On 10/13/2019 at 7:01 PM, Beggar said:

The interface has to support the speed of an SSD. Otherwise you waste money for perhaps only a little bit more speed. And the other question is your usage pattern. If you only browse on the internet then the speed of the disc might not be such a problem. But if you really want to have fast speed then there are certain programs that allow you to keep often used data in the RAM. RAM disks for instance will enable this but also certain cache software. No SSD will be that fast. The only thing you need is enough RAM.

 

 

<snip>

 

If it's even just a 1st Gen i3, it will support SATA II, which is up to 300 Mbps.  Three times more than the typical HDD.

But more that responsiveness is not just about sustained read and write speeds. Look at IOPS for an instance. There are other parameters that make the difference.

 

Then we come to your completely erroneous assertion concerning RAM. Did you bother to watch the video in post #14 before making such an assertion?

You would have done well to do so. The test shows a device with more RAM but an HDD is slower, than an identical device with minimal RAM but an SSD.

 

HDD is the bottleneck. The proof of the pudding is in the eating;

 

 

 

Best to do your research before you post in such definitive terms.

 

1 hour ago, JamJar said:

intelligence

Intelligence doesn't preclude civility.

3 hours ago, JamJar said:

 

More nonsense.

 

If it's even just a 1st Gen i3, it will support SATA II, which is up to 300 Mbps.  Three times more than the typical HDD.

But more that responsiveness is not just about sustained read and write speeds. Look at IOPS for an instance. There are other parameters that make the difference.

 

Then we come to your completely erroneous assertion concerning RAM. Did you bother to watch the video in post #14 before making such an assertion?

You would have done well to do so. The test shows a device with more RAM but an HDD is slower, than an identical device with minimal RAM but an SSD.

 

HDD is the bottleneck. The proof of the pudding is in the eating;

 

 

 

Best to do your research before you post in such definitive terms.

 

I am talking about RAM Disks and also special software that uses the RAM for caching often needed files. I myself have been using for the last years RAID 0 with three disks. Perfomance total about 450. The performance of my RAM Disks is of course much higher since all operations are done with the extremely fast RAM. No SSD can ever be faster. Install a RAM Disk and check at your computer. 

Asking a simple question here  result usually in stupid confrontations or/and in

"I know better than you". 

 

My advice if you are a layman in the subject :

 

Go to a repair shop, there is a possibility that you may pay more than necessary, but usually the result will be what you wished (so happy), the shop owner will be happy as well.

 

And cherry on the cake he will not start an interminable rant. 

 

 

On 10/13/2019 at 7:14 AM, bendejo said:

OP: I suggest you do it yourself.  Use a thumb drive or external HD to copy to, then plug it into the new laptop and copy it over.  You can pick up an external 1Tb drive for less than 1,500b.  You can then use it to save your backups of your system. 

If you are comfortable with settings, you can even do a file transfer via wifi.

 

Yeah, the transfer will take time, but you can set it all up and then just let it run while you sleep, go out etc.  

This morning I had to move over 200Gb to an external drive, took about 2 hours.

 

BTW, going from XP to Win10 will take some getting used to, you may not appreciate all the new stuff and find it a bother, lots of people do.

 

 

Unless you install Classic Shell, then W10 looks like old Windows. That's progress for you.

Posts removed. If you wish to bicker do it in private via PM not on the open forum. If you have an issue with a PM or a post use the appropriate report function the open forum is not the place to "score points" or conduct bickering, its disruptive and pointless and will be removed on sight.

9 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Unless you install Classic Shell, then W10 looks like old Windows. That's progress for you.

Like my own desktop ????

Pretty much the same as when I was running XP.  I have grown to like the dashboard that replaces the old Start menu though.

 

But a new install of Win 10 requires you shut down all the little bits of crud that track you, automatically do things you don't want, update things that you have no use for, load up your CPU, etc.  Plenty of websites for pointers on how to find these things and turn them off or uninstall them.  Still a pain in the backside, though.

And then there is the new junk that they throw in with the updates.  Just did a little cleaning up last week, had hundreds of Windows history files I had no idea about, and have since been dispatched to hell.