Originally Posted by cigga24
Well based on that 27gb free on SSD comment, I went back and checked my drive again and sure enough I was obviously overlooking the word "free" in 48.7gb free on my hdd partition. My C drive is only occupying 31gb not 48 like I thought so this 90gb Corsair Force GT is too big and I could get away with the more reliable 64gb Crucial.
On another note, everyone says how the Sandforce 2281 drives are garbage but why is Intel making some??http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57...news&tag=title
Regarding the Hyper-V and Virtualization, it appears that will be in Windows 8 Pro which doesn't come with Media Center, but can be added on via "Media Pack" http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b...-editions.aspx
Posts like these get under my skin. So much is wrong with everything you said I don't even know where to begin.
I guess cause I am a Sandforce and OCZ fan boy I could start there.
Originally Posted by cigga24
My C drive is only occupying 31gb not 48 like I thought so this 90gb Corsair Force GT is too big and I could get away with the more reliable 64gb Crucial.
On another note, everyone says how the Sandforce 2281 drives are garbage but why is Intel making some??
First - Sandforce is not garbage. The Sandforce drives are among the fastest and highest performing drives out right now. The average Sandforce based SSD from a multitude of MFG's will eat that Crucial you hold so dear up for lunch in any modern SSD benchmark. Sandforce based drives are also quite affordable and represent both good performance and good value. That is why Intel chose to make one. Because- without it they were never competitive in the performance benchmarks for SSD's. Intel realized if they wanted to own the claim for a "fast" drive they needed a Sandforce controller. Many buyers will go that direction because they feel Intel is a trusted MFG with proven reliability- You can get Intel reliability and Sandforce performance. For those who know better- they would just keep buying non Intel branded drives because they are also just as reliable, without having to pay extra for the name Intel and the warranty.
Second, you made an idiotic comment about the Crucial being more reliable.
Who says it's more reliable? Where is the proof? Your fine with the SSD you have now and the Crucial would provide no significant benefit over your current SSD.
Reality is the Crucial is less reliable. Crucial M4's are known to die at around 5000 hour mark, and it's well known that they require an updated firmware to prevent such. Only the very newest ones have the proper firmware. I read across forums all the time about Crucial M4's having issues. They will bring on the blue screen of death crashes about every hour without the firmware fix. OUCH!
Now some personal experience:
I own 13 Sandforce based SSD's, the oldest being close to 2.7 year old Vertex2 with countless hours on it. I have never had a single issue or updated the firmware on any of them. I own only 1 Crucial M4 and I have had trouble with it.
I own only 1 Crucial M4, and aside from being slower in side by side vs. my same size Vertex3- it is the only SSD that has given me trouble. It's buggy enough that I swapped the first 6 months ago, and still had to update the firmware on the replacement.
I have two identical PC's side by side in the office with only difference being the SSD's and I can tell you that the windows benchmark score for the Vertex3 60GB is 7.8 and the Crucial 64GB only 7.6. This made me run a more serious benchmark- and I was amazed at the score difference. The vertex3 was ~425 while the Crucial was ~250.
Big enough difference to notice in real world.
Truth is that Crucial is not any more reliable than people think- and it's slower than most Sandforce Drives. In a serious benchmark a Sandforce SSD like the Vertex3 will embarrass a Crucial M4. In fact, a 120GB Sandforce will outperform a 256GB Crucial at most tests.
now that is settled here is some more about the Crucial:
Last week, we wrote about the BSOD issue that Crucial's M4 SSDs were experiencing. After 5184 hours (yes, that's the specific number) of active use, the SSD started to cause blue screens of death (i.e. BSODs) every hour or so. Originally, the fix was scheduled for next week but fortunately Crucial was able to release the firmware update yesterday. The firmware version is 0309 and can be downloaded here. It's recommended for all Crucial M4 SSDs, even if you are not experiencing the BSOD issue as it will prevent it from happening.
The earliest reports indicate that the update does fix the BSOD issue, although it will take at least several days before we can be sure of that. User Vivio at Crucial forums has already run benchmarks and the update appears to be a pure bug fix, as the performance is the same as with the older 0009 firmwware.
You can read more here.http://www.anandtech.com/show/5424/c...the-bsod-issue
So it just amazes me how people can place the Crucial M4 up on a pedestal and claim it's the holy grail, and think really good drives are as you say "garbage"
Lucky for you- I am tired now and I won't go any further about why a larger 120GB Drive is better than a 60GB SSD drive - for a variety of reasons- Including life expectancy, performance, value, future flexibility, speed, and reliability.