SSD vs HDD

[pattayalover]

is SSD really faster. price going down and now I can see the sell 300 gig SSD for less 150 bucks.

do you think it worths to change hard-drive?

[Jdietz]

Very much so, go for it, thank me later.

[AgentSmith]

Best replacement for any computer. Makes even the slow ones fly. Def go for it!

 

Don't focus too much on bulk read and write speeds. SSDs are famous for their fast random access reads and writes. The higher these numbers the faster your system will feel.

[jacnl2000]

Since on recent Windows 10 operating systems boot times are slow due to inherent Windows Updates approach, a SSD will improve boot times. SSD may also improve the performance of an i7.

 

[ukrules]

They are much faster. Get two and make a RAID1 mirror though

[Bunter]

I had the slow boot and shut down on my laptop.. Fitted a 480 gb disk with a fresh install of windows 10, so it's clean lean and fast.. Like buying a new pc and opens and closes down in 12 seconds..

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

[chrisinth]

Most definitely SSDs are faster. If I were you, I would add an SSD to your setup, using the SSD for the boot/OS partition and installed programs, and your current hard drive for storage (once formatted). You can even do this with a laptop with the aid of a 'caddy' which slots into your DVD/CD optic drive, utilizing the sata connection. Downside is you lose your CD/DVD, which in today's world isn't really a problem, but if it does have concerns, you can always get an external optic drive running off a USB port.

 

It/they will feel like new machines.

[sniffdog]

Make sure you a high capacity one like 480GB or higher or else your drive is full in a jiffy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JaseTheBass]

If possible get a PCIe SSD - between 3 to 5 times faster than SATA SSDs. My NUC is blisteringly fast.

Sent from my R2D2 using my C3P0 manservant

[pattayalover]

it s for a old netbook. I don't see the point to pay a new laptop. I will wait for the SSD price to go lower. my boot time is 1 to 2 minutes with a normal hdd.

[jpinx]

you can buy a usb caddy case for your existing HDD and slot a SSD into the netbook.  Put the OS on the SSD and the data on the caddy, until you see how the setup is behaving -- then you could copy over some of the more frequently accessed data onto the SSD as space permits.  Remember that you need a lot more vacant space on you OS's drive than just the RAM size.

[AgentSmith]

24 minutes ago, pattayalover said:

it s for a old netbook. I don't see the point to pay a new laptop. I will wait for the SSD price to go lower. my boot time is 1 to 2 minutes with a normal hdd.

Proper low budget SSDs are already below 100 USD. What's the point to wait even longer for even lower prices when you can enjoy a fast system right now?

 

There's really no point to fall for stories about setting up SSDs in RAID configs. SSDs are much much faster than any two HDDs in RAID because of the fast random access speeds I mentioned earlier. RAID will help with burst speed but since with an SSD the interface is the bottleneck anyway you won't gain any advantage. Just keep it simple and replace your internal HDD with an SSD. Then put the HDD in an external USB3 case for bulk storage.

 

Also PCI-E is great for high end systems to get rid of the SATA bottleneck but for the average system SATA is more than fast enough. That's again all about gaining a higher burst speeds so still not worth it of for even more demanding end users, not even by a long shot.

 

Don't necessarily buy the cheapest SSD either. Do some research. Intel has a great reputation of building decent drives and there are others out there too. Crucial makes very good ones also but their low budget models fall behind in random access times so you might want to invest slightly more to get noticeably more responsiveness on your laptop.

[Pib]

A year to two ago I swapped out the HDDs to SSDs on three laptops I own....on the newer laptops which are i7/i5 CPU based computers around 1 to 3 years old), it make a significant improvement in operation.  And on the 10 year laptop running low power, single core Centrino CPU it was like doubling its horsepower....instead of taking days to boot up (well, it felt like days) it now boots up in around one minute.    And up until around a year ago I also had a 9 year old laptop running on old Pentium dual core CPU and it made a BIG difference in it speed also.   A SSD seems to help older, slower computers the most...but definitely help new, fast computers also.  

