First time builder seeks build advice - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Let me be clear: I have really nothing against OCZ. But you aren't being honest with your evaluation of either OCZ's reputation or the fact that the Crucial is a very good drive for almost everyone.

The data and reputation is out there if you want to look at it and use it. If you have alternative data please post it.

Again, performance here is a wash (which you also like to tout for some reason as being a big factor in a buyer's decision making process) for HTPC use as the end user won't see a bit of difference when opening media browser, xbmc, etc between the different SSDs.
assassin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Well have you ever RMA a crucial drive ?

I have. It's a PITA. They made me trouble shoot it on phone first. Aside from annoying me and wasting my time it made the return process much harder.
I'm sure many reasons of return are corrected in this process too which leads to lower returns.

On flip side I RMA a vertex 2 60gb too. With OCZ I don't have to speak to anyone. I just went on website and set it up myself in under a minute.
I had a new replacement 2 days later. It's way easier.

Path of least resistance is always most traveled.

I have no doubts that the difference in RMA process effects Rma numbers too.

Plus- if I can buy a vertex4 cheaper than a Crucial M4.. And it's faster.. And it has 2 more years of warranty (crucial warranty is 3 years and OCZ warranty is 5 years)... And last I can swap our easier if it goes bad during that time I just don't understand the thought process people have thinking the the crucial is a better choice.

Even if someone dislikes OCZ on a personal level there still a better choice in muskin, Samsung, plextor and many other competitor drives.

The only legitimate reason to but a crucial is brand preference for crucial. And, I won't argue with anyone who openly admits that's why. But pretending any other legitimate reason exists is just senseless propaganda to defend a purchase decision or belief.

I can't be the only one that got sucked into the propaganda .. Has owned other SSDs in addition to Crucial and realized most of the crap out there about them being so good is indeed crap.

They are merely average to below average in the current SSD landscape. No hard real data exists to prove otherwise. If you look hard enough or want to believe something is true bad enough you'll usually find info to support that. It doesn't make it any more or less true to another less or more subjective person.

I could dig up plenty of anti crucial info on the net if I even cared to look.
I just don't see the point. Nor do I see how you trying to bring down OCZ makes crucial any better choice.

If Somone doesn't share my evaluation process for choosing a drive that's fine with me.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #33 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Please post something objective.

I am not trying to "bring down" anyone. I am merely reporting objective data that is available. Believe me I have scoured the internet trying to find data about objective reliability of all sorts of products including (and especially) SSDs.

I am sorry you do not like the data. I am sure if it was pro-OCZ you would be singing these same reports from the mountain tops as yet another reason to purchase OCZ. I think buyers and the community should be informed of what's out there.

Again, please post something objective that refutes this (instead of your own opinion ad nauseam) as I would love to read it.
assassin is offline  
post #34 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
On the other hand there are still two manufacturers with rates of higher than 3%, Hitachi for hard drives and OCZ for SSDs. Hitachi is likely to be at least at the same level over the forthcoming period as it has a rate of 3.29% already and there are still six months to go. OCZ however is doing much better with returns dropping to 2.2% for the moment thanks to much better scores for its best-sellers, the Vertex 3 and Agility 3 (currently 1.01% and 1.12% for the 120 GB versions for example).

Funny this is from the article you listed and supports what I'm saying.

There is two points actually here in play.

#.1 hitachi
#2. OCZ

First, it was previously mentioned hitachi was tops in reliability. I've read more than one study myself in past that demonstrated hitachi had the lowest failure rates in enterprise server environments. Your article seems to counteract that. Which is right and which is wrong ?

Second even your own study showing OCZ improvement with newer models and firmware.

So... Point is:

By the time you get any if this data it just isn't appropriate to your individual experience. So why bother considering this crap over cold hard facts and reality? Price is more certain and important. Mfg warranty is a better tool to compare on the reliability issues. Performance and user experience are more important too.

That's all I been saying the whole time.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #35 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Funny this is from the article you listed and supports what I'm saying.
There is two points actually here in play.
#.1 hitachi
#2. OCZ
First, it was previously mentioned hitachi was tops in reliability. I've read more than one study myself in past that demonstrated hitachi had the lowest failure rates in enterprise server environments. Your article seems to counteract that. Which is right and which is wrong ?
Second even your own study showing OCZ improvement with newer models and firmware.
So... Point is:
By the time you get any if this data it just isn't appropriate to your individual experience. So why bother considering this crap over cold hard facts and reality? Price is more certain and important. Mfg warranty is a better tool to compare on the reliability issues. Performance and user experience are more important too.
That's all I been saying the whole time.

