SSD vs HDD

[AgentSmith]

4 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Simple:

 

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

 

All x86 applications run on both x86 and x86-64 Windows versions. 64 bit drivers have been available for years. Old corporate systems might have issues but they often don't upgrade anyway because of other issues such as custom built software not running properly on newer Windows versions.

 

Quote

 

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

 

Care to elaborate? Which CPU in say the last 6 or 7 years does not support the x86-64 instruction set? Enlighten me.

 

Quote

 

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

 

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.

 

I haven't confused anything.  A piece of advice: try playing the ball and not the man. All you accomplish is irritation where constructive dialog should be the goal. Try to help people instead of talking them down. Likewise you can also help people to maximize the value of their computer systems where possible. You see, a positive attitude simply accomplishes more in life.

 

You are wrong about so many consumers' systems. With 4 GB RAM 32 bit applications can still only use 2 GB. There's a reason why applications like Photoshop were among the first to become available in a 64 bit version. Gamers and other users of CPU hungry applications notice better performance on 64 bit systems even with less than 4 GB RAM. This is due to the fact that a 64 bit CPU has a lot more register space effectively increasing the processing power. Two reasons to install 64 bit Windows on systems even with less than 4 GB RAM.

 

Quote

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.

 

You are wrong again. Physical address extension is enabled on all Windows versions to support more than 3 GB RAM. Microsoft simply chose specific limits for specific Windows versions: 4 GB on consumer versions and 64 GB on certain server editions. Nowadays with 64 bit there are still differences in the maximum supported memory space but it's going to take a while for those to become relevant again.

Edited December 2, 2016 by AgentSmith

[AgentSmith]

17 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

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. 

I missed your post earlier. Sure when a system is always on and cached all applications in memory you are right, well mostly. It's basically how I use my computer. However no system can cache all data on the internal drive which still means much faster access to data on a SSD that is not in RAM. And I think that happens much more often than you might think. It's exactly those cases where new data needs to be accessed where an SSD just makes the system just so much faster.

 

Then again most people I know and/or meet don't use their computers at all like this. They switch it on and off as needed like any other device they own. I gave the first SSD I bought (an Intel that still works great after 7 years) to a friend (I installed it myself) and he was blown away by the added responsiveness of his old laptop. Now he can probably enjoy his laptop a few more years than he anticipated because to him it feels like a totally new system. The upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 also helped. He's a very average user and doesn't need more than a few Office applications and the browser.

 

For laptops another added benefit not mentioned earlier is shock resistance. Laptop harddisks are known to crash because they are simply moved around during operation. The angular momentum of the spinning platter sometimes forces the harddisk head against the platter causing physical damage. An SSD replacement removes this critical moving part from the system making it much more durable. It's also a bit more energy efficient, especially compared to older harddisks.

 

Like any other flash type storage technique an SSD is also much less sensitive to magnetic fields which is another bonus.

[JSixpack]

On 12/2/2016 at 2:08 PM, AgentSmith said:

All x86 applications run on both x86 and x86-64 Windows versions. 64 bit drivers have been available for years. Old corporate systems might have issues but they often don't upgrade anyway because of other issues such as custom built software not running properly on newer Windows versions.

 

But I didn’t specify x86 only. :) Legacy in general includes a lot of old applications & hardware and 71 million (2014) installations of Win 32 worldwide that M’soft is continuing to support via its 32-bit releases. And 64-bit drivers are not available for all old hardware. Marketing no longer affects the limitation as the price of both the 32 and 64-bit OS have reached parity. And you’ve agreed that old corporate systems might have issues. Corporations are, ah, important to M’soft.

 

So I guess if you can’t get it now, then it's just gon' have to remain one o' them life's mysteries.

 

Quote

Care to elaborate? Which CPU in say the last 6 or 7 years does not support the x86-64 instruction set? Enlighten me.

 

It’s delightful to know that there’s somebody left who’s never heard of ARM. Check it out; I think you’ll find it’s around here & there . . . .  

 

Quote

I haven't confused anything. A piece of advice: try playing the ball and not the man.

