SSD for mom? lol

[upsdriver]

I wouldn't bother. I installed a ssd in my dad's computer without ever telling him. That was six months ago; he hasn't noticed yet. Chances are it will be the same with your mom.

Older people don't notice speed as much. My mom thinks the 6 year old computer I gave her is plenty fast.

To OP: I wouldn't waste money on an SSD tbh. She won't know the difference.

 

[Rhezuss]

Older people don't notice speed as much. My mom thinks the 6 year old computer I gave her is plenty fast.

To OP: I wouldn't waste money on an SSD tbh. She won't know the difference.

Yeah that's what I was asking me this morning. I'll end up buying her a 250gb WD Caviar Blue instead. 20$ cheapers and lots of space for her needs.

 

[Rhezuss]

Well, ended up getting her this:

1 x ($99.99) AMD A6-3650 Llano 2.6GHz Socket FM1 100W Quad-Core Desktop APU (CPU + GPU) with DirectX 11 Graphic AMD Radeon HD 6530D AD3650WNGXBOX
1 x ($95.00) ASRock A75M FM1 AMD A75 (Hudson D3) HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
1 x ($-13.00) DISCOUNT FOR COMBO #916168
1 x ($69.99) Western Digital Caviar Blue WD2500AAKX 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - OEM
1 x ($39.99) Fractal Design Core 1000 Micro ATX Computer Case w/ 1 x 120mm fan
1 x ($29.99) Logitech Wireless Mouse M310 (910-001675) Silver 3 Buttons 1 x Wheel USB RF Wireless Laser Mouse
1 x ($22.99) G.SKILL NS 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-4GBNS
1 x ($54.99) Antec EarthWatts Green EA-380D Green 380W Continuous power ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power Supply
1 x ($20.99) ASUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM
1 x ($21.99) Logitech K120 Black USB Wired Standard Keyboard

Total: 520CAD (taxes and shipping included)

She'll be a lot more happier with this compared to her Sempron single core dinosaur she had for the past 6 years.

Thanks all for your help and tips, it'll serve me well if I end up buying me a SSD in the near future.

 

[taltamir]

Older people don't notice speed as much. My mom thinks the 6 year old computer I gave her is plenty fast.

To OP: I wouldn't waste money on an SSD tbh. She won't know the difference.

right until the computer starts cugging for a reason or another and she hard resets its because it "crashed". Then wants me to fix it because it doesn't boot anymore (it was being slow because it was installing a windows update)

That if she doesn't call me every day to say "it is slow, can you fix that?"

 

[moriz]

right until the computer starts cugging for a reason or another and she hard resets its because it "crashed". Then wants me to fix it because it doesn't boot anymore (it was being slow because it was installing a windows update)

That if she doesn't call me every day to say "it is slow, can you fix that?"

An ssd isn't going to make that better, since windows updates are typically small and are CPU bound speed wise. Any modern CPU with a 7200 rpm drive would be fine.

 

[taltamir]

An ssd isn't going to make that better, since windows updates are typically small and are CPU bound speed wise. Any modern CPU with a 7200 rpm drive would be fine.

Actually, the biggest most impressive improvement an SSD gives you is MASSIVELY faster installation of windows updates.
They are not terribly large, but they are HDD bound not CPU bound.
I believe they modify files rather then replacing them. This MASSIVELY reduces download size while requiring a ton of reads and random write operations, limited mostly by your IOPS which are awesome on SSD and suck on HDD.

 

[Mike64]

I can't agree that "old people don't notice speed." It really depends on the person. If the OP's mother calls to ask why her PC is slow now, she will appreciate an SSD. Probably more than she'd appreciate a faster CPU.

My mother didn't multitask and didn't do much more than browse the web and read email, but she didn't leave her computer on all the time and hated waiting for it to boot up. She may have been in her 80s, but when she wanted to use the computer, she wanted to use it now. SSDs seriously cut down on start-up time. They also can speed up app loading, though that depends some on the program and how many files it accesses at startup. They also actually help some with browsing, especially if you tend to look at the same sites a lot, since cached files are re-loaded faster.

