Putting your OS on an SSD results in fast boots?

[JackMDS]

Lol. last year the philosophy was I run my Rig 24/7.

Any one who were willing to admit that he is Not running his rig 24/7 was considered some sort of "halfwit". - - :twisted:

When One run his Rig 24/7 Boot time is not important.

Now are assume that the trend is to Boot 50 times a day.

Otherwise, I can not figure out why saving 20 sec. on a Boot is worth hundreds of $$$. :thumbsdown:

.

 

[Auric]

I have not noticed a difference so if there is one it can't be much. However, I always maintained the OS volume -sorted according to prefetch layout (boot file launch only) and name. Still, boot time is really only relevant during major installs since S3 is used otherwise.

 

[0roo0roo]

read the countless ssd articles on anandtech.
for things like application start/windows boot it is not comparable as said. assuming you get a decent ssd, not some old cutrate junker.

 

[Auric]

Sequential reads of a common HDD are 125 MB/s versus an Intel value SSD at 195 so only a 56% difference. Thus for example if boot time post BIOS is 30 seconds then that is only reduced to 19. Again, a much more significant difference would result from a HDD that is not maintained or is older (lower density) and conversely if a performance SSD. But in any case, the real benefit comes from random reads and boot time remains irrelevant.

 

[Gundam]

SSD's are expensive, but they offer the most performance for the $$$ IMO. My celeron equipped netbook with SSD boots up and loads programs faster then my old gaming rig which was equipped with a e8400 @ 4ghz and caviar black drive.

People spend ridiculous amount of money on the latest CPUs, mobos, and ram, but only get a marginal performance boost. You think most people can tell the speed difference between an i3 and an i7 in normal day to day computing? Unless you're encoding videos and/or benchmarking, there is not much of a noticeable difference.

All of my systems now run SSD's. Hell I just bought a 30gb w/ TRIM for under $70 AR to go into my celeron based company work computer. 30gb isn't much, but that's all you need for a basic Win7 install and a bunch of apps. Media should be stored on a 1tb+ 5400rpm drive since thats all you really need for playback. If you have a lot of games, you can find 60gb SSD's on sale for around $130 AR.

 

[M0RPH]

All of my systems now run SSD's. Hell I just bought a 30gb w/ TRIM for under $70 AR

Where did u get that deal?

 

[vj8usa]

Where did u get that deal?

Tigerdirect had a 30GB OCZ (Vertex, I think) for around $65 after cashback and/or a rebate. They also had the 60GB Agility (which also has TRIM) for $130. I finally caved in and bought one of the 60GB Agility drives for my laptop to see what all the hoopla is about; it should be arriving on Monday. I figure even if the performance difference doesn't blow me away, I'll benefit from the reduced heat/power/noise (increased battery life).

Oh, and Newegg had a rebranded 80GB intel x18 80GB drive for $150, which is also a great deal. It doesn't have TRIM though, which is why I opted for the OCZ instead.

 

[mfenn]

Sequential reads of a common HDD are 125 MB/s versus an Intel value SSD at 195 so only a 56% difference. Thus for example if boot time post BIOS is 30 seconds then that is only reduced to 19. Again, a much more significant difference would result from a HDD that is not maintained or is older (lower density) and conversely if a performance SSD. But in any case, the real benefit comes from random reads and boot time remains irrelevant.

Too bad booting isn't sequential reads. Booting is a mix of random reads and writes (think log files and such).

HOWEVER. If you're buying an SSD to boot into Windows fast, you're doin' it wrong. The value of an SSD, as others have stated, is the near instantaneous launch of apps.

 

[Auric]

Booting is largely sequential when optimized as mentioned previous. Otherwise agreed.

I cannot imagine any situation where marginally reduced boot times are relevant since drastically longer than resume and consuming more power in the process (say in the case of checking email throughout the day or somesuch).

Trim is not necessary with 34nm or better Intel drives since a utility with scheduler is provided. Which is particularly useful since the controller specific drivers do not yet include the function.

 

[Monkey_Business]

Booting is largely sequential when optimized as mentioned previous. Otherwise agreed.

I cannot imagine any situation where marginally reduced boot times are relevant since drastically longer than resume and consuming more power in the process (say in the case of checking email throughout the day or somesuch).

Trim is not necessary with 34nm or better Intel drives since a utility with scheduler is provided. Which is particularly useful since the controller specific drivers do not yet include the function.

I usually have enough time to use the bathroom and do a #1 and wait while my computer boots up. About 3-4 minutes tops. Some times it takes longer, while other times it's quick.

 

[Swivelguy2]

What the hell are you people doing to your computers? I'm booted and ready to go in Win7-64 in about 45 seconds, on a 7200 RPM laptop HDD from 2007.

