SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say

I think you just pointed out the main vulnerability anyone could end up seeing with an SSD of "not being able to recover data" to some extent that is. There are data recovery services that are able to salvage some ? of what you may lose when and if and SSD goes south on you.

The other option of course can be used with any drive namely the option to create a full system image of the drive or create one with 3rd party ware to recover later in the event a drive needs to be replaced. Of course thats a reality for any drive type.

Here when planning out this build I said capacity was the concept when deciding on just what drives would go in. SSDs were just coming out at the time and like any brand new hardware it takes time to work out all the bugs once something new is in mass production and to see who would be making them as for quality concerns.

As of late the capacity on your typical sata drive with mechanical platters will likely be seeing a sudden increase over the next several years. Seagate is working on changing the costing used on drive platters from the platinum to a more conductive/magnetic surface where they estimate a 20tb for laptop, 60tb capacity for desktop 3.5" drives.With tech breakthrough, Seagate promises 60TB drives this decade - Computerworld

Hum NH well for this puppy the idea of anything over a terabyte is wandering of into the abyss as I cannot conceive of how much info would be stored on drives of 20, 40, 60TB excepting companies or large gov departments.

Night Hawk said:

I think you just pointed out the main vulnerability anyone could end up seeing with an SSD of "not being able to recover data" to some extent that is. There are data recovery services that are able to salvage some ? of what you may lose when and if and SSD goes south on you.

The other option of course can be used with any drive namely the option to create a full system image of the drive or create one with 3rd party ware to recover later in the event a drive needs to be replaced. Of course thats a reality for any drive type.

Here when planning out this build I said capacity was the concept when deciding on just what drives would go in. SSDs were just coming out at the time and like any brand new hardware it takes time to work out all the bugs once something new is in mass production and to see who would be making them as for quality concerns.

As of late the capacity on your typical sata drive with mechanical platters will likely be seeing a sudden increase over the next several years. Seagate is working on changing the costing used on drive platters from the platinum to a more conductive/magnetic surface where they estimate a 20tb for laptop, 60tb capacity for desktop 3.5" drives.With tech breakthrough, Seagate promises 60TB drives this decade - Computerworld

with my 3 SSD striped RAID setup I have Acronis do an image a day to a platter drive and once a week to a second system so in case something does happen ive got multiple backups... well worth it right now for how blazing fast the SSD setup is

Here I don't need anything "blazing fast" since 7 is already a fast OS to begin with! That allows me to load on just about anything I would need or want and still see a smooth running OS without looking at just boot times only.

At THIS stage of the game, I'm not really interested in SSDs.

I don't have a speed or boot-time issue, I can do without the excessive
cost, I don't need the bragging rights, and I believe reliability is an issue.

My twin 750GB Toshiba SATA spinners will do me for the moment.

There's also another 3.3TB of external storage, all spinners.

I've never had an HDD die in over 20 years, and still have a couple
of 10+ year-old HDDs in semi-regular service.

What the future brings, however......we shall see.....

Night Hawk said:

Here I don't need anything "blazing fast" since 7 is already a fast OS to begin with! That allows me to load on just about anything I would need or want and still see a smooth running OS without looking at just boot times only.

My desktop boot time sucks because of all the different BIOSes that need to post. I like the fast windows search, icons to always appear instantly, virus scans to go very quickly, and applications to load instantly... which my SSD stripe setup seems to accomplish.

I don't really mind having conventional drives in my system as I believe that SSD's are no more than expensive toys that offer very little compared to the price you pay for them. Some people may find them useful but for me and my use a normal drive is perfect.

On another point though, does anyone think that maybe the reasons why manufacturers will opt for developing traditional drives over SSD's is for reasons of security? What I mean is with traditional drives law enforcement can find all kinds of evidence on your hard drives that dates back years, and with SSD's once the data has been deleted you are very limited in what you can find. Think about how many convictions have been secured as a result of old files found on hard drives, and do you think those convictions would still be got with SSD's.

I think for this reason manufacturers will not be permitted to develop large SSD's for office use, and as such if you wish to have an SSD it will only be small and you will also have to have some sort of HDD as back up.

T I M B O said:

As i have used SSD's i would choose Opt 3. I can appreciate that SSD's are faster, but reliability is upmost for me.:)

Welcome Timbo:)

I can see where you are coming from but I have a small SSD for the boot and the larger HDD for data - I used to have two 1TB drives back to back and clone regularly from one to the other in case one died.

Now I enjoy the speed only at the risk of just losing the OS and a bit, and in any case the SSD's carry a substantial warranty. It's then just a matter of reinstalling the OS onto the replacement drive.