Google| Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2013-12-03 18:04 (2013-12-03 12:04) |
| Message-ID | <031220131204232631%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | David Taylor |
| Followups | David Taylor (2h & 15m) > nospam |
In article <l7k82f$bto$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid>wrote:
David Taylorit 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.
Interesting that "Samsung guarantees a lifespan of 1,000 cycles", contradicting claims made by another poster in this thread.
and the rating you mention is per cell, not for the entire ssd. with wear leveling, the ssd will last much longer than the life of one individual cell.
ssd reliability rates are better than hard drives. there is a lot of evidence for this. early ssds had problems but that's long gone. early hard drives weren't that reliable either.
the #1 failure mode for ipods was the hard drive in those that had hard drives. the flash based ipods were *much* more reliable.
it's obvious you dislike ssd, and are trying to justify it. there will always be edge cases to twist the numbers any way you want. the reality is that ssd is not only more reliable, but *much* faster, a *huge* advantage you are ignoring.
here's another report: <http://www.hardware-revolution.com/best-ssd-best-hard-drive-september-2 013/>
SSD Failure Rates: - Samsung 0,05% - Plextor 0,16% - Intel 0,37% - Crucial 1,12% - Corsair 1,61% - OCZ 6,64% (!)
Hard Drive Failure Rates: . Toshiba 1.15% . Seagate 1.44% . Western Digital 1.55% . Samsung 2.24%. Note that the Samsung hard drive division is now owned by Seagate and consists mostly of rebranded Seagate drives. . Hitachi 2.40%
other than ocz, who recently filed for bankruptcy so they can be ignored, ssd is more reliable, unless you intentionally pick the worst of one and compare it with the best of the other, which is of course, bogus.
2013-11-16-
