OCZ is coming out with a cheaper version of the vertex, still uses the indillnx (sp?) controller. Not sure if they are using 3-4 bits per cell flash memory or just slower stuff or what, but it should be interesting.

I would really like to have a SSD as a boot/application drive but they are still too expensive. I don't need the fastest drive ever; right now I'm using a 250gb per platter 5400rpm hard drive. I just want something that is very responsive and lets my GP drive keep its heads parked most of the time.

I could probably get by with 30gb, but 60 would probably be ideal.

I lied, its still 2 bits but it is slower memory. Unfortunately, it is also only 5-10% cheaper than the Vertex. Unless Newegg or someone has some crazy MIR deals or price reductions, it seems like they will be a wash.

BTW, it is called the "Agility Series"

I've got one in its box waiting to be added to my future build

I expect GREAT things from it, your post has only comforted me that I made the right (but expensive) choice.

Certainly. You really can't be an SSD for great workstation performance.

If you're not sure about SSDs for any reason, you owe yourself this read. It's an excellent article:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631

anyone considering an ssd to be slow at all does not have a clue or yet used one. it's the single fastest thing you can get for your pc. it has a random access time of 0.065ms, compared to 8ms on the fastest drive (raptors). that's more than a 100x faster in random accesses, which happen to be most of the stuff your os ever does.


even when it's degraded, it still dances around any hdd in performance. it's the internet, every bad thing gets dramatized and overcried.

and, the difference from a hdd to an ssd is amazing in terms of silencing. i have pc's i don't even know if they're on or not. other pc's suddenly have their screen-fan annoyingly loud as they got silent (yes, screens have fans, too, iehk.. at least my 24" screen does).


it's the single best thing you can buy for your pc, worth the 400+$ easily for the 160gb drive. i know most won't believe me. you should still do so..



in other news, for the data storage needing guys, get a windows home server, put your disks there. make it as quiet as possible, and put it somewhere away so you can't ever hear it. the home server is awesome in tons of situations, from automatic backup of all your systems to networked shares with data duplication and all, user management etc.

mine is built into some ikea furniture (can't post pics yet), silenced except for the hdds (but they're quiet ecodrives).

investement in the server + the ssds for all the pc's: around 1000$ all in all. gain in noise reduction, performance enhancement, storage size growth, + the autobackup taking away any fear of problems, definitely worth it.

worth it over any other investment in computing i've ever done.

and this was my first post, pure marketing sorry. i just had to comment here.

and now it should work with links:

http://davepermen.net/HomeServer.aspx





it now looks quite a bit different, but the pics are still the same (newer ones will follow soon)

I assume that motherboard is resting on some kind of non-conducting material (I can't see any, though). I don't know what the shelf is made of. But, even if it's not metal, the paint might be conductive. Just for safety, I'd find something a bit bigger to go underneath that motherboard.

yeah, the motherboard is lifted above the ground, there where you would put screws in normally to fit it to the case, there are screws backwards in with spacers in between, holding it about half a centimeter over the paintings. i wouldn't put it onto the floor directly, no..


edit: i'll update my pics later today, now i have a mission (not that i wouldn't have any else.. )

samsung 5400rpm ecogreen drive is a HDD but very quiet, and as its cooler lends itself well to sitting in a HD silent enclosure so you can get virtual silence there.

SSD is of course much faster though so they drop in price I will get a cheap one perhaps 80gb, to put OS and programs on, then use the old HDD as a slave to hold all the big data/ multimedia files.

I will wait at least one year for SSD to have a better price:performance ratio, they're simply too expensive and offer too little space.

For now, one 5400rpm and one 5900rpm both 1tb placed in softmounted quietdrives is pretty much non-problematic at least from the silence perspective.

If space is what you need a 5400 or 5900 rpm 3.5" drive is the way to go. For anything else:

I don't think you'll need a full year. The Kingston 40GB SSD based on the Intel controller is at the $100 mark and I expect it to be outshone by something way better in the next 4 - 6 months.

It's still far too much money for so little space. It would fit Windows 7 plus some programs and not so much more.

I'll actually push it back further away..
When a 256GB drive becomes available for something like €100 then it will finally offer a decent price:storage ratio. This size is enough for windows, games and even something else.

