The machine's view of time, if nanoseconds were seconds
OCZ Vertex 3's have been pounded for reliability problems[4], so much so that they've just started a special deal on Newegg [2]. And coincidentally, I'm sure, a jolly story about "a machine's view of time" replete with olde-worlde charm, shows up on the front page of a major tech site, and oh, by the way, let me end by saying "I use OCZ Vertex 3's"...Tom's Hardware suggests that Crucial's m4 series are faster than OCZ Vertex 3's, and don't come with a horrendous approval rating. A 256Gb m4 is $319 on newegg [1].Intel's new 520 SSDs appear to have given them a proper SSD instead of the floppy-disc-like performance of the 510.[3] Though its $499 for 240gb. [5]All drives have failures, and while it sucks to be the one that gets the dodgy drive, there will always be someone who can post "it didn't work for me". However, the OCZ Vertex have an unusually high number of "It didn't work for me" reviews. Is it a stitch-up? It'd be easy for "a motivated third party" to buy 27 drives off newegg and post negative reviews. It'd also be in OCZ's interest to fan the flames of doubt on the SF2281 as they are releasing new SSDs based on their own, newly-purchased, Indilinx controllers. But taking off the tin-foil hat, it does look like Vertex 3's have problems.[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148...[2] http://promotions.newegg.com/OCZ/022912/index.html?cm_sp=Cat...[3] http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-520-sandforce-review-bench...[4] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=20-227-707&#...[5] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167...