 

Innocence is a wondrous thing. I think it more efficient to go directly to the producer of unhelpful half-baked generalizations and make it unpleasant to continue their production, in the best interests of the forum members. And it’s more fun that way.

 

Quote

You are wrong about so many consumers' systems. With 4 GB RAM 32 bit applications can still only use 2 GB. There's a reason why applications like Photoshop were among the first to become available in a 64 bit version. Gamers and other users of CPU hungry applications notice better performance on 64 bit systems even with less than 4 GB RAM. This is due to the fact that a 64 bit CPU has a lot more register space effectively increasing the processing power. Two reasons to install 64 bit Windows on systems even with less than 4 GB RAM.

 

Yawn. All that’s common knowledge though of course you didn't mention any reasons not to use 64-bit Windows. Point is that the PC installed base is about 2.3 billion, Mac about 80 million, and between those two Photoshop, to use your fave example, has about 10 million. Does that put your “many” vs. my “many” into perspective?

 

As I said, those running resource-intensive applications know who they are. Conclusion: every user’s needs are different and a cost-effective system is tailored to those needs.

 

Quote

You are wrong again. Physical address extension is enabled on all Windows versions to support more than 3 GB RAM. Microsoft simply chose specific limits for specific Windows versions: 4 GB on consumer versions and 64 GB on certain server editions. Nowadays with 64 bit there are still differences in the maximum supported memory space but it's going to take a while for those to become relevant again.

 

No, I addressed a different point, the “artificially” and now the “simply” nonsense, so you’ve merely struck out again in basically repeating what you'd already said.

 

Within the relatively small, specialized early Server market, M’soft didn’t need to cater to a million software/hardware vendors doing whatever they liked. With retail Windows, however, it did; and M’soft itself said that 32-bit consumer versions limit the total available memory to protect users against drivers written by idiots who couldn’t handle address spaces correctly. Now you may disagree but not Linus Torvalds and others who know something:

 

>I do not understand why Microsoft did not allow the use of PAE and more then 4GB of physical address space in their desktop operating systems.

 

PAE really really sucks. . . . I'm not at all surprised that Windows didn't push PAE either. It was a total braindamage. I bet they supported it in the server offerings just because they had to, and I bet they did a much worse job of it than Linux did, and the reason you can do that with servers is that the loads are much easier, and you can expect maintainers to set magic config entries to tweak it to make it appear to work well for any particular load, when in reality it is fragile as hell and works only with duct-tape and prayers.

     --Linus Torvalds, http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=76912&curpostid=76973 

Even big programs needed far less memory in those days and RAM was a LOT more expensive. I further acknowledged the marketing aspect: as the the whole PAE extension cost money to design, code, and test, so those who needed it, as Server users did (Terminal Server), or merely thought they needed it, should help pay, esp. since they could afford the RAM. Further, some BIOS manufacturers even put in their own memory limits. BTW, since virtual addresses and physical memory addresses depend on how the paging table is set up, the virtual can even be less than the physical, as cf. the old VAX architecture.

 

Eventually 64-bit coding, the OS, docs, and tools evolved with the processors; WHQL got serious; program size & demand increased. Prices have reached parity--but M’soft still has 71 million 32-bit installations. And I just hate to think of how many owners have lost their old software installation CDs & serial numbers. :)

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by JSixpack

[AgentSmith]

How many computer systems out there, upgradeable with an SSD, don't run on X86 processors? How many PC's have an ARM processor? Who are you trying to convince here?

 

And don't put words in my mouth. Photoshop is not my favorite example for 64 bit software, it's just an example to illustrate my opinion. Cherry picking to make a point never convinced anyone but fools.

 

Now back on topic...

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, AgentSmith said:

How many computer systems out there, upgradeable with an SSD, don't run on X86 processors? How many PC's have an ARM processor? Who are you trying to convince here?

 

Your puzzlement concerned the continued production & use of 32-bit systems and the "all CPUs" was merely a red herring I couldn't resist enjoying. :) Still, I went on to elaborate so that things should be all clear now.

