to load windows vista in 10 seconds and xp in 5 so i purchased one....a 30gig with a write speed of 160 NO BUFFER pwnz normal hard drives har har har really alls it is is for the OS nothing else keep it NICE and fast on its way THURSDAYYY
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227359 Om nom nom its 170 i lied...the write speed means nothing so if you are sceptical of my purchase...do not read write speed i was looking only for the read samsung made this drive OCZ labled it
It's a solid state drive. No spin up times or anything like a normal hard drive. It's like having a really huge usb jumpdrive mounted in your computer...only it's alot bigger and alot faster
Oh yes. SSD's are freakin' awesome for OS use. Makes your computer blisteringly fast for normal operation. Load your OS on an SSD drive, then use a SATA HDD for data storage and everything else.
if yall are wondering why me and jason love SSD...go to youtube search up SSD xp load or something...
I must not do fancy enough things cause I have never had the thought that my computer wasn't fast enough. congrats though it sounds neat.
O nice dude! I've been looking into one of these or a wd velociraptor for myself. Be sure to let me know how it works for you!
Yeah, this is my next jump once my 10k rpm drive bites the dust. Also, this is another thread that needs to go in the "girls girls be my girls" hall of fame.
Alot of companies (Dell is one of them) put 10k sata drives in for boot drives on higher end machines. They are faster and more expensive, but were worth it. Now with solid state drives, imagine how much faster apps and OS's will run on things like CAD stations.
<---this is SSD on xp (sorry i cant embed for some reason it just gives me a line of HTML code and i suck at editing/writing code to fix it) This is vista booting off of a OCZ SSD
Sounds like a good way to use a SSD drive...about the only one, though (for a MLC, anyway). Personally, I would go for a Velociraptor for anything else...bad ass drive. Besides, my preamp is in the Velociraptor and by buying one, you are helping me keep my job. :wiggle:
which is why we use them souly for OS's they arent going to get THAT good yet...but they WILL replace HD's in the future
I think it hilarious that people tout OS loading time as their benchmark for SSDs. My PCs never shut off and I would guess that most other power users don't power theirs down either. They run hotter than an HDD but without the noise. The access times are great but they become irrelevant with many applications that buffer in memory. There are apps that can utilize system memory as RAM disks that act much better in that regard. They work wonderfully well for large database server work though since those DBs can be much larger than what system memory can stand.
I'm going to have to call you on this one too, scooby...this is coming from a guy that has worked with electronics since he was in highschool and has made a career out of it. Electronic devices, specificly ones that use very small manufacturing processes, don't like being brought to temp, then dropped to room temp. For an example, imagine what 45nm looks like. When you heat up something, it expands, when you cool it down, it contracts. Imagine having rows and rows if integrated circuits that are 45nm wide, everything in there is precise to the nanometer...then make it expand and contract a couple times a day. Heat cycling electronics is bad news, and thermal breakdown is one of the many reasons solid state components go bad.
Well to his point the only time I can see leaving things on 24/7 as being detrimental is if you aren't properly cooling everything and it all just sits at such high temps as to cause degradation. This just shouldn't be happening in the first place though.
This is true, and I didn't really consider it till after I said what I said. If you are using efficient cooling methods and components, then the issue is moot. But for the average home PC user that buys a Dell or other branded store bought PC, you are best served by just leaving it running 24/7. I built all my PCs, and I usually just leave them running at all times...they are properly cooled, but I just like having the security of leaving them always on for longevity.
SSD's are great, but also suck due to their limited number of write cycles. We have a few in some new laptops here. Like Readymix said, having one for the OS and then a regular old SATA drive for data would be ideal. Once you've used up your write cycles, throw it in the gutter, go buy another
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I turn off my computer to move it from point a to point b, that's it. Never had a single problem leaving my gear on 24/7/365.
What, you mean the peripherals? NICs? Keyboard and mouse? Monitor? :laugh::roll::laugh::roll::laugh: I would like to know who told you that so I can point and laugh at them. I shut down my home machine when it's not in use, knowing full well that I'm causing it to wear out faster. I just do it to save energy. (In the end, replacing the GPU alone would probably cost me a year's worth of idle energy usage, so it's probably a wash.)
Wow. I think I disagree with about everything said in this topic so far. Hmmm. I really don't want to poo on your new part parade. Seriously, I don't. But you may not be able to adequately separate the read-only files of your OS onto the SSD, so if write speed sux on the SSD it may own you still. multi-tasking & multi-threading (especially) really don't have anything to do with disk access. Apples & oranges. And, not to sound like an a**, but I'm going to have to call you on this one. Are you seriously suggest that in anything even approaching a realistic time frame a CPU would fail due to physical stresses from thermal cycling. Yeah ... um ... Granted, there are other more valid reasons that thermal cycling is bad. And there are valid reasons why continuous operation are bad. A whole lot of other things are going to fail before the solid state devices do so from physical stress caused by thermal cycling. Not worth the computer virus.
