SSD advice

[zerox]

I'm currently in Asia and found some good deals on SSDs. My newest hardware is from 2008 so I am a complete noob. They don't even sell SATA II any more, and SATA III is cheaper than SATA II stuff back in the UK/Canada where I live. Hope you guys can help with the following:

1) I have a 2.5" external HDD (i.e. there is an enclosure which provides a USB to SATA interface). This is from 2008 so is it likely to be SATA I or II? Can I just pull out the HDD and put the SSD in? I know I won't get the full speed of SATA III, but more worryingly I have read that some SATA III devices won't work with SATA II ports and need a certain jumper to be set. Does this affect SSDs or only SATA III HDDs?

2) I also have a box from 2004 which has a SATA HDD that is connected by 4-pin molex and 7-pin SATA cable. Would the SATA III SSD work with this setup and what else would I need?

3) Intel or OCZ? Also, is the BSOD issue still relevant? I run linux with winXP in a VM, and win2008 r2.

Thanks.

[GeorgeH]

USB 2.0 will bottleneck most modern HDDs, much less SSDs. Unless you have a very niche application it's probably not a good idea. There are exceptions, but as a general rule if it has a SATA connector it'll work - I,II, and III will just determine how fast it'll run.

I've yet to find a SATA drive that required 3.3V - your molex adapter should be just fine.

Intel for reliability, OCZ for price and speed. The BSOD issue is largely overstated but is very annoying when it happens (the SF drive in my laptop will BSOD when recovering from sleep unless a second HDD is in the optical bay - since I don't run an optical drive or use sleep it's a non-issue for me, but YMMV and whatnot.) My current favorite is the M4, but I've also been hearing good things about Samsung's 800 series.

[Ghostbear]

If you're only putting the drive in an external enclosure, an SSD is entirely unnecessary.

I would never, ever, ever suggest someone get an OCZ SSD- any storage device that has half as many issues as it has had, is something I would never trust my data to. Unlike other components, if your storage is unreliable, you can have all of your data corrupted or lost. I would get a Crucial SSD if that's an option, then an Intel one if it isn't. I'd use a regular hard drive before I'd use an OCZ SSD.

[GeorgeH]

Depending upon what you're talking about, that is/wasn't an OCZ problem so much as a SandForce and SSDs are new issue. SandForce was a small company that made a good controller but didn't have the resources to do the massive amounts of QA and validation that would've been required to make a flawless product (we've all gotten spoiled by the fact that hard drives and their controllers are a decades-old "solved" problem.) That SF's popularity took off at the same time that SSDs in general did (exposing the weaknesses of SATA controllers that had only ever been tested with and were expecting HDDs) along with the fact that OCZ was SF's primary vendor led to OCZ getting unfair flack from consumers who only ever saw the OCZ sticker on their malfunctioning bit of shiny.

I'm not saying OCZ is perfect, but I'd have no problem buying one of their drives - assuming that I could be bothered to figure out their ridiculously convoluted and poorly focused product catalog and naming schemes, anyway. If you really want to talk about unreliable SSDs, set your time machine for 2007 or so and we'll have a chat. Most of what's available today is really pretty damn good, and if you're trusting any important data to a single device/platform you're Doing it Wrong™ anyway.

[Ghostbear]

The reasons behind the issues that OCZ and Sandforce drives in general suffers is pretty irrelevant when determining whether to purchase one of their drives though. I'd never accept such shoddy reliability in any of the components in my computer, least of all the storage device. Other companies were able to make reliable controllers and attach them to reliable banks of NAND, so I see no reason to choose the less reliable option- the speed difference isn't that significant.

Most of what's available today is really pretty damn good, and if you're trusting any important data to a single device/platform you're Doing it Wrong™ anyway.

I don't see how you can say that, when in just your last post you said:

[...] the SF drive in my laptop will BSOD when recovering from sleep unless a second HDD [...]

