OK, OK, all you SSD lovers and defenders... I just meant it was too expensive for me. Not at all worth it. It's basically the difference between a 1min. boot time and 1.5 min. boot time. It will also save you about 5 min. a day under HARD use as an OS X drive. Remember that with 12, or 16 gigs or RAM every time you use an app just about all the program code goes into the system cache and stays there typically until you reboot. If I load PS with 100 plugins it takes 32 seconds the 1st time. Then if I quite it and use iMovie, Lightwave, and Illustrator for 3 or 4 hours and then load PS again it takes 7 seconds to load the second time. Going back to Lightwave, Illustrator, or iMovie is the same thing again - ultra fast the second time. Initially I thought Apple was daft for keeping such huge chunks of app vectored in RAM but with hard use it began to make more sense. It does the same thing with bits of the OS as well. And this is not even considering that with 12 or 16 gigs of RAM the user typically does not quit the apps after use. I don't if I know I will be using it again in the next hour or so. With 16 GB RAM you can do that easily with 5 or 6 large applications.
With SSD you're paying approximately 35 to 40 times the price of standard SATA media and all just for that 5 min. per day advantage. To me that's crazy - nutz-o, bonkers. I could see it if it were only 5 or maybe 10 times which is where it would fall if SSDs were $300 for 256GB but they're not. I guess I could also see it on a laptop where RAM is usually low and LT HDDs are hella-slow. But on a desktop at $300 for 80GB which is not even large enough to put OS X on - unless you keep your system very very vanilla and don't install almost anything, I think not. Considering that, we're also limiting ourselves severely for that same 5 min. a day advantage. Yup, sounds "crazy" to me - on a desktop anyway!
I'm not in the habit of lighting hundred dollar bills on fire just to watch them burn and SSD on a desktop is the buyers analogue to doing just that - in my opinion. Also if you're going to consider time in this equation then let's go back to when 100 MegaByte hard drives were $300 and we can justify anything! Pretty silly logic IMO. YMMV. BTW, 4 or 5 years ago it was 250 GB HDDs for $100. We would have to go back quite a bit further in time to see 74GB drives for $300 in common media like IDE, SCSI II / III, and etc.
It's snappier browsing and processing files as well.. $300 is cheap compared to buying 16gb of memory..