- PSA/IT tip – for those considering a SSD as a boot drive!
They'll probably have dropped further in price by then, this one was £200 at launch… just make sure you do some research on them, as far as I can tell you want one with a 'Sandforce' controller for optimum performance, though no doubt a newer/greater option will appear soon, it's a rapidly developing field!Posted 7 years agoGrahamSSubscriber
Jeff Atwood's latest piece over on Coding Horror is worth a read:
Short story: "The current king of the hill seems to be the Crucial RealSSD C300."Posted 7 years ago
I did look at the C300, but to get the 'full power' version (with fast read AND write speeds) you need to go to the 128GB model, which is £231, the 64GB version has the same fast read speeds, but it's write speeds are quite a bit slower at 70MB/s (vs 275MB/s for the Corsair…)
They do need to frop in price more, but they're getting there! I don't mind being a kind of 'early adopter' I like having new tech 🙂Posted 7 years ago
Two words – JUST DO IT!!! ok… that's three words, but the point remains!
I've been pondering doing this for a while, finally bit the bullet and purchased a Corsair 'Force Series' 60GB SSD for £100 from scan.co.uk. Just completed installing it and all I can say is, WOW, what a difference it makes… granted it's a fresh install of Windows 7, but boot times have been slashed to around 10-15sec (I'd say at least 50% faster, if not more).
What's even better is that as soon as the desktop is open you can do things, no waiting around for a bit while your startup programs load… it's awesome! I'll get used to it pretty quickly (as you always do with any performance boost) but for the moment it really is superb! Also, everything just 'feels' snappier, programs are opening in a blink as do windows etc, it all 'feels' much much quicker to use…
BTW, I'm no IT techie, just a home PC builder/enthusiast, so don't bombard me with technical questions, I probably won't be able to answer them 😆Posted 7 years agoluked2Member
So, according to Wikipedia:
If you're running anything earlier than Windows 7 or linux 2.6.33, it will start out fast and then gradually turn to treacle. Does anyone know if this is true?Posted 7 years agochewkwMember
Yeap! It's fast alright.
I built my new PC in July with SSD as boot drive and cold start from pressing the power button to Windows (including typing in password to Windows start up page) only takes 30 seconds. Then I tried my old laptop and noticed that it took ages just to get to Windows. The different is night and day so I consider this the best investment for my new build. It's a 80GB Intel SSD by the way.
😀Posted 7 years agouplinkMember
gives me a W7 "boot" time of about 30-40 seconds on a mechanical drive with the desktop ready to use, what's the point?
In hibernation my boot time is less than 10 seconds.
so, that's a couple of hundred quid to save yourself 20-30 seconds per day 😕
SSDs sound like the slip on shoe of the PC world 😉Posted 7 years ago
so, that's a couple of hundred quid to save yourself 20-30 seconds per day
It also makes the system a lot more 'snappier', plus games etc load quicker as do levels within the game (if you install to the SSD obviously!)… Yep, it's expensive (though £100 isn't that bad), and it is an extravegance, but it does provide tangible benefits 🙂 Of course, after a few days of using it, you'll get used to the speed and not even notice it! 😆Posted 7 years ago
mount kit??? wtf….
fix it in with some silicon sealant you tart!!
(-: Sadly, it's not that simple. Dell in their wisdom provided a second HDD bay in my laptop, but not the connector. It requires an adapter (a 'transposer' or something IIRC) to offer up the SATA connections from the motherboard to the drive. The lack of mouning cage I could probably jury-rig, but the lack of connector is more of a show-stopper.
Last time I looked, Dell don't want to know (or more accurately, are clueless) third parties were asking silly money (like £100) for the kit. After I posted here, I had another look and found one on fleabay for £26 quid with a 'make me an offer' option. Put in an offer for £20 and just had it kicked back, so, meh, I can't afford an SSD quite yet anyway.Posted 7 years ago
It will be the way to go, as with all things tech the price will come down and make it a no brainer.
I'm fairly sure that this going to turn out to be prophetic. Compared to other technological advances, the conventional hard disk is still relatively bobbins. SSD, or some other solid state technology, has to replace traditional disks at some point. Give it ten years and we'll all be sitting round laughing at how we put up with spinny disks for so long.
SSD allows use of the 'disc' as fast virtual memory – can make a huge difference in memory intensive applications
I was idly rolling this around in my head earlier. SSD has a limited number of times that it can be written to before failures start occuring. This is a wildly exaggerated issue in certain circles, but I wonder if storing on SSD something like a swapfile that has such a high rate of change is such a great idea. I need to research that I think.Posted 7 years ago
Solid state failure rates would be substantially lower than mechanical storage also
"would be"? With only 10,000 (MEAN time to failure) writes each sector is trashed and needs blanking off and never using again. The controller looks after that, but slowly your drive shrinks. The more you use it and the more you store on it, the more that problem increases.
Netbooks, with low power and little use – fine, but not home/gaming/workstations unless money is no object to you. As above, if you have your swap file on the SSD you're trashing it. If you take it off, you're not using it's potential.Posted 7 years ago
From Microsoft themselves,
If the page file is enabled, it can potentially double the number of write requests to the flash storage device, which may reduce the lifetime of the flash storage device in half.
If you choose to have a page file, we recommend limiting the size of the page file to 1.5 times the size of RAM.
I think that, coupled with the fact that if I were taking the SSD route I'd still have a regular drive for data, I'd be moving my swapfile to the second disk. You get a performance increase by having the swapfile on a separate disk to your OS anyway, so I suspect that the net performance difference either way will be negligible. (I'm guessing here, could be wrong; I'd have to try it and see).Posted 7 years agoandytherocketeerSubscriber
not just the swap file, but also event logging and updating of file access times that count towards the write cycles. not sure about windows, but in linux it's all very configurable to minimise this.Posted 7 years ago
but the killing of them really is exaggerated. they all have spare media beyond their quoted size, and all have clever algorithms to balance write cycles, so I'd guess you'd need a pretty full SSD with heavy write access to actually kill one to the point where reduction in usable sectors becomes an issue.
By the time they're worn to a point of being a problem, they're probably going to be due for replacement anyway.
Drives are ready for replacement when they fail? I'm still using 40 and 80 gig drives from 1997 in one machine, with no faults/bad sectors so far? I'd like to see quantifiable evidence though, as without it we're really just voicing concerns that may or may not be unfounded.Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘PSA/IT tip – for those considering a SSD as a boot drive!’ is closed to new replies.