If you haven’t swapped your HDD for SSD, do it now.
-
Also means that you don't have to fiddle with getting the drive into and out of an enclosure.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
2 things are dead now. ICE cars and mechanical drives. More so mechanical drives but yeah, it is truly beyond anything else, the #1 speed up shop in the arm you can do for your pc today. The greater question is this today: With laptop manufactures falling all over themselves with hybrid drives, optane memory cache, and split ssd/mechanical drive setups all because windows 10 is soo doggy slow about starting up, what the heck is windows 10 doing? Where is the outrage?
-
Sure, they're awesome for ridiculously quick file access. Now price a system for a nice 32TB RAID. I suspect the spinners are still going to come out on top. Different tools for different jobs.
-
2 things are dead now. ICE cars and mechanical drives. More so mechanical drives but yeah, it is truly beyond anything else, the #1 speed up shop in the arm you can do for your pc today. The greater question is this today: With laptop manufactures falling all over themselves with hybrid drives, optane memory cache, and split ssd/mechanical drive setups all because windows 10 is soo doggy slow about starting up, what the heck is windows 10 doing? Where is the outrage?
It has to upload all of your personal data to MS. That's what takes it so long.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
It has to upload all of your personal data to MS. That's what takes it so long.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Where is the outrage? I hope they are happy with who I am. I'm positively the most boring person you ever would want to know.
-
2 things are dead now. ICE cars and mechanical drives. More so mechanical drives but yeah, it is truly beyond anything else, the #1 speed up shop in the arm you can do for your pc today. The greater question is this today: With laptop manufactures falling all over themselves with hybrid drives, optane memory cache, and split ssd/mechanical drive setups all because windows 10 is soo doggy slow about starting up, what the heck is windows 10 doing? Where is the outrage?
first thing to do on windows is disable superfetch service, especially if you have SSD, but even on spinners it would be no longer useful [even if it did work properly]. - at startup it's supposed to load up as many of your "often used apps" into memory as can fit, problem is it's nearly always loading up important windows apps really stupid crap such as wordpad (which for me I might use once every 2 years or less) Of course it kicks out that crap when you use something like visual studio starts up, but guess what happens when you exit vs... - theory is sound, saves loading the apps later [when used] from slow hard disks, but today, even if you are on spinners which in this case are too way fast enough, it's irrelevant - yet MS still includes and enables it even on win 10, even if you have SSD. - It's useless, it actually slows you down! something else I noticed: * windows: when I left my PC on doing nothing (say a lunch break) the hdd light would regularly flicker, every few seconds briefly and about once a minute longer for a second or more (also network activity at about the same rate) ... what is it doing?? - not saying it's all spying (this was in win 7 too), but there is that - yes background maintenance, but why does it reload it and [re]perform the checks every time? * linux: leave it alone and it barely ever flickers, and way less net traffic. [smart enough to leave it loaded if nothing else requires the mem, smart enough to leave it's last-run data loaded.] short explanation: windows inner core design and yes: even a lot of it's actual kernel code, is still based on hardware from the 1970's, windows 10 is NOT a new OS, it's crap on top of an old one (that relies almost exclusively on new hardware base speed (not code) to be "better than before.") Summary: don't blame windows for being bad, instead blame it for being VERY outdated. for those that want something to picture: steam engines built 100+ years ago still work fine, doesn't mean they should be [given a fresh coat of paint and] used for hauling cross continental passengers and freight though does it? ... this is exactly what you have with windows.
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
matblue25 wrote:
4GB of DDR3-1333
There's your problem. Too much swapping. What you maybe should have done is just upgrade the memory to 8 or 16GB -- it would probably have had the same effect on the speed of the device. Also, if you're using virtual memory a lot, you'll wear out the SSD pretty quick, so upgrading the memory is recommended, anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
I just bought a laptop couple of weeks ago but it'n not with SSD, i am planning to install my self one. Thanks for sharing it here, now i will surely install it in that machine. :laugh:
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
Noone talked about reliability. While I am OK for a SSD for the operating system, mechanical discs are still much more reliable than SSD. And we did not talk about size/price ratio. So I think RAID with mechanical still the way to go.
