I realise that but the firmware did change the way the drive reports its lifespan via SMART. Basically, instead of reporting 10,000 writes per cell, it was changed to 5,000 writes per cell, effectively halving the figure that was there before. While I realise that the life span dropping to 0% does not mean the drive will stop working at that point, it is unnerving knowing that at that point the number of writeable cells available will be declining to nil. There's obviously no limit on reading data from an SSD but if Windows cannot write data then it may lead to unexpected crashes. Maybe the figure is way too conservative in the same way that Intel's seem to be the total opposite and way too lenient to me but, nevertheless, I see that figure and SMART reports that the drive is nearing the end of its life span. I'll be interested to hear what Crucial have to say, assuming they bother to respond to emails. If they do then I'll post it in this thread. It's interesting reading this thread with people believing that SSDs will outlast HDDs. That's a misconception because HDDs, though they use moving parts prone to wearing out or even failure, theoretically can last many years regardless of how many times you defrag them or how full they get because they do not have limited writes. SSDs on the other hand have FINITE lives where every write to them ultimately reduces the lifespan of the drive. They may last two years or six years but they WILL expire eventually. That's the nature of the technology. Most allow for 10,000 writes per cell (which can be more or less) but if SSDs were truly long-lasting then defragging them (regardless of whether it actually benefits them or not) would not be issue.