http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7...ing-price-war/
Edit: Just noticed this is a "Mac Fixit" article. That's funny.
Edit: Just noticed this is a "Mac Fixit" article. That's funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/21959924
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7...ing-price-war/
Edit: Just noticed this is a "Mac Fixit" article. That's funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/21959968
I read another article about this on another website. Probably Toms or Anandtech - .
Quote:
Are We In For An SSD Price War?
Eight out of ten geeks agree*: once you've taken an SSD's blazing fast speeds for a whirl, it's hard to go back to standard HDDs. (The last two geeks horde ripped HD video files like they're going out of style.) The problem is, the comparatively sky-high price point of SSDs have kept most folks away from their oh-so-sweet performance. New reports indicate that may change in the coming months, however, as the big movers and shakers in the SSD industry lower prices to try and squeeze out the little guys.
Falling NAND chip pricing is the reason that Kingston, Intel, OCZ and Crucial will be able to engage in the "price war" to eliminate smaller companies from the SSD market, DigiTimes reports. The publication's sources say that the big guys are worried that "inferior products" from bit players may slow down the mass adoption of SSDs through retail channels, so the big guys plan on squashing the competition with a swat of the low-price sledgehammer.
Now, you want to take everything you hear from DigiTimes with a grain of salt, but keep in mind that Intel recently released the budget-priced 330 SSD line with a base model that retails for under $100. The big companies also hope to spur the mass adoption to SATA 3.0 by offering those SSDs at competitive prices to SATA 2.0 SSDs, the publication says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/21959968
I would rather pay $80 for a good 120GB than have 50 different $150 120GB models to choose from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSalita /forum/post/21960507
Slow news day. Did anyone think that SSD prices were NOT going to drop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_stewart /forum/post/21961806
I purchased a 128gb Crucial M4 for $110 last week. I thought it was a good deal. In a month it's going to look like a crap deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_stewart /forum/post/21961806
I purchased a 128gb Crucial M4 for $110 last week. I thought it was a good deal. In a month it's going to look like a crap deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/21962446
It's not a big deal if they drop months after I buy because I am not waiting months just in case something does drop in price.
That whole waiting thing never made any sense to me.
I am happy to pay more not to wait .
SSD performance is so good compared to hard drive performance there is no possible way I would suffer with a normal hdd operating system install more than three seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/21962470
Really? This coming from the guy who was looking multiple days for a deal on a 3tb drive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/0
Really? This coming from the guy who was looking multiple days for a deal on a 3tb drive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/21962446
It's not a big deal if they drop months after I buy because I am not waiting months just in case something does drop in price.
That whole waiting thing never made any sense to me.
I am happy to pay more not to wait .
SSD performance is so good compared to hard drive performance there is no possible way I would suffer with a normal hdd operating system install more than three seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video /forum/post/21963319
I think Mfusick may have been referring to boot times. Booting from an SSD is amazingly fast compared to a standard hard drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars99 /forum/post/21963302
I would imagine most of the clean install time is slow read speeds from the cd/dvd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy /forum/post/21962986
Interesting, as I'm testing the difference for a review I'm writing. So far the 'clean install test*' is about a wash (42 minutes on an SSD -vs- 48 on the hard drive). I'm going to do some testing with compressed and uncompressed data too. Even though artificial benchmarks say one thing, actual use just may say something else.
*W7 Ultimate, drivers, Office 2010 Pro, and 14 other programs from Ninite .
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video /forum/post/21963319
I think Mfusick may have been referring to boot times. Booting from an SSD is amazingly fast compared to a standard hard drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/21963617
Using a htpc on a green drive is not "unacceptable". Once you are inside wmc or xbmc the only thing you will notice differently is that large libraries maybe take 1-2 seconds longer to load.
Modern day green drives are pretty decent for htpc, actually. I have built multiple for friends and family that didn't want to invest in a ssd.
Now if you are used to using a ssd then maybe that isn't as clear cut. But to say broadly that its "unacceptable" just isn't true.