The reason to get an SSD isn't to save 20 seconds booting up, or 3 seconds loading photoshop. It has to do with not waiting at all when trying to open lots of files or navigating a super-large file, and never having a hangup where some application (Firefox? wtf?) needs to find something on the disk (cache? bookmarks? profile?) and for some reason it takes 3 seconds.

For some reason, lots of applications don't seem to get all of their data into memory. With 4 GB of RAM in a system, there's no reason a 250-MB file can't be loaded entirely into memory. For some reason, however, an SSD makes Powerpoint scroll smoothly through a graphics-intensive scientific poster, which is a painfully stuttery task on a spinning disk.

SSDs have improved disk speeds by a hundred, perhaps thousandfold. Having large amounts of data more readily available is going to, in the long term, change how software is written. I'm thinking of whole-disk searches in reasonable amounts of time, that sort of thing.

If you think disk speed isn't that important, ask yourself: when did you last buy a new CPU? Why? How many dollars did you shell out - $100? $200? - and for what factor of increase in processing performance - Tripled? Quadrupled? There's no way a $300 SSD isn't worth it for a 100-fold increase in data performance.

 

[Jimmah]

I've got 2 SSD's in RAID 0 right now, definitely a speed increase over my previous 320gb drive. Put one in my wife's laptop as well, cut load times easily 50% on boot, well over 50% playing WoW.

2 cheap 60gb drives (gen 1) are about 80$, not bad if you use two.

 

[lxskllr]

I guess it's still too soon to tell, but what do you think of the reliability of SSDs; especially as compared to standard HDs?

 

[Auric]

I usually have enough time to use the bathroom and do a #1 and wait while my computer boots up. About 3-4 minutes tops. Some times it takes longer, while other times it's quick.

Sounds like some monkey bidness going on... unless said computar is ten years old or sumfing.

-
For giggles I just timed the boot of my XP installation which has been in constant use with various hardware for five and a half years: 40 seconds, half of which was POST plus AHCI drive detection (currently running five drives). The Quick Boot BIOS feature is disabled. Also, there is a second display via an AVR which can only slow things down with handshake crap.

 

[mfenn]

I guess it's still too soon to tell, but what do you think of the reliability of SSDs; especially as compared to standard HDs?

In theory they should be more reliable. In theory you can monitor the number of writes left on each cell and have a good idea of when it's going to die. There aren't any moving parts to worry about, because it's just a bunch of flash chips and a controller on a PCB.

In reality, there's probably going to be a firmware bug that eats your lunch. But you had backups, right? :sneaky:

 

[lxskllr]

In theory they should be more reliable. In theory you can monitor the number of writes left on each cell and have a good idea of when it's going to die. There aren't any moving parts to worry about, because it's just a bunch of flash chips and a controller on a PCB.

In reality, there's probably going to be a firmware bug that eats your lunch. But you had backups, right? :sneaky:

Yea, that's what I figured. I guess it needs more time in the real world. Synthetic tests are well and good, but I prefer the less scientific approach of people telling me whether the products suck or not :^D

 

[glugglug]

Well I'm talking about a near-clean install of W7 x64 and I'm talking the time past the bios to when I see the desktop. Just like the guy above who quoted 20 sec (and I'm guessing he's low-balling it). The question is, when do you start counting (past the bios? where exactly is that?) and when do you stop counting (as soon as you see the desktop or after all the stuff in your system tray is done loading?)

My X-25M boots Win7 x64 in 15-20seconds including BIOS POST, and including time for auto-login and all startup applications, and my media center extenders have reconnected in this time. In fact, most of it is BIOS post and device enumeration.

If you exclude BIOS start time, with a clean install of Windows 7 after a fresh HDDERASE (I don't have TRIM), it was under 5s.

 

[MagickMan]

Well booting into Windows 7 doesn't take more than 50-60 sec on a normal HD here (depending on how you measure it). So I don't see how an SSD is gonna be THAT MUCH faster... and anyways how many times do you boot your computer, once a day?

My 160GB X25-M boots into Win7 in 12 sec, after BIOS. That's on the desktop and ready to go. Games and apps load instantly, even monsters like WoW load in mere seconds. So, yeah, it really is THAT MUCH faster. The question, however, becomes "is it worth the money?".

Well, if you have the cash, already have a quick machine, and want the best computing experience, you get a good SSD. The G2 80GB Intel can be had for a little north of two Franklins. Combine that with large spindle drives for file storage and you're set. However, if your PC is borderline or sluggish you should invest in a platform upgrade. In other words, don't blow your upgrade budget on an SSD if there are other things which really need to be swapped out first. I think of an SSD as like icing on the cake.