Love the "hmmm." at the end, so matter of factly, as if we are all stupid. As you step down of your self constructed pedestal, I'll prepare my responses... Fair enough, but the decreased load times will always help. Sure write speed might be a little slower, but not so much that quick power ons and quick OS file access might make up for it. I don't know, I don't have an SSD drive, and I don't have an issue with my OS startup times. When I decide to care, I'll be sure to give SSD a look. Yeah, except that they do. Especially in a network environment where multiple users may be attempting to access a file from the drive. Each request for information is called a 'thread.' So, if 3 people are asking for data from the SSD drive, then it is 'multi (multiple) threading (requests)' Multi-tasking...well, if a drive has to perform multiple tasks at the same time, for instance, save this file while you load that file, then the drive is doing multiple tasks at the same time. The benefit of an SSD drive is that there are no moving parts and there isn't a limitation of one write head, therefore increased ability to multitask shouldn't be an issue...or so you'd think. Again, I have no experience multitasking with SSD drives. But I would assume its performance at that would be better than a standard SATA 7200 drive. Your suggestion that some very basic laws of nature don't apply to solid state devices is mindless at best. But I'm going to have to err on the side of experience, training and the basic laws of nature with regards to the thermal properties of solid mass. I've worked with electronics for way too long, far more complex electronics than PC components. And in my experience, electrical components that are heat cycled on a frequent basis tend to fail more often than items that don't. Failures that indicate that components of the system no longer output proper signals from their respective terminals. Non working solid state devices fail for only a few different reasons. 1) The non-moving internals had 'moved.' 2) Overheating. I'm not the person that inspects the items, but all the tech publications and field information that is returned to me based on testing by Q/A indicates that the electrical components had either overheated or they had been flexed out of tolerance due to expansion/contraction. Silicon is brittle, if expanded and contracted frequently, they tend to shift and flex. This causes component failure. When you've dealt with the quantity of electrical device failures that I've dealt with in my career, and you've heard the Q/A reports and the failure reports of these failed items by people that have far more engineering knowledge than me, you let me know what you think. As far as I'm concerned, I'll keep leaving my properly cooled electronic devices running 24/7 as they all seem to be doing just fine. I've had to replace one video card in the last 8 years on 12 different computers...and the one videocard that I had to replace was on the one PC system that I turn off every night since it is integrated into a television set. The rest have never had a component failure during operation. Definately not worth the computer virus.
well okay so i was enlightened more by the electricians on this forum Thank you gentlemen now i dont feel so bad about leaving my pc on however for you nay sayers that say SSD are worthless trash are stupid....sorry to say... SSD is far faster than a normal HD there is NO buffer time..NO MOVING PARTS nothing the read and write times are faster GRANTED the write times are very unstable at this point (unless you buy the expensive as hell Intel SSD which i will in good time) but loading an OS on the fly like that..is just so appealing to ignore..im sorry moving part hard drives are a thing of the past..they are going out the door with grandpa and grandma things are getting more advanced and way better....
Sheesh. Don't take it so personal or assume quite so much, eh? Most solid-state non-volatile memory is awfully slow for small writes - not just a little slower - and Windows OS's (at least, not as familiar with *nix OS's at that level) make a perhaps surprising amount of writes even during startup. I don't how it balances all out in practice, which is why I used lots of qualifying words there, like "if" and "may". Perhaps I was using those words too literally. I guess I'm used to defining them in a very specific and technically precise way (more along the lines of what wikipedia has on them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking) and in that context they most certainly have nothing to do with disk accesses. A thread is not a request for data, however, in any context. And drives do not have threads. Drives do not multitask either, but this could be debated on semantics, I suppose. I never in any way suggested that the basic laws of physics didn't apply. Cripes man, you really are sounding butt-hurt at this point. This is what I said: My point was that during its normal length of service, and my thought there is that for CPU's that probably isn't all that many years, that failure due to thermal stress is pretty unlikely. I'm not saying that heat cycles aren't bad for electronics in general. I am just disagreeing strongly with them being able to damage a computer CPU within a normal service life length of time. And - just about any other component in a computer is, IMO, more likely to fail from the stress of heat cycles than the CPU. Also, it's an awfully tough thing to say definitively - that a microprocessor failed due to physical stress from thermal cycles. Processors kinda just stop working somewhat mysteriously unless a lot of resources are expended to determine a more specific cause of failure. I can't imagine many industries outside of maybe NASA and some top high tech military or perhaps like Intel R&D really caring enough to put those resources into figuring out exactly why a microprocessor stopped working. And in my experience CPU's (talking kinda specifically about computer CPU's here) don't fail very often at all.
SSD's aren't exactly worthless trash, but they aren't moving part hard drive killers yet (unless cost is really no factor). I for one will be glad when my storage devices no longer require moving parts. But buffer time? That buffer is an order of magnitude faster than any SSD. The problem is that it is volatile - it can't store data without powah.