 

[moriz]

Does it? I certainly didn't notice this on any of my systems, especially on anything post core 2. It'll take a seriously weak computer for it to be bogged down by windows update, and in those systems, ssds are wasted.

The OP's mom won't see any benefit owning an ssd. She's more likely to complain why her huge collection of photos no longer fit than notice any performance boost.

 

[taltamir]

Does it? I certainly didn't notice this on any of my systems, especially on anything post core 2. It'll take a seriously weak computer for it to be bogged down by windows update, and in those systems, ssds are wasted.

It does. And check my sig to see what computer I have.

 

[moriz]

It does. And check my sig to see what computer I have.

Let me put it this way: I don't own a single system that DOESN'T have a ssd, so I'm pretty familiar with how well they perform in the real world. None of them ever gained a speed increase when installing updates after I put ssds in them. Heck, none of them ever noticeably slowed down when installing updates either, on ssd or not. Windows starts up faster, complex applications load faster, levels load faster in games. However, simple things like msword and browsers do not load noticeably faster, and the OP's mom just happens to use those the most often.

There's are times and places where ssds are justified. This is not one of then.

 

[taltamir]

However, simple things like msword and browsers do not load noticeably faster

Browsers most certainly do load faster. Although they DO benefit more from CPU then the SSD, both are huge upgrades.

I use google chrome and firefox and each with the "reopen tabs" option... so when I shut it down it saves my 100 or so open tabs (spread in 10 windows) and reopens them all when I run it again. This is intensive.

None of them ever gained a speed increase when installing updates after I put ssds in them.

what SSD did you use?

 

[moriz]

Crucial m4, Intel 320 series, mushkin Callisto deluxe, Kingston ssdnow, corsair force series. Basically most of the major brands.

All that is irrelevant; this scenario simply doesn't necessitate a ssd.

 

[VirtualLarry]

An ssd isn't going to make that better, since windows updates are typically small and are CPU bound speed wise. Any modern CPU with a 7200 rpm drive would be fine.

I agree with TalTamir, Windows Updates seem to be speed up massively, by an SSD, suggesting that they are I/O bound more than anything else. (Once downloaded.)

 

[taltamir]

Crucial m4, Intel 320 series, mushkin Callisto deluxe, Kingston ssdnow, corsair force series. Basically most of the major brands.

Those are quality brands.
I think you are just mistaken in your observation. I have seen it increase massively on an intel G2 and intel 520 compared to HDD.
Virtuallarry concurs.

I don't know how you don't notice such an impressive improvement

 

[moriz]

Those are quality brands.
I think you are just mistaken in your observation. I have seen it increase massively on an intel G2 and intel 520 compared to HDD.
Virtuallarry concurs.

I don't know how you don't notice such an impressive improvement

Probably because I never had any slow downs when installing updates on modern systems, even with hard drives. I probably just left the window in the background and kept doing whatever I was doing.

Either way, I still don't think it is worth it.

 

[taltamir]

Probably because I never had any slow downs when installing updates on modern systems, even with hard drives. I probably just left the window in the background and kept doing whatever I was doing.

What do slowdowns have to do with "time it takes to install".
I mentioned slowdowns earlier but that is a different issue. We are clearly, and have been, discussing the installation speed those past few posts.
You made the assertion that they install the same speed because they CPU bound, not IO bound. If you let it happen in the background without even looking at how long it takes then how in the world do you even know? and on what did you base the claims that it is CPU bound not IO bound?

And its not totally irrelevant stuff, on a clean install of windows there are so many patches to install that it takes hours and precludes you from getting any work done.
And whenever I perform a restart the "please wait while windows is installing updates" prompts are there for a tiny fraction of what they are with an HDD.

 

[F1shF4t]

Probably because I never had any slow downs when installing updates on modern systems, even with hard drives. I probably just left the window in the background and kept doing whatever I was doing.

Either way, I still don't think it is worth it.

