ssd's

[Puddle Jumper]

Oh man, I forgot to put inb4 OCZ is ****.

He who sells the most is more likely to have more failure rates than he who prices too high. Food for thought. OCZ is mad popular and sell good stuff. I think over half the user base here has OCZ SSD with no problem.

Do you understand how failure rates work? Judging by your statement it doesn't seem like it.

Failure rate is a perfectly acceptable way to measure quality in industry. And for the record even if you were right about the number of units sold being relevant Seagate and Western Digital sell far more drives than OCZ and have lower failure rates as well.

OCZ is certainly trustworthy though, they lied about manufacturing their own controllers then banned discussion of it on their forums when word finally got out.

 

[MindoverMaster]

AFAIK, WD or Seagate don't make SSds, so basing it off their HDDs is irrelevant.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

AFAIK, WD or Seagate don't make SSds, so basing it off their HDDs is irrelevant.

HDD's are still a storage medium, albeit a slow one. Like I said though PP's statement that more sales justify a high failure rate doesn't have any basis so it was really a pointless comparison just to put how bad OCZ's quality really is into perspective.

 

[Peter.Cort]

I read about the quality concerns, but it's a super fast drive and pretty cheap so I figure I'll give it a shot. I tend to have good luck with components and them not breaking...

Also SSD's and platter HDD's are completely different mechanically so I think it's unfair to compare the two.

 

[MindoverMaster]

Also SSD's and platter HDD's are completely different mechanically so I think it's unfair to compare the two.

Agreed. You can't compare a flash drive an external. They are both USB, yes, but the mechanism of it is different.

 

[PP Mguire]

Do you understand how failure rates work? Judging by your statement it doesn't seem like it.

Failure rate is a perfectly acceptable way to measure quality in industry. And for the record even if you were right about the number of units sold being relevant Seagate and Western Digital sell far more drives than OCZ and have lower failure rates as well.

OCZ is certainly trustworthy though, they lied about manufacturing their own controllers then banned discussion of it on their forums when word finally got out.

HDD's are still a storage medium, albeit a slow one. Like I said though PP's statement that more sales justify a high failure rate doesn't have any basis so it was really a pointless comparison just to put how bad OCZ's quality really is into perspective.

My statement is perfectly relevant. OCZ sells the most SSDs period, meaning they are subjective to higher failure rates than any other SSD brand simply because more people use them. Add on to the Vertex 2 fiasco and you have your problem. Comparing SSD's (a very baby technology) against mechanical drives that have been around decades is completely irrelevant, which is why I completely ignored that.

Yes I understand how failure rates work, and I know that the company who sells more is more likely to fail more too. Still doesn't disprove the fact that over half the people here who have SSDs have OCZ. And out of all of them you are the only one screaming "failure, failure!". Just sayin. I can also say this, more idiots will buy OCZ simply because they are the Corsair of SSDs. Meaning the likelihood of user based failure is also higher.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

My statement is perfectly relevant. OCZ sells the most SSDs period, meaning they are subjective to higher failure rates than any other SSD brand simply because more people use them. Add on to the Vertex 2 fiasco and you have your problem. Comparing SSD's (a very baby technology) against mechanical drives that have been around decades is completely irrelevant, which is why I completely ignored that.

Yes I understand how failure rates work, and I know that the company who sells more is more likely to fail more too. Still doesn't disprove the fact that over half the people here who have SSDs have OCZ. And out of all of them you are the only one screaming "failure, failure!". Just sayin. I can also say this, more idiots will buy OCZ simply because they are the Corsair of SSDs. Meaning the likelihood of user based failure is also higher.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Failure_rate= number_of_failures_in_sample/sample_size. Since failure rate is the percentage of a product that fails it doesn't matter how many you sold provided that number is large enough for a reasonable sample, and it is for any relevant SSD vendor.

I'm not surprised you think it's unfair to compare SSDs to mechanical drives since it makes OCZ look bad, on the other hand Intel, Samsung and Crucial all have failure rates that are a tiny fraction of any HDD manufacturer. Clearly the problem isn't with SSD technology in general, it's with OCZ.

I don't have a problem with anyone preferring to use OCZ drives in their system but I do have a problem with people ignoring facts when they recommend products to others simply because those facts make their favorite brand look bad. There is no place for fanboyism in product recommendations.

 

[PP Mguire]

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Failure_rate= number_of_failures_in_sample/sample_size. Since failure rate is the percentage of a product that fails it doesn't matter how many you sold provided that number is large enough for a reasonable sample, and it is for any relevant SSD vendor.

I'm not surprised you think it's unfair to compare SSDs to mechanical drives since it makes OCZ look bad, on the other hand Intel, Samsung and Crucial all have failure rates that are a tiny fraction of any HDD manufacturer. Clearly the problem isn't with SSD technology in general, it's with OCZ.

I don't have a problem with anyone preferring to use OCZ drives in their system but I do have a problem with people ignoring facts when they recommend products to others simply because those facts make their favorite brand look bad. There is no place for fanboyism in product recommendations.

Except, you are still missing both points to try and prove your point. First and foremost, you have to have a higher sale rate to have a higher failure rate. The less product being pushed means less product to fail and vice verse. Period. Product can't fail if it isn't being used by the public. OCZ sells more units than any other SSD manufacturer meaning they will have more units to fail. It's quite simple the concept really.
So yes, the amount of product being sold DOES have an absolute effect on the amount that CAN fail, hence leaving you with your failure rate.

I don't care if OCZ looks bad. Their sales alone make them look good no matter what you want to say. That is also fact. Another fact, is you can't directly compare mechanical drives to SSDs because they are two completely different technologies. Period. It simply isn't something you can argue over. One uses the age old platter technology and another uses relatively new flash technology. It is very typical for a technology as a whole to fail more when it is in its infancy state than something that is tried and true.

We recommend OCZ because they are fast, cheap, and simply work. They are also a well known brand because of all them units being sold previously mentioned. If OCZ was really that bad, then you wouldn't see so many OCZ SSDs sitting in a ton of enthusiast machines. I'm not ignoring facts here, you are.
If I was being a fanboy I would tell every person here to grab an Intel/Nvidia rig simply because they are best. I don't do that. I recommend product based on needs, budget, and personal experience. From what you are saying, every single rig ever being built here I would replace their SSD with an OCZ Vertex or Agility drive. I don't.

 

[Peter.Cort]

failure rate isn't judged by the number of total failures. it's a percentage of the total amount sold... If you're looking at absolute numbers of failed drives, then yeah what you're saying makes some sense, but people don't really look at it that way. It's all about percentages because it puts it on an even level. If OCZ had a 10% failure rate because 100 out of 1000 drives failed, it's the same rate as a company that sold 10 drives and 1 failed, and the percentage is what people look at because it gives context to the exact number of failures.

 

[PP Mguire]

failure rate isn't judged by the number of total failures. it's a percentage of the total amount sold... If you're looking at absolute numbers of failed drives, then yeah what you're saying makes some sense, but people don't really look at it that way. It's all about percentages because it puts it on an even level. If OCZ had a 10% failure rate because 100 out of 1000 drives failed, it's the same rate as a company that sold 10 drives and 1 failed, and the percentage is what people look at because it gives context to the exact number of failures.

Which is exactly what is wrong with this world.

I'll make one final point on this then I'm done. Despite his "data" being shown, you still decided to get an OCZ drive. Check mate.