 

Quote

 

Photoshop is not my favorite example for 64 bit software, it's just an example to illustrate my opinion. Cherry picking to make a point never convinced anyone but fools.

 

Ah. Well, guess you'll have to avoid cherry picking then, 'cause, true, I wasn't convinced, and pick some other fruit(s) to illustrate your point--but this time with the installed base (omitted previously for any whatsoever) to compare with total Windows & Mac installations to determine the "many" (worldwide, mind you) who really need that extra RAM and Win 64 to use all of it. Suddenly I'm reminded of a hardware forum I frequent where posters are fixated on cooling fans. I mean, unless you'd like to get back on topic.

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by JSixpack

[AgentSmith]

The cherries from my garden are sweat aren't they?

 

Note to self: trolls have many irresistible urges. Eating proverbial fish is a newly discovered characteristic of the species justifying a whole new round of scientific research.

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

The cherries from my garden are sweat aren't they?

 

Note to self: trolls have many irresistible urges. Eating proverbial fish is a newly discovered characteristic of the species justifying a whole new round of scientific research.

 

Sweat

[JSixpack]

OK, now to clear up a bit more confusion . . . .

 

On 12/3/2016 at 4:32 AM, AgentSmith said:

I missed your post earlier. Sure when a system is always on and cached all applications in memory you are right, well mostly. It's basically how I use my computer.

 

So far so good. Yep, Peterw42 was right. But applications aren't "cached" in memory. Parts not residing and running in memory can be paged out to disk if necessary. . . .

 

Quote

 However no system can cache all data on the internal drive which still means much faster access to data on a SSD that is not in RAM. And I think that happens much more often than you might think. It's exactly those cases where new data needs to be accessed where an SSD just makes the system just so much faster.

 

Huh? Normally a system can cache all the data it needs to cache "on the internal drive." If not, it certainly can't cache it on an SSD, which IS an internal drive and usually with a lot less space than HDD internal drives. :)

 

Access to BOTH unread data AND cached data is faster on an SSD. The questions are whether that speed is needed and whether one wishes to pay for it if it isn't bestowed by a friend--especially if we're talking large amounts needing large SSDs.

 

Of course an SSD means faster bootup and faster loading of applications. But once they're loaded, then there's the data. For a normal consumer, that may not be a lot, actually, and the speed difference not very significant, as Peterw42 suggested and for the reasons he gave.

 

Quote

. . . he was blown away by the added responsiveness of his old laptop. Now he can probably enjoy his laptop a few more years than he anticipated because to him it feels like a totally new system. The upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 also helped. He's a very average user and doesn't need more than a few Office applications and the browser.

 

Well, what's he supposed to say after you gave him a free SSD? And he had a NEW Windows installation to boot w/o all the gunk and useless startup applications. A real test would be to see how much difference he could tell between two of the exact same new installations, after bootup, without knowing which had an SSD and which an HDD. Yeah--a single-blind test at minimum. And then--how much would he be willing to pay for the difference?

 

User subjectivity is a marvelous thing. A test some years ago w/ gamers:

 

With all that in mind, and the results in, the outcome was even more dramatic than we could possibly have imagined. . . . Most of the time, most of our subjects literally could not tell the difference. In fact, it was worse than that. It wasn't just a case of putting hands up in the air and declaring it a dead heat. Frequently, our testers actually got it the wrong way round, declaring the low-end rig to be rendering with greater fidelity or actually running faster.

     --Can a £300 gaming PC compare to a £3,000 one?

 

Quote

For laptops another added benefit not mentioned earlier is shock resistance. Laptop harddisks are known to crash because they are simply moved around during operation. The angular momentum of the spinning platter sometimes forces the harddisk head against the platter causing physical damage. An SSD replacement removes this critical moving part from the system making it much more durable. It's also a bit more energy efficient, especially compared to older harddisks.

Like any other flash type storage technique an SSD is also much less sensitive to magnetic fields which is another bonus.

