whats with the ssd meme? Got a samsung 850 evo and boot times are not that much faster. Programs open up like 1-2 seconds faster so big deal. wtf am I supposed to do with it?
Most programs are only like 100-200MB, a decent hard drive can do around 70 to 120MBPS. With an ssd you save maybe a few seconds on your average program. Unless your playing games or jerking off over boot times it doesn't really matter. Even heavyweight programs like eclipse or visual studio load in less than 5 seconds on my 7200 rpm hdd.
Also the data loss you have to put up with with ssds makes them not worth it, literally everyone I know with an ssd has had driver issues, game corruption issues, etc.
Inb4 hard drive salesman shill.
Got a 250gb Samsung Evo too.
Adobe Photoshop is 3 seconds faster vs my Black 1TB.
Thinking of returning my $80 SSD and getting another tb of mechanical drive. The cost/performance ratio is hard to beat.
why the fuck would you speed 50-80 dollars on something just for the os when you could spend 70-90 and get one for the OS and most used applications, or 120-150 and one for everything.
Agreed, I can understand winfags who are accustomed to 10 minute boots getting excited at a reduction to 30 seconds, but on my Linux box I was already getting 9 second boots, now I get 6. Programs open maybe 0.5 seconds faster
Not worth the money for most users, save money and stop using such a shitty OS
Adobe Photoshop is 3 seconds faster vs my Black 1TB
This piqued my curiousity since I knew how slow GIMP and PS opened up on my old 60MB/s WD800JD, where moving to a SSD made a huge difference. (5 seconds vs 25.) So I just tested CS2 and GIMP on my 400MB/s RAID 0 scratch disk vs my SSD.
There's about a 1 second difference. 6 vs 5 seconds for GIMP and around 10 vs 9 for CS2. Both required the same time for GIMP to re-query plugins after the move, too.
So you could have a 2TB RAID 0 array for the price of a 240GB SSD that's basically just as fast.
>all these retards using offbrand shit to test speeds
>not using shizuku
Not even worth it for Windows if you know what you're doing.
This was XP booting off the 60MB/s WD800JD I referenced above.
that will give you the least benefit for the dollar, unless it's a mobile application (which I assume it isn't, since you have multiple drives)
most of the working parts of the OS will be loaded in the RAM during normal operations, so there will be little benefit to having OS on SSD. you want things that you'll access on and off on an SSD, like applications, large files and cache
>Shaved 5 seconds off the boot time
>Took an hour to install/ghost winblows on it
>Not even counting time wasted ordering it and installing in your gayman case, navigating through memecooling pipes
Why did you think ssd was a good idea again?
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.
Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
I got myself a 1TB Samsung 850 Evo during the Amazon Prime Day sale.
Boot time is insanely fast, however the only issue I've noticed is that loading times in my games are the same. Maybe it's just me, but it does honestly feel the same.
10,000 RPM master race here
Come at me
retarded people think a single hard drive is a good idea :^)
inb4 lol 320gb
>it's the original boot HDD and I don't need any more space on a mobile device
>Most programs are only like 100-200MB, a decent hard drive can do around 70 to 120MBPS. With an ssd you save maybe a few seconds on your average program. Unless your playing games or jerking off over boot times it doesn't really matter. Even heavyweight programs like eclipse or visual studio load in less than 5 seconds on my 7200 rpm hdd.
This isn't really true.
A) There's no way visual studio or eclipse is starting in 5 seconds on an ssd.
Even if you aren't using any plugins.
B) It's not just how much it has to load, that's not even really the main issue.
It's that that stuff is spread all over the disk.
Those 200 megs aren't just going to be read sequential.
And this is where HDDs are atrociously slow.
I've got all my programs on my 120 gigabyte drive.
Although that 120 gig drive is a good 2 years old or so.
Just recently got a 500 gig drive to replace my media drive, but all I had on that was media, so not really necessary.
Those things are too damn loud.
Ok, but then the non raided parts are going to be slower, and you're still going to have a large partition that's fairly high risk.
120 gig ssds are pretty nice though, at 40 dollars now.
I picked up one to dedicate to my swap partition.
This way, when I run stuff that has memory leaks, the leaked memory just gets swapped onto the massive swap, and never heard again.
>the non raided parts are going to be slower
So? My SSD has 50GB used, and that's with a 5GB hiberfil and 2GB swap. How much space did you think programs needed?
You don't need RAID 0 or a SSD for your bulk storage.
But you could also just get an ssd.
I guess if you don't mind making regular backups then it doesn't matter....
Could pack up the partition to each of the hdds....
But then, why not just get an ssd....
I just don't understand, why does win10 work so shit on non-prebuilt pc's with ssds as the main drive, the bootup time nearly ten-folded for me as soon as I switched from 7, even after doing a clean install.
It is not just the case for me, I've built now the fifth pc with all different specs ranging from newest overpaid parts to price per value one (newest i7,amd processor, mainboard from gigabyte and asus, ssds from samsung evo, kingston and plextor) it didn't make a difference the boot time is always shit regardless, even tweaking the settings just doesn't help much
I know, I know, I personally switched immediately back but still that matter makes me really curious
it it happaned in all occassions I've installed, IN ALL FUCKING FIVE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE
WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT OS, LITERALLY INDIAN TIER
I swear I really need an alternative with a good application support
you shitting me?
you format your disk, install your os on it, install the latest drivers for your hardware, tweak the bios settings done, worked on evry os but not in this piece of shit
of course it worked flawlessly sometimes, for example on my outdated thinkpad
I don't know if you are fucking with me or a win10 baby that thinks everything could be the cause but not it
>comes on /g/, saying, "I'm too dumb to install Windows"
>comes on /g/, saying, "I'm too dumb to even Google whether the problem I'm having exists for anyone else on the planet"
>expects not to be made fun of
maybe I tried what you mentioned already, ever thought of that, that's why I came asking here
you do realize there are certain occasions when just the os is a piece of shit, I wouldn't be the first here to comment on that problem but maybe someone at least had a deeper insight of that problem here, I've been obviously mistaken
a useless shitposter like you always shows also the downside of anonymity compared to other communities, since every post can't be tracked to a user this way, the poster can't be evaluated or devaluated in that matter, so the first assumptions to common problems not working would be he's just too stupid
I can understand it, but it's a shame really
>maybe I tried what you mentioned already
You didn't, because a quick Google would show that everyone is booting 10 in 10 seconds.
10 times longer than 7, eh?
well I know, it is supposed to be even faster than win8, which it is on my thinkpad with a cheap kingston ssd
but not on the custom build pcs in my case or the one my friend build
the problem is that even on the same pc win7 and win7 bootup significantly faster on my ssds
even on win10 ready labeled motherboard with chipset support, that's what I find so questionable
I'm thinking about that deactivating some of the spying shit in win10 could effect the performance in a correspondent way , but it didn't boot so fast even when freshly installed with no additional programs running
but yes I've picked obviously the wrong time and the wrong thread to discuss this
Programs don't even open faster. That's just the SSD placebo fed to you by marketing.
You've completely wasted your money. Not only that, the chance that your drive will just die for no reason is increased by tenfold when compared to a HDD.
>Not only that, the chance that your drive will just die for no reason is increased by tenfold when compared to a HDD.
2009 showed up. They want their SSD tech back.
SSDs have a longer MTBF than even enterprise SAS HDDs.