 

A HDD simply can not compete with a SSD in terms of speed (especially for access time and small file read/write...much faster on large file read/write also)....it's like comparing a one-legged runner with two-legged runner.   And if you have a laptop you no longer have to worry about moving/carrying the laptop around damaging the drive because you no longer have a drive that uses a spinning platter with a floating red/write head that could be damaged by movement like an HDD.  

 

 

 

 

[iamJustin]

SSD is super fast but it is not stable like normal hard disk. I suggest you install the OS and software in SSD drive. Files save in HDD drive. 

[Pib]

SSD is not stable like a HDD?  Why do you say that?  I have three SSDs in three laptops and they are ever bit as stable (whatever stable means to you) as the previous much slower HDDs in the laptops..

[JaseTheBass]

SSD is super fast but it is not stable like normal hard disk. I suggest you install the OS and software in SSD drive. Files save in HDD drive. 

I've had to swap out 2 WD server platter drives that are less than a year old. I've never had any problems with 7 pcs I look after which use SSDs, so in my real world experience you're talking bullocks.

Sent from my R2D2 using my C3P0 manservant

[AgentSmith]

The simple conclusion is that any system with an SSD and plenty of RAM (4 GB but pref 8 GB) is very responsive. The combo makes long loading times a thing of the past. I've been using SSDs since 2009 (my Intel 80 GB SSD was 200 euros, my best investment in technology ever) and anno 2016 when prices are a fraction of what they used to be I really don't get why people still hesitate to buy one.

 

I have a thin laptop/tablet hybrid now (Asus Transformer). It has everything built in, SSD included. It's passively cooled so no moving parts and since all hardware is behind the screen cooling is never an issue. The keyboard stays cool and that makes it super comfortable on my lap in a tropical climate. This marvelous little piece of technology is faster than lots of those big clumsy bricks out there that to me are mostly dead dust collecting weight now. It cold boots in under 15 seconds and all menu's and applications respond practically instantly. The SSD era has started a while ago and for end users HDD's make little to no sense anymore.

Edited November 12, 2016 by AgentSmith

[chubby]

fwiw, I don't think the SSD prices have changed much in the last few years,  pay for what you get, 

the samsung evo 840  used to be a popular choice,  though I guess I've heard the 850  not so much.

 

I have a AMD quad core laptop from circa  2011 , I don't do gaming or graphics,  it is plenty fast enough  , I have two browser 20 tabs, thunderird , vlc  and line open now,  no lag at all 

 

so, depends, of course, what you do with your computer 

[JSixpack]

17 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

The simple conclusion is that any system with an SSD and plenty of RAM (4 GB but pref 8 GB) is very responsive. The combo makes long loading times a thing of the past.

 

No, not any system. My old netbook has an SSD and it isn't very responsive owing to factors that have nothing to do with the SSD.

 

Quote

The SSD era has started a while ago and for end users HDD's make little to no sense anymore.

 

Actually HDDs make excellent sense esp. for end users. In fact this end user here even refers to them:

 

7 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

But in that case you can simply copy the DVD files directly to the harddrive.

 

We can do without all these little facile blanket generalizations.

 

[AgentSmith]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:18 AM, JSixpack said:

 

No, not any system. My old netbook has an SSD and it isn't very responsive owing to factors that have nothing to do with the SSD.

 

 

Actually HDDs make excellent sense esp. for end users. In fact this end user here even refers to them:

 

 

We can do without all these little facile blanket generalizations.

 

Maybe just talk for yourself like I always do... Does your old netbook have minimum 4 GB RAM? No I don't think so. Are HDD's better backup media than optical discs? Yes absolutely. 'We'' can do without your last comment.

[JSixpack]

17 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Maybe just talk for yourself like I always do...

 

If you talk for yourself, then you need to interject cues like "for me" and "In my case" etc. You were speaking in general in that post.

 

Quote

Does your old netbook have minimum 4 GB RAM? No I don't think so.

