SSD for notebook

[carpediem2]

If i replace notebook's hard drive with SSD lets say 120 Gb may i make 2 partitions- one for system windows and one for data -first 60 Gb and second 60 GB ?
What improvement to expect in speed in following operations - copying large files processing Word / notepad + + large files , compressing / decompressing files , video encoding , general speed of the system ( opening programs, multitasking, opening multiple tabs in Firefox)
What wil be more effective in these operations- more CPU power or SSD instead of slow HDD? Thanks ! ..

 

[Gunbuster]

Running an SSD over a spinning disk is like night and day. It's the one single thing you can do on a PC to get a order of magnitude performance improvement.

However IMHO splitting up the drive is stupid. You will only run into a situation where you max one out and have to try reparationing to balance it out. Format it as one single volume.

 

[skankinstein]

However IMHO splitting up the drive is stupid. You will only run into a situation where you max one out and have to try reparationing to balance it out. Format it as one single volume.

Worst advice ever. You obviously don't understand partitioning.

@ OP - yes, always partition for the OS and 60GB is ideal. But 120 is small, at today's prices splurge for at least a 240/250/256 and future proof your expense.

 

[Deders]

The only reason you'd need to partition is in case something went wrong with the windows install and you didn't want to lose your data. It would be better to have the data backed up onto an external in case the whole drive went down.

 

[Charlie98]

It would be better to have the data backed up onto an external in case the whole drive went down.

I would tend to agree... Just run it as a single volume and get a 500GB or 1TB external and run regular backup images (using Acronis True Image or something similar.)

I would also agree, depending on how much data you plan to have on the drive, to go to a 250'ish GB SSD... the cost is fairly nominal over a 120GB and the performance is better. I put a 120GB SSD in my daughter's laptop... but only knowing beforehand it probably wouldn't go over 50-60GB data storage.

 

[Silenus]

I will throw in my .02 as well. There is no good reason partition a modern system, especially with an SSD. It's not like you are short stroking it. A proper robust backup plan makes any other reason you might do it moot. Personally I like a full drive image based backup system. Simple and allows a complete recovery of your entire drive (OS install and all) in the event a drive dies or Windows otherwise gets messed up.

 

[npaladin-2000]

Worst advice ever. You obviously don't understand partitioning.

@ OP - yes, always partition for the OS and 60GB is ideal. But 120 is small, at today's prices splurge for at least a 240/250/256 and future proof your expense.

60 GB? Seriously? Are you running XP or something?

Partitioning these days is not a bright idea. Temp defaults to C, user profiles default to C (which means document and media storage defaults to C) most installers default to C, and everything needs to dump little pieces of itself into C:\Windows. Just to start with. Frankly, it's just too much work to be worthwhile. And 60 GB is an insanely small C drive for 2014 anyway.

And yes, you should splurge for a 250-GB-class SSD. They're out there for $150 or less, quite a reasonable price for a consumer storage device (you should see what businesses have to pay for 300 GB of SAS these days).

 

[corkyg]

I find there are specific reasons for specific partitions - I do it to facilitate synching between computers where only one has a SSD. It lets me drag and drop data files for financial apps without having to restructure them. It makes my life easier.

 

[Gunbuster]

Worst advice ever. You obviously don't understand partitioning.

Says the guy with a banned forum account.

So yeah the Windows installer defaults to the "Worst advice ever" and millions of people somehow still manage to use their computers...

Breaking the drive up into partitions is a headache waiting to happen. Especially on a small SSD.

 

[npaladin-2000]

I find there are specific reasons for specific partitions - I do it to facilitate synching between computers where only one has a SSD. It lets me drag and drop data files for financial apps without having to restructure them. It makes my life easier.

Most of the time that can be done with folders rather than partitions. And wait until you have a full C drive and have to "restructure" your parititoning. I bet your opinion of hour "easy" your life was changes.

I had someone who took great joy in creating 12 GB "C" partitions for 2003 R2 servers. Luckily they're all gone, because they were major league nightmares.

 

[John Connor]

I don't see a need for partitions and in fact one day a partition can go POOF! and it's gone. Better to use a back up solution clone. I use AOMEI backuper. My current laptop only has a 60 GB SSD and I still have 20 GBs left. I don't game on laptops so that's a plus! I do have Simcity installed but that's it.

Check out the stats.

 

[corkyg]

Most of the time that can be done with folders rather than partitions. And wait until you have a full C drive and have to "restructure" your partitoning. I bet your opinion of hour "easy" your life was changes.

1. Not when all data is stored in a RAID1 array designated as Drive J.
2. My drives are never more than 60% full. In over 25 years, I have never had to restructure partitions.
3. While fragmentation does not affect SSDs, it can be minimized on HDDs through the judicious use of partitions.

Your points are valid for the average consumer, . . . however, there are always valid exceptions to every rule. All generalizations are false, including this one.

 

[carpediem2]

Thank you guys for suggestions!