Of Course it does, I myself use UPS always, except for laptops, i sleep much better since then.

Who said they wouldn't be able to provide a delivery window? The local Chinese delivery always says 45 min to an hour, shows up 20 min later.

It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.

Or have one on a firefighters ladder truck for high rise rescue, or coastal rescue, much faster to fire up the fan(ny) pack than get an RIB out though heavy surf.

I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.

I just don't know what to do anymore.

Having RAID on the drive itself mostly defeats the purpose of RAID (excepting RAID 0, but even that has issues with this approach). RAID is best for combating downtime due to hardware failure. By sticking both "disks" of a RAID-1 on one drive, you have no recourse if one of those "disks" fails. You can't swap out half a drive to let it rebuild on a good 'disk'.

Not really, you're talking about the difference between a couple seconds and 10-15 minutes.

Some folks argue that the stories (or, rather, the presentation and discussion of them) are unfairly slanted against Microsoft. For me, it comes down to this:

When a company has a warchest in excess of 500 billion US dollars, as well as immense market penetration in a variety of domains -- desktop operating systems, web browser, word processing software, spreadsheet software, etc. -- it is expected to have its act together.

As long as the most regularly libraries and executables are cached, it shouldn't seem slow.. for other files, you only need to wait when they're opened initially. I don't even really notice when I open documents over a wi-fi link, so I don't see why opening documents from a 5,400RPM HDD should be much worse.