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
I have been working with computers long enough to have seen an long series of placebos - some placebos so strong that they work even for people who don'b believe in them. An old one is from the 386 days, when you had to add an '87 chip (and have a motherboard prepared for it) for floating point hardware: I knew lots of people claiming that the speed of compilation increased significantly after plugging in an '87. A compiler most certainly does not make use of floating point instructions! A more recent one is when people "speed up" their PC by adding another 8 GB to double the RAM size to 16 GB: When I hear this (from a home user - professional use is different), I ask to see the resource use in the Resource Monitor, often to see that less than one fourth of it is actually in use. (And you know that "in use" certainly is no "active working set" - a page that was last addressed ten minutes ago and would take five milliseconds to fetch anew, even on a magnetic disc, is still counted as "in use".) Well, SSD is certainly not a pure placebo: It significantly speeds up the startup of programs, especially those initially loading a lot of resources from a multitude of files (but less so for programs loading resources "lazily", on demand). First time you open, say, one of the MS Office applications, after having installed an SSD, you are in your right to exclaim: Wow! That's where the placebo comes in: Because it starts up so fast, you have a distinct feeling that all subsequent functions are much faster as well. 99% of that is pure psychological. What is needed in memory, is in memory. Maybe a couple disk pages are read now, a few then. Even if there is a physical access, maybe 5 ms is shortened down to less than 1 ms - but remember that all modern magnetic disks have ample sized RAM caches nowadays, so even a megabyte write doesn't have to wait for the rotation or disk arm. The cache is used for prefetching reads as well, and do it quite successfully with NTFS as long as your disk is reasonably defragmented: A large fraction of reads done after program startup are sequential reads of the next block in file - and the block is found in the disk cache. Many high-data-volume applications are also real time in nature: Even though your video player spins through a few megabytes a second when playing a high-def movie, the movie won't play faster from an SSD - and any magnetic disk of this millenium has plenty of speed to keep up. Also, those making applications handling h
-
I have been working with computers long enough to have seen an long series of placebos - some placebos so strong that they work even for people who don'b believe in them. An old one is from the 386 days, when you had to add an '87 chip (and have a motherboard prepared for it) for floating point hardware: I knew lots of people claiming that the speed of compilation increased significantly after plugging in an '87. A compiler most certainly does not make use of floating point instructions! A more recent one is when people "speed up" their PC by adding another 8 GB to double the RAM size to 16 GB: When I hear this (from a home user - professional use is different), I ask to see the resource use in the Resource Monitor, often to see that less than one fourth of it is actually in use. (And you know that "in use" certainly is no "active working set" - a page that was last addressed ten minutes ago and would take five milliseconds to fetch anew, even on a magnetic disc, is still counted as "in use".) Well, SSD is certainly not a pure placebo: It significantly speeds up the startup of programs, especially those initially loading a lot of resources from a multitude of files (but less so for programs loading resources "lazily", on demand). First time you open, say, one of the MS Office applications, after having installed an SSD, you are in your right to exclaim: Wow! That's where the placebo comes in: Because it starts up so fast, you have a distinct feeling that all subsequent functions are much faster as well. 99% of that is pure psychological. What is needed in memory, is in memory. Maybe a couple disk pages are read now, a few then. Even if there is a physical access, maybe 5 ms is shortened down to less than 1 ms - but remember that all modern magnetic disks have ample sized RAM caches nowadays, so even a megabyte write doesn't have to wait for the rotation or disk arm. The cache is used for prefetching reads as well, and do it quite successfully with NTFS as long as your disk is reasonably defragmented: A large fraction of reads done after program startup are sequential reads of the next block in file - and the block is found in the disk cache. Many high-data-volume applications are also real time in nature: Even though your video player spins through a few megabytes a second when playing a high-def movie, the movie won't play faster from an SSD - and any magnetic disk of this millenium has plenty of speed to keep up. Also, those making applications handling h
Anything connected with file i/o will be faster. The act of loading an app, or a data file for an app, will benefit when it's on a SSD. How the apps process after that will not benefit from a SSD UNLESS the system doesn't have a lot of RAM. At that point, disk paging will benefit (as long as the paging destination disk is also a SSD). For raw speed, you want a PCIe nVME drive. It's alll about the width of the bus (and a PCIe nVME drive will always be faster than a SATA SSD).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
matblue25 wrote:
4GB of DDR3-1333
