are SSD's worth their value?

SSDs are a meme and will fail within a year. Buy a reliable HDD and install Gentoo on it instead.

>>56241725
SSDs*

>>56241725
>>56242365
Buy a floppy disk instead. They are the future

>>56242395
No one even knows how magnets work.
Punch cards are much better and more reliable than your magic magnetic mumbo jumbo.

>>56242365
Trolls, as usual.

But a good brand SSD, it's the most noticeable upgrade you will ever give your computer. SSD fail rates from good brands are exceptionally low, far more reliable than HDDs

File: Screenshot_20160818-112132.png (373KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1440x2560px

are these reliable?

>>56242410
No, faggot, you don't do it this way.
Writing down your programs in binary on paper (god-tier: stone, higher than god-tier, on sand using a small, 1cm stick) is the best and most efficient way.

>not running everything in RAMdisk

>>56242445
>more than 50% reduced price
>single 5-star review
What do you think?

>>56242451
>Not developing programs by physically drawing wires around a room and running them by spinning wires and magnets

>>56241725
of course they are worth their value. every single fucking thing is worth its value. value defines worth.

I think you meant to say "price"

Replaced my old HDD with a Samsung 850 Pro last year. Compared to the HDD, the SSD
>is about 3 times faster
>is much smaller
>is completely quiet
>consumes less power

And it has a 10 year warranty, which is most likely longer than I will be using the drive.
Now that the price is coming down, I really see no reason to stick with a traditional HDD.

>>56242522
>not developing programs by screaming in a high-pitched voice the code in a programming language of choice while jumping around on all fours, and then transcribing the recording onto sand, compiling it using sand, and then writing the binary into your PC manually and running it
You must be a primitive caveman using your outdated techniques, boy.

once you use an ssd for your OS drive, you won't be able to go back to hds. the boot time alone is worth it

>>56242861
Either boot time is an overrated metric, or I've just gotten spoiled by SSDs into forgetting they exist. One of the two.

For me it's the overall system responsiveness that gets me onboard though. I open a browser, it just opens when I click it. No pause. Even bigger programs like Android Studio open quickly (not instantaneously, but far better than magnetic drives ever will). I click and my computer listens. That is huge.

>>56242987
>For me it's the overall system responsiveness that gets me onboard though

This.

I rarely need to reboot/boot up my desktop, so boot time means nothing to me.

However, programs like photoshop/firefox/etc all run blazingly faster. I think my photoshop CC boots up in about 1 second flat.

>>56242770
get the samsung 850 this guys, shits way good

The amount of time they save waiting for thing to boot up is definitely worth the cash monies.

>>56242987
you're probably just used to the ssd boot times. go use a comp with an hd in it and you'll quickly get very annoyed if you restart

i leave my comp on 24/7 so boot times aren't really a big thing for me either, but i'm glad it takes so little time when i do have to restart. system responsiveness is way more important, everything opens immediately. fuck loading times

What are the best cheap ones?

Are Kingston SSDs good?

>>56243496
They are ok

For cheap ssds I would recommend hynix sl301 or sl308 models.

>>56241725
Had the same issue and went with SSD. Its not a big difference. Boot ups a little faster in Botnet 10 but nothing launches noticeably faster compared to the previous 5400rpm drive.
Overpartitioning is annoying and because of that I'm not buying another SSD until they have those 1TB 3D stacked ones under $100

>falling for the SSD meme