I'll agree, someone such as Scott who is "in the business" is well qualified to comment on hardware.  Whether we opt to take his knowledgeable advice is up to the person. 

As a long time computer geek (I go back to 1982 as my first contact with IBM computers) My last 23 years as the Regional LAN/WAN Network and hardware help desk Manager for SSA.   I've found all vendors have problems or at time problem products.  I've worked with IBM on a global monitor problem one time, which turned out the sub-contractor for the power supply used an incorrect wattage resistor.  It took almost about 6 months of failures before IBM would even acknowledge there was a problem and then took another 4 months to find the problem. 

I used to do a lot of user support on the Dell community users forum (I was one of the top contributers and ranked by Dell as a "Rock Star" - the Rock in reference to Dell HQ's at Round Rock Texas.  Dell has a bad rap on reliability and support (mainly because they moved support "offshore").  The Dell Dimension E510/5150 model is a prime example - we saw many power supply failures (apparently a capacitor in the power supply) and out of the several hundred that were reported on the forum all but three with a "flashing amber power light" were power supply failures.  But, I had a Dell Dimension E510 desktop that just worked - never had a problem.  I recently reloaded it back to factory disk image and sent it to my Daughter in KC and they are using it as a "gaming" PC. 

"jonbouy"TBH as an observer I see more posts from you having some kind of poke at Scotts' opinions than I do of Scott having a preference against particular manufacturers.

I don't agree with your above interpretation for the following reasons. For one, "observer" implies impartiality, which you are not. Also, what you describe as "poking", I describe as "challenging" Scott's opinion. Not quite the same thing. And the number of my posts concerning this specific difference of opinion is directly proportional to the number of times it has been brought up. Action --> reaction, no more no less.

"jonbouy"Someone in a position of having to test several manufacturers goods in order to give best performance for the buck to his customers, knowing how many returns he has to deal with and the response he gets from those companies is in a far better position than you or I to call it.

And by the same argument..., will surely be in a better position to defend his own opinions than you are, right?

"jonbouy"You have precisely one unit there are one or two others that have units the same as yours. When you look at percentages of DOA components 5% would be a diabolical failure rate for a manufacturer yet we could have 95 users reporting a good experience of a particular product against the 5 users that had units go up in smoke.

Of course, that failure rate would be cause for concern but these metrics could also be misleading due to the small sample size. Are you suggesting that this is the case with the latest generation of OCZ SSDs (specifically the Vertex 4)? And are you saying that if my Vertex 3 failed for whatever reasons, OCZ would not respect their product warranty?

"jonbouy"I totally believe Scott has enough integrity to report honestly and openly on his first-hand dealings with manufacturers and products and it offers us a good insight to things that most normal users like you and I would never see such as return rates and customer service issues.

Then explain to me how Scott would be in a position to come to such a conclusion when he hasn't touched said company's products with a 10' pole for many years?

"jonbouy"So aside from you having a bias toward a product that you've already purchased I can't see what the problem you have with his reporting on the stuff he finds in the course of what he does. You seem to be the one that's on the crusade that you seem to infer that he is engaging in against particular manufacturers.

How you come to such a conclusion is beyond me. Scott is using a blanket statement directed at OCZ, not it's SSD offerings in particular. And giving an opinion on a product (including defending said product) I have purchased is very much "in context" and "on topic" according to the OP's original request.

"jonbouy"I'm really grateful for Scott's input here and it's guided my decisions against making several costly mistakes and don't get why anyone would want to 'smart alec' him in the way you appear to at times.

I don't dispute your personal experience with Scott and have heard mostly positive comments about him and, you certainly have a right to feel the way you do. You also have a right to your opinion as long as it's dispensed according to this forum's TOS. But it appears to me that your interpretation of my intentions is self-serving and completely off the mark. Needless to say, your "smart alec" inference is uncalled for. I could just as easily come to the conclusion that you are a "shill" with an agenda, targeting some rather than all members that have commercial agendas, but could also easily come to the conclusion that your concerns are genuine and without prejudice. I much prefer giving you the benefit of the doubt.

jonbouy, fireberd,
thanks and yes i am in a position to see things most end users cant see with repect to compatibility and failure rates.

i dont mind alegria poking at me, i like a good debate..

Al, i have touched OCZ in past yrs including ram and SSD's. i even told you i have an OCZ SSD 60gig original still working in a computer but man does it need trim help constantly..
also had a bunch fail. and OZCs poor rep is well know on the internet as well as  from VENDORS something you dont have access to.
(looking at newegs reviews dont cut it man..)

as far as RMAs with OCZ hmmm not the easiest road. i posted a good long post about OCZ months ago in here so i wont repeat.
suffice it to say i have had major issues with every product line they have had.

notice they dont sell memory anymore? ever wonder why?
why did OCZ buy indelix? when they had sanforce drives? sanforce known to be faster??
failure rates on all OCZ products have been very high..

with that said no i have no direct experiance with the newest SSDs and wont have. too many other good manufacturers out there with good reps so i dont have fool with fire.  Intel, Samsung, Crucial, Top Power (they make for several others and have a 10yr warranty)
also where my ram comes from and more than 1/2 my power supplies (who makes 1/3 of the power suplies out there).



 

"jcschild"i dont mind alegria poking at me, i like a good debate...

That's the spirit in which I believed it would be received.

"jcschild"Al, i have touched OCZ in past yrs including ram and SSD's. i even told you i have an OCZ SSD 60gig original still working in a computer but man does it need trim help constantly... also had a bunch fail. and OZCs poor rep is well know on the internet as well as from VENDORS something you dont have access to. (looking at newegs reviews dont cut it man..)

