Why are you not using a SSD yet?
debuggable.com
Why are you not using a SSD yet?
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#2Because it costs an outrageous amount of money. I'm waiting for further development of hybrid drives, which are SSDs combined with a traditional hard drive for mass storage, but seen as one drive by the OS. The SSD is basically used a huge read cache. Current models of hybrid drives from Seagate have only 4 GB of SSD cache, which I don't feel is large enough.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#3I'm on my second in this machine. Burned through the first one. It had a rough death.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#4Because it costs an outrageous amount of money. I'm waiting for further development of hybrid drives, which are SSDs combined with a traditional hard drive for mass storage, but seen as one drive by the OS. The SSD is basically used a huge read cache. Current models of hybrid drives from Seagate have only 4 GB of SSD cache, which I don't feel is large enough.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#5Because it costs an outrageous amount of money. I'm waiting for further development of hybrid drives, which are SSDs combined with a traditional hard drive for mass storage, but seen as one drive by the OS. The SSD is basically used a huge read cache. Current models of hybrid drives from Seagate have only 4 GB of SSD cache, which I don't feel is large enough.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
It's more than $ 200. It's more around $ 300 per computer and in a laptop it's an incredible amount of money ($800+ if I'm correct) if you have a Sony or an Apple one.
Additionally the performance increase is important, but doesn't matter for everything network related.
In other words I'd say it's almost worth what you pay for it.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#6Because it costs an outrageous amount of money. I'm waiting for further development of hybrid drives, which are SSDs combined with a traditional hard drive for mass storage, but seen as one drive by the OS. The SSD is basically used a huge read cache. Current models of hybrid drives from Seagate have only 4 GB of SSD cache, which I don't feel is large enough.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
Since when it's a "serious" performance increase when "it boots faster"? Or if the first grep after the boot is faster (others must be fast since the file cache kicks in for every next one, unless you have, say, 128 MB RAM). Really not worth to mention.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
It's more than $ 200. It's more around $ 300 per computer and in a laptop it's an incredible amount of money ($800+ if I'm correct) if you have a Sony or an Apple one. Additionally the performance increase is important, but doesn't matter for everything network related. In other words I'd say it's almost worth what you pay for it.
I installed one in my Macbook Pro a few weeks ago for ~$300, but bought the 120 GB SSD vs. 80 GB. Considering I'm only using 60GB of it, I certainly could have bought the 80 GB and had everything shipped for right around $200.
It's easily the most noticeable upgrade I've ever done.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
It's more than $ 200. It's more around $ 300 per computer and in a laptop it's an incredible amount of money ($800+ if I'm correct) if you have a Sony or an Apple one. Additionally the performance increase is important, but doesn't matter for everything network related. In other words I'd say it's almost worth what you pay for it.
A vertex 2 is around $200 from what I can see:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227...
If you buy a sony or apple laptop, replace the drive yourself. I just bought a 13" MBP and bought a $25 caddy to put my Vertex 2 in the DVD bay. That way I have Windows 7 booting from that SSD, OSX on the normal HDD with extra storage available there. Of course you could just replace the HDD with an SSD and not void your warranty.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
Since when it's a "serious" performance increase when "it boots faster"? Or if the first grep after the boot is faster (others must be fast since the file cache kicks in for every next one, unless you have, say, 128 MB RAM). Really not worth to mention.
Applications start faster, loading any files from disk start faster. It depends on your usage scenario, but for .NET development in Windows I can vouch for it's value.
$200 for an SSD is a far better use of money for the average programmer than say the upgrade from I5 to I7 on a 13" MBP. There are many parts of your computer which you'd spend $200 on that get you less of a general every day performance boost than a SSD.
Re: Why are you not using a SSD yet?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
Since when it's a "serious" performance increase when "it boots faster"? Or if the first grep after the boot is faster (others must be fast since the file cache kicks in for every next one, unless you have, say, 128 MB RAM). Really not worth to mention.
Spoken like someone who has never used a machine with an SSD. My SSD is by far the best performance investment I've made in recent years.
A fast CPU is worthless if you're burning 30% of your cycles waiting for the HDD to deliver your data. Relying on file cache is not good enough.