 

Well, now you don't, having thought that up. :) But you don't really know why you don't, as talking about 4 GB makes "little to no sense" in the context of an old netbook. Besides, 4 GB RAM isn't the prerequisite for a responsive system. That depends on a number of factors. The only factor you recognized in your post was an SSD, however.

 

Quote

Are HDD's better backup media than optical discs? Yes absolutely. 'We'' can do without your last comment.

 

But much more than just backup media. :)

 

You've made a little progress anyway, talking for yourself. I look forward to your providing some useful information for the membership. Here's mine for today: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016.

Edited November 17, 2016 by JSixpack

[JamJar]

On 13/11/2016 at 4:18 AM, JSixpack said:

 

No, not any system. My old netbook has an SSD and it isn't very responsive owing to factors that have nothing to do with the SSD.

 

 

Actually HDDs make excellent sense esp. for end users. In fact this end user here even refers to them:

 

 

We can do without all these little facile blanket generalizations.

 

 

 

What model exactly? There might be the option to enable AHCI.

[JSixpack]

20 hours ago, JamJar said:

 

 

What model exactly? There might be the option to enable AHCI.

 

Makes no difference. The SSD has of course sped up loading times, absolutely no complaint there. Reading & writing, fast. That's all an SSD does and it's great far as it goes. AgentSmith, speaking for himself as it turns out--and imprecisely--doesn't realize that such isn't the main component of responsiveness. It's what happens after the programs are loaded when you're trying to do something that's most important.

 

There the netbooks are CPU-bound, you see. Rendering web pages in multiple tabs while you have email, chat & internet radio clients running, a file browser open, a photo browser . . . drag a few photos into an email message . . . resize a bunch of photos . . . convert a video from .vob to .mp4 . . . . It all quickly brings a netbook to its knees, SSD or no SSD. And many another type of low-end machine as well. That's why we have i5s and i7s. :)

[LeilaLee]

I switched to SSD storage a year ago and haven't looked back since. That being said, I am notoriously bad at looking after my IT equipment, so I always had a problem with traditiond hard drives breaking, which is initially why I decided to switch to using a server with SSD storage. But there are so many other benefits that I was not aware of at the time, which I am now loving. First and foremost, they have a high shock resistance so my clumsiness is no longer an issue as any falls aren't likely to break an SSD. I have also found that SSDs are much lighter and quieter than HDDs. Perhaps this article will give you a better idea. I have certainly found SSDs to be an improvement so I would say go for it!!

[AgentSmith]

Certain people don't seem to realize yet that netbooks are long gone. They came on the market in 2007 and started to disappear in 2011, mainly due to the rise of the tablet. The market has been dominated by ultrabooks and tablets in recent years, with the latter now in decline and slowly giving way to detachables such as the Microsoft Surface series, the Asus Transformer and many others. Netbooks were slow to dead slow in all aspects, mainly because they came on the market in a time when low energy mobile processing was still horribly lacking in power. Much has changed and with 2017 around the corner there aren't many of those systems left. I guess most of them ended up with the garbage. The harddisk has been the weakest link in many systems for a long time and it makes total sense to replace it if the user needs a more speedy experience.

[JSixpack]

On 11/28/2016 at 6:26 PM, AgentSmith said:

Certain people don't seem to realize yet that netbooks are long gone.

 

Rather, it's merely that certain people don't want to admit their post is full of hot air. The history, which we all know, is beside the point you were trying to make and was already discounted--as one case is sufficient to refute your facile little blanket generalization. For  higher end boxes, simply increase the load: than render one video, render three. You appear to have learned that computers have RAM--and have arrived at 4 GB as a magic number--but now need to progress to the CPU.

[impulse]

On 11/12/2016 at 6:39 PM, AgentSmith said:

The simple conclusion is that any system with an SSD and plenty of RAM (4 GB but pref 8 GB) is very responsive.

 

Before you spring for more than 4G of RAM, make sure your OS can access more.  As I recall, 32 bit versions of Win7 can't use more than 4G.  

