Hey all. I need to buy a replacement harddrive for my laptop,

>>302485
what kind of laptop ?usually just buy any 2,5" hdd (ssd if you wanna upgrade)

>>302485
go for the well known names like seagate, western digital. should be no problem

>>302485
>1TB 5400 RPM, SATA 6gb/s
these are your specs.

>>302486
It's an ASUS (one of the ones that folds in half so it becomes basically an oversized tablet). Is it being 2.5" the only thing that matters? If I were to upgrade to SSD (always had the standard), what info do I need in order to buy the right one? Or will pretty much any SSD fit? Also, thanks for the response

>>302488
Thanks for the input. I know that obviously I can pick any data capacity and that won't affect whether or not it will be compatible with my laptop, but do the other properties like RPM and SATA (I don't know what this is, but I guess I can google it) matter? Are they properties for which the bigger the number, the better?

>>302491
I know, but I was wondering if those HAVE to remain the same or not. For example, I know you can obviously change the amount of storage without a problem. But say for example I got a harddrive with a different RPM or SATA - would the harddrive still work, or will it somehow be incompatible. Again, I'm not at all hardware proficient, so I apologize if these are really dumb questions

>>302492
rpm meaning the rotations per minute , speed the disk spins. Sata is your connection port. the red cables not the grey big old ones (the newer connection standard so to speak)

the size of your harddisk is the only real thing that matters if you stick to the rest of your specs.

pcs usually have 3,5" hdd (bigger ones) laptops usually have 2,5" (small ones, figured that ,right?)

if you can find a 7200rpm hdd, buy it.

if you can find bigger ones (2 TB...) buy it.

Real thing to consider for you : SATA, 2,5" .

>>302485

Get an SSD, the difference in performance is well worth the price

>>302495
...also a laptop HDD usually is 2,5" and only spins around 5000rpm
the bigger ones 3,5" spin with 7200rpm

>>302496
also weight and noise reduction !!

>>302495
>Real thing to consider for you : SATA, 2,5"
this is all you need to maintain (there were/are laptops with different size and connectors but they are not that common, also sata version is not relevant since its is a backwards compatible standard, although most recent versions should provide better "performance" [native command queue should help quite a bit])
would just like to add that just to you can get a "faster" (lower access time) drive with higher rpm but it will increase the power usage of the laptop, and thus decrease battery operation time (not by much but enough for you to notice it)

>>302485
>the old HD is HGST, 1TB 5400 RPM, SATA 6gb/s.
Any other SATA HD of the same physical size will probably be fine. (That's 2.5" size - the TB doesn't matter, the more the merrier, same with RPM.)

I do suggest getting an SSD. Provided it's a Windows 7 or later laptop, it shouldn't have any problems with it.

Mind you, either way, you will have to reinstall the OS. Make sure you have the shit you need to do that, as the restore partition will no longer be there. It may look like the restore partition and the regular data storage are on separate drives when ya open the file browser, but that's usually just a partition.

>>302497
Nah, RPM's tend to be either 5400 or 7200 these days. It isn't about the size of the drive, but the power consumption/performance. You can get 7200RPM 2.5" hard drives, and 5200RPM 3.5" drives are not uncommon.

Really though, HD's that spin are getting kinda legacy. Get an SSD.

>>302495
Great response, thank you for taking the time to answer. I really appreciate it.

>>302496
Do SSDs have a lower failure rate? Pretty sure the reason the old one failed (lots of clicking and eventual boot failure) was because I moved it around a lot (while working in design programs and while saving data)

>>302499
thanks for the info. I had never heard of SATA until I took out the harddrive. And speaking of SATA

>>302501
>That's 2.5" size

Does this imply that SATA is directly related to the size, or did I misinterpret what you meant?

