How spoiled are people with SSD's?

[Emulex]

ssd can power down faster. set the powerdown to 1 minute with ssd. then do the same with hard drive -> compare experience.
antivirus - scan daily full - takes 15 minutes - you can even do a malwarebytes scan at the same time for extra safety. run backups before you scan in case you roach your system with a bad signature.

i had someone tell me their new 7200rpm 500gb drive core2duo 3.33ghz was slower than the p4-2.8 with x25-m (same ram). i had to lol them. best thing about SSD's-> you can upgrade and take it with you. hard drives kind of have a fixed life where you distrust them and just replace them.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Another good thing about SSDs- they can upgrade old hardware. Anything with a sata port can feel modern with 2 gigs of ram and a SSD.

 

[Emulex]

yes so when the budgets are tight you could upgrade that 2gb to 3gb (or 4gb) and throw in an SSD X25-V - 30 minutes and done while they are at lunch.

i seriously doubt most people can migrate to a new machine 100% the same settings/etc in the same time frame. multiply that out by 25,50,100 users and that is pretty big boost in productivity without having to refresh other than maybe destroying the old drives if they contain sensitive information.

 

[RU482]

Same here. The flying colors are on for about a half second.

yep, here to. And I'm running the 64GB C300 that's supposed to be SO LAME

 

[Majic 7]

I had an old XP machine (E6600 and WD640) I kept for when I did something stupid or something just went bad, mostly stupid, though. Used it when I hosed my install following some online advice. It was agonizing, so bad I started parting it out, telling myself I will get a netbook or something to tide me over the next time. That's how spoiled I am.

 

[CFP]

Going SSD has me never looking back.

I hate working on my HDD work computer. I do a lot of work with Photoshop and Dreamweaver, and despite comparable other hardware, my home PC with SSD just kills it for speed.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ok, Dubious.

hehe.

She has about the cleanest install you will see. Then turns off every unnecessary process. Oh, and I am not counting the bios time.

I need to check, but my AData pos SSD probably boots to the desktop in under 20 seconds on my Clarkdale dual core 3.2 ghz. I will do a timed boot and get back to you.

Edit: Took 16 seconds from the first splash screen appearance til all systray icons were loaded.
And I have a bunch of stuff loading above and beyond Windows.

MSCONFIG -> BOOT -> put a checkmark in "No GUI Boot"...no more stupid Win 7 animation to slow down boot times

 

[WelshBloke]

So how many extra hours will a notebook with an SSD run ?

Well sleep mode still drains the battery but hibernate doesn't.

However hibernate is painful with a laptop harddrive, how quick is it with an SSD?

So if you used hibernate on the laptop I'd guess you'd get some more run time out of it.

This is pretty much the only reason I'd like one for my laptop/nettop/whateverthehellitscalledbook.

Plus there's something archaic about moving parts in a computer nowadays.

 

[Arg Clin]

SSD and HDD's serve different purposes. I went with the common config of a small 12GB SSD for boot + apps and a 2TB HDD for games and storage.

I would never go back to waiting for a HDD to boot or open apps - the SSD is noticeably faster. I've felt for years that HDD's were a major bottleneck in PCs.

OTOH I wouldn't dream of burning cash on SSD for mass storage and games.

I think both technologies will be around for a good while still, and it's about putting them to use where it makes the most sense.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Well sleep mode still drains the battery but hibernate doesn't.

However hibernate is painful with a laptop harddrive, how quick is it with an SSD?

So if you used hibernate on the laptop I'd guess you'd get some more run time out of it.

This is pretty much the only reason I'd like one for my laptop/nettop/whateverthehellitscalledbook.

Plus there's something archaic about moving parts in a computer nowadays.

Better put a rod in those fans then...because moving parts are bad...right

 

[Golgatha]

Let me get this straight. She cold boots to Windows 7 in 10 seconds and the Welcome screen flashes by in about a second. And she's complaining???

I have to admit, that's my kind of girl.

Marry that girl. She's a keeper!

