11/5/15 4:06 PM

Looking at a new computer and trying to decide between a 1TB hard drive or a 256GB SSD. I have a 268 GB hard drive now and only 47 GB is used, so space doesn't appear to be an issue. I assume the SSD will be much faster - is that correct? Any other pros and cons to consider?
I only buy a new computer every 6 years or so and so don't keep track of all the issues.

11/5/15 4:10 PM

SSD if a battery powered note/lap will have longer unplugged in windows of use?

11/5/15 5:57 PM

SSD is a lot faster at accessing programs (sorry -"apps"), I installed a 500gb on my very slow (processor) Lenovo, made a world of difference.

As well, SSD's are better at taking physical hits, if that's ever been a problem for you, or if this is a laptop.

I think there can be some location data erosion over a long period, but you get something similar with HD's when bad sectors develop.

I paid $250 for 500 gb a year ago. I see that a PNY 480 gb SSD is running around $150 now. They are as BTW, super easy to install. I purchased the drive plus install kit plus cloning software from Crucial. The cloning and install took 30 minutes and a small screwdriver.

11/5/15 9:25 PM

There are SSDs and there are SSDs. Some are faster than others, depending on the technology involved. The tradeoff is speed vs. price. As pricing pressure increases, manufacturers are finding ways to make SSDs cheaper but slower.

See for example, http://www.anandtech.com/tag/ssd

Hard drives are always going to be slower though. One smart system is to combine an SSD with a HD. The system automatically migrates stuff you access more often to the SSD. That way you get both speed and capacity.

11/5/15 9:36 PM

+1 SSD, fast and tough, any weaknesses have been addressed for a few years. The one that was most often raised was write cycles, as in the transistors used to "wear out." That issue was initially patched with firmware that more evenly distributed the writes throughout the drive. The next generations retained that logic but also at the bit-level (each transistor) the hardware is now more robust.

Storage is so cheap, good fast and cheap, choose any three.

11/6/15 10:12 AM

My setup is: SSD for the computer, internally, and complimented with an external USB connected hard drive to for large storage, like videos and photos, and to back up frequently accessed/edited files.

11/6/15 3:09 PM

There is no longer any reason to use a physical device for storing data. OK, they're cheaper. SSDs are generally faster, more robust physically, use less power, and are silent.

Three years ago when I was hit and fractured a hip, I landed on the notebook in my bag with significant force. At the hospital, it booted right up. I had installed a 128 GB SSD in it a few months before. If it had been running on the original hard drive? *maybe*.

I've now set up three machines with SSDs in the past five or six years, and it's cost about the same each time, even though I've gone from a 64 to a 128 to a 256 GB drive.

They aren't the wave of the future. They're the wave of now.

11/6/15 3:36 PM

My iMac has a "Fusion" drive- a small SSD with a large HD. It starts so fast it is unbelievable. Maybe 12 seconds from off to login.

We also have a standard HDD iMac and it takes about 45 seconds to login.

I vote SSD 100%.

11/6/15 3:43 PM

If we are talking SSD and portable, boot time means.. what. Mine almost never gets rebooted and just wakes up to a login in 2-3 seconds. So help me understand the boot up time benefit?

11/6/15 3:51 PM

Come on Sparky-you have a windows machine and rarely restart? :)

11/6/15 4:13 PM

Several actually. But I dig deep into running services and stop auto starting of a lot of BS. I have been in the registry of this one plenty until I got it the way I want. I do not think I have rebooted this last one since I got it. My old / last top is under the table and I just open it a wake it up and use it when the new one is piping Downton Abbey out the HDMI port. ;) The old one with Windows 8 only reboots upon major updates. And it does take a while then to apply that crap and reboot.

11/6/15 4:33 PM

I would always choose the fastest reboot, but I'm not the most patient person.

11/6/15 4:52 PM

Modern Windows machines can go weeks or months between reboots. Of course, that's not always wise (it wouldn't be for any machine). When I worked in software, I would occasionally get a call from a sales person who couldn't get the software running, so I'd ask something like "When did you last reboot?" And they'd tell me it had been three weeks (this was in the XP days). I'd have them reboot and everything cleaned right up.

I think with my Win 8.1 machine I once went for a couple of months without rebooting...Win 10 is still getting updates that require reboots once in a while,so...

11/6/15 5:02 PM

We had departmental Novell Netware servers that ran literally years without being rebooted. That is until central IT came out with the mandate that all servers be rebooted at least once a month. Of course that was in reaction to some troublesome Windows NT Servers.

11/6/15 5:58 PM

+1 on Novell Servers, especially after RAID Array and hot swapping came into play...

11/6/15 7:52 PM

LINUX

11/6/15 8:01 PM

Which was a joke when I was a CNE. Look what is the joke now though...

Last edited by Sparky on 11/6/15 9:40 PM; edited 1 time in total

11/6/15 8:51 PM

I hardly ever reboot the Win10 machine with the SSD.

When I do, typically on a software update, it takes about 25 seconds

11/7/15 2:53 PM

In theory; yes, but Windows is likely to reboot for you with one of its many software updates.

11/7/15 5:40 PM

When my 2Tb HDD ran out of space - too many photo, videos, and ripped CDs - I purchased a Seagate 4Tb hybrid SSHD. This has 8Gb of NAND flash in addition to the spinning platters, and caches the most frequently used files to the flash storage for faster access. So depending on the workload, it can be substantially faster than an HDD, though still not as fast as an SSD. However, the drive cost me slightly less than a 500Gb SSD, so on a dollars per Gb basis it was about 10% of the price of purchasing the same amount of SSD storage.

And on the frequency of reboot issue, when I was a CNE in the early 90s, our NetWare 3.11 servers routinely ran for over a year between reboots. I think our record between reboots was about 600 days. One of the staff took a photo of the console just before we shut the server down to move it.

11/7/15 6:16 PM

My 2011 iMac is telling me it needs a new drive, I plan on doing the swap myself and may go SSD/HD with a HD backup. I have not dug into it to much yet but I know I can do the work myself. I have watch a few videos on Youtube. With Youtube instruction and the right tools I can do neurosurgery.

Part Number, Nick?

11/7/15 6:30 PM

" One of the staff took a photo of the console just before we shut the server down to move it."

It was a badge of honor when a server under you watch hit high numbers of hours since reboot to be sure.

I ran a 3.12 server at home until 2002. Big SCSI drive with tons of memory for the cache.

Elevator seeking, what Novell called the method/design for having most stuff in the cache instead of reading from disk per request was great. Best part was the NOS would sweep the HD, read ahead and store into buffers. Instead of the jerky back and forth seeking most OSs' had the HD read/write heads doing made for long HD life as well...

11/7/15 10:00 PM

The ONLY reason one should reboot is for OS updates.

I don't always update my machine as what Microsoft requested. So yes, my Windows machine run for a long time too.

Those days when the machine crashes or hangs, are for the most part long gone. It rarely happen now. Many software don't require reboot after install.

11/7/15 10:31 PM

quote:

---

Part Number, Nick?

---

11/8/15 5:34 PM

Bummer, don't think they will run in my iMac.