There's your problem. Too much swapping. What you maybe should have done is just upgrade the memory to 8 or 16GB -- it would probably have had the same effect on the speed of the device. Also, if you're using virtual memory a lot, you'll wear out the SSD pretty quick, so upgrading the memory is recommended, anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Probably not. Very few home PCs use 4 GB of RAM actively. Resource Monitor may indicate that you have > 4 GB "in use", but that covers all the data accessed by all the applications you have opened since bootup, and not closed again. And all the services that run once ever hour - or once every forthnight. If you give a command (or a service is woken up) that require a 5 ms disk access, that is a delay of 5 ms, nothing more. Right now I have running a 4-tab firefoc, full Outlook, Lync, Docker, 123 services in "running" state (includeing Java, a Docker engine, Traps antivirus, remote login service, ...), 9 mounted network disks, Resource Monitor ... Still I am below 5 GB total RAM usage. None of the processes are real memory hogs (with the possible exception of Firefox), none of them come even close to half gig of memory use, and out of that, three fourths have not been accessed for minutes. You very rarely have umpteen programs actually executing on your PC; they are waiting for some external event - timer, network input, or your interactive input. The waiting for an event doesn't go faster with more RAM, and you usually entertain only one program with your input at a time. Looking at the page fault count might fool you: To make sort of an LRU memory handling, pages are taken out of the page tables long before removed from memory. When a page fault occurs, the memory handler will see that the disk is still in memory, and do not need to re-read it from disk. So "page fault" does not imply "disk access". On most home PCs, making them really spend a lot of time on swapping (/paging) requires you to set up a rather artificial boquet of simultaneouly processing programs in a way that you never do in when routinely using the machine. You could then set up a test where the PC was chewing ahead with no interactive input to prove that going from 4 to 8, or from 8 to 16 GB RAM, in an extreme program mix could complete a huge task somewhat faster. But if it is non-interactive, who cares about a few seconds? More RAM is a nice placebo, and it is "almost free" nowadays. So if you have a friend constantly complaining that his PC is slow because he has got only 4 GB, and you know that is not the real cause, then you tell him to buy more RAM just to stop his complaints. As a placebo. Besides, this is an excellent placebo so strong that it works even if you don't believe in it: You get rid of all your friend's complaining, even if you don't believe that more RAM has any affect
-
Anything connected with file i/o will be faster. The act of loading an app, or a data file for an app, will benefit when it's on a SSD. How the apps process after that will not benefit from a SSD UNLESS the system doesn't have a lot of RAM. At that point, disk paging will benefit (as long as the paging destination disk is also a SSD). For raw speed, you want a PCIe nVME drive. It's alll about the width of the bus (and a PCIe nVME drive will always be faster than a SATA SSD).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Anything connected with file i/o will be faster.
Not unconditionally. If your rotating disk has a 64 MB RAM buffer (which is not uncommon today), you can write several MB to the disk without waiting for the physical disk access to complete. For piecewise, but sequential, read of a file, either the disk itself or the OS may read a much larger chunk of data - typically: a physical disk track, or an entire NTFS extent (up to a certain maximum) - into a cache, so that your next 'n' I/O-operations do not access the disk at all. From interactive user perspective: More advanced applications do disk I/O in a background thread. Especially for writes, the user need not know when the operation is complete, need not wait, but continue with his next operation. CPU bound systems using double buffering need not be delayed by I/O at all: If processing a disk page requires 10 ms, and the next page is fetched in parallel, it makes no difference if the fetch completes in 5 ms or 500 uS, when there still is either 5 or 9,5 ms of processing left for the previous page. The total time limited by CPU (or GPU or communication line speed or ...), not by disk I/O. It would be more correct to say that any operation that is disk I/O bound, and leads to a physical access to the disk (that is, depending on arm position and rotation - not access to the disk's RAM buffer), will be speeded up. But those situations are really few and far between, except at startup of a program that insists on loading several huge DLLs and accessing them all over before giving control to the user. Even for program startup: Remember that an .exe or .dll is accessed as a memory mapped file: The page table entries are set up to point to the file pages, but the pages are not read into (main) RAM until actually accessed. If the .exe or .dlls are so huge that setting up the page tables takes a whole lot of time, there is very little difference between SSD and magnetic disks, especially on a reasonably defragmented NTFS file system. I have been working on systems where the code designers were very careful to gather everything required for startup and initialization in as few disk pages as possible, to minimze paging before the user got control. A fairly cheap way to increase user satifaction :-)
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
This all works wonderful as long as you don't get into the UEFI vs. legacy boot wars. I'm not even sure one can blame this on Microsoft, but following it's tradition, Microsoft's support web site is full of useless gibberish from support people. I really think it's an early Microsoft AI engine posting solutions.... In any event, if you clone your spinner to an SSD, the SSD might not boot, actually displaying an assortment of exception conditions.