 

All of which, except perhaps power efficiency, is completely inconsequential for any imaginable normal use. You might have mentioned stuff like backups, imaging, and partitioning. But the problem w/ fan boyism (where HDDs have "no use anymore") is that the useful negative is always omitted. Where's the mention of the sudden catastrophic failure* and impossibility of data recovery, making frequent backups imperative? What about data retention in absence of power source? Cost per GB? Whoops. 

 

I like SSDs for what they're good at. I've got a couple, of course, and they come in handy for reading in a big fat app or a lot of data, system backups, and fast bootups. In just plain ol' day-to-day use, surfing, emailing, reading & writing docs, listening to the music collection, watching vids--makes little difference really. In fact many of my apps, mostly portable, and all but a tiny fraction of my data, reside on hard disks. Hence I do just fine w/ a small, inexpensive SSD for the OS, video editor, PHOTOSHOP, and a few games--which I image very frequently. :)

 

*This isn't claiming SSDs are unreliable, just that their end is fast & final. The freezer trick ain't gon' work . . . .

Edited December 5, 2016 by JSixpack

[ukrules]

I picked up 2 x Kingston 480 GB SSD drives last week, I have outgrown the previous 120 GB SSD as a system drive.

 

I will add the second drive in as a mirror when I can get around to it.

 

They cost about 5000 Baht, I think this is about the same as when I purchased the 120 GB drives a couple of years back, maybe they were a little cheaper, I can't remember, the prices are definitaly coming down a lot over the past few years though.

 

 

[JSixpack]

On 12/6/2016 at 2:49 AM, ukrules said:

I picked up 2 x Kingston 480 GB SSD drives last week, I have outgrown the previous 120 GB SSD as a system drive.

 

I will add the second drive in as a mirror when I can get around to it.

 

They cost about 5000 Baht, I think this is about the same as when I purchased the 120 GB drives a couple of years back, maybe they were a little cheaper, I can't remember, the prices are definitaly coming down a lot over the past few years though.

 

Kingston's a good buy in Thailand. I have a Kingston I bought here and a Crucial from abroad.

 

Prices may be going up soon, however: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/240531-ssd-pricewatch-ssd-prices-expected-jump-quarter-thanks-limited-nand-supply-surging-demand. Hopefully that will be a short spike in the downward trend.

 

I see Micron's just come out w/ a 8 TB SSD: http://www.storagereview.com/micron_introduces_8tb_sata_ssd_for_the_data_center and prices are competitive at that capacity, $0.55/GB to $0.45/GB--but then again an 8 TB Seagate is only around $0.03/GB.

 

[AgentSmith]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:50 AM, ukrules said:

 

Sweat

 

Forgive me, English isn't my first language. Sweat, heat, great, fear, vowels in English writing are an inconsistent mess, especially to non-natives.

[AgentSmith]

@JSixpack:

 

You keep saying that once the OS and applications are all loaded the performance of the internal storage device becomes irrelevant. While that on itself is arguable because of all kinds of added factors, let's assume it's true for the sake of argument. Then the next question is: how many users out there boot their system only once in a while so they do not notice the sluggishness of their storage device? I would be far from surprised if the vast majority boots their laptops at least every day. I'm not saying that for a fact but in terms of probability I think your side of the story is much further from the truth than mine.

 

Then talking about paging to the drive. An SSD hugely outperforms a HDD when it comes to random access read and write speeds. Easily a hundred fold or more. This actually brings SSD's closer, relatively speaking, to behaving like RAM than any HDD would ever be able to. Thus in case a system lacks RAM and has to excessively cache to 'disk' then an SSD would be of huge benefit.

 

The subjectivity of a system's responsiveness is a given but that doesn't make it less important. In fact it is one of the things that can make or brake a new product on the market, especially in times where having consumers waiting a few extra seconds before their beloved app opens can be a death sentence to product launches and eventually the brand as a whole. User experience has to be as smooth and instantaneous as possible and HDDs simply don't fit in that world anymore. HDDs proved to be useful for longer term bulk storage but they are slowly being replaced by SSD's for valid reasons especially in mobile devices.

