Just released, so nobody really knows anything about the 'quality'.
Noticed a very minor performance bump coming from an Intel 160GB 320 model to the mx100 512GB. Just for giggles I reran the Windows Experience Index "benchmark" and went from 7.6 to 7.9. Think what performance difference I noticed came from the SATA III and the better transfer rates from the larger SSD size. My main reason for the purchase was for the larger storage size of a decent quality/performance SSD for a sub $0.50/GB price.
Crucial SSDs are top-notch* for consumer drives, they don't have problems with firmware or controller issues, and they control and produce their own NAND (through Micron).
The only companies that make better consumer drives from a total production chain point-of-view could be Intel and Samsung (companies who control both their own NAND and controller process).
If you are going to buy a SSD soon, Crucial MX100 is a great option for your wallet. And reliability is not compromised for this drive, performance is, according to Anandtech. The opposite is true of Samsung's 840 Evo.
*Every storage option can fail, whether its tape, hard drives, floppy disks, or SSDs. If you backup your important data regularly, any SSD will be alright. Crucial is one of the better companies.
So, the Anand review says this is arted at 3 years... Are there any guides for maximizing SSD life here?
Do you intend to use for your SSD for 20 years? Do you intend to write 100GB to your drive every day? Answered no to both then your doing more than enough. They aren't fragile, they don't just run out on normal usage. My M4 512GB has been in constant use for nearly 3 years and its used 2% of its life. It'll be obsolete by the end of the year.
I suppose you're right. Regular backups should mitigate any risk too I guess. Are you using some kind of program to track that?
What's this?Come to think of it, the MX100 comes with TI 2014 I think it is.. unsure if it is crippled in anyway though.
I am guessing it is, like the version from WD only works if a WD drive is installed, and the same for Seagate.
Toshiba offers NTI backup, never used it, no idea of the limitations.
What's this?
Acronis True Image 2014, it's a nice program. Got a license on sale for $10 off of slickdeals 6 months back
Ah. But isn't cloning from an HDD to an SSD a bad idea, since Windows won't be optimized for the SSD?
I think W7 handles SSDs OK, I know W8/8.1 does. You may have to make a few tweaks in W7 (disable defrag, disable hibernation.) Some clone utilities handle partition alignment as well.
Windows 7 does too.I think W7 handles SSDs OK, I know W8/8.1 does.
Windows 7 already does it for you, and just for the installed SSDs instead of system-wide like some users do. Now, you might have read elsewhere that this could be necessary for Windows 8/8.1. On Windows 8/8.1 there actually is a bug which causes SSDs to get defragmented occasionally. This doesn't happen on Windows 7.You may have to make a few tweaks in W7 (disable defrag,
Pointless unless you actually need to save space.disable hibernation.)
Most do. If Windows 7 was originally installed from scratch on the source drive there shouldn't be issues, as since Vista the Windows installer already aligns partitions correctly for SSDs.Some clone utilities handle partition alignment as well.
Ah. But isn't cloning from an HDD to an SSD a bad idea, since Windows won't be optimized for the SSD?
Windows 7 does too.
Windows 7 already does it for you, and just for the installed SSDs instead of system-wide like some users do. Now, you might have read elsewhere that this could be necessary for Windows 8/8.1. On Windows 8/8.1 there actually is a bug which causes SSDs to get defragmented occasionally. This doesn't happen on Windows 7.
Pointless unless you actually need to save space.
Most do. If Windows 7 was originally installed from scratch on the source drive there shouldn't be issues, as since Vista the Windows installer already aligns partitions correctly for SSDs.
I think people keep repeating obsolete information that might have made sense when SSD tended to suck and fail for apparently no reason (read: OCZ) and Windows XP was the most installed Microsoft OS.