Looking to possibly, maybe, perhaps purchase an SSD. 64gb at the VERY minimum. 128gb pref. That said, how would a Kingston 64gb SSD such as:
Kingston 64GB SSDNow V-Series 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive - Aria PC
stack up against a WD 300gb raptor
Scan.co.uk: 300 GB Western Digital VelociRaptor Hard Drive - HDD - WD3000HLFS
Thanks.
I suppose it depends on the following... the SSD is a 2.5" and you are comparing it to a 300 GB 3.5" drive. Do you need large amounts of space and what are you putting it into. Personally, if you are planning on putting a 2.5" drive into a desktop, you might be paying too much for performance to also have to find some sort of frame to fit it into a computer.
And getting a 300 Gig drive that might not fit into a laptop drive space or a 2.5" drive bay is a bit silly.
But ignoring all that, the size difference is the question. The SSDs you want more for a system drive, you would hardly want to go out of your way to have a 300 gig drive for a system performance and use it more for an independent app drive or data drive in general and a high performance hard drive, you would use more for a heavy use app or heavy data access drive. Like a SQL server or video/music editing.
Actually, for my current desktop. Should have been clearer.
Next thing you want to consider then is one, not getting a 2.5" drive for your system. Most desktops do not use 2.5" drive bays, they use 3.5" drive bays.
Second, how much you are willing to spend. The SSDs are a higher price point per gig, but they don't have the spindle seek time like HDs so they will be giving you data faster, generally best for your System Drive as the OS tends to put virtual mem on the System drive. Again, as mentioned before, do not use it as a data drive, you are better off with the Raptor for pure data than an SSD due to the necessity to keep data longer. The SSDs won't buy you much in performance with pure data in the long run.
Quote