Cost effect ratio is still lagging on SSDs

They just aren't cost effective enough to start using en-mass. Flash drives sure, NP, I use plenty of those. SDD, back-up drive, yes, it's a must because you want the added protection on you back up drive. It's the only way I see SSD's to very at an advantage in the current market. It's it worth the cost for using in a PC on daily basis. NO, not until they start making media files smaller, and that's NOT the trend atm. You can easily spend WAY TOO much on an SDD product that doesn't yet have a track record on long term reliability, will likely fill-up before most people are ready to move on to a new system. Even with new 1Tb HD's being credited for shorter life spans, their capacity, and lower cost, has more than made up for that issue. Most people will not use their PC/lap top systems long enough to even notice this problem, since they would rather buy new because it is less expensive for them to do so, rather than pay a tech at future shop an arm and leg to service a legacy device with an old OS to boot! Only hard-core legacy junkies like myself can see a bonus in buying advanced components, but NOT if their limited capacity and high cost make them prohibitive for using in PCs for day to day practical applications. Most PC users don't even know the difference b/t the hard drives... lol