whats with the ssd meme? Got a samsung 850 evo and boot times

raid 0 them and feel the difference

>>52566552
nah, i doubt you actually bought one. you'd know the difference.

this is a troll thread.

install gentoo

File: 2016-01-22-154847_774x883_scrot.png (126KB, 774x883px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 774x883px

>>52566559
This, love muh ssd raid 0

File: Capture.png (7KB, 582x137px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 582x137px

>>52566582

File: k.png (8KB, 582x137px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 582x137px

>>52566604

>>52566655
congrats

File: Lpx2x1F.png (1001KB, 955x957px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 955x957px

Nice b8 thread

Kinda tempted to buy another Evo 250gb and run it in raid 0 or even 1.

>>52566582

This.

>>52566552
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.

>>52566954
>Also the data loss you have to put up with with ssds
wtf???

>>52566552
Try with GIMP/Photoshop. It's basically the only difference you'll find.

>>52566977
are you talking about leaving it powered off leading to data loss that google reports?

>>52566552
>Programs open up like 1-2 seconds faster
So instead of taking 1-2 seconds they open instantaneous.

>>52566552

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.

fuck me too. I also forgot to mention that windows updates took just as long as with my hdd. Ridiculous

File: DiskSpeedTest2.png (735KB, 806x870px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 806x870px

I don't know, I'm liking mine

People talking about the SSD meme IS the meme.

File: 1319860149008.jpg (200KB, 816x816px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 816x816px

>>52566655

>>52566604
>120 gig
are you literally retarded?

>>52567344
? I use it for the os. why would I need more

>>52567367
exactly
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.

>>52567270
yep. Enjoy the cinema.
alltough the movie runs everyday i can't stop laughing, never gets old.

>I bought something without doing any research
>I spent money on product X, what am I supposed to do with it?

neo-/g/ everyone

>>52567394
Retarded gaymers want to put their 800gb Steam libraries on a SSD. But hey if you have the money then go for it.

>>52566552
Systemd and Linux in general is already very fast, can't do all that much by having an SSD.

If you're on Windows, you're doing fast wrong.

>>52567497
retarded people think they can comfortably fit all their files and OS on a 120 gig ssd

>>52567520

Umm but you can?

I have one and even with two VMs I'm only using half the space

>>52567539
i remember my first computer and having no files

File: d5c.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>52566954

>>52567520
>retarded people think the minimum OS size from a fresh install is 30GB

File: doge wag.webm (702KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 400x300px

>>52567497
Enjoying my 1TB SSD. Stay jelly.

>>52567568
Im running a w10 install on a 32gb drive, 30ish usable space. 7gb free after putting everything i need. It is possible

>>52568045
i'm running Linux on a 120gb drive.
30gb on /, with 4.59gb used and 203gb as /home with 15.9gb used. With everything i need, including a WM.
I know it is possible.

>>52568274
250gb drive*

>>52566552
>>52567513
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

>>52567129
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.

File: 1451381321778.png (149KB, 384x576px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 384x576px

>all these retards using offbrand shit to test speeds
>not using shizuku
>mfw

File: new_boot.png (30KB, 600x740px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x740px

>>52568583
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.

>>52567367
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?

>>52566552

Program load times are CPU-bound. SSDs only help if you moving around GiBs of data.

I hate these meme threads

>>52566977
It's called rotational velocidensity. Look it up pleb.

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.

>>52569288
the fuck?

You've been memed

>>52569321
Your bait level is low Jordan.

File: girl wizard.gif (3MB, 272x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 272x480px

>>52569481
or did I bait you into saying that?

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.

hey computer guyzzz
i hav ssd 120gb samsung evo, i only will use 60gb andd i have 4tb external

do you think im going to be fast like superman

-pajeet

File: wd_velociraptor_1tb_01.jpg (111KB, 498x486px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 498x486px

>>52566552
10,000 RPM master race here

Come at me

>>52566552
shove it up your ass faggot and fuck off with your shitty bait thread
1/10

>>52569688
you're nor hearing "you spin me round round, baby" in your head

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x900px

>>52567520

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

>>52566954
>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.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/316265/how-can-you-speed-up-eclipse

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.

File: scratch.png (506KB, 802x692px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 802x692px

>>52569688
ok

>>52568922
That 2 TB raid 0 array is also far riskier than a ssd.

>>52570077
Neat thing: You don't have to RAID 0 the whole thing.

>>52569058
Not really.
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.

>>52569688
Those things are too damn loud.

>>52570110
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.

>>52570168
>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.

use it as a storage device, dumbass. be happy you aren't a barbarian with a 1980's spinning disk HDD anymore.

>>52567513
t. Poettering

>>52570233
That's true.
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....

>>52570303
>you could just spend as much to get 1/10th the space!
Ok.

File: 1453471219655.webm (897KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 1280x720px

>>52566552

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

>using win10

I know, I know, I personally switched immediately back but still that matter makes me really curious

Currently running a samsung m.2 at 2.5GB/s / 1.5 GB/s.
Barely notice the difference between a normal ssd desu.

>>52570360

also I should note that, once booted up the ssds run with their expected speed

>>52570360
Just you, kohai.

>>52570468

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

>>52570512
Just you, kohai.

>>52570555

no but seriously I can't be the only one noticing this

>>52570574
You're really having difficulty with the concept of "Just you," aren't you? Rather explains why you can't install an OS.

>>52570707

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

>>52570850
>literally too dumb to install Windows

>>52571250

fuck this, can't you shitpost somewhere else

>>52571467
>too dumb to install Windows
>too dumb to even Google

>>52571543

i will never get people like you, you never really deserve a respond in that matter

do you just love shitposting this much?

>>52566552
kill yourself poorfag. you didn't buy shit

>>52571587
>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

>>52569321
Haven't seen this pasta in a long time

>>52571627

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

>>52571758
>maybe I tried what you mentioned already
You didn't, because a quick Google would show that everyone is booting 10 in 10 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taakavJ0mDI

10 times longer than 7, eh?

>>52571758
>literally too dumb to install Windows

>>52571830

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

>>52569688
>desktop drives

Enjoy your data loss

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.

>>52572027
>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.

>>52572093
t. Samsung

>>52566954
Find me a single hard drive that has even 5% of the random IO performance of even a shitty SSD.

Go ahead, I'll wait...