• Netbook + SSD =?
    40 replies, posted
Hey Guys. Would you guys recommend buying an SSD Drive for a netbook? Newegg has one on sale which im considering buying from. OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) for 90$ How long do SSD Drives last? Would it make any visible speed change other than booting? Gracias. :D
SSD's last longer than a normal hard drive due to having no mechanical parts and producing next to no heat. They're built to be durable. They're also a helluva lot faster than a standard drive so yes your applications would load quicker. Anything read/written to the drive would be faster too.
They last, from what I've heard, 4x as long as a normal drive. It would make a difference in [i]everything[/i]. Your programs would boot faster, and everything. I say it'd be worth it.
just don't be silly and do something like defrag it
1. turn off pagefile 2. Don't install Linux or XP(TRIM support), use win7 3. don't defrag it you will experience better 1. battery life 2. speed- general usage and bootups
Why wouldn't you recommend Linux on it? And how differently are the standard hard drive and ssd? (Other than the usual mechanical parts)
[QUOTE=stuky4ever;30815626]Why wouldn't you recommend Linux on it? And how differently are the standard hard drive and ssd? (Other than the usual mechanical parts)[/QUOTE] [quote]Don't install Linux or XP([b]TRIM support[/b])[/quote] That's why And what do you want to know on how they are different? SSD's are better than mechanical in every category because there are no moving parts and the speeds are terrific.
[QUOTE=ManningQB18;30816148]That's why And what do you want to know on how they are different? SSD's are better than mechanical in every category because there are no moving parts and the speeds are terrific.[/QUOTE] Alright thanks. Last question haha. My netbook is a ASUS EEE PC 1001PX-MU27-BK. Spec says 250GB SATA Hard Drive, Would SATA, SATA II, and SATA III SSD Drive work fine on the netbook?
Ext4 on Linux 2.6.33 and newer supports TRIM. (Also brtfs)
[QUOTE=ManningQB18;30816148]SSD's are better than mechanical in every category because there are no moving parts and the speeds are terrific.[/QUOTE] Lol, what. SSDs can't touch anywhere near the maximum capacity of mechanical drives, and has a megabyte:dollar ratio that's about 10 times worse than RAM prices in the 1990's. The only affordable SSDs are so small that you can barely install Vista/7 and have enough room for anything else.
[QUOTE=bohb;30822135]Lol, what. SSDs can't touch anywhere near the maximum capacity of mechanical drives, and has a megabyte:dollar ratio that's about 10 times worse than RAM prices in the 1990's. The only affordable SSDs are so small that you can barely install Vista/7 and have enough room for anything else.[/QUOTE] Win 7 only wants to hog ~23GB. The rest of a 64GB drive will be fine for apps.
[QUOTE=LCD;30822166]Win 7 only wants to hog ~23GB. The rest of a 64GB drive will be fine for apps.[/QUOTE] That's fine and dandy if you don't install Windows updates and disable the shadow copy service and system restore. Otherwise, you can tack on another 20 GB or more to the default ~20 GB install.
Windows Ultimate with updates is only 18GB here.
[QUOTE=bohb;30822307]That's fine and dandy if you don't install Windows updates and disable the shadow copy service and system restore. Otherwise, you can tack on another 20 GB or more to the default ~20 GB install.[/QUOTE] I fit my copy of Windows 7 on my old 32GB SSD fine with 5-10 or so spare GB over a long period.
Win7 with updates here, almost 30gb
How long does a standard HDD last on average? I have one from like 1999 somewhere, and I also have drives that have fucked off after a few months.
[QUOTE=bohb;30822135]Lol, what. SSDs can't touch anywhere near the maximum capacity of mechanical drives, and has a megabyte:dollar ratio that's about 10 times worse than RAM prices in the 1990's. The only affordable SSDs are so small that you can barely install Vista/7 and have enough room for anything else.[/QUOTE] I wasn't putting price into the equation, since that would be the only reason to not buy a terabyte SSD.
[QUOTE=ManningQB18;30826200]I wasn't putting price into the equation, since that would be the only reason to not buy a terabyte SSD.[/QUOTE] It's important to point out that most normal people can't afford to [i]not[/i] put price into the equation.
[QUOTE=jaybuz;30822619]Windows Ultimate with updates is only 18GB here.[/QUOTE] Windows 7 Ultimate bitches if I make the VHD under 23GB, and refuses to install.
[QUOTE=ManningQB18;30816148]That's why And what do you want to know on how they are different? [b]SSD's are better than mechanical in every category[/b] because there are no moving parts and the speeds are terrific.[/QUOTE] Limited read/write cycles, but the fact that HDDs are more likely to fail kinda makes up for it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;30829784]Limited read/write cycles, but the fact that HDDs are more likely to fail kinda makes up for it.[/QUOTE] Arent they effectively infinite in everyday uses(assuming they don't defray or something)? The real limit is the battery thing in them which limits the ssd to ~10 years.
From what I've read there are two things to keep in mind about Vertex 2 SSDs: 1. Under I think 90gb storage they are slower. It's something about nand gates or whatever, but generally 90gb and over are what get reviewed and benchmarked. You won't get the same performance from the 40-80gb versions of the same drive. They'll still be faster than a mechanical harddrive though. 2. You don't want the 'E' version, as in OCZSSD2-2VTX[b]E[/b]60G. That's because it's a newer revision of the Vertex 2 that includes some kind of extra error checking or something that effectively slows down performance. You want the original G version only. Otherwise you'll wind up with an SSD that's slower in two different ways than what you think you're supposed to get. On the other hand, now you know, so if you're okay with it then go for it.
[QUOTE=LCD;30828335]Windows 7 Ultimate bitches if I make the VHD under 23GB, and refuses to install.[/QUOTE] I checked again. Windows folder(20GB) + User folder(284MB) = 20.28GB. I think Service pack 1 must have added a gig or something. What's VHD.
[QUOTE=jaybuz;30837408]What's VHD.[/QUOTE] Virtual Hard Drive, part of Windows Vista+
[QUOTE=LCD;30822166]Win 7 only wants to hog ~23GB. The rest of a 64GB drive will be fine for apps.[/QUOTE] what? I installed windows 7 on a 15GB partition with room to spare, what on earth are you doing? [editline]1st July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;30829784]Limited read/write cycles, but the fact that HDDs are more likely to fail kinda makes up for it.[/QUOTE] Not really, intel estimates 1000GB per day for 10 years is the life span, mechanical drives last 5 years then the spindle starts ware out (EMC study), I wouldn't call it limited...
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;30815542]1. turn off pagefile 2. Don't install Linux or XP(TRIM support), use win7 3. don't defrag it you will experience better 1. battery life 2. speed- general usage and bootups[/QUOTE] Why turn off pagefile?
[QUOTE=waxrock;30839413]Why turn off pagefile?[/QUOTE] Conserves writes and reads. You shouldn't need it anyways.
I don't think I need to worry about read/write limits considering Intel's estimates.
[QUOTE=waxrock;30839413]Why turn off pagefile?[/QUOTE] you don't need pagefile in 2011.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;30838927]what? I installed windows 7 on a 15GB partition with room to spare, what on earth are you doing?[/QUOTE] I find that real hard to believe. [QUOTE=JohnEdwards;30838927]Not really, intel estimates 1000GB per day for 10 years is the life span, mechanical drives last 5 years then the spindle starts ware out (EMC study), I wouldn't call it limited...[/QUOTE] I have at least a dozen drives that are 14 years old and older that have had regular use for that span of time, and they all still work fine. I even have one drive from 1988 that gets semi-regular use and it still works fine. That study was crap.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.