1. the controllers in this review all kind of suck-- try including the escalade 9xxx or RAIDcore controllers, as suggested.
2. the benchmarks all represent a productivity user on crack scenario-- real power users move happy fellowtons of data around, and I didn't see a single large file transfer benchmark, something that is either going to represent a *very* deep queue environment (gather of fragmented sectors in P2P downloads) or a linear read/write (something an optimized RAID-0 implemention should slaughter).
3. real world benchmarks. these synthetic drivemark scores are all fine in practice, but they don't represent real-world patterns at all, and IO/sec is a pretty vague figure- real file systems aren't perfectly sector aligned, and the clock you're staring at waiting for UT2K4 to load isn't demarcated in I/Os.
while i agree that random access time is not going to improve a lot through the use of RAID-0 in the average single user environment, any respectable implementation of RAID-0 will yield much higher average real-world throughput, and there are in fact single user tasks that display random throughput benefits in RAID0. (small file throughput in reiserFS comes to mind- single 30GB disk took ~9 minutes to prune undesired content from an archived web site, 3x 9gb (5 year old scsi disks with absolutely miserable STR) array took ~2 minutes, array-to-array versus disk-to-disk times for tar extraction and file copy are orders of magnitude greater as well)
biased data against RAID doesn't do anyone any more good than biased data for it, and dismissing dissenting opinions *certainly* doesn't do any good.