Thank you gregrocker, nice to meet you too.
Well, a bit OT but for me it's the efficiency and how much snappier everything is. It would IMO be nice if MS improved on prefetch though.
There is the argument that RAID0 is x times as likely to fail but the way I see it is all drives fail at some time or another, if we're lucky we will have moved on to something else before that happens. Best drive I ever had was a 120MB conner, lasted 15 years, well past it's usefulness.
On the other side of the stick I had 4 same brand drives fail in a period of 6 months at one time, the worst only lasting a month. They were standalone if it matters and controller failures, I think possibly they didn't like getting hot as ambient temps were quite high.
So for me RAID0 does not mean x times as likely to fail, as it will eventually fail just as a single drive will eventually fail. It does mean it's only as strong as the weakest drive and there is more data to lose than having separate drives. But as always, backup is the key if any data is irreplaceable. I hope people don't think that just because they have one drive there is no need for a backup of irreplaceable data because they believe it is less likely to fail
Anyway, hopefully the OP didn't reboot out of RAID and have Windows try and repair one of the split RAID drives.