But by the same token you refuse to acknowledge how good Crucial's reliability is.

Got it.
assassin is offline  
post #36 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 03:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
I like arguing with you btw... Lol

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #37 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 04:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

But by the same token you refuse to acknowledge how good Crucial's reliability is.
Got it.

Yes. I dismiss it.

I bought a Crucial and it died and I have since regretted the fact I did since I feel misled and cheated by the Crucial loyalists. The propaganda got me.


None of the claims about that drive being good are true.

I don't believe the reliability is any better than the other options and more importantly I feel the crucial loses out on many of the other important buying decisions factors.

It's not that I don't think it's reliable. I believe it is. I just also believe all SSDs in general are also reliable and the crucial isn't significantly better or more reliable so they entire point is null and void.

I think both crucial and OCZ are pretty reliable and chances are anyone buying any major brand SSD should not have any problems or failures.

But promoting the Crucial as its the holy grail of SSDs and tops in reliability is totally bogus. I call BS on that everytime.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #38 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 05:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on the Hitachi issue.

It's been touted as both worse reliability and best reliability. What's up with that?

Is one report wrong or right ? How can two different studies have opposite conclusions ???

Am I right in my general feeling that reliability studies are not accurate or relevant ?

Does anyone really feel that a reliability study holds a strong relevance in a purchase decision ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #39 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 05:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Ugh.
Quote:
“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
assassin is offline  
post #40 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 05:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on the Hitachi issue.
It's been touted as both worse reliability and best reliability. What's up with that?
Is one report wrong or right ? How can two different studies have opposite conclusions ???
Am I right in my general feeling that reliability studies are not accurate or relevant ?
Does anyone really feel that a reliability study holds a strong relevance in a purchase decision ?

I think that reliability studies are a very good indicator of a products reliability. However , the issue is the testing procedures. I feel like no two studies are ever done under the exact same conditions or parameters if you will . I suspect that is the issue with the Hitachi .

As I have said before , the relevance of reliability studies usually has to be done over a long period of time and by the time the data is relevant the product at hand has already changed to one degree or another or completely .

The other question could be the definition of a reliability study vs. a "known to be defective" advertisement . Now here is a totally different way of reporting reliability. Let's say a well known ssd manufacture has a habit of continuously posting issues with the same thing then that would be a reliability problem but not one of proof from long term testing .

I guess part of the answer lies in exactly what part you are testing . Is it one that is mechanical in nature and must be tortured for a LONG period of time or is it non mechanical and relies strictly on firmwares and drivers ?

Personally , I have been building / purchasing computer parts for a long , long time and feel that my own usage works for reliability testing . If I have never used a particular part then i will find reliable folks who are intelligent and as non biased as possible along with as much recent data as I can find on the the product . If the two make a match then that is the part chosen. BTW ... that,s how I chose my Crucial M-4 and haven't looked back tongue.gif

So no , I don't use reliability studies strictly
flocko is offline  
post #41 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 06:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
I don't use them strictly either. But I can't just completely ignore the data that is there as its a good indication of a failure or return pattern that I want to avoid if most other things are equal (see below).

Performance of SATAIII (or heck even SATAII) SSDs for HTPC are all equivalent for real world use. So then it comes down to other factors and reliability, reputation from respected users (as flocko stated) and cost/GB reign supreme.
assassin is offline  
post #42 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 06:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Yeah that makes some sense.

Almost always by the time study shows data the model in question has changed or updated so the results of the study don't necessarily translate directly to the model you buy today.

That was the point I originally made about the Seagate 3tb. That point can be exemplified in the Hitachi HDD example too. The hitachi was ranked both best and worst in reliability. Reality is they probably had great drive designs and not so great. I doubt any current model now in 2tb or 3tb size is same as the older smaller drives studied.

Last OCZ and crucial prob also fit well. One started bad and improved other started good and has declined.

Truth is any model you buy today your personal experience is going to be unique and possibly different.

I tend to believe in models that have been around for a while or had a series of updates or improvements over time and had bugs worked out. This over an all new design new to the market.

