the author of this article is extremely incompetent and should only be allowed to work with technology as a regular user, and not pretending to be someone with knowledge and understanding...

Get a clue.

This is performance of catastrophic proportions.

I suggest you read the SSD articles on Anandtech or the treatment similar SSDs received by c't.

.

You HAVE be kidding me. The disk benchmarking world all work in IOs/SECOND, or IOPS. The Kingston is just plain DIRE at reading small files. You've even had to use a logarithmic scale to try to hide this. The numbers weren't provided for 512K blocks, but it looks to me like 2 or 3 IOPS at that size (1/2 second delay to read a small file anyone?) A decent hard dive will manage 100-200 IOPS, or 6000-12000 IOs/minute on the scale shown.

I was just about to buy 1 of them Kingston SSD's for my main op system as I am going to upgrade to Win 7 RC1 64bit from XP Pro SP3 32bit.

I'll be using a new WD 250GB SATA-II for my music and games etc those are good numbers and overclockers.co.uk are selling them for £109 but £115 with delivery dont know anywhere cheaper do ya.

Using it as the OS drive on my HTPC, tweaked temp files etc to be stored on a secondary SATA HDD. Whole thing seems to be snappier and the boot time is markedly improved.

Those sandra graphs look suspiciously like sample aliasing, rather than actual performance peaks/troughs. I think something else is going on.