling count exceeds some threshold. So you are a fucking cuck faggot retard.
Fucking image the disk then.
Then don't do it.
Enjoy being Intel's bitch instead of buying Samsung DC SSD.
>what is preloading AHCI drivers
>are you migrating from PATA-compatible to AHCI? are you migrating a 10 year old pc?
>implying people buy SSDs for boot speeds
you're a fucking retard
no one buys SSDs for backup/cold storage
shilling or not, samsung SSDs are the best, check out every single benchmark out there.
How does it compare to this?
I don't know why this "ssds don't last" bullshit came from, I still use a first gen 80gb intel drive on my workstation (~300tb written to it so far) and a 40gb x25v on my home PC (82Tb written) an no single fucks given. Since I don't use a UPS at home the X25v survived 800 or so unsafe shutdowns from power outages or BSODs.
Just don't buy cheap kingston V series shit and you will be fine.
Don't bother trying to reason with these ignorant hobos. They will always fall back on the "it only increases la boot time!!" meme that they fool themselves into believing because they'e so shockingly poor.
From a french e-tailer:
HDD return rates:
- Seagate 0,69% (contre 0,86%)
- Western 0,93 (contre 1,13%)
- HGST 1,01% (contre 1,08%)
- Toshiba 1,29% (contre 1,02%)
SSD return rates:
- Samsung 0,24% (contre 0,54%)
- Intel 0,27% (contre 0,90%)
- Sandisk 0,29% (contre 0,70%)
- Crucial 0,57% (contre 1,08%)
- Kingston 0,63% (contre 0,72%)
- Corsair 0,87% (contre 0,91%)
Long story short, don't get kingston or corsair.
Who fucking cares OP? I'm using SSD's as well and I couldn't care less about what techbabbies say about them.
They're faster, thats all what matters to me. Anyone who says SSD's are bad can go suck a dick.
Stop making these pointless threads...