In this sense ... I'd feel confident either the Samsung830 the crucial m4 or the vertex3/4 all about equally since all have been around a while, been updated and improved, and sold very well. Reliability issue for me is usually a wash so mentally I look to other factors I find more important.

This general view also makes me discredit reliability study results since I doubt they are going to be representative of my own personal experience with any reliable accuracy.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #43 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 06:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Yeah that makes some sense.
Almost always by the time study shows data the model in question has changed or updated so the results of the study don't necessarily translate directly to the model you buy today.
That was the point I originally made about the Seagate 3tb. That point can be exemplified in the Hitachi HDD example too. The hitachi was ranked both best and worst in reliability. Reality is they probably had great drive designs and not so great. I doubt any current model now in 2tb or 3tb size is same as the older smaller drives studied.
Last OCZ and crucial prob also fit well. One started bad and improved other started good and has declined.
Truth is any model you buy today your personal experience is going to be unique and possibly different.
I tend to believe in models that have been around for a while or had a series of updates or improvements over time and had bugs worked out. This over an all new design new to the market.
In this sense ... I'd feel confident either the Samsung830 the crucial m4 or the vertex3/4 all about equally since all have been around a while, been updated and improved, and sold very well. Reliability issue for me is usually a wash so mentally I look to other factors I find more important.
This general view also makes me discredit reliability study results since I doubt they are going to be representative of my own personal experience with any reliable accuracy.

Again, please point to objective data where the Crucial product has "declined". Its amazing you bash others for saying anything critical at all about OCZ yet freely spout off all kinds of jibberish about the horrors of Crucial SSDs without even a sliver of objective data.

So I am asking you to put some proof behind what you are accusing. If you accuse someone of something then you should back it up with some sort of data and not just your opinion over and over and over.
assassin is offline  
post #44 of 59 Old 11-08-2012, 06:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Yeah that makes some sense.
Almost always by the time study shows data the model in question has changed or updated so the results of the study don't necessarily translate directly to the model you buy today.
That was the point I originally made about the Seagate 3tb. That point can be exemplified in the Hitachi HDD example too. The hitachi was ranked both best and worst in reliability. Reality is they probably had great drive designs and not so great. I doubt any current model now in 2tb or 3tb size is same as the older smaller drives studied.
Last OCZ and crucial prob also fit well. One started bad and improved other started good and has declined.
Truth is any model you buy today your personal experience is going to be unique and possibly different.
I tend to believe in models that have been around for a while or had a series of updates or improvements over time and had bugs worked out. This over an all new design new to the market.
In this sense ... I'd feel confident either the Samsung830 the crucial m4 or the vertex3/4 all about equally since all have been around a while, been updated and improved, and sold very well. Reliability issue for me is usually a wash so mentally I look to other factors I find more important.
This general view also makes me discredit reliability study results since I doubt they are going to be representative of my own personal experience with any reliable accuracy.

Your not completely reading my post .

I used the data from the study (Tom's 2010) AND the information from reliable human accounts and made a strong decision to NEVER purchase a Seagate Hdd . Oh , and they can discount the hell out of them all they want which they always do and it STILL aint gonna happen in this house !! I use price as a criteria as well but I use that criteria in both directions . I rarely purchase the cheapest product based on just that .... cheap !!

I also think that trying to mix the opinions of reliability studies between two totally different subjects is not comparable.

Truthfully , as far as hdds go , I would purchase in this order 1) Samsung f4 2) WD and 3) Hitachi . Never owned a Hitachi as pricing is always prohibitive.
flocko is offline  
post #45 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Again, please point to objective data where the Crucial product has "declined". Its amazing you bash others for saying anything critical at all about OCZ yet freely spout off all kinds of jibberish about the horrors of Crucial SSDs without even a sliver of objective data.
So I am asking you to put some proof behind what you are accusing. If you accuse someone of something then you should back it up with some sort of data and not just your opinion over and over and over.


I never bashed anyone for saying anything about OCZ. Please point to where I did.

I did say that the OCZ was rated over the crucial and that its faster and cheaper and has a better 5 year warranty. But that's not "bashing" is just pointing out the facts.

Beyond this if someone dislikes OCZ for whatever personal reason they have I specifically said that's cool. Grab a Muskin or Plextor or Samsung instead ... And that they are all better choices IMO.

Your drawing an inference that isn't really there. Your constant argument over the OCZ being suspect doesn't save the Crucial or make a purchase decision in it's favor any more valid IMO.

