Originally Posted by ardgedee
I can only provide anecdata, but writing to an SSD seemed faster. If I recall correctly, writing 27 GB to my video iPod 5G took approximately an hour with the HD, about 40 minutes with the SSD. Same iPod, same computer, same cables; only the drive was different.
When using the iPod, seek time and latency are among the main advantages of the SSD, and that's harder to quantify since you're usually comparing fractions of seconds to fractions of seconds; it's easier to say the iPod feels faster with an SSD on board, even though the basic functions (navigating menus, listening to music) aren't affected by the type of drive installed.
There could be lots of explanations for that. USB 2.0 speeds are 60MB/s. I couldn't find the specs on the stock Ipod HDD, but I found found a cheap Toshiba replacement drive that was 52 MB/s at 3600 RPM, the stock HDDs are 4200, so the transfers speeds on the stock HDD should be just above USB 2.0 speeds. The difference in time could be computer related, or could be because of fragmentation, or maybe the HDD really is slower than the USB, who knows. Theoretical throughputs are theoretical. Honestly though, since USB 2.0 is involved, probably transfer speeds shouldn't really be factored in to the SDD decision because they won't be sped up very much.
I completely agree with the second part of your post. Well said. Also, I feel as though not having to worry about shock is a big big advantage. Battery should be better. These HDDs are so slow that I really don't know how much difference there is in battery life. I'm sure there's information in this thread about it.