Originally Posted by TheCrow
Think of ssd's this way, each time you write on them and a little bit of that ssd dies inside. Which is why ssd's are mainly hold the O.S. and constantly used application to read off of.
The same exact thing could be said for any living thing, each second we live we come closer to death.
An ssd should go about 8 years for a heavy user before any cells start becoming read-only, a decade or more for an average user. I don't know why critics of ssds harp on this as it really is a non-issue. The max write cycles pertain to each individual cell (1 cell = 1 bit) so it's not like the whole drive goes read-only all of a sudden but 1 bit at a time.
How many users of this board have hdds in their machines that are 8 years old or older?
The reason ssds are used mainly for the OS is not due to the write thing, it's due to them often being small due to their cost in relation to an hdd. As prices for ssds fall and the drives get larger, fewer will be used as OS only.
When, and if, my ssds start hitting the max write cycles, I would hope that there are bigger, faster, less expensive ones (or alternate technology) to replace them.