SSD questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donald

Donald

Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
31,987
Location
Near the beach in Delaware
I am considering an SSD for my laptop.

1) My laptop has a 512 GB drive, but its maybe 1/3 filled so I was thinking of a 256GB one to save a little. I have a 2 TB external raid for extra files.

2) Crucial is saying they do not compress files thus their speed is higher as there is no uncompressing.

3) I have an adapter to connect a laptop drive via USB. Is there free copy software?
 
Do it. Getting an SSD is the single best upgrade you can do. Go for the crucial m4 they are very reliable, I've had one in my desktop since last January and I actually just the other day pulled it bout and put bit in my moms laptop and upgraded to the 256GB version (had the 64). Worked out well for both of us. Personally I'd only get an Intel or crucial, and I'd avoid anything with a sandfprce controller.
 
Oh also, while you could migrate using software, I'd recommend doing a fresh install as a fresh install of windows will also make a big difference.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Oh also, while you could migrate using software, I'd recommend doing a fresh install as a fresh install of windows will also make a big difference.


I would not be excited on a fresh install.

I thought there was copy software that would lay it out properly for an SSD?

What about a "restore" from my Windows backup images?
 
arconis will automatically align it correctly.

If you get a samsung with the "upgrade" package it should have their software which should work also.

(830 series, 840, 840 pro)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
I am considering an SSD for my laptop.

1) My laptop has a 512 GB drive, but its maybe 1/3 filled so I was thinking of a 256GB one to save a little. I have a 2 TB external raid for extra files.

2) Crucial is saying they do not compress files thus their speed is higher as there is no uncompressing.

3) I have an adapter to connect a laptop drive via USB. Is there free copy software?



1. If you know you won't need more later, you can, just buy the smaller one and upgrade as needed when the price drop.

2. The compression is not slow compare to the reading/writing to the NAND is the slow part. So for some highly compressible data (like text), compression would speed up the operation while the not so compressible data would get a slight speed loss.

3. I think Seagate DiscWizard is free for Maxtor and Seagate's drive. Most manufacturer has a free utility and will work as long as you have at least one of their drive in the system.
 
it really is a great thing to do. I have a samsung in mine, that has been doing great for over a year now.

go for it!!
 
I've got a Samsung 830 as my boot/C:/drive and its FAST to boot up (less than 10 seconds from press of the power button) in my main desktop.

I then have a 2 tb for the other drive which is great. I have another 128gig Samsung 830 that I may put in one of the desktops to speed it up.

Its a worth while upgrade IMO...

Bill
 
SSDs are definitely happy. There is a certain amount of truth to what Crucual says as far as compression. A lot of SSDs with Sandforce controllers have great numbers because they are tested with compressable data. Once you get data that is already compressed, which is a lot, then those big numbers come down to earth.

Generally, doing a fresh install with an SSD is recommended. Not absolutely neccessary, but it does tend to make it work smoother and WIN7 or above will automatically configure all the options for the SSD on install.

Samsung and Crucial are still my favorites. I am 4 for 4 with them and no failures yet. I would be tempted to look for a Samsung 830 series vs an 840 (non Pro) if given the choice. Crucial M4s are also reliable as heck, assuming the latest and greatest firmware is on it already, which it should be.
 
Also one bonus for an older model, smaller capacity drive that was marked down from a previous high price, is that they are likely to be old inventory with older NAND.

Unlike DRAM, NAND made with older technology (say, 43nm instead of 32nm, 24nm, or 19nm)is faster because the cell size is bigger and they can charge and discharge faster and not worry as much about the precision of the voltage level, has smaller block size so you don't have to erase and garbage collect with a lot more data, and bigger cells last longer. The disadvantage is mainly the size limit and cost.

Also some manufacturers use fewer NAND chips than the maximum number the controller can drive in parallel, so for the same capacity, the newer ones with fewer chips are even slower because instead of running 8 chips in parallel you are now running only 5.

You can see this when people discuss about the OCZ Vertex 2 vs Vertex 3, people tends to like Vertex 2 more than Vertex 3 for the same capacity.
 
Last edited:
I have had two boot failures on a crucial m4. I use my t500 50hrs per week. Both times I was down on ssd as it needed to clean itself up in a powered only state with no request from computer.

I love the drive otherwise but two failures in one year is too many.
 
Would getting an SSD on a WinXP laptop be worth it? I have to use XP at work to avoid license conflicts with the two other servers in our office.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Would getting an SSD on a WinXP laptop be worth it? I have to use XP at work to avoid license conflicts with the two other servers in our office.


It would always help. Seek time is seek time and SSD eliminate that, and would really help performance regardless of OS. Just not as much on XP as windows 7.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I have had two boot failures on a crucial m4. I use my t500 50hrs per week. Both times I was down on ssd as it needed to clean itself up in a powered only state with no request from computer.

I love the drive otherwise but two failures in one year is too many.


Please explain what happened because I use my Dell M90 85 hours per week at least and crucial has told me that my system uses the M4 SSD. If the M4 is unreliable, I don't want one.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I have had two boot failures on a crucial m4. I use my t500 50hrs per week. Both times I was down on ssd as it needed to clean itself up in a powered only state with no request from computer.

I love the drive otherwise but two failures in one year is too many.


Please explain what happened because I use my Dell M90 85 hours per week at least and crucial has told me that my system uses the M4 SSD. If the M4 is unreliable, I don't want one.
\

The m4 is one of the most reliable SSDs out there after the Intel ones with in house controllers. I have two, one over a year and 4 months old, and has been powered 24/7 all of that, and it's been perfect. And anther m4 which I bought a few weeks ago. The m4 is one of the most reliable SSDs out there.
 
I am looking at the Intel ones. They are about the same price as the crucial so I think I'll try one of those. How do I find out which one is best for a DellM90 dual core with WinXP? It has a 2.5" Fujitsu drive with 80GB SATA 7200 rpm. I want to get at least 120GB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JHZR2
Is my new SSD slow???
Replies
13
Views
940
PandaBear
V
New PC time - I solicit your suggestions
2 3
Replies
56
Views
1K
tmorris1
J
Just ordered a new "Super" work station laptop
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
Jetronic
Owen Lucas
Lenovo LEGION 5i 16" Gaming Laptop; good value?
Replies
7
Views
3K
fsdork
D
Weird hard drive issue – questions
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
d00df00d
Back
Top Bottom