Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 10 Jun 2010.
Interesting stuff. And is fair enough from Intel's point of view I guess (doesn't sound like it was a contractual obligation on Intel's part?)
Regarding this bit though:
It said only enthusiasts care what goes inside and that the majority of its customers couldn't tell the difference: only that it was "notably faster than a hard drive."
That'd make a good slogan!
We know barely anyone cares, but it's faster than a hard drive
I would have expected the majority of SSD buyers to be enthusiasts. The people that don't care are the ones that will seek the highest capacity drive for the lowest price
So basically they say we don't care about quality as customer are too idiot to realise we are selling crappy stuff. Well I don't have money to buy SSD but if I did I would knew where not to go.
Vertex based SSD's like OCZ agility or M225 (and one other partner) are the way to go
the new sanforce has issues that Trim is FAIL at the moment and drive could fail as well, JM not sure if they have fixed the 0.01MB/s random read/writes yet
even if kingston made an good SSD i would not buy one as it take me an day to work out if they are still makeing it
I believe that to be true for people purchasing single drives, but I don't think that accounts for a very big part of their sales.
I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of their sales went to system builders, and when the pc is in the shop then most people have only 2 criteria
1. I want an SSD
2. It needs to be as big as possible
when was the last time you saw a banner in a store saying "new pc with a Intel M SSD with response time xx and random access time xx"
usually it only says SSD with xx GB space
Even if we "enthusiasts" pull these apart do we really know what we're getting ? How's about complete disclosure.... something that's missing with all vendors.
I have had friends return their SSD's when I tell them the performance difference between the good and the bad.
The majority of people entrust the enthusiasts to get the scoop on buying decisions. When the company makes it harder to find the specs, the less they even get included on the decision table.
General thing for most intel ssd for performance rest play catch up
Problem is price 64gb for £300 ish is alot of money
I find Enthusiast SSD buyers stupid people who think that making their OS start up 30 seconds faster by paying 300 euro for a 64Gig SSD is a good investment. While in the end they would probably run their PC 24/7 and let it sleep after not using it for a while and wake it up by the click of a mouse button. Something I do every day and I do not need a SSD for that. I rather invest that 300 euro in two 2TB drives.
quite agree... but then I dont have an SSD... though this is how I justfy the electrical expense.
Actually I sympathise with Kingston's position. In the short discussion it pointed out that it only pushes the Intel stuff to enthusiasts who want the best performance and that product has been consistent since day 1. It's marketing for the V/V+ series is solely brand and price focused, which means that it constantly looks for the best solution for people who just want an SSD for other reasons: low power, high reliability in mobile products and faster than hard drive response times.
Considering Kingston sells more V/V+ than there probably ARE enthusiasts, I can't blame them. For example - a US police department contacted them to entirely kit out their highway patrol fleet in V drives because the hard drives in their cars constantly failed.
I don't have an SSD but I know they are also useful for program. It's faster to launch a programs wich is stored on SSD rather than on HD. Plus enthusiast surely already have big hard drive. So if they have money better invest it on something that will help maek their PC faster than storage thhey won't use unless for saving three time their data.
sure you may sympathize with them but I still think they could have worded it a lot better. Saying customers don't care what they get is never a good idea. That is like telling the customers are stupid. It certainly has the same ring to it.
Also sure, after the initial JMicron controller failure most SSD drives today are pretty decent and give you tons of performance for the money so it doesn't really matter which one you get anymore in the grand scheme of things. But that does not mean we don't do informed purchases. And we demand to know what chips and tech is inside what we buy. I do not want to buy a black box and just have to trust the manufacturer that it will perform well.
SSDs are king for random access; the degree to which you see huge improvements is directly proportional to how unpredictable the workload is for the OS.
I have a large source code tree I work with, using subversion for revision control. The tree is over 1GB in size, and has 90,000 files in it. Doing an svn update on the root on a HD used to take several minutes as svn scanned the tree; on my Intel SSD, it takes less than 6 seconds. Similarly, a recursive directory listing - which I just did to get that 90K figure - took 12 seconds cold, as compared to 9 seconds the second time - and that's using Cygwin utilities to strip out the .svn directories, so a couple of cores were pegged.
Separate names with a comma.