[citation][nom]knowom[/nom]Most people are more concerned about price to capacity with SSD's right now yay more generally unwarranted speed that most users outside of first booting their computers up won't notice other than high end gamers and things of that nature for better load times, but still leaps and bounds slower than a ramdisk or volume caching like supercache that even used on a meager USB thumb drive or SD flash could trounce these SSD's performance.[/citation]
capacity the cost, these things are over two dollars per gigabyte. Right now we have drives that are around $1.70 per gigabyte, new, that are as fast if not faster a 60,000 to 80,000 IOPS
Just raw data alone these things are overpriced pieces of crap. Now if these were maybe $1.60 a GB maybe even a $1.50 a GB you could forgive the performance but not when you cost more than a higher performing drive that cost less.
And let's be honest here, normal people would notice the difference to the hard drive and an SSD if given the chance to use both. I just moved over to an SSD for Christmas, world of difference. It's not just load times it's also the seek time and the fact that I demand a lot from my hard drive. Most normal people use computer would definitely notice the difference between a hard drive in an SSD probably more so than me, because they put her to sleep hibernate the damn thing or even shut down every day, whereas I just leave it running. I know this is snapping us almost every program I open that anyone would notice.
That said I've always been a proponent of the boot drive if you ever have the opportunity to get one, offloading the system files onto a different drive regardless of its a SSD or even a hard drive would always increase performance on every other drive.