NEW OCZ Vector

[jwilliams4200]

What the hell is your problem dude? Sticking my head in the sand really?

No need to get upset. I did not insult you. I do not hate OCZ. I am simply not going to do your research for you, or repeat something that has already been covered in this forum.

And yes, really, I have no issue if you want to stick your head in the sand. That is entirely up to you.

 

[blackened23]

1) Present claim
2) Someone asks for evidence
3) Your response "GOOGLE IT DUDE"

LOL, alrighty if you say so.:awe::whiste:

 

[jacktesterson]

Because your assuming something based on the past (mostly Sandforce based SSD's) and applying it to all OCZ products.

No, I am not. OCZ has been a dishonest company long before Sandforce.

The old saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" applies here. Why would any rational person take a chance on OCZ products when there are so many viable alternatives?

OK then.

 

[jwilliams4200]

...OCZ's Agility 4/Vertex 4 failure rates are around 4% which is market average in modern SSD's,

The Vertex 4 is looking good on preliminary data (0.9%), but the Agility 4 is running 8.5% on the hardware.fr / behardware.com survey.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-8/components-returns-rates-7.html

For comparison, most of the dependable SSDs are around 1%:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html

- Intel 0.45% (against 1.73%)
- Samsung 0.48% (N/A)
- Corsair 1.05% (against 2.93%)
- Crucial 1.11% (against 0.82%)
- OCZ 5.02% (against 7.03%)

So, the question is, will the OCZ Vector be like the Vertex 4 (which is okay now, but took months after release until the firmware was decent), or like most of the other SSDs from OCZ in the past? Time will tell. But I don't see why any smart person would take that bet when there are so many other viable options. Now, if 6 months from now the Vector has had no serious issues, and OCZ is looking like it will be around for years to support the product, that would be a different story. But right now, the smart money is not on the Vector.

 

[christer12]

OCZ Vector SSD review:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ocz_voctor_ssd_benchmark_review_test,1.html

 

[Corporate Thug]

another

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/27/ocz_vector_256gb_ssd_review/1

 

[Railgun]

Only someone who is completely ignorant of basic statistics would make such a claim, so I'm not surprised that you evade the issue. But you would do better to learn some basic statistics rather than continuing to make statements that anyone with even a basic understanding of statistics recognizes as complete nonsense.

<sigh>

Ignoring the point is not evading. I just don't care to argue its worth in this conversation. I can care less about a whopping 300 random samples suggesting some 95% accuracy, plus or minus 5% of course. Furthermore, a whopping 5% RMA rate is hardly concerning.

As you said, 5 is hardly statistically signficant, include mine and that's 10, and yet, we're both just fine with our decision of the purchase. Seems we're in that 95% that's good. I don't need stats to tell me what to buy. If there's a 20% return rate that's a little more concerning, but I'm going to bet that most of these issues, since we don't know what they are, are a little...user error. I've had power failures, RAID failures, low voltage issues and not a single problem with these drives. So yeah, to hell with stats. First hand experience is king here and I'm more than capable to make my own decisions.

Why would any rational person take a chance on OCZ products when there are so many viable alternatives?

Because this rational person can actually think for himself. And the implication of that statement that I'm NOT rational is insulting and just plays into your bandwagoning, subjective attitude. I'm surprised you haven't lit the Samsung drive on fire yet with its issues.

 

[jwilliams4200]

Because this rational person can actually think for himself.

Why do you think a rational person would buy a product with a 5% return rate when a similar product has a 1% return rate? What makes it worth a FIVE TIMES HIGHER chance of the hassle of having an SSD fail, needing to spend a lot of time dealing with customer support, dealing with an RMA, waiting a long time for a replacement product to finally arrive and then needing to spend yet more valuable time reinstalling everything on the replacement SSD?

 

[Railgun]

Because in the grand scheme of things, that 4% difference is akin to pissing in the ocean.

And...I haven't had that occur...so it's an irrelevant point to me.

 

[jwilliams4200]

And...I haven't had that occur...so it's an irrelevant point to me.

You asked why I assumed you were not rational about this subject. It is statements like that which are the tip off. The probability of a failure, as determined by a study with a statistically significant sample size and sound methodology, has nothing to do with your personal experience.

Also, accepting a five times higher chance of failure could be rational if there are other offsetting factors. For example, for someone who owned stock in OCZ or had a friend or family member who worked at OCZ, or got kickbacks from OCZ, then it would be rational for them to promote OCZ products, with a five times higher chance of failure, over other more dependable products. But it is not rational to prefer a product that is five times more likely to fail than another product for no better reason than "I don't care" or "it never happened to me".

 

[josephjpeters]

Why do you think a rational person would buy a product with a 5% return rate when a similar product has a 1% return rate? What makes it worth a FIVE TIMES HIGHER chance of the hassle of having an SSD fail, needing to spend a lot of time dealing with customer support, dealing with an RMA, waiting a long time for a replacement product to finally arrive and then needing to spend yet more valuable time reinstalling everything on the replacement SSD?

New here, but had to chime in here to say that you sir are pretty pathetic. Does this mean you avoided the 840 Pro after seeing 2 of 2 drives die on Anand?

You talk about the consumer being rational but, I hate to break this to you, they're actually irrational. You talk statistics but have you ever taken economic theory?

I don't see what the value is for someone to comment on a message board about products they've never used.

I personally used a Vertex 3 on the original FW without any issues for a year and have since been using a Vertex 4 that's been great. I know Sandforce had issues with their controller and OCZ's reputation was damaged because it sold 70% of all Sandforce drives (at the height of the "crisis") but that's in the past. As you even said, the Vertex 4 is better than the industry average yet you dwell on the the older-gen products that had issues that were actually, in some part, out of OCZ's control.