Charlie Gilley <italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape... "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
-
I’ve replaced spinning hard drives (HDD) for SSDs in several computers recently and the difference is amazing. An SSD on a SATA interface is about 10 times faster than a 7200rpm HDD and about 13 times faster than a 5400rpm drive. On my wife’s 2012 laptop (Intel i3-2350M CPU running at 2.3 GHz with 4GB of DDR3-1333), I replaced the original 5400rpm HDD with an SSD and the computer is around 10 times faster. It boots in seconds rather than minutes (Windows 10 Home) and there’s no waiting for web pages to load, no pauses in videos, and so on. I’ve now done the same thing for three of her friends. Prices on good SSDs are incredibly low on Amazon right now. I’ve been using Samsung 860 EVO or SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs. To make the swap, you typically need just three things. The new SSD, a USB 3.0 external disk enclosure and disk cloning software. USB 3.0 enclosures from Sabrent or Inaco are in the $10 range. I’ve used the free versions of EaseUs Todo Backup or Aomei Backupper or Acronis TrueImage to do the cloning. Put the new SSD in the enclosure, clone your existing drive to the SSD and swap out the HDD. A serendipitous advantage is that, after the swap, you can put the old hard drive in the enclosure and use it for backups. Total cost can easily be under $100 depending on the size SSD you need. With GHz CPUs and memory, if you're still running off a HDD, you're probably losing 75% or more of your computer's potential. Note: I just refurbished by own desktop computer with an Intel H270 chipset motherboard and an M.2 SSD with a PCIe x4 interface (Samsung 960 EVO). The configuration is 3 times faster than hooking an SSD up to SATA, but you need a compatible motherboard and SSD, obviously.
When I swapped to an M.2 SSD, I installed W10 over the course of a commercial break. 3 minutes from cold boot to interactive use on a new install; SATA-based can't even come close to that.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
first thing to do on windows is disable superfetch service, especially if you have SSD, but even on spinners it would be no longer useful [even if it did work properly]. - at startup it's supposed to load up as many of your "often used apps" into memory as can fit, problem is it's nearly always loading up important windows apps really stupid crap such as wordpad (which for me I might use once every 2 years or less) Of course it kicks out that crap when you use something like visual studio starts up, but guess what happens when you exit vs... - theory is sound, saves loading the apps later [when used] from slow hard disks, but today, even if you are on spinners which in this case are too way fast enough, it's irrelevant - yet MS still includes and enables it even on win 10, even if you have SSD. - It's useless, it actually slows you down! something else I noticed: * windows: when I left my PC on doing nothing (say a lunch break) the hdd light would regularly flicker, every few seconds briefly and about once a minute longer for a second or more (also network activity at about the same rate) ... what is it doing?? - not saying it's all spying (this was in win 7 too), but there is that - yes background maintenance, but why does it reload it and [re]perform the checks every time? * linux: leave it alone and it barely ever flickers, and way less net traffic. [smart enough to leave it loaded if nothing else requires the mem, smart enough to leave it's last-run data loaded.] short explanation: windows inner core design and yes: even a lot of it's actual kernel code, is still based on hardware from the 1970's, windows 10 is NOT a new OS, it's crap on top of an old one (that relies almost exclusively on new hardware base speed (not code) to be "better than before.") Summary: don't blame windows for being bad, instead blame it for being VERY outdated. for those that want something to picture: steam engines built 100+ years ago still work fine, doesn't mean they should be [given a fresh coat of paint and] used for hauling cross continental passengers and freight though does it? ... this is exactly what you have with windows.
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
Gee, if all what you write were correct and true :-) I wonder: How can you see that wordpad, which you might use once every 2 years, is prefetched? I wonder: How will the computer be slowed down when overwriting pages and page table entries referring to some other application (such as wordpad) as compared to overwriting zeored entries? I wonder: Which hardware from the 1970's affects the Windows design? And in which ways? It can well be argued that the Windows 3.x software memory management was very strongly influenced by the 386 hardware MMS, and at lest on the design level could have been put onto the 386 more or less directly. But at that time, MS was striving to make Windows available on all sorts of processors, so they abandoned essential parts of the 386 MMS in favor of a single, flat memory model that was generally available on all relevant CPUs. What is true is that MS has taken backwards compatibility to extremes (in my opinion): Read Raymond Chen's selections of blogposts from The New Old Thing[^] - quite a few of the (sometimes rather funny) stories he tells have to do with backwards comptatibilty. In contrast to people writing open software in their spare time, MS has to support their existing customer base. As a programmer, I wished that 32 bit Windows would have a thoroughy cleaned-up API (from the 16 bit version), since it couldn't be 100% compatible anyway. We didn't get that - but we got thousands of Windows applications ported from 16 to 32 bits in a few months, because MS decided to bring the API changes to a minimum, to simplify porting. From a marketing point of view (and even more the wiew of independent software vendors making Windows apps, rather than MS itself), I can fully defend that decision. What goes on under the hood is a completely different matter.
