Features - QOTW: Do you use an SSD in your main PC?

[crossy]

When you put it that way finding a game to play is hard work, I definitely don't go that far finding the games I play that I'm happy with; of course my set of criteria are different. You should definitely get the next Humble Indie Bundle that gives you the bonus of previous bundles if you spend more than a set amount; I've had as much fun playing my Humble Bundle games last year as I did my premium games, there are some gems in there DRM free

I'm going to enthusiastically second what ExHail's saying above - if you don't want to buy into all that always-online crap that the publishers seem to love - then HIB is a great way to go. It amazes me that the publishers are content to "give" such high-quality content to this scheme. Only downsides I can see are that the content seems to be very much slanted towards puzzle type games, and there's no "big production" titles - a la Call Of Duty, BF3, ME, etc. But then again I can easily see why the "cinematic" titles wouldn't be right for this scheme.

Unlikely to be drive density/faster loading of the large files. Read speeds will be almost certainly be within 20% of each other depending on drive models between 1 and 2TB. More likely it's due to other programs or OS using the 1TB drive but not the 2TB drive, so interrupting sequential reads and massively reducing load times. You must have pretty large VMs to need 500GB SSDs!

Good point on the disk stuff - I'd point the finger at Windows "doing stuff" behind my back. And yes, not only have I got a lot of VM's (20+ at last count - used for various development stuff - e.g. Debian, Fedora, RHEL, Centos, Windows, etc), but one or two of them are "biggies" - e.g. the CentOS VM VDI's are heading towards a total 60GB, so that's more than 10% of my available space in one VM.

[TooNice]

It's kinda funny that someone like me who used to be quite obsessed with HD performance (I was very specific about having a top of the end 10k RPM SCSI on my first desktop), care so little nowadays. Then again, I do spend a lot less on PC bits than I used to. For a start, I am mainly on laptop, and on a limited budget I'd prioritise GFX card over HD. I do not game as much, but when I *do* game, I'd rather being able to run native resolution (1080p) with reasonable details, than shaving off loading time.

When SSD started picking up some momentum, I was interested enough to track the cost (Tracking SSD costs).

But the price didn't drop fast enough on my watch and I just lost interest. Now I have no idea what brand/controller is in the entry/mid/high end (is it still about SandForce vs Intel?), how they compare to the drives from 2 years ago. It does look like prices have finally broken past that £1/GB psychological barrier. I can see how the "average enthusiasts" are happy to buy them now .. but I guess that my enthusiasm nowadays is below average. There are other things I'd rather spend my money on I suppose.

[Saracen]

It's kinda funny that someone like me who used to be quite obsessed with HD performance (I was very specific about having a top of the end 10k RPM SCSI on my first desktop), .....

"Top" end? Apart from the 15k drives, like the Cheetahs I used. And in fact, still do. I still have a machine with 6 * 10k SCSI drives in a (hardware, cached) RAID 5 setup, and another with those Cheetahs.

....

I still think you are crazy for not getting an SSD though.

At the right price, I would .... maybe.

But still, even for a 60GB (-ish) drive, we're looking at of the order of £70, or a bit more/less depending on the drive.

So what do I get for my £70?

Boot times? Don't care, for reasons given earlier.

Faster app-loading? Well, the apps I use regularly (like Office, etc) load automatically on boot, due to being in the startup group, so .... don't care.

Game level loading? Don't play that many games, and certainly not on my "fast" machine. And even that only has a Radeon 3870 which, while fine for my needs, isn't exactly a speed demon by modern standards.

Which pretty much leaves a "general feel" of snappiness. £70 for that? I don't think so.

At £25, maybe, At £70 ... well, there's a list of things I'd rather spend it on.

And that, ultimately, is the problem. It's a combination of cost-benefit analysis and opportunity cost, and combined, they don't bode well for me getting an SSD any time soon .... unless the unexpected happens.

[OilSheikh]

I have a 80GB Kingston SSD. I use it as my C: drive for installing games, programs.
I also have a 1TB Samsung F3 HDD split into two paritions - D: for Documents / Pics/ Videos/ Music of everyone who use my PC and a E: drive for storage of Setup packages.

Windows does load very fast with a SSD and games do feel fast.

[mikerr]

You couldnt pay me to give up my ssd (currently a crucial m4 256gb) - tbh its THE component that makes my pc feel 'fast' in day to day use... Id even go so far as to say people should put them in cheaper pcs, as the bulk of people dont use anywhere near a modern pc's maximum potential - but they WILL notice daily how fast everything opens

Yep, I really don't think they should be thought of as "just a fast HDD", as they really transform your PC, and in many circumstances they can even make an old PC into a workable new one.

I've added RAM, faster CPUs etc in the past, and not really noticed much difference,
SSD is apparent on daily use, I can tell as soon as I start using a PC if there's on in it.

They really should be on every PC