This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So my new 256GB SSD should arive fairly soon.

#21Tidus41390Posted 7/30/2012 3:32:05 PM
Spacewhizguy posted...
Tidus41390 posted...
I do not write 100GB per day. There are some days where I barely write at all and other where I write over 100GB, it depends on what I'm doing.

Converting music files, converting HD video files, recording HD video files, recording sound files, downloading new games. It all does add up and HD videos and uncompressed music is costly.

So you don't use your SSD anywhere close enough to ever hit that write cycle limit. Congratulations.

Balanceless posted...
I don't think anyone's read your original post and thought that they should get upset about you recommending that the Docs folder go on an HDD. That's not the worst thing ever. Worse suggestions are things like saying people should not boot their OS from their SSD, which is what made your original comment stand out to me as being less than stellar advice.

Yeah, it's not the worst thing ever. It's not the best idea either. You could just manually move your huge collections elsewhere so that all the smaller things that default to the Documents folder (e.g., real documents, miscellaneous saves, etc.) will still be on the SSD. I personally store my music, photos, and videos elsewhere. The not installing the OS part was indeed terrible though. The OS is top on most lists of reasons to get an SSD.

Tidus41390 posted...
Am I overly paranoid about write cycles, definitely but after doing some more research I've found a lot more support for SSD having a far longer life span than I originally believed. I saw one site that quoted a 2 year life span and that's why I've been a bit worried about it. I've seen at least 4 that quote 8 years and I just downloaded SSDLife which also said that my drive should last 8 years based on S.M.A.R.T.

Oh, so you've been advocating outdated misinformation. What a surprise. You must be the third or fourth guy I've met here who's done the exact same thing. Welcome to 2012. We're no longer using SSD tech from 2008.

Tidus41390 posted...
There is nothing wrong with protecting an investment and using space efficiently. Filling an SSD just to fill it is pointless.

A perfect example would be Mass Effect 2. I can put it on my HDD or I can put it on my SSD. Mass Effect 2 is the most ****ed up console port I've seen when it comes to load times. The game time boxes it's load times so putting it on an SSD provides ZERO benefit. In this case it would be far more sensible to store it on an HDD and use those 11GB on my SSD for Fallout and a bunch of mods. That's all I suggested.


So you like warping words now. Not a single person in the world advocates filling an SSD just to fill it because it defies common sense. However, I do advocate not worrying about your free space and just using the SSD as much as you want for the speed benefits. Practically everyone here can fill up their SSD with data that will benefit from the speed, and so we have to choose what to put on there. But what we should not have to choose is worrying about silly things like leaving 20% space free.

And don't lie, that's not "all you suggested." You were originally suggesting limiting the number of writes you do, and now you're trying to pretend that you were talking about data that doesn't benefit from an SSD's speed.


Whatever crawled up your ass... Pull it out.
---
CPU: i5 2500k 3.4GHz, GPU: Radeon HD 7970, SSD: Crucial M4 512GB, HDD: WDCB 7200RPM 500GB, RAM: 16GB 1600MHz DDR3, PSU: Seasonic X750W
#22SpacewhizguyPosted 7/30/2012 10:00:10 PM
Tidus41390 posted...
Whatever crawled up your ass... Pull it out.


You can't even come up with a semi-decent comeback. How sad :(
---
What's a sig?