Actually Thomas, a considerable chunk of my income comes from photography, and we (me & my fiance) specialize in event photojournalism, so after a wedding/conference/festival etc. we end up with huge amounts of files (sometimes even more than 3000 21mp RAW images per day) - if you're not careful enough, you might end up filling your remaining 30-40GB free space within minutes just by downloading all images from the CF cards to the hard drive.
The benefit of SSD is very visible when you work with photos too. I couldn't care less about any other piece of software benefiting from SSD usage, except the one i spend 90% time working in - Adobe Lightroom. And although i have enough RAM now (8GB seems perfect for Lightroom alone, I don't get any page outs) and enough processing power (i7 2.8GHz gets all its 8 cores used by that software), the only bottleneck is the speed of the HDD. The rest of the hardware needs to wait for the HDD and that's frustrating. SSD is the way to go.
Btw, i did some extensive tests running the same library in Lightroom on a Macbook Air 11" (1.4GHz C2D) and on my slower iMac (3.06GHz C2D). The photo-to-photo processing time was faster, much snappier, almost instant on the MBA. Only when it came to the final export of RAW files to JPGs did the iMac show the faster processing and it was not even exactly 3.06/1.4=2.2 times faster, rather only 1.9x. It happens so because the final export depends on the processor, not on the harddrive so much, while skipping from photo to photo requires previews to be read off the HDD.
So, although this became an off-topic discussion now - yes, there are benefits of SSDs for photographers and yes - we need a way to be reminded by the system itself about its health problems 😉
Message was edited by: adamkozlowski79