Amen! The SSD is there to make things better for me, not for me to
nurse it to old age!
BTW, mine is over a year old now.
On 2/1/2011 3:35 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
But in trying to extend their theoretical lifespan, you end up missing a big
part of their performance advantage...I'd rather get maximum benefit from it
and replace it than baby it but have it last 12 years.
In any case, you should be looking at 5+ years of write lifetime under
normal usage scenarios anyway, which is more than enough for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of FORC5
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [H] SSD tech
I suppose that is why SSD's are technology in flux (IMO) and I may have
froggy hopped too soon there also. My limited understanding which may be
in error is that they will not delete data until new is written, which I
understand as files are not overwritten.
Jump in anyone.
fp
At 11:42 AM 2/1/2011, DSinc Poked the stick with:
I thought SSD's worked best, lasted longest, in a Write Once-Read Many
I/O
scenario. I would think that misc. temp files, page files, logs, dumps,
and
other Windows operational stuff would quickly use up the finite number of
SSD internal operations. JMHO. And I freely admit that I do NOT fully
comprehend the internals of the Windows OS. I do see that XP is very
stable against my attempts at PEBCAK. Still, I still see the OS grow
larger
over time.
I so know I am on some thin ice ATM.......... :) Best, Duncan
--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
My computer has EMS....Won't you help?
