Google| Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 12/03/2013 20:38 (12/03/2013 14:38) |
| Message-ID | <031220131438297377%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | David Taylor |
In article <l7latg$qsf$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid>wrote:
they do have a different failure mode (which *is* lifetime), but the user doesn't care what happens internally.David TaylorDavid Taylornospam
Interesting that "Samsung guarantees a lifespan of 1,000 cycles", contradicting claims made by another poster in this thread.
it doesn't contradict anything and hard drives under load won't last as long as ones that are idle, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.
I have never discussed HD lifetime. What I have discussed is that SSDs have a different failure mechanism than HDs and that therefore one must know the use to which SSDs will be put before blindly saying that they are more reliable.
what matters is did it fail and how recent is their backup if it did, as well as what its performance is when it isn't broken.
with ssd, they won't need to worry about that as much because it's more reliable and a *lot* faster.
there might be some edge cases where one is worse than the other (and it works both ways, not just one way), but that's always the case for *any* technology. nothing is perfect.
for instance, hard drives don't work at high altitudes and ssds do. that won't matter to most people but it will to some.
11/16/2013-