>>302505
no problemo
no connection between size and sata.
SSD is the way to go. search youtube for sata stress test (throwing them thru basketballhoops and stuff)

>>302508
ssd stress test of course*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zQondEvPM

>>302493


Why would it? The disk will require a cetain amount of power for its motor, ifyour laptop can deliver that then it is completely irrelevant what he internal spect like RPM, tech etc. are. to the system the disk is just a black box which delivers data and can be sent some which it will then store at a certain speed. How it INTERNALLY works is uninteresting, it is normal S-ATA so it can communicate with the system and uses a known protocal and when being sent data after a while gives back the message "Allright, delivered data saved!", that is all the system cares about.
That is after all why putting in SSD- a completely different technology- without any modification is possible in the first place, the disk's controller does everything, the system just gets data and sends some to it...

>>302505
like the other anons are saying, if the laptop isnt going to be used to store massive amounts of data, then a ssd upgrade would make much more sense (way faster system responsiveness and lower power usage). 128gb is a pretty decent size for its price,but nothing prevents you from going lower or higher in capacity (besides price ofc)

File: cable.jpg (41KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x200px

>>302505
SATA is the cabling. The drives they connect to generally come in 2.5" and 3.5" size. Suffice to say the 3.5" inchers do not fit in laptops.

Pretty much all hard drives use SATA cabling these days, be they SSD or not.

>>302517
do not go lower then 128GB, if windows 7 it will take around 30-60 gb depending on your other software installed. you have to make two partitions. formating will take up some space too leaving you with around 111GB. so minimum 60 gb for windows partition and the rest would be partition two. that is not much space to save stuff.
go with 250 gb ssd or bigger i would recommend.

>>302522
Seconding this, go at least 128GB - Windows may install on a 64GB hard drive, but it grows, and it won't be long until it fills the whole damned thing and you're constantly hunting for shit to delete.

You can get 1TB SSD's now for a reasonable cost.

The failure rate in desktops for SSD's is actually *slightly* higher, but on laptops it's generally lower, as, yes, no moving parts, and laptops are more apt to be jarred.

Your laptop will take SATA 3bs/s as well, but it won't be as fast (plus I'm not sure they really sell those anymore). Generally laptops aren't very finicky about the hard drive specs - if it fits in there, it'll use it, so just go after whatever fits your pocket book and the slot.

>>302508
entertaining videos for sure haha. Guy hit a homerun with one and it still worked. Crazy stuff!

>>302517
Thanks! I pretty much just do some basic design programs and office stuff - no gaming or movie files or anything like that, so SSD would probably be ideal

>>302521
Ah, okay I see. Are the 2.5" generally 6 Gb/s like my old HD, or do they vary? I may as well try to learn me some computin' if anons are willing to lend their wisdom.

>>302522
I think 250 would be ideal. Like I told the other anon up there, I don't have a huge need for massive storage capabilities

Thanks again to everyone who is helping out by pitching in their info! I'm taking in as much wisdom as I can

>>302505
>Do SSDs have a lower failure rate? Pretty sure the reason the old one failed (lots of clicking and eventual boot failure) was because I moved it around a lot

That is because normal HDDs have a spinning platter and mechanic reding arm- in other words moving parts. if forces impact movement that can lead to the head touching the platter or mechanisms gtting damaged and much more.
SSD stands for SOLID STATE DRIVE, meaning no moving mechanic parts, only electrons. SSDs are therefore very shock resistant, think about it this way: Can you shake an USB stick and mix together the saved data on it?

>>302529
>Ah, okay I see. Are the 2.5" generally 6 Gb/s like my old HD, or do they vary? I may as well try to learn me some computin' if anons are willing to lend their wisdom.
Most of the newer ones are 6gb/s. Again, the laptop will probably take any SATA, but best to go with the fastest.

>I may as well try to learn me some computin' if anons are willing to lend their wisdom.
Keep in mind, again, the hard part might be reinstalling the OS. Do you have a USB key with your current flavor of Windows on it? Do you know how to make your laptop boot from said key? Be sure to learn this shit before tearing out your old hard drive!