Not talking about slowdowns but the time it takes to complete the updates once downloaded. I've noticed a huge speed difference when installing updates and service packs going from HDD to SSD. Even my C60 netbook shows some improvement using a SSD (shows that even with a slow CPU it is somewhat IO bound).

I've just upgraded my parent's laptops to SSDs and while probably not worth it now, it does two things in the future.
1. They like to move and use their laptops around everywhere. So in the event they do accidently drop or bump it at least I won't have to deal with lost data as well. (Not important for OP)
2. When (not an "If") the computers will be filled with crap at lease they won't be calling me up all the time to figure out why it’s slow. That way I can just do maintenance on the comps when I visit.

 

[moriz]

What do slowdowns have to do with "time it takes to install".
I mentioned slowdowns earlier but that is a different issue. We are clearly, and have been, discussing the installation speed those past few posts.
You made the assertion that they install the same speed because they CPU bound, not IO bound. If you let it happen in the background without even looking at how long it takes then how in the world do you even know? and on what did you base the claims that it is CPU bound not IO bound?

And its not totally irrelevant stuff, on a clean install of windows there are so many patches to install that it takes hours and precludes you from getting any work done.
And whenever I perform a restart the "please wait while windows is installing updates" prompts are there for a tiny fraction of what they are with an HDD.

Hours? I think you exaggerate. I've recently refurbished an old p4 and installed windows 7 on it. It didn't take hours to install updates; more like thirty minutes, and I installed every update possible. It was running on an ide hard drive.

At the end of the day, whether windows update is CPU bound or not is purely academic: it is not worth it for the OP's mom to have an ssd in her system. It is not worth the cost, she likely won't notice the difference, and it will save the OP having to explain why her brand spanking new computer only has 60GB of storage, while her friend bought a computer from best buy have 2000GB.

 

[taltamir]

Hours? I think you exaggerate. I've recently refurbished an old p4 and installed windows 7 on it. It didn't take hours to install updates; more like thirty minutes, and I installed every update possible. It was running on an ide hard drive.

I don't believe you. Not even if you had SP1 integrated to the installer.

At the end of the day, whether windows update is CPU bound or not is purely academic: it is not worth it for the OP's mom to have an ssd in her system. It is not worth the cost, she likely won't notice the difference, and it will save the OP having to explain why her brand spanking new computer only has 60GB of storage, while her friend bought a computer from best buy have 2000GB.

Windows update is just one example, and a case where impatience can result in a corrupt OS.
And she will notice it, it will be amazingly faster.
You can always use RST if she needs a lot of space, but my mom doesn't know how to tell how big her HDD is and has using under 30GB, that includes the OS.

 

[Rhezuss]

At the end of the day, whether windows update is CPU bound or not is purely academic: it is not worth it for the OP's mom to have an ssd in her system. It is not worth the cost, she likely won't notice the difference, and it will save the OP having to explain why her brand spanking new computer only has 60GB of storage, while her friend bought a computer from best buy have 2000GB.

LOL...the hardest thing is still to explain to her that the space on the disk is not it's speed..."Why would you put 64gb in my new comp when my 8 years old old 80gb HDD is faster?"

 

[ChippyUK]

I think it's a great idea. Stops them (parents!) complaining the computer is 'slow' after 6 months because of the anti-virus scanners killing the responsiveness of the mechanical drive.

 

[beginner99]

Of course not. Even though they might not be as perceptive to how fast it will be, the responsiveness is definitely a plus. With a fast SSD, anything that is slow will not be noticed at all when it is fast enough to mask any delay/lag. Did I mention that you never have to defrag a SSD?

This. My mom likes her 64 GB M4.

 

[Makaveli]

LOL...the hardest thing is still to explain to her that the space on the disk is not it's speed..."Why would you put 64gb in my new comp when my 8 years old old 80gb HDD is faster?"

Never try to explain technical stuff to someone that isn't computer savy I learned that one along time ago.

Just tell her its faster and keep it simple.