I'm not "bashing" anyone. I'm bashing Crucial. It's a poor choice IMO.
If it was acknowledged openly its merely average to below average in the current SSD landscape I'd submit. But even today it's still propagadized to be something better than it is.

I don't feel it has any significant superiority in any important category and any recommendation towards it is based more in personal feeling and brand preference than reality.

That's fine too. Lets just be honest and say that's purely the reason. Pretending it has some false or over exaggerated reliability superiority is just wrong. And bashing another brand to give credit to Crucial makes no sense either. You can't bash all the other major SSDs ... And you'd basically have to go there to give any significant reason to choose Crucial beyond simple biased brand preference.

You'll prob not like OCZ and prefer crucial. I'll probably prefer OCZ and about every other brand over crucial so I think we just have to disagree.

I've made my point why I think Crucial is a bad choice but beyond my own personal purchase decisions... It's no longer my decision.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #46 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 09:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by flocko View Post

Your not completely reading my post .
I used the data from the study (Tom's 2010) AND the information from reliable human accounts and made a strong decision to NEVER purchase a Seagate Hdd . Oh , and they can discount the hell out of them all they want which they always do and it STILL aint gonna happen in this house !! I use price as a criteria as well but I use that criteria in both directions . I rarely purchase the cheapest product based on just that .... cheap !!
I also think that trying to mix the opinions of reliability studies between two totally different subjects is not comparable.
Truthfully , as far as hdds go , I would purchase in this order 1) Samsung f4 2) WD and 3) Hitachi . Never owned a Hitachi as pricing is always prohibitive.

I understand what your saying even that I don't agree with it.

I guess I just feel that it the pace pc technology and products change : what used to be isn't necessarily how it is now.

Thus I don't put much into the past .. Since I don't feel it's correlates directly to the present.

So I look at the current landscape and make my decision on that data.

I know any HDD brand could have an issue or problem but unless I'm buying that specific model at that specific time I question how that information is relevant to a purchase decision.

Given your example above and trying to keep with your perceived mental assessment of HDDs drives lets imagine the following scenario.

Samsung has been tops in reliability and performance for past few years. Seagate had some issues and ranked below Samsung in both performance and reliability. a few years later both companies had significant mergers with other HDD companies and both companies launch entirely new products. In these totally new products... The Seagate 3tb gets great reviews in almost every category and is higly praised for many improvements and design. It sells well for 6 months with great feedback. The Samsung new model has some sma glitch and gets a bit if negative feedback on the new model. Additionally it's a bit more expensive too.

Which would you buy ? Would you stick with your original preference ?

And most importantly isn't this exactly what happens and has happened in current PC product landscape ?

I just don't put much credit into the areas you do because I don't think it's a good representation of my own personal reality and experience.

We can agree to disagree. It's ok.

But when you make comments like "not in this house it ain't gonna happen" it's obvious there's a "feeling" there. Just realize your feeling might not be some one else's reality.

Brand recommendations based on personal feeling and bias should be presented and explained as such. That's my opinion. Its ok to oresent them but presenting them as fact or using irrelevant data to scare somone away from one choice and align with your own choice is wrong.

And please realize I'm generalizing here and not saying your doing that. It's just example of the stuff I see here.. And in particular the stuff I see about the Crucial over last 12months around here.

It's much less pronounced on the other products so I tend to ca it out less: but nonetheless it exists across tons of products. Brand preference and loyal fans and owners is great but let's not mix facts and opinions is all I'm saying.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #47 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 10:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I never bashed anyone for saying anything about OCZ. Please point to where I did.
I did say that the OCZ was rated over the crucial and that its faster and cheaper and has a better 5 year warranty. But that's not "bashing" is just pointing out the facts.
Beyond this if someone dislikes OCZ for whatever personal reason they have I specifically said that's cool. Grab a Muskin or Plextor or Samsung instead ... And that they are all better choices IMO.
Your drawing an inference that isn't really there. Your constant argument over the OCZ being suspect doesn't save the Crucial or make a purchase decision in it's favor any more valid IMO.
I'm not "bashing" anyone. I'm bashing Crucial. It's a poor choice IMO.
If it was acknowledged openly its merely average to below average in the current SSD landscape I'd submit. But even today it's still propagadized to be something better than it is.
I don't feel it has any significant superiority in any important category and any recommendation towards it is based more in personal feeling and brand preference than reality.
That's fine too. Lets just be honest and say that's purely the reason. Pretending it has some false or over exaggerated reliability superiority is just wrong. And bashing another brand to give credit to Crucial makes no sense either. You can't bash all the other major SSDs ... And you'd basically have to go there to give any significant reason to choose Crucial beyond simple biased brand preference.
You'll prob not like OCZ and prefer crucial. I'll probably prefer OCZ and about every other brand over crucial so I think we just have to disagree.
I've made my point why I think Crucial is a bad choice but beyond my own personal purchase decisions... It's no longer my decision.