>>302534
if OPs harddrive is already fried there is no chance of entering asus partition and reinstall windows (usually asus laptops come with a windows preinstalled on a extra partition on hdd)

>>302529
>Ah, okay I see. Are the 2.5" generally 6 Gb/s like my old HD, or do they vary?

That's where RPM comes into calculation, the faster a HDD spins the more data it can read (simplified speaking)- but the more power it needs and the more sensitive it gets.
SSD are much faster than every HDD. That- and not the no moving parts thing (after all you can buy sevaral HDDs for the price of one SDD)- is what lead to their use in the first place. They are incredibly fast. If you take another HDD that has your drive's RPM again, then it will have 6 GB/s again.

>>302529
homerun ? post link

>>302537
True, though often non-nerds will think their HD is fried, when it's really just their OS.

If it boots at all, and it's Windows 7, ya might be able to save yourself some cash by holding F8 during boot, and restoring from the Factory Image (or if yer lucky, even System Restore).

If it's Windows 10, and you can't at least get to the login screen, you'll need a USB stick and another computer to make a recovery USB and try the same.

>(lots of clicking and eventual boot failure)
Okay, so maybe it's actually toast. Yeah, that's what ya usually get when the head gets knocked off its rocker. Nadda ya can do but replace the darn thing.

You're still going to have to learn to install your OS though.

File: hgst-hard-drive-619.jpg (38KB, 619x379px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 619x379px

>>302545
do not thrwo away your old hdd. dismantle it. there are some nice magnets inside and at least two lovely beercoaster (the spinning disks)

>>302545
>(lots of clicking and eventual boot failure)
With about a 50% success rate, I've managed to fix that, though it's the most redneck solution I've found:

Stick the hard drive in a plastic bag with one or two of those "keep dry" silica gel packets ya get in some foods, and stick it in a freezer overnight. About half the time, this will fix it.

Granted, I only use that as a data-recovery trick. I wouldn't want to rely on a hard drive that was resurrected that way.

>>302534
That's one thing I do know at least a little about. As the HD was failing (but before completely doing so) I was reading up on all that and made sure to make a USB backup. I managed to reinstall one time after it initially failed, then it fully crapped out, and that's where I am now

>>302539
Is there a noticeable difference? What kind of task do you need to be doing to see the difference? Or can you just easily realize (wow everything is so much quicker!)? And by "more sensitive" do you mean that since it's spinning much faster, a nudge of the laptop would cause more damage than if the same nudge were applied at a lower RPM?

>>302542
haha sorry, not literally. Just hit it with a bat 20 feet or so, and it got warped but still booted the laptop

>>302545
yeah, its one of the versatile laptops and I stupidly moved it around a lot while working on it. 99% sure that's what killed the beast

>>302550
haha damn. Well I mean none of the data was of "I NEED it back" nature, but it would be nice to get some of it back, so what the hell, I'll give it a shot

>>302550
you can always try to dissamble your old hdd and try to fix the click of death by hand. worth a shot. if you are worried about the dust there are some freaky solutions out there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEa0Wc9iUc

>>302553
Damn, if only I had a dust proof chamber. I don't know shit about the internals of a HD, but I guess I could check out some tutorials and give it a shot. I mean, I literally can't screw it up any more, short of literally setting it on fire or breaking it in half, so I guess it's worth a try, right?

>>302554
it is. get a nice,cheap set of mini screwdrivers. they come in packages at stores for cheap. hdd is no big thing to disassemble. search for hdd click of death

>>302554
but remember good friend. your hdd is dead. dont do any serious stuff with it from now on if it starts back up. backup your stuff.

>>302552
>s there a noticeable difference? What kind of task do you need to be doing to see the difference?

