Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1
Quote: Originally Posted by Cr00zng
If you remove the performance incentive of the USB 3.0 SSD drive, then might as well stick with HDDs for OS and applications as well.
Why would you stick with HDD's for the OS and apps...you want these to boot, and run super fast. You use them, day in and day out, all of the time. Might as well be as fast as they possibly can be. I don't think the same is true of an external hard drive. You use them randomly, and not all that often.
It's not much more "super fast" than the external USB 3.0, at least this point in time. If one can wait for the slow external device transfers, the same person could also wait for the slow OS to load. There are plenty of people out there who still run their system with HDD, including myself with the laptop.
While on the usage pattern you have a valid point, but what if one only cares about speed and not pattern and financial justification? Even if it is used infrequently, the high speed portable device is nice to have especially if it can be used on any current computers with reduced speed. The goal with a portable device isn't to store gigabytes of backup images, huge files, etc. The primary goal is to share files, videos, etc, with other systems easily. For that purpose the 64GBs drive is more than sufficient.
I make backup copies of my disk images, and other stuff that I need for redundancy purposes and yes, I can do other things while it completes. I also have plenty of HDD storage available on five SATA II drives. That wasn't the point.
The point was that it is not 120% gain in speed as you stated originally, it is more like 300% gain in speed for the USB 3.0 devices. In a world where people overclock for 10-30% performance gain, real or imagined, even your stated 120% speed gain looks huge and more so the actual 300% gain.
We certainly can agree to disagree of the theory on these points, even if I have no intent to purchase any USB 3.0 devices anytime soon