No, not an an infection :)If you run a flight sim system with Solid-State Drives (SSDs), I'm interested in your experiences:1) Did you notice great performance gain compared to HDs?2) Do you follow the standard practice of separate drives and/or partitions for OS/FS/SWAP?3) Do you bother with either 3rd party or OS scheduled defrag programs?4) Did you change customize Power Options?5) How would you rate the impact of the SSD compared to a very good Video Card upgrade?6) Would you do it again today or wait 6-12 months?7) Any other insights? ( Let's not discuss price, it's a given )ALL, Feel free to post any additional questions about FS+SSDs- ThanksYour Specs:CPU (cores/speed):Memory:SSD size(s):OS version (32/64 bit):Flight Sim version:Addon(s):My next system ( Maybe ):Intel Nehalem 4-core ( Bloomfield ) 2.93GHzNvidia 280 GTX | ATI 48706GB DDR3 1600Mhz128GB SSDVista Home Basic 64-bitGEX/UTX/REX

I'm interested in this as well. your future system specs are similar to what I am looking at also.I wonder if it's feasible to have harddrive tech and SSD in the same case, say the SSD drive for gaming since it's immediate data transfer and then a typical HD for data storage.I sure hope the Nehalem lives up to the hype!Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

HelloIf you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie in the background.http://www.freewebs.com/reading1871/30.jpg

>>I wonder if it's feasible to have harddrive tech and SSD in>the same case, say the SSD drive for gaming since it's>immediate data transfer and then a typical HD for data storage>>MichaelAgreed, should be possible & cost effective. Although I might look at External SATA or USB for 500GB & portability.>>If you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading>should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie>in the background.>>MaddogI'm not that versed with graphics rendering in FSX. Are you stating that texture loading will not benefit from low latency disk access?- NetNinja

>Hello>If you are running a core2 or quad then most texture loading>should be happening on another core to the main FSX program ie>in the background.>Hi, I don't understand the implication of this regarding the use of SSD compared to ordinary disks. Could you please elaborate upon this?Ulf B

Here's some infoI have no direct experience with SSD's yet.However on another forum I visit, somebody borrowed an 80GB version and popped it into their PS3.They claim that performance of disk based IO was at least triple. Loading a demo went from 2 minutes to under 30 seconds.Take that for what it's worth.remember that SSD's eliminate a few things- latency: there is no longer a wait for the data to pass under the 'heads', and seek- there's no heads to move!I figure that next year SSD's will become much more mainstream, and certainly affordable for all. From there you'll see an astronomical adoption rate by the PC industry.Tim

That being said, SSD's should theoretically improve FSX (and to a lesser degree, FS2004) flight loading times. Given the thousands of little files that FSX has between textures, terrain, and scenery definitions, rapid loading would certainly be a benefit. We'll see what happens!-Greg

Prices are a tad high on ssd drives. But I think when the prices come down I will try one for fsx.

.. reading on FS12 box the requirements state "SSD drive recomended" :-roll LOL!!!Sam______________________________________Flight Simmers never get drunk........ Just get their Yaw-Damper disactivated.

Just curious. I've got an 8 GIG stick in my laptop bag. This afternoon I'll copy my FS Folder to the stick and run from there.Probably much more latency than a SSD, but we'll see.I'll report back to this thread with my findings.Cheers,bt