You'll see it. basicall everything that requires reading data from disk is immensly accelerated. The Desktop is there in seconds, the browser opens pretty much immediately, Photoshop is open in a second...
The real thing for an SSD however is gaming, games load much much faster. If you heavily use modern huge games it enhances the experience a lot. Also for exapmple if you do video editing where huge masses of data are shifted around.
Basically it is the question if you can wait. You can live without an SSD no problem but people who once experienced it normally don't want to go back again.

>>302552
>Is there a noticeable difference?
Standard to SSD, is night and day mother fucker. Nothing is bottlenecking your computer's performance more than the hard drive. (Save maybe your internet, depending on how shit your net is.)

>>302561
absolutly.
more speed but lesser weight, heat, noise. so much things are pointing to an SSD. especially if you are putting it into a laptop.

>>302561
>>302565
>>302566

Do you guys have any recommendations for a good SSD (or a good site; I know newegg is good but that's the only major one I know)? I'd like to keep from breaking the bank, but I know that SSD's aren't cheap (and obv for good reason). I don't need anything huge either. I don't play any games on it and I don't have any overly-strenuous programs.

>>302568
A smaller ~250GB SSD runs about the same prices as a large regular 1-2TB drive, so they aren't *that* expensive.

My personal opinion is to avoid Western Digital, but it maybe anecdotal, as others swear by it. Still, I do data recovery on the size, and I see more dead WD's than any other brand.

Corsair makes fairly nice SSD's. Samsung, Adata, and Kingston all make tolerable ones. The tech inside them isn't radically different, so for the most part, you're looking at performance/price ratios.

I'd link ya up, but 4chan thinks it is spam.

>>302572
>avoid Western Digital
indeed
parking the heads every 8 or so seconds is a joke
>https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/please-set-the-record-straight-does-wd-green-drives-have-head-parking.2303780/

>>302568
One unintuitive thing with SSD's - if you've been defragging your HDD for performance, that's great and all, but don't do it with an SSD. It won't kill it, but it doesn't help it and just adds wear and tear. Those bits do lose charge eventually, and repeated unnecessary data rearrangement should be avoided.

Windows Vista+ does defragging in the background anyways, and Win7+ is smart enough not to do it on an SSD - but something like Razer Game Boost may not be smart enough not to do so.

>>302572
>>302574
oops, thought you were referring to wd hdds
>t didn't read before posting

>>302568
Samsung evo 840 (or 850)
OCZ Vertex II, III ...

>>302568

>I don't play any games on it and I don't have any overly-strenuous programs

Then you don't really "need" a SSD. As I see it the biggest speed boost would be OS booting, but if you as normal use the hibernating option and not full shutdown that doesn't take that long anyway. No programs that use exessive loading either... the boost will still be there, but aside from a first time WOW! moment I see not that much advantage desu. Size seems to be more relevant to your needs than speed. How about a nice 2GB HDD instead then?

>>302577
Actually I was - I haven't gotten a dead WD SSD in yet, but they don't make very many of them. Still, I don't trust that company. I had one place that purchased all ten WD hard drives at the same time to upgrade their office puters, and they all failed, in the exact same fashion, all within a month of each other. That sounds more like "planned obsolescence" than incompetence.

>>302580
i had all major brands die on me (HDD). it isn't WD fault. it is the way HDD are functioning. dying HDD within a month does not sound like planned obsolescnce. it sounds more like a bad charge. faulty production.

>>302579
>Then you don't really "need" a SSD. As I see it the biggest speed boost would be OS booting
No man, just no.

I mean, yes, if you're talking using an entirely different operating system (GNU FTW!), yes, that might make a bigger difference than swapping out a standard HDD for an SSD... But with Windows, no amount of OS optimization is going to make a fraction of the difference swapping out a standard HDD for an SSD will.

Optimizing Windows helps, of course, but the hard drive really is the bit of hardware that's slowing your computer more than any other.

The only reason to use a standard hard drive is more data on the cheap. On my desktops, I use a 1TB SSD for the OS and a few games, and four 2TB standards for everything else, but I would never build a computer with main hard drive standard, even if I was trying to build it on the cheap.

