SSDs (traditional drives or M.2 sticks) have speed, sure enough, but I
still don't like using them. Their limited rewriteability - as cells
wear out - remain a concern for me, even as durability increases. I
know that some studies show that SSDs are (at least in some instances)
more reliable than traditional spinning rust, but those instances are
usually for high-use cases.

The thing is, I hang on to hardware for a /long/ time, and traditional hard-drives have generally been very reliable for me.

(knock on wood).

I have old hard-drives - some nearing 30 years in age - that still
work despite being used in multiple computers. I'm not sure I'll be
able to say the same for SSDs. In fact, I know they won't, since I've
already retired several because they reached the end of their wear
life (admittedly, these were older SSDs, but the point remains:
longevity isn't an SSDs strongpoint.

I use solid-state, of course. I'm not sure modern gaming is even
possible anymore without it. For ordinary daily use, they're great;
who doesn't want to max out their disk transfer speeds rather than
waiting for an eternity (at least from microprocessor's viewpoint) for
a physical disk to spin around until the right bit is in the right
place to be read? And for inconsequential date - games, apps, even the
OS - I'm happy to risk them on an SSD.

But the important stuff? That stays on spinning rust. It may take a
bit longer to access, but I've fair confidence that I'll be able to
read and write to that drive twenty years down the road...

(more knocking on wood) I mean, there's confidence and then there's
tempting fate ;-P

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:08:51 PM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

SSDs (traditional drives or M.2 sticks) have speed, sure enough, but I
still don't like using them. Their limited rewriteability - as cells
wear out - remain a concern for me, even as durability increases. I
know that some studies show that SSDs are (at least in some instances)
more reliable than traditional spinning rust, but those instances are
usually for high-use cases.

The thing is, I hang on to hardware for a /long/ time, and traditional hard-drives have generally been very reliable for me.

(knock on wood).

I have old hard-drives - some nearing 30 years in age - that still
work despite being used in multiple computers. I'm not sure I'll be
able to say the same for SSDs. In fact, I know they won't, since I've
already retired several because they reached the end of their wear
life (admittedly, these were older SSDs, but the point remains:
longevity isn't an SSDs strongpoint.

I use solid-state, of course. I'm not sure modern gaming is even
possible anymore without it. For ordinary daily use, they're great;
who doesn't want to max out their disk transfer speeds rather than
waiting for an eternity (at least from microprocessor's viewpoint) for
a physical disk to spin around until the right bit is in the right
place to be read? And for inconsequential date - games, apps, even the
OS - I'm happy to risk them on an SSD.

But the important stuff? That stays on spinning rust. It may take a
bit longer to access, but I've fair confidence that I'll be able to
read and write to that drive twenty years down the road...

(more knocking on wood) I mean, there's confidence and then there's
tempting fate ;-P

The only fails I've actually seen with SSDs were very early on and it was
the controller that failed (so completely gone no getting anything back,
no warning sign.) Newer controllers seem solid, and seem to handle
bad bits fine.

I saw far more fails with HDs in the same time period, with many there
were warning signs and the data was recoverable, but I had a few
total failures.

I will mention USB sticks have failed a lot, so I wouldn't trust backups
on them. I did lose some not particularly important data but would've
preferred to still have, when people were suggesting using them for
backups.

Just backup your data, which is easier than ever with all the various
free online backups. Most of my data is games, which I don't care if
are lost as they can be downloaded again. I have very little actual
personal data.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 20:08:42 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I use solid-state, of course. I'm not sure modern gaming is even
possible anymore without it.

I dunno. I put all my games on spinning rust. The SSD is small and is for
the OS on my systems. I have had many more spinning rust drives go bad on
me compared to SSDs. I replace the rust drives every few years and as the
size gets bigger and cheaper, so does the transfer speed.

In the rare incidences where I can't put up with load times, there is
enough space on the SSD to put a game or two on there.

But there's never any pauses in the action while something new loads up.

So far, very few load times seem much worse than gaming used to be. Maybe
I'm just an elf and 100 years seems but a day to me.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:21:18 PM UTC-8, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 20:08:42 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I use solid-state, of course. I'm not sure modern gaming is even
possible anymore without it.

I dunno. I put all my games on spinning rust. The SSD is small and is for
the OS on my systems. I have had many more spinning rust drives go bad on
me compared to SSDs. I replace the rust drives every few years and as the size gets bigger and cheaper, so does the transfer speed.

In the rare incidences where I can't put up with load times, there is
enough space on the SSD to put a game or two on there.

But there's never any pauses in the action while something new loads up.

So far, very few load times seem much worse than gaming used to be. Maybe
I'm just an elf and 100 years seems but a day to me.

