SSD vs Raid ?

Well cheap SSDs have trouble doing random writes. If you use just for os you'll probably be fine. If you use it for everything you might get lag/hangs.

Notice on the SSD drives there is "NO REFUNDS" if you dont like it to bad for you.

SSD and HDD:

Average read:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,717.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,658.html

Average write:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,718.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,659.html

Random access:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,731.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,671.html

Random access is the main point where SSD is faster. There is no physical pin to move across a physical disk.

It's not "access time" but "random access time," random is the key word. It means that a hdd will have to mechanically move its pin from one part of the disk, read a small piece, then move to another one. That takes time. SSD does not have to do this. If it's continuous read/write, hdd is almost as fast as ssd, or faster, depending on model. Everyday computing involves a lot of random access, which is where ssd has an advantage. When you copy a large file, hdd is just as fast.

Size depends on your needs. I use two hdds, one 1tb, the other 1.5tb, and 32gb just won't cut it. But it may be enough for you. The XP os itself should take under 1gb. But a typical new game takes 7gb or more each when installed.

I don't see how Windows is different than games. If you get lag/hang on anything, it means the drive is defective. Yes, you can install the game on it. If anything, RAID is less reliable than SSD, with higher incidence of data loss/corruption.

Consider SSD for core system, large 1-1.5tb drives for storage.

SSD isn't ready to be used yet. Although raid 0 and SSD together should solve the problem a bit for write speeds.

Not really - the problem is extremely long lags, not data rates. I wouldn't buy any cheap MLC SSD's for any computer. Good SLC drives don't have the same problem, but they are quite expensive.

That isn't quite true - the SLC SSD's tend to be both trouble free and amazingly fast. The intel is the only trouble free MLC drive though.

Here's one such example of an SLC SSD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820147054

There are a few people who think they are great, and a lot more people who think they are not that great. Whenever I see a piece of hardware that has so much negative feedback, and such a high price tag, common sense tells me to back away for now.

One of the problem with SSDs is the swap file, Windows 7 will have a setting especialy for use with SSDs but at this point, virtual memory is the bane of SSDs as it means lots of random writes.
Also, it will shorten your SSDs life to use it for swap, so place your swap file on another (traditionnal) HD or use enough RAM not to have a swap file.
BTW RAID-0 is totally overrated unless you do Video editting or other large file stuff that needs high transfer speed (then you would also need two arrays). What it realy does is multiply your chances of data loss by the number of drives on the array and gives you a worst random access time than that of a single drive.
Mostly it's for the Benchmarktubators who like to boast high transfer rate numbers more than actual real world performance.

xcopy X:\folder Y:\folder /s/e/v/d/l

... works MUST faster when both X: and Y: are RAID 0 arrays,
less fast when only one drive letter is on a RAID 0 array.

The "/l" switch only reads filename entries, not the entire files,
then it saves those entries in XP file buffers without changing
any files in the target folder.


MRFS