Wow. What a ridiculous post.
assassin is offline  
post #48 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 03:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Perhaps.

But obviously I'm passionate about this issue so I'm perhaps a bit aggressive with my words and position intentionally knowing an onlooker is going to back off a bit and land in middle.

I hold a certain grudge vs Crucial M4 owners since I feel betrayed, misled and propagandized.

I bought one and actually paid more for it vs a faster/cheaper OCZ because of scare tactics and propaganda about a year ago and regretted it ever since. Not only was first defective... The second I got RMA was not impressive.

So when all the facts suggest others drives are faster/cheaper/better warranty I just can't see the argument or even logic in the thought process of thinking crucial m4 is a good choice.

Emotion or personal belief perhaps but not logic or hard data. Lets just admit when it's a personal feeling is all I'm saying.

I got raped by Crucial supporters and the lies and fabricated truths portrayed here and other forums and I don't want that to happen to anyone else.

It might be ridiculous but I'm probably going to go down defending that position.

It's probably a personality trait but I tend to question most things people claim to be true and I'm not afraid to make my own decision against popular belief if the facts suggest such.

The hogwash of old reliability data would fit that bill.

It seems far more illogical to me to assume any SSD or HDD is going to fail premature anyhow.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #49 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 03:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I understand what your saying even that I don't agree with it.
I guess I just feel that it the pace pc technology and products change : what used to be isn't necessarily how it is now.
Thus I don't put much into the past .. Since I don't feel it's correlates directly to the present.
So I look at the current landscape and make my decision on that data.
I know any HDD brand could have an issue or problem but unless I'm buying that specific model at that specific time I question how that information is relevant to a purchase decision.
Given your example above and trying to keep with your perceived mental assessment of HDDs drives lets imagine the following scenario.
Samsung has been tops in reliability and performance for past few years. Seagate had some issues and ranked below Samsung in both performance and reliability. a few years later both companies had significant mergers with other HDD companies and both companies launch entirely new products. In these totally new products... The Seagate 3tb gets great reviews in almost every category and is higly praised for many improvements and design. It sells well for 6 months with great feedback. The Samsung new model has some sma glitch and gets a bit if negative feedback on the new model. Additionally it's a bit more expensive too.
Which would you buy ? Would you stick with your original preference ?
And most importantly isn't this exactly what happens and has happened in current PC product landscape ?
I just don't put much credit into the areas you do because I don't think it's a good representation of my own personal reality and experience.
We can agree to disagree. It's ok.
But when you make comments like "not in this house it ain't gonna happen" it's obvious there's a "feeling" there. Just realize your feeling might not be some one else's reality.
Brand recommendations based on personal feeling and bias should be presented and explained as such. That's my opinion. Its ok to oresent them but presenting them as fact or using irrelevant data to scare somone away from one choice and align with your own choice is wrong.
And please realize I'm generalizing here and not saying your doing that. It's just example of the stuff I see here.. And in particular the stuff I see about the Crucial over last 12months around here.
It's much less pronounced on the other products so I tend to ca it out less: but nonetheless it exists across tons of products. Brand preference and loyal fans and owners is great but let's not mix facts and opinions is all I'm saying.

I base my "feelings" as you put it on the facts .... period ! Yes, I did not expect us to agree . Then again I see very few times when you get that acknowledgement across the board.
flocko is offline  
post #50 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 05:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tiddles88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
From what I've extensively read Samsung and (the more expensive) Intel SSD's are the most reliable, closely followed by Crucial. BUT, the general consensus is avoid Sandforce, it seems to be riddled with flaws. A Marvell or ARM controller is way better.
Tiddles88 is offline  
post #51 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 09:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiddles88 View Post

From what I've extensively read Samsung and (the more expensive) Intel SSD's are the most reliable, closely followed by Crucial. BUT, the general consensus is avoid Sandforce, it seems to be riddled with flaws. A Marvell or ARM controller is way better.

