Ok but that does not explain why one is better than the other... if anything it seems to be the BSOD issue which is stated to be fixed by OCZ with a firmware upgrade.
With regards the write speeds, I look at it a bit like this; "my car can do 25mph in reverse but another model can do 40mph". Ok, but in the real world forward speed is far more important (i.e. read speed) and you don't often need to do more than 10 mph backwards anyway. If both cars have exactly the same acceleration and top speed, but one has a history of breaking down a lot, which would you go for?
I think that OCZ and/or Corsair may have said in the past that the firmware has been fixed, but it turned out there were still problems, so it *may* be too early to say.
I got an SSD a couple of weeks ago - I went for the Cruicial M4. It was £20 more than the OCZ or Corsair ones but I suppose there were 3 main reasons I choose it:-
1) In benchmarks it may sometimes have scored lower but in these more "real world" tests it actually seemed faster...
2) It may only write at 150MB/sec or whatever, but what do you have that can supply data faster than that? OK if you had 2 SSDs that both
read at 500MB/sec and you were copying from between them then a slower
write speed would be a bottleneck, but most times it's just small files being written and access time is far more important then.
3) I only have SATA2 anyway so won't get much more than 250MB/sec either way.
.