No, you sound like someone who has actually used one.
Too many people out there writing on the Internet do nothing but launch games and because SSDs don't give them more headshots they conclude they are worthless. And there's way more gamer e-peen involved if you run Velociraptors in RAID0 with short stroking (and still don't come close to the performance of SSD).
Except that in gaming performance of an SSD there is some truth aside from the obvious quantifiable measurements such a loading times. And the few games that do gain frame rates(at the very least minimum frame rates) from an SSD or a ramdisk(if said user had that much RAM)are far and few due to their I/O streaming constrains and plus the fact that games do pre-load their data and do stream of the storage occasionally ahead of time which is obvious. But they are still beneficial non-the less in gaming not just from the ability to better handle the background OS data being processed unlike a console OS which has only the essentials, but the
background of the game itself. And yes I'm aware it's been discussed quite a bit around and even checked up on by a few other sites but it's still something that should be further investigated either way your removing an archaic bottleneck from the system.
On some level SSDs are viewed by these same gamers as in similarity to PCIe 3.0 or DX11/11.1 or any other new standard set about and put. They view it straight away as "Oh that's pointless my GPU has more than enough bandwidth" when in reality it's most likely server hardware which will eat it up almost in no time and usually it's the background, behind-the-scenes performance like in PCIe 3.0 or DX11/11.1, it's seen as pointless by some people but in reality it's anything but, despite this somehow objection to advancement in progress. No one is making you buy said "SSD or current hardware" your right in the "worthless conclusion" it's quite a ignorant hold on said person.
Even if the SSD provided completely zero game performance on any level. The fact that it does provide very obvious quantifiable desktop performance should at least be noticed. It's strange to not even remotely notice a difference. I guess then again these guys probably never been exposed to CRT or even bother researching higher quality LCD like 120hz LCDs and buy a 1000+ dollar computer and go out to some local shop and buy a 70 dollar monitor.
Another significant group of people writing negatively about SSDs are those who have become ultra-paranoid about the write endurance of SSDs. Those folks should take a look here.
This on the other is something that is absolutely just like WTF still going on? I mean a small, tiny amount of it was relevant in 2009 primary for the Jmicron controller and Intel SSD. I mean so many people waste so much of their time trying to make their SSD somehow last longer when in reality it probably barely does anything. Even if you eat up the entire SSD it's still turns into a read-only storage. Either way in 10 years the charge on the NAND is going to dissipate and the data will eventually be lost and even then ignoring the obvious 10ish year wall, your SSD should last a good couple hundred, if not thousand years at least in terms of failure rate even more so particularly in mechanical failure rate due having no moving parts. And other just pointless tweaks based on the OS like prefetch and superfetch(incidentally despite having some discussion on the matter the
last post mentions it takes a few days to build up which quite ironic and funny because the Momentus hybrid SSD/HDD as well as a few other SSDs on the market have a similar boot understanding technology which allows them to learn your booting pattern and over days, weeks, months, and years boots your computer more efficiently by storing data of the action), pagefile(was
explained in 2009 and even then pagefile itself has been improved in Vista/7 to work as a virtual addressing/listing/pseudo-prepopulation as well as many other changes), and indexing like somehow all that is going to ruin your SSD.
It's funny because if you search around the internet to some forums you'll find not only were things explained in detail and explaining what SSDs were negatively affected Jmicro, 1st Gen. Intel, and a few 1st/Early 2nd gen. SSD but there were even a few places that researched defragmentation on an SSD and found that despite not being the best thing to do an SSD it was suggested that an SSD be defragmented twice a year or once every 6 months. I'm guessing it must have been when TRIM wasn't on all SSDs but even then there's been discussions on how filesystem defragmentation impacts SSD performance rather than the physical like a HDD, it's more of a software issue.
