5 ms·
Objectively? That's a dangerous word; I hope you've got a better argument than this one. Hard drives are being rapidly replaced by SSDs, so their speed just jum
by Resident_Geek 14y ago
Objectively? That's a dangerous word; I hope you've got a better argument than this one. Hard drives are being rapidly replaced by SSDs, so their speed just jumped _way_ up (especially start-up and random access times, which affect sleeping and waking performance). 2 or 3 orders of magnitude, not 20%.
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoSSDs are great. But I have exactly one hard drive bay in my laptop, and it currently holds >580Gb of data. Some of that is bloat, but MOST of it is real data; I have lots of raw video, source art for games, music, and many folders of compiled object files. I'm a game developer, so I use a lot of hard drive. From what I've read, an SSD has an expected life of about 1-2 years. Aside from not being able to afford $2500 JUST for an SSD to hold my data [1], I can't fathom paying that much every 1-2 years as the drives die. Not to mention downtime and potential lost data (between the back-up and the failure). I'd love to have an SSD. In a year or two, I probably will, as the costs will likely drop. But until then, yes, the performance has objectively dropped. [1] http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-2-5-Inch-Performance-OCT1-25SAT3-1T/dp/B006L7JM64/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1363138445&sr=1-1&keywords=ssd http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-2-5-Inch-Performance-OC...