OCZ Vertex 2 100GB Solid State Drive Review Comment Thread

[rjbarker]

^^^ I start timing from the moment I depress the "power" button on the Tower.....those Boot Times you Posted are more in line with my methodology.....granted the Evga X58 Boards are slower to Post them many...I think my wifes Rig is about a minute to a minute and a half or so....my Primary and Notebook are about 15 sec ;)

I love this feature...as well as my load time for Apps is "instant"........

[Smoothie]

Originally Posted by chriskwarren

I would go with an Intel 80GB for $220:
Infonec Computers - Computer parts Canada, PC Components, laptop computers, motherboards, processors, CPUs and much more : Intel X25-M 80GB Mainstream Solid State Drive - 34nm Product Line - Solid state drive - 80 GB - internal - 2.5" - SATA-300

I would rather have the extra 30GB of room and I doubt you will notice any difference.

Im trying to stay about $200 or less, since the OCZ drives are newer I'll pick it up. Don't need that extra 30 GB of space. Unless there is a good deal for the Intel drive then I may consider.

[technix]

If there's a 50GB to 80GB SSD for $150 or less (preferably), I'll consider it. I just want it for a Windows 7 setup. If I buy Windows 7 for my Windows OS (I have XP but wanted to give my retail copy to someone and then they can update at their heart's content), I thought it might be good to have it on a fast boot drive. It was going to be my reason for going SSD plus the fact it's no moving parts.

I agree with SKYMTL's sentiments... the brain says 'it doesn't make sense especially financial sense' to buy a SSD right now but the heart says, 'but, it'll be fast and you can make up a reason/excuse for the purchase!' :) The other reason no one has really said is the 'no moving parts' situation. Having lower temps and lower power consumption is another but no moving parts should mean, theoretically, that it will last longer, no? Less chance on it dying, maybe?

[AkG]

With Solid State Drives they usually either die REALLY quickly or keep going strong for a long time. To me the biggest difference in reliability is there is less chance of it going POOF! which happens all to often with older hard drives.

When it comes to speed of the OS, boot up times is just one factor. Windows 7 continues on the LONG MS tradition of "show the desktop THEN finish loading". This is why you can see you desktop yet the system is still cranking away at LOADING everything for a nice little while. XP doesnt really do this to the same extent Win 7 does (or at least is not as efficient at doing it). For this reason we will probably still use XP for "boot time". The main factor is random latency. When you combine ultra low latency with ultra high small file performance you end up with one heck of a performance upgrade. Any modern SSD will make your system noticeably faster at loading programs (many will be open as soon as you finish double clicking) and unless you have really used one and THEN gone back to using hard drives....its hard to tell how much better things are with SSDs as it really is that seamless an upgrade.

[xeonxl]

Great review as always!

Have you guys ever thought about comparing game load times in your reviews?

I'm also wondering if 2-4 ssds in raid 0 would benefit booting/game loading at all compared to a single ssd.

Thanks