[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]With RAM so cheap no, SSD is hardly a good choice too. SSD is good for overall system performance, but I personally think SSD should cost 1/3 of what they are now. Base on a 64bit win7 taking up huge portion of capacity now. anything small than 256GB is going to very tight. Apps these days easily take up a few GBs. IMO, 256gb is the min amount for most people without using an additional HDD for app storage. lol at people say OCZ is faster blah blah blah, biggest weak point of SSD is reliability + cost, this is what Intel is attacking now.[/citation]
Windows, Adobe suite, Office, utilities, and browsers take ~30-40GB, which makes 60GB plenty large for the average person's system drive.
I have a 60GB OCZ Solid 3 in my wife's system that is nearly 6mo old and have had no problems with it. I recently caught a 240GB Agility 3 on sale for $220 (after rebate) at my local Microcenter, and have had no problems with it. With OS, Adobe, Office, utilities, documents, pics, and music on the drive I am at ~100GB (games and adobe temp files will fill up the rest of it), and then bulk stuff like movies and project files are on traditional HDDs.
Is Intel nicer? Absolutely. Is OCZ as fast as others on the market in real world performance? Nope. Is there a chance for needing to replace the OCZ sooner than an Intel drive? Sure, that is what backups are for. But the OCZ drives are dirt cheap (especially with sales/rebates), they are generally reliable now (most complaints are from drives sold over a year ago before the current firmware fixes), and they are worlds faster than HDDs. If someone relied on their computer for their bread and butter then I would suggest Intel all day long, but for most of us OCZ is just fine.
Besides if OCZ was as bad as a few people say they were then they would not still sell like hot-cakes, and they would not have and overall 4 of 5 egg average on sites like newegg.com