Originally Posted by roknrol
That's part of the reason I came here.
The reviews I am most interested in are the longevity and reliability reports. I know SSDs are going to be the fastest and most power-efficient option, but since this'll be for a WHS2011, I want to set it up and not have to worry about it bonking out on me in a year's time.
Intel is generally regarded as being the most rock solid option.
It's preferred in enterprise world.
It's not cheap. It's not best performance. But everyone claims it's reliable.
The statistics in general about SSD are good. They have no moving parts.
If it works good when you get it- it should last that way for a long time.
I have bought 5-10 OCZ's and they all worked great. Mostly 60GB and 120GB sizes.
I actually installed one in every PC in my office.
I won't let an employee use an HDD based system. I feel it is cruel and wrong.
Seriously- I often wonder why the world even tolerates pc's with HDD's for the OS.
The performance difference is so extreme to me I often have trouble explaining it properly.
Get an SSD you won't be sorry.
There is nothing you can do to improve the speed and performance of your system better than an SSD.
In fact I would take a $500 PC over a $3000 PC, if the cheaper had SSD and the more expensive did not. And- My everyday happiness with it would be much greater.