[binaryfinery]

Solid State Discs in everything.

Ok, perhaps not what you were asking, but they made a big difference for me. I have two, raid0 in my desktop, and a sandforce in my MBP. What a difference. Compiling, linking, copying, everything not just faster, but almost instantaneous. Yum.

[aw3c2]

Buying an SSD was a huge disappointment for me. Programs were not "almost instantaneous" but just 2-3 times faster to load if there was a difference at all. So OpenOffice took 3 seconds instead of 7, not worth the huge price difference for me. Compiling is CPU bound, I noticed no mentionable difference there. It might be worth it if you use a "bloaty" OS with virus scanners and indexers running or have specific use cases where very fast access is needed, but for a lightweight system the difference is neglible. The only real difference I actually noticed without looking at numbers was that after startx the XFCE desktop was ready before the monitor did its resolution switch. Lots of random reads in that process I guess. From a HDD it takes a couple of seconds (once per day...).

I returned it. And before some is implying I am dumb: Yes, I had a fast and quick SSD and my system was setup to use it well.

[binaryfinery]

You need more CPUs then :-)

Also, there really is a difference between SSDs available right now. My Kingston SSDs have blocksizes of 120k (!). My OCZ Vertex2 has blocksize of 4k. Its 4k write speed is off the chart. Like 40x faster than some SSDs.

I'm on OSX (2 cores), Windows (8 cores) and CentOS (4 cores).

[aw3c2]

Oh yes, I regret having bought a 2 core CPU. Maybe I will upgrade to a 4 core some day.

[rphlx]

Yup. And PCI-e SSDs are going to rock-n-roll next year. 160GB at 700MB/s w/ 10us latency for $300? Yes please.