View Single Post
Old Jan 31, 11, 8:34 pm
  #40  
nkedel
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: in the vicinity of SFO
Programs: AA PLT 1MM
Posts: 18,736
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
(I know XP doesn't support TRIM, 7 does, I don't know about Vista, I have no idea on Macs.)
Vista does not.

Most SSD manufacturers have userspace tools you can run that support TRIM on XP and Vista.

Also, some manufacturers have built things into the drive firmware to improve performance with XP/Vista without those tools. Reports vary on how effective they are.

Linux supports TRIM only on newer kernels and filesystems (notably ext4.)

Originally Posted by UALOneKPlus View Post
I use a 500gb hard drive that I bought a couple of years ago for $80. There is no way on earth I can justify paying 10X that much (or more) for a SSD.
Do you really need that much space in your laptop? If so, SSD is not for you, but on the other hand, most people don't by a long shot.

An 80gb SSD from some manufacturers is less than twice that much money; the benchmark Intel model (no longer the best, by any means) is about $170.

Originally Posted by Landing Gear View Post
From the Sony website (can't find a way to directly link to this paragraph):
Fresh Start

Fresh Start provides a basic computing environment where specific VAIOŽ applications (like VAIOŽ Media Gallery and VAIO Picture Motion Browser), trial software and games are removed from your unit prior to shipment. Any additional software applications added to your notebook will not be affected by this option.
Good deal. Do they charge extra for the privilege?


Originally Posted by jbdk View Post
Disadvantages are price and limited write cycles. How limited, I do not know yet. But on average, an USB flash drive will last about two years until you start to have problems.
I've had production systems with pre-TRIM Intel drives running 24/7 for more than two years now. An average SSD will last a great deal longer than two years, unless you are running an incredibly write-heavy workload.

Under an incredibly write-heavy workload -- for example, what are in essence supercomputing applications -- I've heard stories of SSDs failing a lot faster than that: if you are writing terabytes of new data to disk every day, SSDs are either (A) not for you, or (B) a consumable. Most people write no more than a few gigabytes of new data per day.)

For a desktop, I recommend Solid state for operating system and programs and traditional hard drives for data storage.
For most users, I don't see the value proposition of SSDs for desktops; durability is not an issue, and striped RAID is cheaper, and practical where it is impractical in a laptop. You can get a 4-drive RAID 0 or RAID10 (4-way striped or mirrored + striped 2-way each) for the cost of a single SSD.

Where the random-access performance of SSDs is valuable enough on a desktop (certain sorts of applications, including software development - our developer desktops now come with an SSD) you typically need to include those applications' data (eg your source code and your IDE caches) on the SSD as well as just the applications and OS.
nkedel is offline