SSDs not really more reliable than mechanical drives

Status
Not open for further replies.

synergy

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,284
Location
15 Hive
Solid State Drives No Better Than Others, Survey Says - PCWorld Business Center

Solid state drives (SSD) appear to be as unreliable as traditional hard disks. In fact, they're marginally less reliable: Taken as an average across models, 2.05 percent of SSDs got returned as non-functioning, compared to 1.94 percent of hard disks.
Not really surprising to me TBH. I think they make this **** fail on purpose...I mean, it's business 101. If you make a product that never needs replaced then you go out of business.
 
Since when is this news? That's what I've thought since day 1
A mechanical drive can last 8 years or more, I'd be uber surprised if an SSD managed that.
 
Hard drives have been around for ages. SSDs not so much (though underlying technologies have been around a fair bit longer). Not surprising really :p
 
The majority of HDD's that I've owned usually die around age 3, just after the warranty goes out. I don't remember anyone asking me about all the HDD's that I've just thrown away without telling anyone. I think a bunch of bean counters are once again making wild claims with no actual proof. You can't make a valid comparison of expected Life Cycles between a new technology like SSD's and it's older counter-part the HDD until both sides have numbers based upon the same level of maturity. SSD's haven't been around long enough to know how long they'll actually last and there isn't enough actual mainstream usage to make such a comparison either.

This utility is saying my main SSD has 9 years 11 months and 9 days left before it dies.
ssdlife.jpg
 
I have a hard time seeing anything being less reliable than hard drives, the amount of systems we have come in with bad drives is absolutely staggering. This survey seems to also ignore failures after the drive can no longer be returned to the etailer which from what I have seen is when most hard drives die.
 
The majority of HDD's that I've owned usually die around age 3, just after the warranty goes out. I don't remember anyone asking me about all the HDD's that I've just thrown away without telling anyone. I think a bunch of bean counters are once again making wild claims with no actual proof. You can't make a valid comparison of expected Life Cycles between a new technology like SSD's and it's older counter-part the HDD until both sides have numbers based upon the same level of maturity. SSD's haven't been around long enough to know how long they'll actually last and there isn't enough actual mainstream usage to make such a comparison either.

I agree 100%. SSDs are still in infancy and have multiple issues to work through. That being said, I'm still not surprised by this "news".

The biggest failure point I've seen in machines is power supplies, followed by RAM modules, then hard drives.
 
My biggest issue is that they have a lifespan. A maximum amount of read/write times. To me that is the biggest issue with them. Cause i know that throughout the years when using my hard drives that i format very often and install programs very often. I could easily kill an SSD due to the limit of read/write faster than i could forcing it to fail. Being a Beta tester, i can easily go through a cycle of a month where i am reinstalling almost daily. That will eat chunks out of the lifespan.

Once they can overcome this limit, then i can see SSD's really making an impact. Right now they are a fancy. Faster boot times and quicker access, but how many people know that there is a limit to how many times they can access the drive? I am sure they will be surprised when they reach that limit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom