The pros & cons to different models was not surprising. Reasoned objections or recommendations were something of a rarity.
A very helpful contribution was the one who said something like this:
"If there is to be quick and not certain performance values to be achieved / must take the SSD like you. What criterion then has the casting, is not so important. All SSD are fast in the access time, even the slow ones. And the Data throughput is always significantly higher than before (with conventional hard drives) used to. "
This post made me realize that the technology was important for me. Very specific performance values were as "default user" is not so relevant for me.
What can I say? The decision for a cheap SSD I have so far not regretted.
I use the Crucial in my business notebook. This has as the primary drive, a Samsung 840 PRO (256GB). The Crucial has a roughly comparable size (240GB), but - on paper (!) - Clearly poorer performance metrics.
What I realize it practically? Feels like nothing.
Ultimately, I copied a virtual disk (6GB) Crucial to Samsung. That lasted just 30 seconds. Windows 8 called 240 MB / s data throughput.
Out of pure interest I had also tried the opposite approach. The result was me 238 MB / s almost identical.
The Power User is here now find the bottleneck at the Crucial SSD ... Me as a normal user who has less than once a week such operations, which is clearly fast enough.
Similarly, I had only now made the very pleasant experience to carry out the search on the Crucial on the entire drive. Since 220GB data on it, the result was there within about 20 seconds. A search indexing is not activated.
What I wanted to say: For lasting positive memories and the great effects that makes SSD technology possible cheap SSD like this Crucial is the right place.
Have fun with it!