 

I'm not sure that's still accurate, nor do I know if it applies to 32 bit Win8 or Win10.   (That's why they invented Google)  I just know that our local company's IT guys had to spend hours and hours re-installing Win7 in it's 64 bit configuration on a dozen or so of our PC's when their users complained about needing more RAM.  With tens of thousands of computers company wide, it may be years before they break down and go to Win10.

[AgentSmith]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 8:43 AM, impulse said:

 

Before you spring for more than 4G of RAM, make sure your OS can access more.  As I recall, 32 bit versions of Win7 can't use more than 4G.  

 

I'm not sure that's still accurate, nor do I know if it applies to 32 bit Win8 or Win10.   (That's why they invented Google)  I just know that our local company's IT guys had to spend hours and hours re-installing Win7 in it's 64 bit configuration on a dozen or so of our PC's when their users complained about needing more RAM.  With tens of thousands of computers company wide, it may be years before they break down and go to Win10.

 

Good point! TBH I don't fully understand why they still release 32 bit versions of Windows these days. All CPU's are 64 bit capable. The only reason could be that a 32 bit OS needs a bit less RAM to actually run than a 64 bit version but that only makes sense on older low end systems. Nevertheless it causes the situation where people still use 32 bit Windows which on modern systems actually performs a bit slower in CPU and RAM hungry situations.

 

The 4 GB RAM limitation in 32 bit Windows is also a rather artificial boundary. Some older 32 bit versions of Windows Server actually support up to 64 GB RAM. The choice for a 4 GB limit in consumer editions is a rather economic one, probably just to promote 64 bit systems.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that in 32 bit Windows every process can only get access to maximum 2 GB RAM, even when there is 3 or 4 GB RAM available to the system. This can be a bottleneck for applications such as Photoshop.

 

Luckily nowadays it's relatively easy to change to a 64 bit Windows as they can be downloaded through official channels. Windows 10 can be installed with the Media Creation Tool. Advanced users can also download official ISO files for different versions. ISO files for Windows 7/8/8.1 can also be found through 3rd party websites. They seem legitimate now but just to be on the safe side I won't publish any links here. Of course in all cases you still need a Windows license. Modern systems have one incorporated into their BIOS and don't require you to type in a license code anymore during installation. Just make sure to install the right Windows version (Home edition on most consumer systems).

Edited December 1, 2016 by AgentSmith

[JSixpack]

5 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Good point! TBH I don't fully understand why they still release 32 bit versions of Windows these days.

 

Simple:

 

• drivers
• applications
• legacy in general
• marketing tier gradually disappearing

 

Quote

All CPU's are 64 bit capable.

 

No. Still need to expand your expertise into that area.

 

Quote

Nevertheless it causes the situation where people still use 32 bit Windows which on modern systems actually performs a bit slower in CPU and RAM hungry situations.

 

But so many consumers don't get into such situations. Those who do know who they are.

 

Quote

The 4 GB RAM limitation in 32 bit Windows is also a rather artificial boundary. Some older 32 bit versions of Windows Server actually support up to 64 GB RAM. The choice for a 4 GB limit in consumer editions is a rather economic one, probably just to promote 64 bit systems.

 

No. And Windows Server was designed for a different and narrower purpose. The Server support represents value-added coding for which M'soft would deserve payment, as you'd strongly agree had you been one of the programmers.

 

Quote

Luckily nowadays it's relatively easy to change to a 64 bit Windows as they can be downloaded through official channels.

 

 

You've confused downloading with installing, getting everything working correctly, and being happy. In fact that may not be so easy for some and impossible for others. If you don't have 4 GB of RAM or more anyway, no need to bother. Buy more RAM? Not if you don't need it. We're very free & easy around here w/ other people's money.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by JSixpack

[Peterw42]

For a lot of users, a SSD will have little to no impact. If its an "always on" computer, then boot up speed is irrelevant. If you have lots of ram and the system isn't using a big paging file (everything is done in ram, not accessing HD), no big difference. A clunky old HD still moves data quicker than ethernet, internet, wifi, USB etc, SSD wont speed that up.

A lot depends on the usage, if the HDD light isnt coming on much during everyday usage, an SSD wont give a performance increase.