At 5:07 PM +0100 9/1/09, Mark Smith wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:19 AM, David Cake <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 3:28 PM +0100 8/1/09, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>if you were getting a new mac portable in the coming weeks and *if*
>>>you had the choice and *IF* neither capacity, nor cost were a main
>>>issue...
>>>
>>>...would you select a 7200rpm HDD, or a SSD ?
>>
>> If capacity and cost were not an issue, SSD.
>> The performance win for SSD is not raw read/write, but the
>> lack of seek. For some tasks (notably software compilation), this
>> makes it real fast. For some other tasks (such as dealing with really
>> big files) it is irrelevant. But it would be a consideration for me.
>
>I know that if I take SSD, it will creak on sustained write, but if I
>was sure that I would get at least perceived speed gains in normal
>operation, I'd take one in a flash (pardon the pun). I'm concerned by
>these anecdotal reports of lousy performance. Lewis quite possibly
>correctly supposes that these are associated with lousy set-ups. I
>have no experience at all.
Wil Shipley reported awesome performance for both compilation
and context switching.
http://www.wilshipley.com/blog/2008/02/macbook-air-rambling-first-impressions.html
For me, these are two areas of normal use for which
performance gains would really matter. Context shifting is one of the
biggest areas of performance problems for me.
And the few areas in which sustained write is a big issue for
me (audio recording, for example) are much less 'everyday', so an
external drive is less of a problem. Especially as I'm attaching the
machine to something via cables when doing these sort of tasks anyway.
Cheers
Dave.
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