-
2 things are dead now. ICE cars and mechanical drives. More so mechanical drives but yeah, it is truly beyond anything else, the #1 speed up shop in the arm you can do for your pc today. The greater question is this today: With laptop manufactures falling all over themselves with hybrid drives, optane memory cache, and split ssd/mechanical drive setups all because windows 10 is soo doggy slow about starting up, what the heck is windows 10 doing? Where is the outrage?
Other than gaming laptops where with the biggest AAA games weighting in >100GB makes just a small SSD not a reasonable choice, and until recently the pricegap between a 240gb SSD and 1tb HDD and a 1tb SSD (good sata type) being rather large (currently with google top result prices it's about $50-75) I'm not really seeing split SSD/HDD storage anywhere and haven't for a while; and as small as the pricegap has gotten I'm half expecting that sort of split storage to disappear in next years mid/high end gaming refreshes. Other than as an option in configurators for semi-custom setups I haven't seen optane anywhere.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Gee, if all what you write were correct and true :-) I wonder: How can you see that wordpad, which you might use once every 2 years, is prefetched? I wonder: How will the computer be slowed down when overwriting pages and page table entries referring to some other application (such as wordpad) as compared to overwriting zeored entries? I wonder: Which hardware from the 1970's affects the Windows design? And in which ways? It can well be argued that the Windows 3.x software memory management was very strongly influenced by the 386 hardware MMS, and at lest on the design level could have been put onto the 386 more or less directly. But at that time, MS was striving to make Windows available on all sorts of processors, so they abandoned essential parts of the 386 MMS in favor of a single, flat memory model that was generally available on all relevant CPUs. What is true is that MS has taken backwards compatibility to extremes (in my opinion): Read Raymond Chen's selections of blogposts from The New Old Thing[^] - quite a few of the (sometimes rather funny) stories he tells have to do with backwards comptatibilty. In contrast to people writing open software in their spare time, MS has to support their existing customer base. As a programmer, I wished that 32 bit Windows would have a thoroughy cleaned-up API (from the 16 bit version), since it couldn't be 100% compatible anyway. We didn't get that - but we got thousands of Windows applications ported from 16 to 32 bits in a few months, because MS decided to bring the API changes to a minimum, to simplify porting. From a marketing point of view (and even more the wiew of independent software vendors making Windows apps, rather than MS itself), I can fully defend that decision. What goes on under the hood is a completely different matter.
Member 7989122 wrote:
wonder: How can you see that wordpad, which you might use once every 2 years, is prefetched?
well, look in \windows\prefetch, and there it is. I even see sidebar - which I never used and in fact disabled years ago. I'm really glad ms has my best intentions in mind loading those important apps.
Member 7989122 wrote:
wonder: How will the computer be slowed down when overwriting pages and page table entries referring to some other application (such as wordpad) as compared to overwriting zeored entries?
Umm, it's slowed down because it's loading that say wordpad from the disk into memory, and when I exit visual studio, it loads it back again and hence, superfetch is useless. even if you have spinners it really should be disabled. If you have SSD it's almost important to disable it. (and despite some claims it does not auto disable if it sees SSD - that's just another myth.)
Member 7989122 wrote:
I wonder: Which hardware from the 1970's .... , so they abandoned essential parts of the 386 MMS in favor of a single, flat memory model that was generally available on all relevant CPUs.
glad you agree with me: "a single, flat memory model ... all relevant CPU's" which includes the 186, 286, 386..., and are they not from the 70's? so yes, it's [your words] using a single model that supports all architectures thus including 70's and thus not able to make use of optimizations of later CPU's. yes, sure, it's for backwards compatibility, and yes for backward compat, but really what's the point? there's features of w7 and beyond the 80286 will not handle, so why leave an outdated major core function that by design of other parts of the system is actually irrelevant?? (and how can ms claim w10 is an entirely new OS when it's core is that old?). anyway just glad we and agree and your input to further detail it for others.
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
