The experiment that was done (in the link) was anecdotal, as it was statistically insignificant, but the results were interesting none the less. Even in the experiment they had two Kingston Hyper X3K drives, one died while the other went on to be one out of only two that went up to two Petabytes (Samsung 840 Pro & Kingston Hyper X3K), proving how the manufacturing process can effect the outcome of such an experiment.
The 5 year inflection point for drive failure has been statistically identified in several research papers.
I wonder, would this be considered planned obsolescence, and anything we get after the five-year warranty should be considered a gift? Either way, their experiment seemed to support your view that an SSD would indeed outlast a HDD.
I have a question for you, as you seem to know more then I do on this subject. I own a little Toshiba 120gb OCZ Trion SSD and recently analyzed it with Defraggler. I was surprised to find that it was heavily fragmented (low occupancy = 52%) but reported to be in good health, why is that?
Thank you.