That's old data your spouting. About a year old to be exact.

New firmware and over a years worth of testing had made sandforce an excellent choice. It's cheaper... Faster than marvel in many areas .. And very reliable.

You mention Intel as tops in reliability but you don't mention that the majority of intel SSD drives sold today has sandforce controllers. So your either wrong about one or the other.

Intel did extensive testing on the sandforce controller before it released its two separate current model lines of SSDs that feature sandforce controllers. In contrast many companies like OCZ rushed their products to the market first ... And paid the price. There was a small issue effecting a small number of drives in the original release that was corrected and improved upon with a new firmware. But the reputation of those drives suffered as result . In contrast Intel tested more extensively and released their drives much later with the new updated firmware that they helped design and improve as well as thoroughly test.

So intel still has a great reputation. You pay for that in their drives.

But a year later... (More actually)... Sandforce controllers ate features in many of the most popular and recommended drives today. With the current firmware the issue is near non existent. It's not a factor. I'd buy a sandforce drive over a marvel in a heart beat.

One of the best deals going on one of the fastest drives available is right here:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227715&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL110912&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL110912-_-EMC-110912-Index-_-SSD-_-20227715-L04C
$129 for a 240GB Toshiba Toggle NAND inside. Far superior than the cheaper NAND in most Marvel drives. Quite a bit faster too.

I realize you might hate OCZ based on your claim above and that's cool. But I just wanted to clarify some of the info your stating is not true. It's a year old and more opinion than fact. While it might have been partially true in NOV 2011 it's definetly not representative of the current market or truth in NOV 2012.

But your comment does support my general arguments I've made above so thanks.

I know you don't like OCZ and I also know you generally know your stuff from other posts you've made but I think your a bit inaccurate on this one.

Current top tier SSDs are and have been sandforce controllers and TOGGLE NAND. Next would be Samsung and Marvel controllers like Vertex4 and Crucial M4 as well as sandforce drives without Toggle NAND. Sandforce being generally faster thanks to better performance with compressible data and marvel drives excelling at incompresible data.

But I'd take a 240GB sandforce toggle NAND SSD for 129$ over a 128GB marvel drive like the M4 any day. It's like a Ferrari vs a mustang only the Ferarri is the same exact price.

Performance wise it's really no contest at all. The 120gb already smokes the 128 so I'd imagine the 240gb would embarrass it given the cost is the same.

I understand you think it might not be as reliable but I assure you that the concerns you have with sandforce controllers are over exaggerated.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #52 of 59 Old 11-09-2012, 10:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
The same old data and beliefs your claiming from a year ago also can reverse apply to the Crucial since after the sandforce issue was resolved it was discovered the Crucial with marvel controllers had a serious bug and error too.

100 % of drives would blue screen of death error (BSOD) around 5000 hours and continue crashing about once every hour after reaching that point. Many crucial supporters will down play this but in comparison the Sandforce issue effected less than 1% of drives while this issue with Crucial effected more than 99%. Both have since been corrected.

A new firmware was developed and released and today it's not an issue for any crucial running or updated with the new firmware. Same for sandforce.

But for some reason that gets swept under the rug and downplayed with Crucial while the Sandforce issue gets billboard attention. Both are fixed and the sandforce issue is even older and been a non issue longer but once an Internet myth gets rolling its tough to stop it.

You see that in the general consensus sandforce is no good. Totally not true as they are generally excellent and reliable today.
Most major reputable reviewers and review sites recommend them and use them personally including tomshardware.com and maximumpc.com

Nothing wrong at all with trusting a marvel controller more. Those are good too. But I think it's important to review the information accurately and question it to ensure its accurate when making a purchase decision. That's the biggest problem I have with the Crucial issue since I feel it's propagandized while other better drives get bashed undeservedly.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #53 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 12:35 AM
Senior Member
 
duff99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'll start off by saying I own Samsung, Intel, Kingston, and OCZ SSD drives. I personally prefer Samsung if money were no object. The problem is OCZ earned it's bad reputation. They had bad quality drives. They also provided review sample drives and early production models with a certain type of NAND. They then changed it for a lower quality type without telling anyone. As for Sandforce, they just finally fixed their trim issue with a recent firmware update. Their reputation was also closely tied to OCZ since they had an arrangement where they had early access to the latest tech, and they sold most of the Sandforce drives. What I know about reputation is that once earned it takes a long time to change peoples opinions. When I was at college some girls would do regrettable things in their first week there. That reputation would follow them till they graduated. Maybe not directly comparable, but I'm just saying it takes a long time to change a reputation.

