SSD, raid or no?

I am considering upgrading my Win7 install to SSD but have no idea what path to take. I already have a pair of raided Raptors for Win7 and a pair of WD Blacks raided for programs. If it were regular drives I know that I would be going raid0 but SSD's are different I guess. My questions about my purchase are, Will 2x 60 gig Vertex drives be as fast as a single 120 gig for an OS drive? Does either have any advantage over the other? I am only going to spend up to 300 for the upgrade and so the options that I listed only have one other possibility, the Intel 510 120 gig. They do make smaller 320 model drives but I am assuming that the 510 is their fastest because the 320's are only sata II's.

I am thinking that one of the single 120 gigs is probably the best option keeping my raided Raptors for a programs drive and splitting the 640 Blacks into seperate storage drives but again I am unsure as to whether lower acess is more important for SSD's or they also are better in raid0.

I wouldn't for a few reasons:

You lose TRIM. The array will degrade over time and you will be force to wipe and start over. Imaging will help with this issue, but it would be incredibly annoying.

Do you need the throughput? It will be roughly double, but are you going to actually use that much sustained throughput?

Doing RAID 0 on SSDs isn't going to decrease the seek time of the drive, which is the main selling point of a SSD. It may actually hurt it, depending on the controller.

Everything Thideras mentioned is true. And other than doing it just for fun, there isnt any practical benefit from striping SSD.

I'm using a Crucial C300 256mb, and everything is already close to instantaneous. In fact I created a 6GB ramdisk and loaded up a few games on it. I could not tell any perceivable difference between the ramdisk and the C300.

The ramdisk crushes the the C300 in benchmarks, but in actual real world use, I could not see any difference. SSD is simply good enough as an OS/Data drive.

Good deal, raid is out. Now the question is, do I get two 60 gig SSD's, one for OS and one for programs or do you think that a single 120 using a single or raided Raptors for programs would be as good? I only play one game, BF2BC but it has a 12 gig file on my program partition so I am wondering if it would be better to keep it seperate from the 30 gig OS. I know that mech drives begin slowing after 50% full and a 42 gig OS would be getting close to half on a 120. Is there any speed difference between the 60's and the 120's? I have been getting the sense that the bigger drives are faster but that may only be the much bigger drives. have you any thoughts as to which SSd is best for speed and or reliability?

It's always better idea to get 1x 120/128GB SSD than 2x60/64GB especially if you wish to buy new series. Most of new SSD like Agility 3 60GB or Crucial M4 64GB are noticable slower than 120/128GB versions and as thideras said making raid won't help in access time or even won't be as fast as 1 bigger ssd in random read/write transfers what is most important.
60GB is enough for system and 1 game but I already noticed that it's not enough if you won't clean your system often or if any game producer get idea to make ~20GB+ game+save+add ons ... I was checking some mmo and for example Aion install took 32GB on my hdd. While I have 60GB ssd for system I couldn't install it on ssd and mmo are these kind of games where performance boost is easy to see while using ssd.
74GB raptors are not really speed demons now and I would keep them in raid. I have 2x 74GB raptors too but I'm using them mainly for benchmarks or clone/backup of my main system.
Vertex 3 seems ok or at least I haven't seen anyone complaining about them. Agility 3 have some issues so it's not best buy. Crucial M4 seems good option and cheaper than Vertex. So if I had money for bigger SSD it would be or Vertex 3 or Crucial M4. You can always wait for new Corsair Force series, should be in shops soon.

One 120GB drive is a much better choice than two separate 60GB drives. SSDs achieve their speed by using the parallelism of multiple NAND dies. With two 60GB drives you would still only be able to bring bear the performance of the 8 NAND dies in one 60GB drive to serve an IO request. With an 120GB drive you could bring to bear the entire performance of 16 dies to serve any specific IO request.

There are a number of other reasons why one 120GB is better than two 60GB drives.

If the amount you write to the drives differ over time you would wear out one of the 60GB drives before the other. With one 120GB drive the controller could wear-level over the entire 128GB of NAND.

Even if two 60GB drives have the same over-provisioning in %, in absolute terms a 120GB drive has twice as much over-provisioning as a 60GB drive. Sure, two 60GB drives will together have the same amount of absolute over-provisioning as one 120GB drive, but if you are peppering one of the drives with random writes having spare flash on the other drive won't help.

Has anyone tried two 60GB drives. Setup 1, and then expand the partition using the other? I wonder if you would see any performance over one 120GB drive.

I would personally buy one 120GB drive over two 60GB drives. I have over 200 games so 60GB would not do very much, but if you only play a few, then it will pay off on load times.