Home » News » Peripheral News » OCZ Turbo Boosts Vertex SSDs » Comments

Comments for OCZ Turbo Boosts Vertex SSDs

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Pbryanw

7:27 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pbryanw. Show Details Hide Details

Ooh, I'm so tempted by SSD's right now. The one I have my eye on, an OCZ 60GB Vertex, is about £200 on Scan right now. Just a bit cheaper (>£150) and I think I might buy one, simply because I'm fed up with Window's slow boot times.

Score:

Name withheld

ChaosDefinesOrder

9:42 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ChaosDefinesOrder. Show Details Hide Details

@Pbryanw: The 300GB Western Digital Velociraptor in my PC cold boots Vista in just less than 1min 30s (granted it used to be one minute flat back when I first installed Vista) That's to idle desktop not to taskbar just visible.

Score:

Name withheld

Keldon

9:57 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keldon. Show Details Hide Details

Am I the only one who thinks SSD makers should focus on making them cheaper rather than faster faster?

Once there selling in bulk they have more cash for R&D!

Score:

Name withheld

Alex 11

9:59 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Alex 11. Show Details Hide Details

I am a tad confused by the value that is indicated in brackets for the 250GB drive. Up to the 120GB drive the amount of space reserved for formatting and level wearing redundancy increases proportionately as the drive capacity increases, with 2GB, 4GB and 8GB reserved space for the 30GB, 60GB, 120GB respectively. If the values in the article are accurate, the amount of space reserved in the 250GB(6GB) drive is less than what is reserved for the 120GB(8GB) drive!

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

10:08 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Alex - I'll check with OCZ, they are the figures announced to us and you will also find them on the product page itself.

Score:

Name withheld

Xamph

10:56 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Xamph. Show Details Hide Details

@Alex - that should read 16GB redundancy space for 250GB.

Score:

Name withheld

Xiphias

11:42 PM on 8 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Xiphias. Show Details Hide Details

@Pbryanw: An SSD may not help if you're on a desktop, some tests aren't showing any difference in boot times, especially compared to spending another £30 on a second hard drive and using RAID. Unfortunately, most reliable tests are made with fresh installs of Windows so it's hard to know whether the performance is the same on a used install.

Score:

Name withheld

Pbryanw

12:39 AM on 9 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pbryanw. Show Details Hide Details

@ChaosDefinesOrder & Xiphias - Thanks for the information. In that case I might just save for a newer, conventional (1TB) hard-drive, which should be an improvement over my current old Samsung 500GB one. As for RAID, unfortunately my computer's (Dell XPS 420) built in RAID is a bit unreliable, plus my knowledge of it is a bit lacking.

Score:

Name withheld

Tony Walker

3:52 AM on 9 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Tony Walker. Show Details Hide Details

Hmm, my Windows 7 install on 4 Samsung SLC SSDs in a RAID 0 config seem to fairly zip along. And yes, they were on special offer. And my important data is on a RAID 1 NAS.

Score:

Name withheld

Alex 11

12:39 PM on 9 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Alex 11. Show Details Hide Details

@Xiphias - I think a 250GB SSD should have 16.667GB (3 d.p.) of reserved space whilst a 240GB SSD should have 16GB of reserved space if the ratio of 15:1 between the available space and the reserved space that is found in the rest of the drive line-up is to be maintained.

Score:

Name withheld

Rickysio

2:17 PM on 20 July, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Rickysio. Show Details Hide Details

I was under the impression that FTL = Faster Than Light.

Big words...?

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.