With that out of the way. Like I said I own some OCZ drives. I bought one for my fathers work machine, an Agility 3, since it was the cheapest SSD I could find. I knew it was supposed to suck. I also knew it would smoke his old spinner. It ended up that I didn't get a chance to use it for him so it ended up in a HTPC. Then later in one of my kids computer. I was rather impressed with my brief use of it. I thought if this cheap drive seems to do this well lets try something better. So I got a Vertex 4. I'm pretty impressed with this drive to. I should note that I've got a good backup plan. So a failed drive isn't the end of the world. I'm easing into it. If these drives continue to preform well maybe I'll consider OCZ for my main system. What I'm building to is that i knew about OCZ's reputation. If you think the OCZ hate is bad here, you should hear what they say about them on other forums I frequent. I've also seen some good test results from them lately, so I took a risk.

It's going to take time to change peoples minds. Sometimes you won't. Why don't we just get back to fighting over Win 8.
duff99 is offline  
post #54 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 06:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

The same old data and beliefs your claiming from a year ago also can reverse apply to the Crucial since after the sandforce issue was resolved it was discovered the Crucial with marvel controllers had a serious bug and error too.
100 % of drives would blue screen of death error (BSOD) around 5000 hours and continue crashing about once every hour after reaching that point. Many crucial supporters will down play this but in comparison the Sandforce issue effected less than 1% of drives while this issue with Crucial effected more than 99%. Both have since been corrected.
A new firmware was developed and released and today it's not an issue for any crucial running or updated with the new firmware. Same for sandforce.
But for some reason that gets swept under the rug and downplayed with Crucial while the Sandforce issue gets billboard attention. Both are fixed and the sandforce issue is even older and been a non issue longer but once an Internet myth gets rolling its tough to stop it.
You see that in the general consensus sandforce is no good. Totally not true as they are generally excellent and reliable today.
Most major reputable reviewers and review sites recommend them and use them personally including tomshardware.com and maximumpc.com
Nothing wrong at all with trusting a marvel controller more. Those are good too. But I think it's important to review the information accurately and question it to ensure its accurate when making a purchase decision. That's the biggest problem I have with the Crucial issue since I feel it's propagandized while other better drives get bashed undeservedly.

More ridiculousness.
assassin is offline  
post #55 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 07:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
So let me get this straight.

Crucial once had a great drive but it "declined". And the only objective data you can point to is the 5000 hour firmware bug which was quickly recognized and fixed within a few weeks by the company 11 months ago. No data was lost and it was at most an annoyance for the customer. But since that time there have been no reported issues with their SSDs that you or anyone else can objectively point to. Couple that with at least 2 objective studies that I referenced that show that Crucial's reliability rates are among the best in the industry.

Compared to OCZ who has had YEARS of failed drives which resulted in multiple returns, data lost, hours wasted, very poor reputation, etc. However for some reason they get a pass from you even though your rationale for choosing which drives are worthy of purchase seems to be known issues in the past (as referenced by your argument against Crucial which I stated is long gone and never caused data loss or a need for return of the drive).

Now couple all of that ridiculous abandonment of reason with the fact that ALL companies have firmware bugs (including OCZ) and this argument becomes even more absurd.

I will ask again: Please post some OBJECTIVE evidence that Crucial has "declined" and that the majority of users at AVS who use them without any issues at all are wrong and you are correct.
assassin is offline  
post #56 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 08:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
^ Once again a complete waste of valuable posting info and time rolleyes.gif

" Keeps feeding the medicine to the corps" LOL .... that one still makes me laugh....... actually sad in reality
flocko is offline  
post #57 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 08:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by flocko View Post

^ Once again a complete waste of valuable posting info and time rolleyes.gif
" Keeps feeding the medicine to the corps" LOL .... that one still makes me laugh

Yep.

Hope others just realize how ridiculous his "evidence" is to make these claims.

I will quit feeding medicine to the corpse now.
assassin is offline  
post #58 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 09:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Again both if you own and love Crucial drives so I don't expect you to agree with me.

