First I wanted to mock you but there is no need - your post speaks for itself. Your arrogant response doesn't state anything factual, it just argues with opposite points to a few points that I made. But it misses the most important ones. All in a manner that should be kept to people who know what they are talking about. At least I cited references to support my points. You just claim that I am wrong. Come on, you cannot be serious!
Keep your statistics to yourself if you cannot back them up. 83.65% of what you say is assumption and speculation.
The Corsair drive that you mention costs around £480-500. It would be idiotic to put that into a 13" MBP with slightly higher value. What you do is not useful and by no means is good consumer advice. I love the fact that TRIM support is one of the main features of the drive, while OS X cannot take advantage of it. Also, there is a figure of 'sustained speed' in the specification of the drive, either proving that there is speed degradation over time or that the max figures provided are not indicative of actual usage.
Here is a benchmark that I just found:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/19079/5
The Force drive show significant speed degradation: going from 71MB/s to 58MB/s in file copy speed. I suppose that proves that it's you, who should check facts before accusing others. Write speed is one area, where without TRIM support, SSDs can produce surprisingly poor performance, even compared to HDDs. The reason for this is that once the drive is saturated, there is a delay before the drive can write files, which slows down the process. With HDDs, the speed can be restored by reformatting the drive. SSDs cannot be cured. That is, for example why Windows users have to switch of disc defragmantation and a few other options.
Peak sequential write speed is an area, where SSDs often are behind HDDs. The whole reason of using SSD for system files and secondary SSDs for data/media/documents is that the SSD's strength lies in accessing application and system files quickly, where sustainable high read speed is being taken advantage of.
In terms of system load, the above test shows less than 20% difference between the fastest SSDs tested and a Seagate Momentus 7200rpm drive. Can you really justify the seven-tenfold price difference on the basis of that speed in software launch? Overall, many benefits of the SSDs in day-to-day tasks might be illusionary. Yes, there is a speed difference overall, they draw less energy and are pretty much silent. But at what cost? Currently, only a fool would use a large SSD (that you recommended) in a fairly-low specced computer just to load it up with data files which will have a detrimental effect on the drive's overall performance.
I also post a few more benchmarks from another test to prove my point (see pictures).
If you want to keep resilience after saturation, you should not use a chunk of the capacity of the drive, meaning that even if you get a 80GB one, an average user will have to make compromises about what to keep on the computer or whether to install a secondary HDD in an optibay, losing the optical drive.
But you know what? Prove that you have an SSD that you formatted and overwrote a couple of times, if you claim that it doesn't affect performance or it can be cured (although, I still believe that speed degradation cannot be reversed). I post a picture of two SSDs that I ordered and now I'm sending back. I'm not even attempting to install another SSD until the new generation 25nm drives come out in Q4. The OP should wait too and even then spending too much on an SSD should be avoided.
