Marketing departments are only interested in the largest number they can put on the box. Advertising an SSD with 40MB/s random read speed while everyone else says 200MB/s sequential will result in fail.
Besides, anyone purchasing an SSD should read as many reviews as they can and then decide. Its their own fault if they spend all that money without researching how fast it is in real world conditions.

Am I the only one who cares more about durability and storage capacity than the speed of the drive? Right now I'm not even considering a SSD because I cannot get one over 500GB in size (unless I wanna spend more than my tuition payment costs). Sure the faster transfer rates are nice and all, and for some applications and thus for some people that is a the deciding factor. But I would imagine most people would rather have a 1TB SSD that's more durable than Current SSDs (durability referring to how the cells inside flash chips tend to "die" after several read and write cycles). I know that eventually we will see SSDs of similar capacities to their mechanical counterparts. just seems like once a week we get a new article about some company pushing sequential reads / writes beyond ludicris speed, but hardly ever that we see one about a manufacturer releasing a drive with better durability and increased storage capacity.

I bought a copy of the g.skill falcon 128's referenced in the TR shortbread monday. They're small and light, and no problem to install. I put them in a raid 1 array as data drives. I'm using a pair of raptors as the system drive (also in raid1).

This was my first experience with SSD's, but as of right now, I don't see a downside.

The g.skill's have a jumper to restore them assuming the speed eventually degrades.

We need to get mfrs to start quoting rates for sustained random (not sequential) writes at some agreed-upon small unit size (under the typical 128KB - 256KB block size). Of course most of them won't want to do that.