Just don't understand the hate or the motive here.

 

[jwilliams4200]

Just don't understand the hate or the motive here.

I do not understand why you don't understand. Where was I unclear?

I already said I do not hate OCZ. I already explained that the decision to not buy a new OCZ product is a simple matter of weighing past history of OCZ versus similar SSDs from other companies that do not have a history of dishonesty and poor quality.

To answer your question about Samsung, I do not recommend anyone buy the 840 or 840 Pro until more time has passed to see how they hold up. But if someone was determined to buy either a Samsung 840 Pro or an OCZ Vector NOW, I would recommend the Samsung over the OCZ since Samsung has a better history of product quality, and Samsung is nearly certain to be around to support the product during the entire life of its 5 year warranty, while there is significant doubt whether OCZ will be around in 3 or 5 years.

 

[KentState]

New here, but had to chime in here to say that you sir are pretty pathetic. Does this mean you avoided the 840 Pro after seeing 2 of 2 drives die on Anand?

You talk about the consumer being rational but, I hate to break this to you, they're actually irrational. You talk statistics but have you ever taken economic theory?

I don't see what the value is for someone to comment on a message board about products they've never used.

I personally used a Vertex 3 on the original FW without any issues for a year and have since been using a Vertex 4 that's been great. I know Sandforce had issues with their controller and OCZ's reputation was damaged because it sold 70% of all Sandforce drives (at the height of the "crisis") but that's in the past. As you even said, the Vertex 4 is better than the industry average yet you dwell on the the older-gen products that had issues that were actually, in some part, out of OCZ's control.

Just don't understand the hate or the motive here.

So do you work for OCZ? Seems really random to jump in to defend a company on a first post.

 

[josephjpeters]

So do you work for OCZ? Seems really random to jump in to defend a company on a first post.

I don't, just follow the industry.

 

[Hellhammer]

So do you work for OCZ? Seems really random to jump in to defend a company on a first post.

He doesn't. https://twitter.com/josephjpeters

 

[Sureshot324]

No, I am not. OCZ has been a dishonest company long before Sandforce.

Yet you won't even give one example to counter all the people saying OCZ's problems were all because of sandforce?

 

[josephjpeters]

Yet you won't even give one example to counter all the people saying OCZ's problems were all because of sandforce?

To be fair, I think you can make the case that OCZ had their own issues with their Petrol line. It seems they may have had some bad NAND but those drives weren't on the market long because of these issues. I know they still honored the warranty so it's not like they screwed their customers. Mistakes happen, they made things right.

Some people feel slighted by the fact that the Everest 1/2 platforms used Marvell silicon (it was slightly modified, but that's besides the point). To the consumer, does it really matter who makes the silicon? No. But in OCZ's case, it absolutely matters because they try to deceive people! (sarcasm)

I just felt compelled to say something because I feel like OCZ did a lot to progress SSD tech and help bring it mainstream. They pushed the envelope and took their lumps but it seems this new Vector may change things for them.

 

[KentState]

To be fair, I think you can make the case that OCZ had their own issues with their Petrol line. It seems they may have had some bad NAND but those drives weren't on the market long because of these issues. I know they still honored the warranty so it's not like they screwed their customers. Mistakes happen, they made things right.

Some people feel slighted by the fact that the Everest 1/2 platforms used Marvell silicon (it was slightly modified, but that's besides the point). To the consumer, does it really matter who makes the silicon? No. But in OCZ's case, it absolutely matters because they try to deceive people! (sarcasm)

I just felt compelled to say something because I feel like OCZ did a lot to progress SSD tech and help bring it mainstream. They pushed the envelope and took their lumps but it seems this new Vector may change things for them.

Fortunately, one way or another, there are a lot of competitors with good products so if were burnt by OCZ, you can spend your money elsewhere.

 

[videogames101]

Not a bad name. So the next generation after the Vector will be Matrix? And then Tensor? :whiste:

I want a spinor!

 

[HighEndToys]

Another: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5071/ocz_vector_256gb_ssd_review/index.html

 

[jwilliams4200]

I want a spinor!

That would be a better name for an HDD! :biggrin:

 

[christer12]

Another ocz vector review:

http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vector_ssd_review

 

[TemjinGold]

Yet you won't even give one example to counter all the people saying OCZ's problems were all because of sandforce?

Give it up. I started a thread a while back trying in good faith to solicit real experiences from Vertex 4 owners. That dude jumps all over the thread and insults me with stuff like "It's people like you that blah blah blah." I don't know what his problem is but you'd think OCZ killed his family. If that's not hate, I really don't want to see what hate is but it's like a personal vendetta of his to slam anyone who even looks at OCZ nicely.

I don't support OCZ. After I found out about the financial issues, I decided against getting the Vertex 4. But for someone who "really doesn't care if we stick our heads into the sand," he sure is open about just ripping on people.

ANYWAYS, we're here to discuss the merits of the Vector here and I'd really like to do that. I hope we can just drop this nonsense and just go back to speculating about what could be neat about the Vector because you know what, I don't care about OCZ as a company right now. I'm interested in new tech and want to discuss it. So I read today somewhere that this drive is all metal and no more cheap plastic. Call me crazy but that's pretty cool to me.

 

[Burner27]

Let's stay on topic here and not make this an OCZ bash-fest, ok? As I remember the topic was about the Vector.......

Burner27 - Moderator
Memory & Storage

 

[jwilliams4200]

I started a thread a while back trying in good faith to solicit real experiences from Vertex 4 owners. That dude jumps all over the thread and insults me with stuff like "It's people like you that blah blah blah."

I did not write what you have quoted above. You apparently made it up, or perhaps you have a poor memory. And I did not insult you.