| ... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
| capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
| pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.
|
| SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
| They take up less space.

The article, though, is mainly looking at what to buy
for business people buying hardware. That's not the
same thing as saying that you should replace your hard
disks with SSDs. And speed needs vary. I don't spend
my day moving photos from D drive to E drive. Other than
large data on USB sticks I never notice any sense of
waiting for data transfer. So the speed issue is relative.
A speed increase that might show up on a busy server
is not necessarily relevant on a PC.

So I don't see why there should be an "argument". SSDs
are up-and-coming. They're gradually getting cheaper.
The failure rates of both types are not encouraging. In
short, there are pros and cons. The biggest con, if you
don't already have SSDs but you do have hard disks, is
a large sum of money that you wouldn't otherwise need
to spend. Another quote from the same article:

"Similarly, SSDs are a terrible place to do a bunch of log file writes to;
eleventy squillion crappy little sub-K writes will burn out the SSDs in no
time."

So an SSD might make a good D drive, but probably not
such a good C drive. (Though I don't actually know how
much a "squillion" is. No surprise that the author is not one
of the British regulars at The Register. As much as the
British like to use their own slang overly much, at least
they don't talk like children.