About a year ago I read this blog post about Windows Vista's file copy performance, and how most people seem to perceive it as slower than Windows XP. It seems in many cases that perception of performance is just as important as a real measurable performance gain.
So why did a blog post that I read a year ago suddenly pop into my head? Well, every time I go to troubleshoot a system in the office, whether it be a mac or pc, the system just feels so much slower than the systems I use. I was waiting for someone else's laptop to boot, and it seemed so slow that I just wanted to smash the thing. If you were to run some synthetic benchmarks on the machines I use and compare them with the other systems in the office, there would probably be less than a 10% difference. In fact, my laptop would probably be slower than some of the desktops. My laptop is a 2.2 gig dual core AMD, I believe the newer desktops and the laptop in question use 2.2 gig core 2 duos. As a general rule of thumb, most users do not notice a speed difference in computers when the difference is 10% or less. So why do I perceive my computer as being 2, maybe even 3 times faster? Hard disk performance.
Hard drives are the slowest part of a computer. This is why I've been using RAID 0 setups on my desktops for a good 4 or 5 years now. My laptop has a decent SSD in it as well. Now, depending on what you're doing, having a fancy hard disk set up may not actually speed up what you're doing. Once MS Word, or whatever you're using is loaded up into memory, hard drive performance becomes much less important...borderline irrelevant.
This is where user perception becomes relevant. A computer with a faster hard drive subsystem will boot faster. Programs will launch faster. The computer will FEEL faster and more responsive, even if it still takes the same amount of time to encode some video files or spell check a word document. If you'd like to see this taken to the extreme, take a look at this youtube video of a computer with a 24 disk SSD RAID set-up.
So what are the effects of a computer that feels faster? Well, based on my personal experience, I believe it can have just as big of an effect on productivity as a computer that can actually run the programs faster once they're in memory. A computer that feels fast to a user, keeps the user happy, keeps the overall experience of using the computer positive. When someone has to wait over a minute for outlook to open, it sours the whole computing experience, and can easily frustrate the user to the point where they're less productive.
Also, let's not forget that in addition to the perception that the entire computing experience is faster, faster load times is a measurable productivity increase, and in business setting, that equates to money. Let's say a user saves 2 minutes a day by having a fast hard disk subsystem. That's 10 minutes a week, over 8.5 hours a year. In my opinion, that by itself is a large enough productivity increase to warrant investing an extra $300 in the hard disk subsystem of a computer.
Now I'd be wary of using RAID 0 in a business setting, just because of the increased risk of data loss. I've used it on my own desktop, but I'm well aware of the risks, and didn't keep anything on my computer that I couldn't live without. That still leaves SSDs. Most articles you read come to the conclusion that SSDs are not quite ready for primetime. They're too expensive per gigabyte, and their capacities are too small. I don't agree with that. Most business users do not need the ability to keep a terabyte of data on their work computers. In fact, nobody at our office needs that ability. 128 Gig SSDs will be more than sufficient for most people, whether they're running vista, windows 7 or OS X. I say bring on the SSDs, they are already worth the investment and will pay for themselves.