On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:58 -0000, Char Jackson wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

+1

No issues here, so far, with any of the Samsung SSD's that I've installed, a
mix of 840's and 850's of varying sizes. I have no experience with any other
brand.

I've installed about 20 OCZ and 30 Crucial. 10 OCZ (yes half of them!) were returned as completely dead. 0 Crucial returned, although a few have required firmware to stop them being flaky (disappearing from the BIOS). I'll give Samsung a shot (price permitting). I installed an Intel recently, but it was quite a small one, so the absurd extra price on it didn't make much difference.

Just checked the prices and Samsung, Crucial, Kingston are all similar. I'll go for Samsung then.

--
I imposed a declaration in opposition to your motion to modify the preliminary injunction in support of the cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. So noted by the Federal Court of Justice proceeding preliminary declaration.