[OT]: Memory & Performance

[Chris]

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 09:09:49 UTC, monarch_dodra 
wrote:

> BTW: About the "hybrid" drives. AFAIK, they used to be "better 
> than not hybrid, I guess but still leaps and bounds inferior to 
> an SSD". That said, their algorithms get better every day, so I 
> don't know. I think the real choice depends on what kind of 
> storage volume you *need*. I'd *default* back to a hybrid, if 
> having a single SSD didn't fit my volume needs. But even then, 
> external 2.5" drives are dirt cheap nowadays, so...

SSDs:
Well, memory needs are medium to high in my case. Recording and 
editing music eats up a lot of space, and GBs keep accumulating 
as I keep old versions of projects, original versions of images 
alongside the edited versions, download programs, libraries and 
plugins, maybe the odd VirtualBox installation (and I lack the 
discipline to transfer old files every X weeks to an external 
drive, just as I hate doing the dishes). I agree that 128-250GB 
are loads and it takes a while to run out of space, however, it 
happens faster than you think these days, because more and more 
stuff is stored on computers (music libraries, pictures, movies 
and whatnot). So I'm not sure about SSDs. They are still a bit 
too expensive (price / storage), in my opinion.

But maybe if I build my own desktop, I could find a good 
compromise. A good solution would be a SSD for running programs 
and a SATA drive next to it to store the data. (Which is 
admittedly not too far from the external drive solution :)