You might not be hindered by it, but that is really, really, really bad QA and product design on their end.

As for trusting your data to a single device, of course that silly, but that's no reason to say "Well, this drive is going to be my backup, so I'm OK getting something unreliable". If your backups are made to an unreliable device, then you don't have a reliable backup! Data storage should always be kept reliable.

[GeorgeH]

That's just it - "my computer." There are millions of hardware, software, and usage combos out there, and almost none of them were tested or designed for SSDs. We've all gotten used to the "plug the x thing in the x hole and it'll work fine" ecosystem so it's a bit of a shock when something doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that particular something is necessarily bad. Even Intel has managed to screw up their drives more than once, so a few teething problems with SF/OCZ don't bother me.

It sucks that your PC was incompatible with the OCZ drive, but for many people they work just fine. That includes me (SF, not OCZ) - it had a few quirks that I had to sort out initially, but it's been rock solid ever since (and now there is new firmware that might have fixed it right away.) OCZ and SF are now on their second generation of controllers (mine is gen 1) and I'd really have no problems buying another one.

I don't mind telling people to stay away from SF drives (particularly when aimed at 1st gen drives) if they want the best possible chance that the drive will "just work", but saying OCZ is now and forever crap is both a little dramatic and not really seeing the larger picture.

[Ghostbear]

The problems with OCZ drives are well known and widespread though- it's not limited to just you or your computer. Their approach to the errors has also been less than favorable. When Intel made a mistake with their drives, they informed everyone immediately, said what they were doing to fix the problem, did so, issued their fix and everything worked. OCZ has gone through many attempted fixes, and only recently do people think there's any chance of the fix "sticking". As for the plug 'n' play mentality, I expect things to meet the quality of their contemporaries- everyone else has gotten their SSDs working seamlessly, so I'm not going to forgive another manufacturer when their's doesn't.

I'm not sure why your talking about my PC though? It's a bit on the older side so it doesn't have any SSDs, though my next one certainly will. I also never said OCZ will forever be crap- they're not a brand I'd trust, at all, to handle my data right now, and they have a lot of work to do to get into the realm of trusted again, but they aren't cursed or banished to that position.

All that aside though, I find it silly to recommend an OCZ drive when you can get a Crucial m4 for about the same price, with about the same performance, but with rock solid stability. You could justify OCZ in a vacuum, but it has competition, and the competition, I feel, is better.

But I think if we continue to disagree on this we should probably take it to PMs, as we both did our part to answer the OP's question, and we've both stated our positions well enough that they can make their own conclusion from them.

[asye288]

I'm currently in Asia and found some good deals on SSDs. My newest hardware is from 2008 so I am a complete noob. They don't even sell SATA II any more, and SATA III is cheaper than SATA II stuff back in the UK/Canada where I live. Hope you guys can help with the following:

1) I have a 2.5" external HDD (i.e. there is an enclosure which provides a USB to SATA interface). This is from 2008 so is it likely to be SATA I or II? Can I just pull out the HDD and put the SSD in? I know I won't get the full speed of SATA III, but more worryingly I have read that some SATA III devices won't work with SATA II ports and need a certain jumper to be set. Does this affect SSDs or only SATA III HDDs?

2) I also have a box from 2004 which has a SATA HDD that is connected by 4-pin molex and 7-pin SATA cable. Would the SATA III SSD work with this setup and what else would I need?

3) Intel or OCZ? Also, is the BSOD issue still relevant? I run linux with winXP in a VM, and win2008 r2.

Thanks.

I bought my Samsung ssd 256gb 6 weeks ago and I am very happy with it. I know Samsung may not be the fastest ssd on earth, but I need 256gb and it was the cheapest on the market at that time. After plug in the new ssd, laptop boot up is lighting fast and overall performance has improved big time.

[Endless Mike]

The Corsair Force 3 line is supposed to be a good compromise of price, speed, and reliability. They're not quite as reliable as Intel's drives, but are still more than adequate.