Interesting comments.
Hibernate was enabled as default in Win7 on my install. BTW, hibernate was not optimal in in the last few years when computers had fairly large amount of RAM -- 2 to 4GB -- which took too long to write to the HDD : In fact hibernate was disabled for computers with 4GB...
Haha. So true Emulex. I've stared at the HD light while thinking to myself, "Why am I watching the HD light like an idiot?" :)
That aside, what about other reasons why one should get a SSD?
For me, it was a no brainer upgrade. I travel constantly with my laptop and at the office it goes...
I'm hoping it's sooner than that!
On a separate note, will we ever see NAND embedded directly onto motherboards? No need for current HD housing form factors. Just throw chips into slots for more storage a la DRAM.
ZZF was probably expecting lots of people who couldn't get the Kingston 40gb drive to look around for other deals. Now the initial rush is done, they jacked it back up what it was couple of days ago.
If I was ZZF, I would have done the same.
I've a three year old laptop with SATA I bus. Took over 2min to load Win7RC, domain profile, Outlook and browser. With a SSD, it takes about 30 seconds. Win hibernate awake takes 5~10 sec instead of 30~40 sec. Everything app loads nearly instantly (1~5 seconds.)
Yes, SSD per GB cost is high...
The thickness diff is due to the foam pad on the exterior of the drive (which is removable to suit your need.)
Are there any significant internal diff?
Checked Intel's SSD info page but didn't find much.
http://www3.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/products/nand/feature/index.htm
Curious why Zipzooomfly has $60 price diff when the product seems same.
Newb question:
I?ve two drives I would like to setup as RAID 0:
HD #1: 320GB 7200 RPM
HD #2: 240GB 5400 RPM
Assuming in RAID 0, storage capacity will be 240gb and combined performance will be equivalent to having two 5400 RPM HDs.
Am I correct?
I could save a few bucks going with cheaper SSD but it sounds like I would be leaving some performance on the table if I go with cheaper SSD even on SATA I.
Another question: Is there noticeable power consumption difference between 64gb and 128gb?
Thanks for the input everyone; very...
I?ve a 2 year old HP Pavillion DV9700 laptop which has the older SATA I. I?m considering buying Crucial 128GB SSD.
Couple of questions:
- What level of SSD performance degradation can I expect since my laptop has SATA I (not II.)
- Should I go for a cheaper SSD if SATA I is a bottleneck?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.