 

[exar333]

Ssd speed is way overrated and hyped. I have a F3 1tb samsung short stroked to 200gb on my desktop machine, and I recently built a htpc. I put a owc 40gb ssd on it. Both of these are amd rigs, both running win7 64 bit and while the ssd does boot up faster and scores a 7.5 on windows experience it is nowhere near worth the extra money that was spent.
I know the benchmark and speed differences on paper but I have not seen any breakneck speed out of it so far enough to warrant the price these things are. All of these people saying things are "instantaneous" either got some golden sample drives, or are easily impressed.

This my friend just totally discredited your post...was this cut-and-pasted from a Newegg review?

 

[VirtualLarry]

This my friend just totally discredited your post...was this cut-and-pasted from a Newegg review?

Why does that discredit anything? That sounds about right for the WEI score for an SSD.

 

[techs]

MSCONFIG -> BOOT -> put a checkmark in "No GUI Boot"...no more stupid Win 7 animation to slow down boot times

In all my years of working with computers I never knew about this.

 

[Lonbjerg]

In all my years of working with computers I never knew about this.

You first started working with computers after XP?

 

[86waterpumper]

This my friend just totally discredited your post...was this cut-and-pasted from a Newegg review

Huh? What are you going on about lol. Newegg does not even carry the drive I bought? I bought it direct from the manuf. Are you saying I did not get this score? I admit it is no awesome benchmark tool, but I only put that in there to show that at least the drive was configured right and was not crippled somehow or in ide mode etc. I do not see the point in running huge batches of benchmarks on ssd drives and increasing the wear and tear on them. I much prefer going by user experience than benchmarks anyway.

I still stand by my statements. Ssd is a improvement and is cool but you do not get your money's worth. If you are choosing between a ssd and a raptor then yeah the choice is clear. With 1tb f3 samsungs at 55 bucks shipped though it's hard to justify. Being able to afford it is not the issue. Some of us here could afford to run 4 video cards if we really wanted to, but what is the point? We know there would be a diminished return for the investment. Some power users who want to copy gigs of data while they do something else may benefit but that is hardly the typical usage pattern.

Alot said awhile back that ANYONE could feel the instant speed of a ssd and it was the greatest improvement for everyone since dual core etc etc. You can see from this thread though that this isn't true, because plenty have said you have to be a power user to even notice it.

 

[pcunite]

In all my years of working with computers I never knew about this.

If you do a check drive and it wants to reboot, you don't get to see the status ...

 

[Emulex]

i was wondering on some of my desktops (clean install of w7) i don't even see the logo. i've never turned it off i wonder if windows makes a judgement call based on system spec to disable the animation or not.

 

[Bauss]

Huh? What are you going on about lol. Newegg does not even carry the drive I bought? I bought it direct from the manuf. Are you saying I did not get this score? I admit it is no awesome benchmark tool, but I only put that in there to show that at least the drive was configured right and was not crippled somehow or in ide mode etc. I do not see the point in running huge batches of benchmarks on ssd drives and increasing the wear and tear on them. I much prefer going by user experience than benchmarks anyway.

I still stand by my statements. Ssd is a improvement and is cool but you do not get your money's worth. If you are choosing between a ssd and a raptor then yeah the choice is clear. With 1tb f3 samsungs at 55 bucks shipped though it's hard to justify. Being able to afford it is not the issue. Some of us here could afford to run 4 video cards if we really wanted to, but what is the point? We know there would be a diminished return for the investment. Some power users who want to copy gigs of data while they do something else may benefit but that is hardly the typical usage pattern.

Alot said awhile back that ANYONE could feel the instant speed of a ssd and it was the greatest improvement for everyone since dual core etc etc. You can see from this thread though that this isn't true, because plenty have said you have to be a power user to even notice it.

I agree with you. Those who have a computer on it's last legs will probably see a nice little speed boost, but not as much as a cutting edge computer, where the bottleneck is even more pronounced.

