I sure hope that it's not only the larger volumes that have the faster speeds.

ignatzatsonic said:

Yeah, until they get to at least 1 TB in size and relatively cheap, I won't be interested in one for more than the OS--maybe 80 GB.

It's always a matter of cost. Right now, it's too prohibitive to use them for storage. And for things like music files and what not, I don't need to be able to read and write them super fast. As long as my player reads it fast enough to not skip in playback then all is well.

I think I will stick with my 160SSD until 500GB or above is announced. Wonder how much faster theses will be on SATA III.

Bill

ignatzatsonic said:

Yeah, until they get to at least 1 TB in size and relatively cheap, I won't be interested in one for more than the OS--maybe 80 GB.

Feel lucky, I paid over $800 for my first 30 MEGABYTE hard disk.
Just paid almost $500 for a 256gig SSD from Crucial.. and happy to pay.
Rich

Curiosity question. Why must it be SATA III for the new SSD's? What about all the SATA II machines out there?

jebuchanan said:

Curiosity question. Why must it be SATA III for the new SSD's? What about all the SATA II machines out there?

Hello John,

Not to worry, SATA III drives are backwards compatible and will work just as well connected to SATA II ports. It just will not be able to reach it's full transfer rates unless connected to a SATA III port. That's all. :)

Everyone is wanting SATA III to be able to have faster transfer rates with SSDs that can actually transfer faster than SATA II rate limits.

Serial ATA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope this helps,
Shawn

Lots of new ones coming out.

OCZ Vertex 3
Crucial C400
Intel 510

Finally a need for SATA III 6Gbs interface.

I love competition.

Who's next?

Jim