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, AgentSmith said:

@JSixpack:

 

You keep saying that once the OS and applications are all loaded the performance of the internal storage device becomes irrelevant.

 

Not exactly, depending on the system & use. Point is that SSD isn't the sole determiner of responsiveness as you try to claim. YAWN.

 

Quote

Then the next question is: how many users out there boot their system only once in a while so they do not notice the sluggishness of their storage device?

 

I've already noted the faster boot & load times w/ an SSD. Are you trying to convince yourself? And I gave you the real question: cost vs. need. Most consumers agree the extra cost isn't yet worth it as most average OEM PCs & desktops are still sold without any SSD.

 

Quote

Then talking about paging to the drive. An SSD hugely outperforms a HDD when it comes to random access read and write speeds. Easily a hundred fold or more. This actually brings SSD's closer, relatively speaking, to behaving like RAM than any HDD would ever be able to. Thus in case a system lacks RAM and has to excessively cache to 'disk' then an SSD would be of huge benefit.

 

All common knowledge, but your problem is still in all these little simplistic silly blanket generalizations. Again it depends on the use of the system even if it lacks RAM. In fact most systems have enough RAM nowadays to avoid much, if any, paging, in the average user case; and if not, again it's hardly noticed with the faster hard drive anyway in modern systems. When Wordstar was paging out to a 5 1/4" floppy, that was indeed slow. Big issue now is internet speed & page rendering speed. Consumers can often speed up their system in various other ways.

 

Quote

The subjectivity of a system's responsiveness is a given but that doesn't make it less important. In fact it is one of the things that can make or brake a new product on the market, especially in times where having consumers waiting a few extra seconds before their beloved app opens can be a death sentence to product launches and eventually the brand as a whole. User experience has to be as smooth and instantaneous as possible and HDDs simply don't fit in that world anymore.

 

Nonsense. In fact most OEM desktop & notebook computers are sold without SSDs. Given the choice of SSD vs. a 1 TB HD, consumers choose the HD. What with more RAM, faster CPUs, & fast internet they're pretty happy. :) And they're backing up to HDs of course.

 

Quote

HDDs proved to be useful for longer term bulk storage but they are slowly being replaced by SSD's for valid reasons especially in mobile devices.

 

Mobile devices use ARMs and so are off limits 'cause they mess up your evangelizing for 64-bit Windows and x86 instructions sets that "all" modern CPUs use. :) Actually I don't think you know enough about computers & the market to discuss the subject further.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by JSixpack

[AgentSmith]

5 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Not exactly, depending on the system & use. Point is that SSD isn't the sole determiner of responsiveness as you try to claim. YAWN.

 

Yawn all you want, where exactly do I make that claim? Please quote the exact words.

 

Quote

 

I've already noted the faster boot & load times w/ an SSD. Are you trying to convince yourself? And I gave you the real question: cost vs. need. Most consumers agree the extra cost isn't yet worth it as most average OEM PCs & desktops are still sold without any SSD.

 

In case you haven't noticed yet: SSD's convinced me years ago.  Cost vs need certainly isn't exact science either. I do however draw different conclusions from market interest. I visit a Dutch tech site regularly and they have an incredibly elaborate price list that they call the pricewatch. If you take a quick peek at their laptop section you'd notice that in the top 10 of most visited models 8 contain an SSD and the other two contain a SSD+HDD hybrid. 6 out of 10 are below or well below € 1000 retail price so they're definitely not all high end systems. Below the top 10 SSDs are still the majority. Now or course I fully understand that the Dutch market is not necessarily the same as the European or the North American markets and Asian markets are probably even more different. Also tech sites are far from being a representation of consumer markets. I found a source though that claims SSD's had a 32% market share in the total number of SSDs and HDDs shipped inside PC's in 2016. In other words: one in three buyers of a PC this year paid extra for a SSD system. So indeed technically "most consumers" did not buy a SSD but it's 2 against 1 and the balance is slowly tipping. Plus are those HDDs pure HDDs or does that category also contain hybrids? The article is unclear about that part.

