SSDs. Fast, but not THAT fast. :(

[VirtualLarry]

I was testing boot times, for Win7 Home Premium 64-bit.

On the Phenom II X4 3.2Ghz desktop with Sandforce SF-1222 120GB drive, boot time was 20 seconds (counted after the BIOS POST screen disappeared, so this is not counting POST).

On my Emachines E627 laptop, with TF-20 1.6Ghz single-core, and slow 5400 RPM 160GB laptop drive, boot time was 24 seconds.

So a measly 4 second advantage in boot times, over a 5400 RPM HD and a slow single-core CPU?

Also, defrag was NOT disabled for the SSD on the Win7 install. I had to disable it manually. I had heard that Win7 automagically configures itself properly for an SSD, but that seems to be false.

 

[Old Hippie]

Also, defrag was NOT disabled for the SSD on the Win7 install. I had to disable it manually.

It doesn't really disable it because many still have mechanical drives+SSDs but your SSD won't be defragged.

I looked at the details of the scheduled tasks under Windows 7, found the list of disks to defragment, and the SSDs were unticked by default.

 

[terentenet]

It's been a year since I am using the SSD's, but as many said, I don't ever want to return to mechanical drives for OS & Games.
I upgraded the machine from 2 WD Raptor X in RAID0 to 2 OCZ Vertex 120GB in RAID0. The difference is there... not as much in boot times, but in loading times. And the difference is huge. I worked on a 4 x Velociraptor RAID0 machine that was supposed to be very fast and it did feel fast. But when I returned home and worked on my machine, it felt even faster.
SSD's are the way of future... HDD's are only good for storage right now.
I have stopped using DVD's and CD's, it's easier and cheaper to buy a $100 1Tb HDD, load it up with c**p and put it in a shelf for keeping.

 

[taltamir]

it's easier and cheaper to buy a $100 1Tb HDD, load it up with c**p and put it in a shelf for keeping.

as of a few weeks ago, 100$ gets you 2TB.

 

[frostedflakes]

I was testing boot times, for Win7 Home Premium 64-bit.

On the Phenom II X4 3.2Ghz desktop with Sandforce SF-1222 120GB drive, boot time was 20 seconds (counted after the BIOS POST screen disappeared, so this is not counting POST).

On my Emachines E627 laptop, with TF-20 1.6Ghz single-core, and slow 5400 RPM 160GB laptop drive, boot time was 24 seconds.

So a measly 4 second advantage in boot times, over a 5400 RPM HD and a slow single-core CPU?

Also, defrag was NOT disabled for the SSD on the Win7 install. I had to disable it manually. I had heard that Win7 automagically configures itself properly for an SSD, but that seems to be false.

Superfetch is enabled in your desktop system right? A lot of those SSD optimization guides are pretty stupid btw, I've seen many recommend disabling Superfetch and other useful features in Win 7. So if you're following those I wouldn't even bother, just let Win 7 handle things, it's pretty smart about setting the OS up properly for SSDs. A lot of those tweaks were useful with crappy JMicron drives on older OS, but modern SSDs on a modern OS don't need them. But anyway, in addition to caching commonly loaded programs in RAM, Superfetch's other function is to optimize boot time. So if it's disabled on your desktop, try turning it back on and see what happens. I've never timed it, but if I had to guess I probably get roughly 8s for Win 7 load time with my SF-1222 SSD.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Silence is one reason to want SSD.

On my XP desktop the MS network code sometimes starts reading and writing files over and over again, click-click-click-click-click......

On my new Shuttle X35 music jukebox the system is completely silent, except for the WD Blue 500GB laptop drive parking - unparking - parking - unparking .... ( ). I'd pay $200 for a 500 GB SSD just to get rid of the clunking.

 

[Diogenes2]

...I'd pay $200 for a 500 GB SSD just to get rid of the clunking.

I'd pay $200 for a 500gb SSD for no reason at all.. Can you point me toward this deal ? I'll take five ..

 

[htwingnut]

Just for the record, I've tested, inadvertently, a number of SSD's and so far am not thoroughly impressed.

I've run an Intel 80GB G2 in my desktop drive for a good six plus months now. I have noticed speed degredation. Yes TRIM is on and supported. I did a secure erase once and it gained most of its performance back, but almost ready for it again, but this time its going into my netbook and putting a Samsung Spinpoint F3 in its place.

I had an OCZ Vertex 2 60GB in my laptop for a while before it just up and died after about 45 days of use. It was definitely a noticeable speed increase from the Seagate Momentus 7200.4 that was in there. Now I have a Momentus XT hybrid drive which is almost as responsive as the SSD.

I ran an Intel 40GB G2 in my netbook for a while, but it was too small, but battery life was very impressive. Got a solid five hours compared with a little over four with the HDD it replaced. But I needed more space so bought a Kingston V-series (not the V+) 64GB, while good performance and the space I needed, it was a power hog. It only gave me about 4:20 battery life, not much better than the HDD. So the 80GB Intel from my desktop is going in here.

Finally I had another Kingston V-series that up and died almost same day I used it. It was replaced quickly though, so no big deal there. But I sold the RMA part.

I also owned an HP Envy 14 for a while with the OEM Samsung 256GB SSD. It was a pathetic 4k performer. It quickly degraded to that of something not much better than a 7200RPM HDD. Needless to say I returned the laptop for other reasons.

So finally, only benefit I see for SSD's at the moment are in a laptop if you can live with a low storage capacity, have two drive bays, or have the money for a larger capacity SSD.

It is a great fit for laptops mainly for their ruggedness and battery life improvement, not to mention slighly lighter. But in a desktop, it's a nice improvement, but absolutely IMHO does not justify the high cost.