I don't know how else to interpret this statement, but you said the SSD was slower 'overall', which implies you compared across OS/Apps/User-data/etc. And when you say 'slower', I assume you're referencing your older setup which comprised a mechanical HDD + RAMdisk setup.
Your statement gives the impression that the HDD+RAMdisk combo is faster than an SSD, which seems a bit misleading since you aren't comparing storage mediums but storage mediums and caches.
Wait - what? I made no such claim.
If I did, please point it out.
You have taken my statement of "slower overall" completely out of the context it was mentioned in.
Let me try and clarify that entire para for you line by line without leaving out a single word with further clarifications as appropriate -
"Of course SSD's have other advantages over RDisks but I think its my constant use of a Rdisk over the years that has kind of "spoiled" me in a sense where it comes to file load & execute speeds. You click something on a Rdisk and it just loads - instantly. I was expecting an SSD to be even faster overall (read/write) but it isn't - it seems slower (especially writes) though one might argue the difference is minor."
Firstly, I have clearly stated in the very beginning of the first sentence that -
"SSD's have other advantages over RDisks".
To expand, these advantages would be for functions that are condusive/approriate for NV storage mediums vis-a-vis volatile storage like a RDisk. OS boot would be one such funtion.
Then I said -
"but I think its my constant use of a Rdisk over the years that has kind of "spoiled" me in a sense where it comes to file load & execute speeds."
In the above sentence, I clearly mentioned that I was referring here specifically to "file load & execute speeds".
We have already established that RDisks are faster than SSD's when it comes to file load/execute speeds which is precisely what that statement means.
When I said "spoiled me" what I meant is I was already "accustomed/used to" (read - SPOILED) with the high speed RDisks offer versus other options having used the technology from the late 1980's when DOS supported RDisks via via Himem.sys & Ramdrive.sys.
Consumer SSD's are a much newer tech. in comparison and have been around for a much shorter time.
So for me personally, its quite disappointing that a technology that has essentially been around for almost 25 YEARS - ie, RDisks, are still unmatched in terms of what it offers in terms of sheer read/write speeds versus SSD's that are much more "modern". Again, I specifically referred to one and only one parameter here while comparing the two namely read/write speeds.
Of course a large part of this is because RAM tech has also made huge progress and correspondingly boosted RDisk performance but RAM is something all PC's require by default - its not something "optional" that one has to buy specifically for a RDisk. RAM is present in your PC whether you want it or not. The only difference is how much you can "spare" for a RDisk should you choose to use one.
So when I said the SSD was "slower overall" I was comparing its read/write performance specifically in the context versus a RDisk and stated as much in that very sentence as well as the sentence prior to that one where I said -
"You click something on a Rdisk and it just loads - instantly."
Ergo - I was referring here to the "load" speed of something that is already present on a RDisk. Its only after this sentence that I said -
"I was expecting an SSD to be even faster overall (read/write) but it isn't - it seems slower (especially writes) though one might argue the difference is minor."
So the context/reference for my use of the word "overall" was specifically to read/write performance of a SSD versus a RDisk.
As for your question on what I currently it for, I'm severely limited due to the amount of existing PC RAM which is just 4 GB.
While I was exclusively on XP, it served another VERY useful purpose in that it allowed me to access 800 MB ie. 20% (certainly not a trivial amount considering how "expensive" RAM is) of my RAM that was otherwise being completely wasted and unutilized because XP would not allow me to directly access it. A RDisk allowed me to access it and put it to use for FREE. Win-win.
What I was using it with my old mechanical HDD + RDisk was for editing family home videos. I would allocate 1.5 to 2 GB RAM to the RDisk and copy .avi files to the RDisk and load/edit them via Avidemux. Scrubbing and editing was butter smooth this way. I still plan to do this with my SSD as it will save it needless writes to large files apart from being faster.
How I plan to use it when I buy my new PC-
Create a 8-10GB RDisk (going to get 16GB of RAM) and install apps & games via Steam directly to the RDisk with the only criteria being, the entire game install must fit on the RDisk. Currently experimenting with another FREE RDisk util that has no memory size limitations while allowing image load/save functionality.
And while you might argue that its a "waste of money" to use RAM this way I feel otherwise.
At one point I did consider running QL from a RDisk considering it would fit quite easily. However considering its a small (around 1GB) MP only game there's very little data read/write once the game is loaded. There are no "level loads" or transitions in the traditional sense like there are for other games which is why I discarded the idea.