 

Quote

 

All common knowledge, but your problem is still in all these little simplistic silly blanket generalizations. Again it depends on the use of the system even if it lacks RAM. In fact most systems have enough RAM nowadays to avoid much, if any, paging, in the average user case; and if not, again it's hardly noticed with the faster hard drive anyway in modern systems. When Wordstar was paging out to a 5 1/4" floppy, that was indeed slow. Big issue now is internet speed & page rendering speed. Consumers can often speed up their system in various other ways.

 

Your choice of judgmental words really does become tiring but maybe I should simply learn to be less sensitive in anonymous online discussions.. It's a work in progress. Anyway, this has all been mentioned before. The point is that this is a topic about the advantages of SSDs in particular which mostly invalidates your arguments. It's also stating the obvious and needs no further coverage.

 

Quote

 

Nonsense. In fact most OEM desktop & notebook computers are sold without SSDs. Given the choice of SSD vs. a 1 TB HD, consumers choose the HD. What with more RAM, faster CPUs, & fast internet they're pretty happy. :) And they're backing up to HDs of course.

 

No arguments there and simply a restatement of earlier comments from both parties.

 

Quote

 

Mobile devices use ARMs and so are off limits 'cause they mess up your evangelizing for 64-bit Windows and x86 instructions sets that "all" modern CPUs use. :) Actually I don't think you know enough about computers & the market to discuss the subject further.

 

 

With mobile devices I meant laptops. SSDs are for the desktop/laptop market so I thought that was clear. I was wrong apparently. Or is this another case of cherry picking? Because I know mine are irresistible. 

 

By the way, more and more tablets are being sold with SSDs instead of the cheaper and slower EMMC flash memory. Windows tablets especially but Ipads also typically contain a true SSD.

 

Luckily you don't decide who gets to say something here! But if it would depend on sources, choice of language and general netiquette I know who would lose his rights to post here. Luckily it's also not up to me. I couldn't care less frankly..

Edited December 8, 2016 by AgentSmith

[Slip]

Can I interrupt you two b*tching at each other for a minute?

 

If you were buying a new system now, how big would you make your HDD and SSD drives?

[AgentSmith]

9 minutes ago, Slip said:

Can I interrupt you two b*tching at each other for a minute?

 

If you were buying a new system now, how big would you make your HDD and SSD drives?

 

Absolutely, and I'm truly sorry about it. I'd say at least 256 GB nowadays but of course it depends a lot on what you want to store. If you do a lot of video editing I'd strongly advice against an SSD because it's simply more expensive for bulk storage. If your system has room for two and you need both speed and lots of storage space then probably a 128 GB SSD is more than enough. Assuming you're going to use Windows as an operating system. Windows 10 typically needs around 20 GB storage plus added space for applications so 128 GB should be more than enough without ever worrying about having enough space for the system. Of course make the HDD as big as you want/need.

 

Summarizing:

 

low budget: 128 GB SSD (speed) or large HDD (more space)

medium budget: 256 GB SSD (speed and limited bulk storage) OR 128 GB SSD + HDD

high budget: 512 GB SSD or bigger

Edited December 8, 2016 by AgentSmith

[Slip]

Thanks AgentSmith.  Would you agree JSixpack?  I went for 256 + 1 so I hope that will cover all avenues.

[AgentSmith]

One more thing to keep in mind is that there can be huge differences in quality/durability between brands and between series of certain brands. Intel has a high reputation and I tend to always advice that brand because I know they're good and it's hard to keep track of all other brands out there. But there are definitely more quality choices out there. Don't necessarily go for the cheapest option. Reviews can be of great help.

[JSixpack]

10 hours ago, Slip said:

Thanks AgentSmith.  Would you agree JSixpack?  I went for 256 + 1 so I hope that will cover all avenues.

 

Good except 1 HDD doesn't have you covered re: data backups. You could go for cloud backup, NAS, external HDD, another internal HDD, an HDD in a mobile rack, or some combo.

[Slip]

Thanks JSixpack.  I use robocopy for automated backup to an external HDD on boot.  I haven't really got into the cloud yet- I should do I suspect.

