I have a Crucial 512 system drive and a Seagate Momentus 750 as a secondary drive that came as the primary drive and still has the OS on it. The 750 is plenty fast until you use the SSD and go back to the 750 to test some software at nomals speeds. With the the SSD, there is no difference between startup and bringing an app up from the taskbar. The only advantage of hibernate is everything is the way you left it because a cold boot is at least as fast. Intel is supposed to have TRIM fixed in their next RST build at which time I'll buy a second one and do a RAID-0. My VMs are on the 750 because they are too big, but I can tell you watching the HDD disk on steady is now maddening. You see nothing but flickers with SSDs. I'm always on the move, and if you go through drives about every 2 years like I do, the drives and your time make the SSD cheaper, and they are worth taking to your next machine.
On servers I use the Intel SLCs. After 700 with zero failures, we don't have any SSDs that are not RAID-0s. That means you can get by with half the drives. HOWEVER, my next set of servers I will NOT be using SSDs because they cost so much. Huh? Here's the deal. Servers have much more predictable loads than clients for things like web servers and databases. Nothing beats plenty of ram, and the web servers and databases are so well tuned and they really know how to use memory, cores, and threads now. Cache hit rates are almost 100%. A multi-spindle array can do a write sequential very fast. The only reservation I have is on one server where I get full DB dump and reloads 6 times an hour, and I haven't proven that the SSD beats the disk array even there yet. Where an SSD is a slam dunk, is on a client operating systems where the load is completely unpredictable. If you are wondering why your computers don't seem to follow More's law, the problem is not the processor. :smileygrin:
