






Source: Intel

Comments     Threshold


RE: Laptop
By max_payne on 10/30/2012 5:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think @jRaskell nailed it. Assuming a drive failure rate of below 5% for all brands which is similar to hard drives (don't start a Seagate vs Western war here), this reliability figure is a non issue. That failure rate is not that your data is 1% or 5% wrong, which will be intolerable at any rate in a computer, it just mean that over 100 drives, less then 5% will fails, which is a very good result. Performance, price is then more the issue. So it comes down that SDD are evolving very rapidly and every computer enthusiasm should get one even a small capacity for the OS. You'll never go back to a hard drive after.
Eh @samus, I don't see any Ocz drive in your article ?

RE: Laptop


RE: Laptop
By Reclaimer77 on 10/31/2012 12:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
Typical DT argument. Someone proves something statistically, and the counter is "well the facts don't really matter"...

Are you listening to yourselves? Really? Reliability numbers a "non issue"? I think if you are one of the ones who have their OS and programs corrupted, you would be singing a different tune.

A four times higher chance of your drive failing is insignificant? Huh? On what freaking planet!?

And for that, what amazing tradeoff are we getting with the OCZ? It's not even worth it.

RE: Laptop
By Just Tom on 10/31/2012 4:02:04 PM , Rating: 2

A four times higher chance of your drive failing can certainly be insigificant on this planet, depending on the relative drive failure rates and costs of the drives in question. There is nothing irrational at taking a slightly higher risk of failure, after all a failure rate of 1% is 4 times a failure rate of .025%, to achieve cost savings.

The bigger question is why anyone would trust their data to just one drive. After all these years you would figure enthusiasts have adopted the practice of daily backups.