[JaseTheBass]

Just swapped out my son's HDD on his laptop for a spare 500Gb SSD I had lying around. The laptop feels like a new computer now and I have a portable 1Tb HDD for my every growing prawn collection.

[JSixpack]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:57 PM, AgentSmith said:

I visit a Dutch tech site regularly and they have an incredibly elaborate price list that they call the pricewatch. If you take a quick peek at their laptop section you'd notice that in the top 10 of most visited models 8 contain an SSD and the other two contain a SSD+HDD hybrid. 6 out of 10 are below or well below € 1000 retail price so they're definitely not all high end systems. Below the top 10 SSDs are still the majority. Now or course I fully understand that the Dutch market is not necessarily the same as the European or the North American markets and Asian markets are probably even more different. Also tech sites are far from being a representation of consumer markets.

 

No, we aren’t going to use the Dutch market as a proxy for the world market. Nor are we going to use “views” as any proof of anything other than interest.

 

Fact is, the average price of a desktop PC is only USD374 and that of a laptop USD500. And most are sold in that price range as a look at confirmed best sellers on any retail site will reveal. In the USA market, none of the top 20 best-selling PCs at BestBuy.com have SSDs. Of the laptops, only 3 of 10. SSD is a premium feature and helps jack up the price of the PC/laptop a couple hundred dollars. So if you look at desktop PCs and laptops in the premium price range with SSDs, of course you’ll see they have SSDs. Circular reasoning doesn't get us very far. :) So, as I said: Nonsense. In fact most OEM desktop & notebook computers are sold without SSDs. Given the choice of SSD vs. a 1 TB HD, consumers choose the HD.

 

Quote

I found a source though that claims SSD's had a 32% market share in the total number of SSDs and HDDs shipped inside PC's in 2016. In other words: one in three buyers of a PC this year paid extra for a SSD system. So indeed technically "most consumers" did not buy a SSD but it's 2 against 1 and the balance is slowly tipping. Plus are those HDDs pure HDDs or does that category also contain hybrids? The article is unclear about that part.

 

No, it doesn’t claim that at all, yawn. That source is 4 years old and merely offers forecasts. You don’t have any valid conclusions to make from that source, not that it matters. In 2015, SSDs were about 20% of the SSD-HDD storage market. And a part of the reason is that HDD capacities have increased so dramatically. Further, the trend is fueled in part by the rise of cheap Chromebooks and mobile devices, as you know. But the OP isn't concerned w/ the latter.

 

All which irrelevant fanboyism doesn’t alter the fact that SSDs are mainly good at speeding up load times--for a price. :) Average consumers don't have that much writing to do--as in, say, rendering videos from a video editor--and it's a good thing they don't, as their little SSD surely isn't large enough to hold much anyway.

 

Quote

The point is that this is a topic about the advantages of SSDs in particular which mostly invalidates your arguments.

 

Seems invalid as you've merely misunderstood the topic, not surprisingly, hence the wandering far afield to celebrate imaginary shipments of SSDs. Here it is:
 

Quote

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?

 

The topic asks for advantages AND disadvantages for determining cost effectiveness. Though you’ve been unable to think of any disadvantages  :) I kindly did provide a few and presented the truth of what might be reasonably expected from an SSD. Perhaps after all the wandering around, a summary is in order.

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by JSixpack

[Gary A]

Whether to spend the money to change from a regular hard drive to an SSD depends if speed is important to you. Programs like MS Word load nearly instantly and boot and shutdown are much faster. I have SSD's in both my desktop and my laptop. Both computers ran fine with the standard hard drives but I'm somewhat impatient and enjoy the extra speed.

 

If you have an old or underpowered machine, the SSD will make it much faster. A new SSD is much cheaper than buying a new machine.

 

My desktop has a 480GB SSD drive and the laptop a 120GB. I keep photos, music and movies on an external 1TB hard drive so there is no danger of either SSD getting full. I originally had the first SSD in an old netbook. Since I rarely use the netbook, I took that drive out and put it in my much newer laptop.