Everything's on SSDs for me, and it varies by game. Most games loading
screens are now so short I can't finish reading the tool tip. But some are really
bad, like AC: Origins and Valhalla where it can be several minutes.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 17:32:34 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:08:51 PM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
The only fails I've actually seen with SSDs were very early on and it was
the controller that failed (so completely gone no getting anything back,
no warning sign.) Newer controllers seem solid, and seem to handle
bad bits fine.

I saw far more fails with HDs in the same time period, with many there
were warning signs and the data was recoverable, but I had a few
total failures.

I will mention USB sticks have failed a lot, so I wouldn't trust backups
on them. I did lose some not particularly important data but would've >preferred to still have, when people were suggesting using them for
backups.

Just backup your data, which is easier than ever with all the various
free online backups. Most of my data is games, which I don't care if
are lost as they can be downloaded again. I have very little actual
personal data.

My concern, as I said, is less day-to-day failure as it is for
longevity: will the hardware still be usable in 10 years? 20? 30?
Which, of course, is not something most people care about; electronics
these days are considered disposable commodities. Using a five-year
old computer? What are you, some sort of caveman?!? But that's the
sort of thing I do. Some components in my main PC are nearing 15 years
old; I've other computers - admittedly, not as heavily used - which
are older.

(And, as I've often mentioned, my current 'dream' is to rebuild a PC
from 95-era components, which would be close to 30 years out of date.
To be completed just as soon as I find the perfect case ;-)

And in this regard, SSDs don't have the same longevity - and thus the
same value to me - as spinning rust. Because while both technologies
can fail, only one has a built-in lifespan where the more you use it,
the quicker it can wear out.

So maybe my use of 'trust' was an inappropriate term. Dislike,
perhaps, for its limited longevity, and the waste that permits. Or
unhappiness, because I get strangely attached to old hardware and hate
when it dies a premature death ;-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:05:55 AM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 17:32:34 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:08:51 PM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
The only fails I've actually seen with SSDs were very early on and it was >the controller that failed (so completely gone no getting anything back,
no warning sign.) Newer controllers seem solid, and seem to handle
bad bits fine.

I saw far more fails with HDs in the same time period, with many there
were warning signs and the data was recoverable, but I had a few
total failures.

I will mention USB sticks have failed a lot, so I wouldn't trust backups
on them. I did lose some not particularly important data but would've >preferred to still have, when people were suggesting using them for >backups.

Just backup your data, which is easier than ever with all the various
free online backups. Most of my data is games, which I don't care if
are lost as they can be downloaded again. I have very little actual
personal data.

My concern, as I said, is less day-to-day failure as it is for
longevity: will the hardware still be usable in 10 years? 20? 30?
Which, of course, is not something most people care about; electronics
these days are considered disposable commodities. Using a five-year
old computer? What are you, some sort of caveman?!? But that's the
sort of thing I do. Some components in my main PC are nearing 15 years
old; I've other computers - admittedly, not as heavily used - which
are older.

(And, as I've often mentioned, my current 'dream' is to rebuild a PC
from 95-era components, which would be close to 30 years out of date.
To be completed just as soon as I find the perfect case ;-)

And in this regard, SSDs don't have the same longevity - and thus the
same value to me - as spinning rust. Because while both technologies
can fail, only one has a built-in lifespan where the more you use it,
the quicker it can wear out.

So maybe my use of 'trust' was an inappropriate term. Dislike,
perhaps, for its limited longevity, and the waste that permits. Or unhappiness, because I get strangely attached to old hardware and hate
when it dies a premature death ;-)

Are you writing data to old devices that much? Most of the wear on
SSDs is from writing to them, and they handle that by marking off
sections that fail to read after writing and writing again to a new
section, much like HDDs marking off bad blocks. It's really not the
problem you're making it out to be.

HDDs are also rated by expected years to last under wear, and both
are better if you don't use them much.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:21:18 PM UTC-8, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 20:08:42 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I use solid-state, of course. I'm not sure modern gaming is even
possible anymore without it.

I dunno. I put all my games on spinning rust. The SSD is small and is for the OS on my systems. I have had many more spinning rust drives go bad on me compared to SSDs. I replace the rust drives every few years and as the size gets bigger and cheaper, so does the transfer speed.

In the rare incidences where I can't put up with load times, there is enough space on the SSD to put a game or two on there.

But there's never any pauses in the action while something new loads up.

So far, very few load times seem much worse than gaming used to be. Maybe I'm just an elf and 100 years seems but a day to me.

Everything's on SSDs for me, and it varies by game. Most games loading screens are now so short I can't finish reading the tool tip. But some are really
bad, like AC: Origins and Valhalla where it can be several minutes.

For me, I still use huge HDDs for archives, back ups, etc. I use small
SSDs (OSes, softwares, etc.) because their prices are still higher than
HDDs. :(

--
"For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake." --2 Corinthians 4:5. Bad Mon. nite with resumed leaks from da old nest's roof again when da heavy 2.5-3" rain just started. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)