>>302582
I should clarify - they didn't fail within a month, they all failed within the same month.

They lasted one year - exactly the length of the manufacturer warranty at the time, plus one month.

To use the local colloquial, that's very (((suspicious))).

>>302572
Very interesting. Anecdotal info is always appreciated, especially if you do that kind of work. and when someone else (>>302574) agrees.

>>302575
I never really got into the habit of defragging (maybe once or twice total) but I'll keep that I mind. Do you happen to know specifically why defragging a SSD is bad (versus why its not so bad on a HD)? What about Windows 10?

>>302579
Well the reason I was considering a SDD is because there's no head/platter, and because of the nature of the laptop I have (one of those flip ones that turns into what is essentially an oversized tablet), I tend to move it around a lot, which obviously wouldn't be as big of a problem with a SSD vs a HD.

>>302584
(((I see what you did there)))

and I lol'd

>>302586
>Do you happen to know specifically why defragging a SSD is bad (versus why its not so bad on a HD)? What about Windows 10?
Regular old hard drives lives are measured in spins, while SSD's are measured in data transfers. Defragging is basically a massive data transfer, and on an SSD, that's being done for no particular reason. Data being contiguous doesn't help SSD transfers.

Win10, like Win7&8, is smart enough not to passively needlessly defrag an SSD. If you never got into the habit of doing it, you don't have to worry about the computer doing it on its own - not that it is a real big deal anyways.

Another good thing with SSD's and laptops, is that laptops usually power down their HD's automatically. This is the roughest thing you can do to a standard hard drive (which is why spin-life isn't a very accurate measurement), but an SSD doesn't give a shit.

Though powering your computer off and on is still the roughest non-physical thing you're apt to do to it on a regular basis - but as laptops get hot, better to keep em off when not in use. (Same for desktops with shit cooling.)

>exactly the length of the manufacturer
u right, that sounds like planned obsolescence

>>302592
Ahh okay, that makes sense. And I had no idea about the auto powering down point that you made. Very interesting!

>>302594
they dun goof'd

>>302586
>and when someone else (>>302574) agrees
see >>302577
I misinterpreted the post and though it was referring to WD Hdds. i have no experience, good or bad, with WD SSDs
although >>302584 does look rather "interesting"

>>302592
All that said, SSD erase blocks (64kb-128kb) are much larger than NTFS sectors (4kb), so contiguous files and contiguous free space helps minimise write amplification.

None of this really matters, though, because SSDs are nowhere near as fragile as they're portrayed.

Unless they're made by OCZ. It's apt that their company name looks like a fat man having a heart attack.

>>302579
Actually, this is the perfect use case for an SSHD:

- cheaper than an SSD
- bigger than an SSD
- much faster than a hard disk

An SSHD is a had disk with an SSD built into it. The SSD sits between the computer and the disk, and all the data you use ends up on the SSD, and all the data you don't use is stored on the hard disk.

>>302644
Meh, I tried one of those once, I was not impressed. Seems to be a bit of a gimmick - though it was awhile ago, maybe the technology has improved... Still, better just to go with the SSD, as while, on the one hand, it's supposed the best of both worlds, it's also the worst of both worlds.

Maybe if I had a four pack of them laying about I *might* consider a Raid setup, but I doubt even that would keep up with the SSD (not to mention be a huge waste of space).

File: 1461057604063.jpg (741KB, 1157x1080px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1157x1080px

>>302644

>>302738
They're hugely dependent on NCQ, so if your SATA interface can't do that (for instance if it's a netbook with a PATA interface and a SATA bridge), then the SSD can't serve any sectors the whole time an HDD command is ongoing. There's no way for the device to fix this, because without NCQ it doesn't get to reorder requests.

With NCQ they fly, because they use the time the HDD is seeking and the SATA cable is free to dump SSD sectors down it.