finally i ended up using intel 320 series 80gb in raid 0. pretty happy with it no hickups no bsod no problem as for now... hahahaha

Aih, regardless I currently have 2 x 60gb vertex 2. One in my laptop and one in desktop now. For some reasons I only have 13gb free space on the desktop and I have nothing installed besides windows update.

May i ask is the lifespan of SSD longer than normal HDD?
i mean if i want to use SSD for 24/7 read/write operations, is it a good idea?

Well to be honest, you won't feel the difference. My 60gb is almost outdated now, and the wear level is not even 1%......This SSD lifespan thing is overrated.

can you explain it in layman terms?
i have used normal hdd for 24/7 and on average it died after couple of years.
how many years the ssd will be able to withstand on-going 24/7 read write operations?

I'd say it's going to be more or less the same. The QUICKEST way to kill a hdd/ssd is running torrent on it. Always always keep download drive separated.

Regaining trust is not easy but OTOH people seem to forgive Toyota Camry's pedal issue rather quickly

When Intel entered the SSD market one of its declared goals was to bring the technology into the mainstream. The goal was so important to Intel that its consumer drive was branded X25-M, with the M standing for mainstream. Intel's desire for SSD ubiquity wasn't entirely altruistic however. Mechanical storage acted as a potential gate to increasing CPU performance. Eventually, without significant improvements in IO performance, CPU improvements would be less visible to most users. SSDs would help alleviate this bottleneck.

It wouldn't be untrue to say that Intel accomplished its mission. The client SSD market was in a state of disarray before Intel arrived on the scene. Although we still have problems today, there are a number of affordable options for end users and lots of competition. Samsung, Marvell, Indilinx, JMicron and even SanDisk are now vying for control of the market.

With healthy competition, significant performance improvements and (hopefully) improved reliability in the consumer SSD space, Intel will actually begin defocusing itself from this market over the coming years. Intel needs to keep margins as high as possible to appease shareholders, and the consumer SSD business is in a race to the bottom. Dollars per GB are all that matter here once you deliver a certain level of performance and reliability.

Intel won't abandon the consumer SSD market completely, it will still compete in the high end space but there's a good reason that the mainstream moniker has been dropped from Intel's product names. Intel will shift more of its attention to the enterprise space, bringing that technology to the high end desktop/workstation users where it can (e.g. Cherryville will be focused on both enterprise and enthusiast desktop users). But as you have already seen, I wouldn't expect Intel to actively compete in driving mainstream SSD pricing down further. That market now belongs to the players I mentioned above.

that indicator is not reliable. according to the test after it reaches 0 the indicator will then goes up again.. lol.. funny

---

Added on October 8, 2011, 12:27 amand for 40gb ssd they managed to write more than 200tb on that ssd...

In fact, I've often heard from manufacturers that hitting up to 30K p/e cycles on standard MLC NAND isn't unrealistic.