So a computer or a laptop only with a mechanical hard drive. For the operating system and big data. And why is it so difficult for some companies to equip their IT systems with SSDs?
With SSD the price is of course higher than with the competition that offers without.
If you want an SSD, you can retrofit one.
Because speed is not important in many companies and an HDD is cheaper.
Which companies do not depend on speed?
Two factors play a major role here. The first part has already been adequately explained, the price. The second aspect is that an SSD has a shorter life expectancy than an HDD. This is due to the way data is held. (There are sufficient explanations on the net). While HDDs function without errors for several years, the lifespan of SSDs is limited by the maximum possible write operations.
That's why SSDs don't make that much sense as pure data storage.
Pretty much in everyone where the speed of the workforce is the limiting factor.
An SSD offers many advantages, but also disadvantages, e.g. Price, write cycles
A company where e.g. "Only" office is operated you do not have to rely on the that are equipped with an SSD.
Since HDDs are more durable than SSDs when used / stored correctly, this is also a not insignificant point.
If you have mirroring or Raid 5 as a backup strategy then a HDD is better.
If you want to use a NAS then you could do it just as well with hard drives, clearly not as fast but not profitable in relation to it.
Because it is absolutely bumpy for IT use whether the thing has an SSD built in or not.
No SSD means only one hard drive for data and system, so cheaper. If you as a company have to equip 30 workstations, that makes a huge difference.
Which companies do not depend on speed?
The speed at which? Data is written when Save is clicked. The work is then already done.
Database systems write to the server anyway, so the SSD is of no use to you.
Start up the computer for once a day and make a significant additional investment? Explain that to the billing department.