If all you do is browsing, light productivity tasks, and media consumption, then, even though an SSD is nice, it's hardly worth it. They just aren't worth it to increase the time it takes to load Word by a second or two. That said, if your tasks involve lots of hard drive activity (editing, transcoding, VM work, etc.), then an SSD is the best thing you can ever do for your computer.

 

[fuzzymath10]

I still stand by my statements. Ssd is a improvement and is cool but you do not get your money's worth. If you are choosing between a ssd and a raptor then yeah the choice is clear. With 1tb f3 samsungs at 55 bucks shipped though it's hard to justify. Being able to afford it is not the issue. Some of us here could afford to run 4 video cards if we really wanted to, but what is the point? We know there would be a diminished return for the investment. Some power users who want to copy gigs of data while they do something else may benefit but that is hardly the typical usage pattern.

Alot said awhile back that ANYONE could feel the instant speed of a ssd and it was the greatest improvement for everyone since dual core etc etc. You can see from this thread though that this isn't true, because plenty have said you have to be a power user to even notice it.

Actually, common users have the most to gain. We power users often tune our startup programs, superfetch, ramdrives, short-stroking, etc. to come as close to possible to SSD-like performance. Typical users just have tons of crap and complain when they start up their computer because nothing seems to be happening. You get scenarios where they click the browser icon and nothing shows up for a few seconds so they click it again just in case. Nothing happens so you click it again, and then like a minute later, three windows show up. SSDs instantly solve this issue, and solve it a lot better than repeatedly asking a friend/technician to tune their startup programs or keep adding RAM.

The average user would benefit from a dual core 2GB system with an SSD as primary vs a quad core 4/6/8GB system with just a hard drive. Unfortunately, numbers sell so you need more cores and GHz, more GB of RAM, more TB of space, not more MB of random reads/writes per second

Arguably, the perception of SSDs vs hard drives is similar to video cards, but here is where power users have a double standard. Why get a GTX 460 768MB when a Radeon 5450 has 1GB memory and play games at 30+fps*?







*at 800x600 with low detail, or with games from 2002. Much like SSDs and mechanical drives can read/write at 100+MB/sec, with the clause that it be sequential.

 

[Tom]

Video cards are not in the same category. Not having a good enough video card actually affects how programs, games, actually function. ie game is unplayable or might not even run.

As far as I know, an SSD doesn't do that, it saves various amounts of time depending on application.

Also, maybe an SSD can mask speed issues caused by bad configurations or bad user habits, not sure that's such a great feature tho. Eventually those issues ought to be fixed, not hidden.

 

[Swampthing]

I'm a bit of a anti SSD still. I see their benefits in laptops big time. But for desktops? I dunno. Reliability scares me. Longevity scares me a bit as well. And the cost vs capacity is too high. I'd just be getting one as a boot drive to have windows and the swap file on. Don't think i'd really get my money's worth.

Mostly though it's reliability and longevity for me. Too many reports of dead drives.

 

[aceO07]

SSD with VM is awesome.

Before SSD I had to wait a few minutes after suspending a VM before I could open another VM since it would do a lot of writing to the disk. Trying to open another VM before waiting for disk activity to go away first would just mean an even longer wait!

With SSD I can suspend a VM and immediately only another VM and it will load under 10 seconds.

 

[Edrick]

Video cards are not in the same category. Not having a good enough video card actually affects how programs, games, actually function. ie game is unplayable or might not even run.

As far as I know, an SSD doesn't do that, it saves various amounts of time depending on application.

Play a game that had load screens and compare them with HDD vs SSD. If you dont mind waiting a minute or 2 for screens to load, sure, stay with an HDD.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Video cards are not in the same category. Not having a good enough video card actually affects how programs, games, actually function. ie game is unplayable or might not even run.

As far as I know, an SSD doesn't do that, it saves various amounts of time depending on application.

Also, maybe an SSD can mask speed issues caused by bad configurations or bad user habits, not sure that's such a great feature tho. Eventually those issues ought to be fixed, not hidden.

If an SSD saves you a minute a day of waiting, that's 6 hours a year. To many people, that easily justifies the cost of one.