And you think I'm hilarious but your answer to my suggestion Crucial drives are a bad choice is bashing OCZ.

That's more hilarious.

First, it's like taking candy from a baby it's so easy. OCZ has some past issues and reputation problems that have existed prior to the launch of their current drives and I'm sure it's not going away anytime soon. If you don't agree with my theory that past data is not currently accurate and want to believe nothing changes then just don't buy OCZ.

But I fail to see how that counteracts my argument that Crucial is a poor choice because its slower, more expensive and not any more reliable than many other brands.

Note I said not any more reliable. I didn't say it was not reliable. I'm saying its merely on par with others. It's not advantaged on the issue of reliability. It's had all the same issues others SSDs have had, even if popular propaganda diminishes those and exemplifies others.

At the end of the day I believe all the SSDs are reliable and the total issue is a non issue.

It's the crucial owners that constantly propagate the false idea the Crucial is somehow better at anything that I'm calling BS on. It's not better. It's almost always slower and more expensive and its certainly not more reliable by any significant difference.

If I was agreeing with the OCZ bashing ... And making all points using the Muskin plextor and Samsung SSD drives then what in the world would be your defense CRUCIAL is overrated ???

I know your upset by my posting because you think the Crucial is a good drive and don't want people to be scared away from it. I just don't share that opinion. I view Crucial supporters are bullies scaring people into crucial purchases with exaggerated data and ideas. I'm calling BS on them all.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #59 of 59 Old 11-10-2012, 10:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

So let me get this straight.
Crucial once had a great drive but it "declined". And the only objective data you can point to is the 5000 hour firmware bug which was quickly recognized and fixed within a few weeks by the company 11 months ago. No data was lost and it was at most an annoyance for the customer. But since that time there have been no reported issues with their SSDs that you or anyone else can objectively point to. Couple that with at least 2 objective studies that I referenced that show that Crucial's reliability rates are among the best in the industry.
Compared to OCZ who has had YEARS of failed drives which resulted in multiple returns, data lost, hours wasted, very poor reputation, etc. However for some reason they get a pass from you even though your rationale for choosing which drives are worthy of purchase seems to be known issues in the past (as referenced by your argument against Crucial which I stated is long gone and never caused data loss or a need for return of the drive).
Now couple all of that ridiculous abandonment of reason with the fact that ALL companies have firmware bugs (including OCZ) and this argument becomes even more absurd.
I will ask again: Please post some OBJECTIVE evidence that Crucial has "declined" and that the majority of users at AVS who use them without any issues at all are wrong and you are correct.

Your obviously not following the main point I'm saying. I'm saying all SSDs are reliable and Crucial doesn't hold any advantage over others. It's merely on par.

The examples I'm using about "decline" your reading too far into that.

Specifically I'm saying that initially OCZ and Sandforce rushed products to market to be first and it was discovered an error that effected a small number of drives. People got scared of them and the reputation was tarnished. Many people rallied around Crucial with a marvel controller as it was the most popular at the time. This is a year ago. Thus the idea crucial was superior was born.

Shortly after the firmware for Sandforce was improved / updated/ corrected but it was too late to kill the myth. Flip side - soon after that it was discovered Crucial and its marvel controller has its own glitch and also recieved a firmware update to correct. But this was after general feeling and reputation was established. So it's mostly hung around with a small group of Crucial owners and supporters that thier personal choice is superior and Sandforce and OCZ are crap.

I'm calling BS on that. Not saying Crucial has declined and not reliable ; I'm saying the reputation has declined and readjusted.

The biggest problem for me making my case is the largest Sandforce MFG is OCZ and OCZ has some haters that despise them for reasons and products prior to the current SSD line, and also the issues they had rushing to SSD market and being first.

I'd subtract all my OCZ support and side with you on all those issues if you'd acknowledge the following:

Sandforce got a bad rep early for issue with firmware and error effected small number drives. Many enthusiasts rallied around Crucial and other non sandforce controllers giving those models and mfgs a boost in reputation for reliability. Since then sandforce drives have recieved updated firmware and improved.

Later Crucial also had a bug corrected with firmware too.

Today most SSDs are generally reliable.

That's all I'm saying that I expect you to agree with.

My own personal slant is mine own and I don't expect you to side with my preference of other brands over crucial because I think they are very overrated. They have two years less warranty and perform slower while costing more.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off