I recall seeing some 7,200 rpm (non-SSD) drives changing from a 5-year warranty, to a 3-year or even 2-year warranty.
 
Just check it out, as it varies from maker to maker, as well as between models for the same maker.  :)
 
Bob Bone
 

fireberd
I was attempting to clone my hard drive to the new SSD and it failed (it also failed doing a clone with Macrium).  I ultimately just did a disc image back of the hard drive with Macrium and restored it to the SSD and it worked OK.
 
The latest version, according to posts on the Windows 10 forum, does not support some of the Magician functions in Windows 10. 

Yikes, I just bought the Samsung EVO 850 SSD, and was planning on using my Macrium software to clone the system drive to it . . . but good to hear you got it to work with the Macrium image . . . wish me luck.

JonD
I'm about to buy my first SSD's (500GB).  I take it the Samsungs are the way to go?  Any particular model?

I'd say go with the Pro, and not the Evo.
 
Don't ask why, I do not have any idea why I said that...

synkrotron

JonD
I'm about to buy my first SSD's (500GB).  I take it the Samsungs are the way to go?  Any particular model?

I'd say go with the Pro, and not the Evo.
 
Don't ask why, I do not have any idea why I said that...

850 Pro. These disks are expensive because they use different technology. That is not really for speed (by normal use there is no difference) but for durability. And so the warranty is 2 times longer (10 years). That is not marketing trick and not "selected the best" style. It is technically different device.
 
It is hard to say how long they really can work, but so far we had no failed 840/850 Pro in heavy server/workstation use over the time they exists (except one which was bad from the beginning, not so critical and that is one from more than 100).
 
Note, that I have seen many "dead in a second" SSDs and flash disks (SSDs for notebooks, without body).
 
I am sure there are other disks with the same technology (MLC based) as 850 Pro. I just have not tested them.

My view is after 5 years you will be wanting to replace them anyway, these drives will seem slow or there will be another technology that will replace it all. 5 years is a long time. There is a price difference between EVO and PRO. Anyway there is a choice..

I bought a couple 500 GB SSD's when they very first came out - I think they were around $750-$800, but I was feeling saucy and was putting together a brand new i7 computer at the time.  Well, both had failed within 6 months.
 
The above is no longer representative of the quality of SSD builds these days - my issues were from I think around 3 or 4 years ago now.
 
I would think that you could get way more bang for the buck by buying several 240 or 256 GB SSD drives, and that would give you more choices in splitting files/folders across different drives - seems like this would or at least could, be better for performance.  I think there are cheaper prices on using multiple smaller drives, rather than paying for the technology of a single larger drive.
 
I look at it like as if I was looking at a 4 TB 7,200 SATA III drive, versus a couple of 2 TB 7,200 SATA III drives.  Same amount of storage, but I could split data across , which would potentially give me a better performance situation, IF I were to choose wisely which folders were stored on which drive. 
 
Others may well know better than I.
 
Bob Bone
 
 
 

Pro seria has almost liner price here, in Germany. From ~150 for 256GB (0.6 pro GB) up to ~1000 for 2TB (0.5 pro GB). So  2x 256 are a bit more expensive then 1x 512. In terms of performance, I can not imagine an audio recording/processing scenario when 2x Pro SSD give visible performance boost. Conventional disks are extremely slow in accessing data in parallel (they have to mechanically move head), SSDs have no such problem.
 
Evo seria has limited fast speed buffer, so when you access big data (>10TB) in parallel, it is theoretically possible to see performance improvement.
 
Warranty for SSDs (as well as for other parts) should be taken with care. Manufacturers just count expected returns. If 1% of users will return disks every year (just because 99% "underuse" them, and so "programmed" returns), it can still be ok write "5 years" to sell more (or more expensive). At the same time, if you expect most of particular model consumers are going to be "heavy users" (probable with Pro), you are not going to write 10years are replace 50% of them every year...
 
Evo vs Pro is the price vs safety. It is up to personal preference and use case. Some people build 24/7 heavy duty RAIDs from cheap HDDs and then replace them every week/month, other fill "one doc file per day" RAIDs with really expensive disks. Hard disks are not cars, no one look at them. So it make sense to choose the solution for your real needs

On this side of the pond, we have current pricing for a 256 GB SSD as cheap as $89 
 
(http://www.microcenter.com/product/442386/850_EVO_Series_250GB_SATA_III_6Gb-s_25_Internal_SSD_Single_Unit_Version_MZ-75E250B-AM)
 
And as far as performance goes, it depends on how you would split things across 2 SSD's.  If had a single SSD that held my Sonar projects as well as my sample libraries, it would not perform as well as splitting those two sets of folders across 2 SSD's.
 
I spent a couple of decades in technical support on mainframes, and we always split heavily used files or data spaces across drives, as well as across channels, and the same thinking makes great sense to me to split things in a similar manner on my PC.
 
Whichever way anyone wishes to run is fine - they own their own light switch, so to say, so however they wish to set things up is up to them.  I run as I described above, and for me it works well.  :)
 
Bob Bone

robert_e_bone
And as far as performance goes, it depends on how you would split things across 2 SSD's.  If had a single SSD that held my Sonar projects as well as my sample libraries, it would not perform as well as splitting those two sets of folders across 2 SSD's.

This is an interesting topic..

It is certainly true with hard drives when magnetic heads are moving around trying to find data, another hard drive can be pumping out the data, and hard drives are slow. It definitely makes sense to have multiple hard drives for performance.

But from what I understand SSDs are getting faster than SATA itself. So I'm not sure the old rule applies anymore. Or if it does it won't apply for much longer. Has anybody researched this further?

Also note you can partition a single SSD of course into multiple drive partitions but that won't improve performance, it just will keep things structured that's all.

Well, there is also data transfer across the SATA channel - and even though the seek is fast on an SSD, if you have 600 MB of samples to load, as well as a bunch of plugins, having these items split across 2 drives - even SSD would be faster than all of that coming from a single drive.
 
Bob Bone