Carbon wrote:The 'combo' drives show almost no benefit over standard mechanical drives. As for the longevity of 2.5" drives, well, I have used them for many years and they have been as reliable as any other drive.
I have no idea what a "peg" SSD is. Perhaps you mean the M.2 internals?
Wormbo wrote:I would claim that MTBF ("mean time between failures") of an SSD is not really related to how it is connected to the system or how large its case is in general. They are all essentially the same, in terms of how the data is stored.
The main problem with PCI Express SSDs is that not every operating system can use them as the system boot drive. But if you have an OS that supports them, sure go ahead and use them. PCI-E definitely has a higher potential throughput than SATA. Just notice that those are the most expensive SSDs (2x and more per GB of storage compared to SATA SSDs) out there. Then again, if you have the money, you can get an SSD similar in size to today's large HDDs. But for consumers that's usually a waste of money.
Yes, with that SSD Windows was booting very fast, and so I could also wait faster for coming up the network and joining the domain ("no domain controllers available").Wormbo wrote:Boot time, [...], they all benefit a lot from an SSD.
Wormbo wrote:While those PCI-E SSDs are pointless for "mere mortals", an SATA SSD is not. Boot time, application start-up time, map load time, they all benefit a lot from an SSD.
And like I said: I bought my first Intel SATA SSD almost 5 years ago. It still works perfectly.
There's a saying, "Those who buy cheap, will have to buy twice.", and it is definitely also true for SSDs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests