They showed that the non-Intel MLC drives can have some serious performance issues, so I'de stick with an Intel MLC. If designed correctly, an SSD is actually more reliable than a standard HD, since you know exctly when it's going to fail. Here's some key points from the article on reliability:
OEMs wanted assurances that a user could write 20GB of data per day to these drives and still have them last, guaranteed, for five years.
page 5: Intel's SSDs are designed so that when they fail, they attempt to fail on the next erase - so you don't lose data. If the drive can't fail on the next erase, it'll fail on the next program - again, so you don't lose existing data. You'll try and save a file and you'll get an error from the OS saying that the write couldn't be completed. The beauty here is that the SSD knows exactly when it can't erase/program a block, and if the drive knows, then you can use software to ask the drive what it knows. In the near future Intel will be releasing its own SSD tool that will let you query two SMART attributes on the drive: one telling you how close you are to the rated cycling limit, and one telling you when you've run out of reallocating blocks. The latter is the most important because Intel fully expects these drives to outlast their rated limits. As bad blocks develop, the SSD will mark them as such and write to new ones - by telling you when it has run out of bad blocks (or nearly run out of bad blocks), you'll know exactly when you need a new hard drive.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.