|41 posts found|
10/10/12 11:02:01 AM#41
I totally disagree with you here. The performance gain is anything but "little". It's several orders of magnitude.
Sure, it may measure to saving 30 seconds off your boot time. But it also measures to saving several seconds every time you open a program that is saved there, or every time you open a large file, or access a cache (of which there are several in Windows that rely on HDD storage, such as right click contextual menus and icon caches).
It isn't just "boot time" - it's everything, and the difference is very large. The cost per byte may be a lot more, but if you also take into account the cost per unit of time to do something with those bytes, it becomes a much different equation. Not every piece of data really needs that extra speed - MP3s, data archival, video. But there is a lot that can really benefit from it, and the size of that data where speed matters isn't so large that SSDs are not useful, or the cost is exorbitant. Maybe 4 years ago, when SSDs first really hit the scene commercially, prices were such that most consumers would not find them useful, but in the last 2-3 years price per byte has dropped steadily, and continue to do so. Today, I can't see any build except the most budget constrained considering leaving an SSD in some form (even if it's just a small cache drive) out of the budget.