Yes, you have (with the emphasis on past years). And to be precise, you also mentioned that this 60GBs OCZ SSD was 1st generation. That's "shaky grounds" territory as you and I well know to begin with. I'm just trying to put things in perpective here btw, not belittle your bad experiences with OCZ. And I know better than to believe that you're implying I only read Neweggs reviews or similar..., which I don't. But I do frequent places such as "Tom's Hardware", "GearSlutz" and "Anandtech" to name a few.

"jcschild"as far as RMAs with OCZ hmmm not the easiest road. i posted a good long post about OCZ months ago in here so i wont repeat. suffice it to say i have had major issues with every product line they have had.

Yes (no need to repeat), and I've wondered if that's the kind of experience awaiting me if ever my Vertex 3 goes the way of the "do do". But since I've not experienced this for myself, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that OCZ will respect the current warranty they advertise as they haven't given me any reasons to believe otherwise. But your warnings have made me take a closer look at OCZ.

"jcschild"notice they dont sell memory anymore? ever wonder why? why did OCZ buy indelix? when they had sanforce drives? sanforce known to be faster?? failure rates on all OCZ products have been very high..

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make aside that OCZ is a company in danger of imminent collapse because of the generally poor quality of it's product line. OCZ is a public company (NASDAQ - OCZ) and doesn't show any signs of impending doom. And it is my understanding that "Indilinx" technology is more robust and efficient than "Sandforce". You don't agree? What about the recent discovery of a bug in the Intel Sandforce SF-2281 controller (AES-256 support) which can't be repaired through a firmware upgrade, forcing Intel to offer a full refund or replacement with a Cherryville/SF-2281 which btw won't be available for a few months. It happens..., even to Intel.

"jcschild"with that said no i have no direct experiance with the newest SSDs and wont have.

So your current opinion of said company is based on your past experiences involving the first few generations of an immature technology. And since you're not motivated/interested (understandably) to test their newer generation of SSDs (notwithstanding the better conditions dealing with other suppliers), doesn't that make your opinion a little dated in this respect?

"fireberd"
68GB out of 128GB used.

Would that also include the "hibernation" file, which is as big as the total memory you installed? Or have you disabled it? What about the page/swap file? Do you use one, and does it reside on the OS drive?

I haven't touched the page or hibernation files.  I have moved the recycle bin to the 1TB hard drive.  As I still have a lot of space on the SSD and don't plan on adding anything to it, I've left it as is.

I subscribe to "if its working, don't fix it".
 
Update, I have Hibernation disabled, so I don't have any hibernation files.  I have "high performance" power plan selected.  The only thing I "power off" is the monitor after 30 minutes. 

I used an Intel drive...it was reasonably fast...but far more expensive then other drives..
it was about twice the price of the competitors drives...

It was 320 Series...which have a 100 percent failure rate...

So, just saying an Intel drive is a misnomer...

Bottom line....it's a crap shoot...because this early in the
game they all can potentially fail...it's newer technology, but it is getting better.

So the most important factor to consider would be RMA time and customer service...
not just IOPS and transfer speeds and "user ratings" when considering an SSD IMHO.

If this is the wrong place for this post please tell me and I will make a new thread

I have been thinking for a while about getting a SSD and I am trying to figure out the best set up.

I have 3 drives at the moment OS sonar and plugins / Audio only / Samples

If I was to go down the road of a SSD what size do I really need ?

Would I put Sonar and all 3rd part plugs on the SSD or would I put the plugs on a Drive of there own ?

I also thought of getting a SSD for my audio drive but would there really be a big difference ?

Again if this is the wrong place for this please say and I will move it :)

Norrie

Alegria

"jonbouy"
TBH as an observer I see more posts from you having some kind of poke at Scotts' opinions than I do of Scott having a preference against particular manufacturers.

I don't agree with your above interpretation for the following reasons. For one, "observer" implies impartiality, which you are not. Also, what you describe as "poking", I describe as "challenging" Scott's opinion........

Whoa...

I wasn't expecting such a ballistic response.

So how are you assuming my lack of impartiality here, do you know something I don't?  I can assure you I am most definitely an observer here I don't have any vested interest anywhere in this.

The observation was a simple one you and I see Scott express a displeasure at a certain manufacturer, I was just enquiring as to why you may (or may not) have had a visibly similar preference against Scotts comments at times.  I wasn't speaking on his behalf or anything of the sort I just wondered where you were coming from with some of your comments is all.  I think you've understood that now.

Also notice when I say 'poke' you say challenge, when Scott himself says poke you agree...

FWIW I enjoy your input on these topics Fireberd's too.  Everybody that contributes here offers some valuable guidance one way or another.

btw feel free to think of me as a 'shill' I promise it won't change a single thing between us.

(I don't even know what it is... I'd google it if I could be bothered...)

"Jonbouy"
Also notice when I say 'poke' you say challenge, when Scott himself says poke you agree...

"jcschild"
i dont mind alegria poking at me, i like a good debate..

"Alegria"
That's the spirit in which I believed it would be received.

"Jonbouy"
I was just enquiring as to why you may (or may not) have had a visibly similar preference against Scotts comments at times.

My post #14 answers that "why" very specifically in the last paragraph. 

"Jonbouy"
FWIW I enjoy your input on these topics Fireberd's too. Everybody that contributes here offers some valuable guidance one way or another.

I completely agree with you and have been the recipient of invaluable tips and tricks over the years and have in my own humble way reciprocated when possible. But I do have a problem with "the lack of respect" in some of our exchanges when their was absolutely no reasons for it to begin with. And I certainly did not appreciate your "smart alec" comment.