Comments on: The Harsh Reality of False Bait and Switch SSD Claims – Learning To Run With Flash

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:25:00 +0000

In reply to Les@TheSSDReview. In the end the people that buy the SSD will decide what is relevant. There are several of these reduced performance SSD's on the market and they all sell for such reduced prices that I have a hard time believing anyone is making a profit. So maybe it was a technically OK move but as a business practice it was, is and will be a loser.

By: Les@TheSSDReview

Les@TheSSDReview — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:41:00 +0000

In reply to Mack. I am the author and see you view completely, although I don't necessarily agree. It is not ok and I have had my own opinion of this practice all along. It is not by any means new. I explored this from the perspective of the completely logical viewpoint, however, and as a consumer SSD, the are no bill of materials that tie any consumer SSD to the parts within. The only reason you know of those parts is because of the reviewers. The only requirement to the manufacturer is tyo meet posted specs, whether using compressible or compressible data samples to test. That is the only requirement. Morally, do I think it is wrong to change the components of an SSD after the world starts purchasing as a result of reviews. Absolutely!....that is if you hadn't made some type of mention of this occurrence.

By: Mack

Mack — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:39:00 +0000

The problem is that this article downplays this behavior by manufacturers as “ok” by providing justification for it. “They have to do it to make a buck” is practically as good as anything written here. So why not just come out and say that?
I hate to say it, but its almost like the author does not want to get these companies riled or something. The sad fact is replacing components that have a significant affect on performance without rebranding them is farcical and IMHO wrong. And this article is “poopooing” the behavior, but also saying… “meh its ok” THAT is BAD for both the author and the industry.
Switching components is very deceptive when it does have an adverse effect on the end user. The author should really be hammering these guys instead of providing a muttering excuse.

By: Les@TheSSDReview

Les@TheSSDReview — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:14:00 +0000

In reply to Stephen Caniglia. In all fairness, 99% of SSDs have the same access time which is why emphasis isn't placed on it. There needs to be a way to differentiate and, unfortunately, the common method is by high sequential read and write speeds, that of which is rarely ever used by the consumer anyway. Thanks for the comment!

By: Stephen Caniglia

Stephen Caniglia — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:25:00 +0000

Great post. I realized access time was most important back when we used actual ram setups pre-ssd era. I have always found it odd reviews and specs list read/write speeds but almost never list access times. Takes more research to find the access times which is the most important.