Besides, it probably is a good idea to let the technology mature a bit.

If anyone is going to run for an SSD, there are a few things they should know about Intel:

1. The TRIM firmware was taken down after many users reported their drives bricked.

2. The Intel SSD Toolbox has issues with Windows 7.

3. Windows 7 does not always recognize the Intel SSD as an SSD.

4. The Intel SSD Toolbox has been taken down.

In other words, there appears to be a major Intel screw-up.

Specific to the Toolbox:



That's from the Announcements at:

http://communities.intel.com/community/ ... iscussions

In the above quote, there's a link to:

http://support.intel.com/support/ssdc/h ... 031073.htm

That's a link to an 8 page PDF explaining how to "work around" this corrupted Restore points problem. What it boils down to is to:

- stop the Toolbox from running its Optimization task either by unscheduling it or by uninstalling the whole tool (this stops later Restore points from being corrupted),
- deleting all prior restore points, and
- taking a new restore point.

I disabled system restore immediately after installing Windows 7, so that issue never affected me.

Yep. Enough for a few extra mp3s, oggs, etc. By that time, Windows will require a 500GB partition just on its own, so you'll be pushing it further back and waiting for a 2TB SSD for the same price. Seriously, why do people need so much space for their system partition? I'm sure there are plenty of "everything on C:" proponents out there and "partitioning is bad etc." I could be way off the mark but unless Windows and your apps are bloating out of control or the handful of games you might install at once are 20GB+ each, a 40-80GB SSD should be enough to run Windows and more. As usual, YMMV.


I think that's a wise idea. If you are happy with HDD, no need to rush out and be blown away just yet. I won't upgrade to SSD for at least a year or so. Prices in this part of the world are still too inflated at the moment as well.

Actually I have partitioned harddrives for atleast 10 years by now. Makes re-installing faster and easier.

C:\ 40GB, windows 7 Ultimate 64bit +programs +swap file (hibernation disabled). This uses about half of the partition. I expect the next windows to fit into this same hdd space, but I will probably have moved on by then, if not to SSD then a HDD with higher platter density.
D:\ 220GB for games. About 110GB of it is used.
E:\ The rest. This contains documents, images, documentaries, music videos, application backups plus other backups.

The other harddrive is for downloads, movies and my large music archive (lots of wave and flac files). Some data is on both harddrives in case of a harddrive failure, which of course "eats up" additional space.

40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient when it comes to space. And I really don't expect SSD's to increase the windows performance so much that its worth the price. Not yet..

I picked up one of the Kingston 40gb boot drives. It's only $3 a gigabyte, which is where hard drives were in roughly 2002.

I've got Windows 7 on the SSD and I am installing programs on a hard drive. It's not difficult to tell Windows 7 where to put your files. The SSD is about half full. There may be a couple of programs on it from before I put in the hard disk.

I'm planning on getting some shared network storage, maybe an Acer EasyStore AH340 server.

SSD for operating system, hard drive for applications and documents (a 120GB should be enough), and network storage for music/videos/photos/shared documents/backup.

What keeps you from doing

SSD C:
HD D:
HD E:

If you only need 80GB for C: then it doesn't matter what space is on D and E if they aren't mapped to the SSD.

Keep your existing hard drives and add a SSD to the mix.

Windows plus a couple of games on a SSD just to save a few seconds here and there?

Again, it's not worth the money. I'd rather buy another 1tB harddrive for future needs.

Obviously, everyone needs to decide for himself/herself what's "worth the money." However, as someone who has moved to SSD's, it's not the saving of a few seconds that is enjoyable about them. It's the overall responsiveness of the system. It's just a different, more positive experience in the same way that having an excellent LCD changes the computing experience for the better.

Sorry, my last comment was a little harsh (and a touch on the sarcastic side). Your disk strategy is similar to mine. I have more partitions as I separate things according to their uses. I've tried to "simplify" it over the years but I can't live without the clear organisation that I'm used to.

I have a large external HDD that contains files from the main one also. I agree that 40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient as a one disk system but for holding just the OS and some apps, I consider it sufficient for that purpose for now. I don't think I was suggesting that you would do away with HDDs once you had the SSD, as you still need a lot of space for large files and media libraries which consume more than the typical and "affordable" SSD can handle.