W1zz is comparing things that are trying to compete in the same performance bracket, to allow readers to gauge their relative performance. Adding an old SSD, or an HDD, into the mix isn't useful because it will show exactly what you'd expect... that an old/slow drive is old and/or slow. It'll also throw the scale on all of the charts way out of whack.
1: Relative performance is the reason a mech drives and/or an older SSD should be included in a big SSD review.
2: Actually in your case it wouldn't show what you expect as the number sin this review indicate this cheapo SSD to be inferior to outdated ones, it just isn't visible to the naked eye because there isn't one in the chart.
3: The scale is already way out of whack because of the lack of comparative data.
So, no. No old SSDs, and especially no HDDs; I see zero value in providing an apples-to-oranges comparison like that.
In the case of a HDD it would help somebody decide whether or not they should sacrifice performance or capacity when spending their money. You can't tell if the performance difference over a modern HDD is worth it compared to the capacity sacrifice if you have no idea what the difference is...
In the case of an old SSD it would help people /shock with an old SSD decide if it's worth upgrading/replacing it, or more to the point if it even is an upgrade to go from an old high end drive to a new low end one (from these charts no, but again you can only tell that if you know where the old drive would land).
This is why SSD reviews usually include one or both of these drive types.
