I have a theory about hard drives vs solid state drive (upgrading ssd to hdd)

[Vishera]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

I run W7 on a 40 pin Pata drive with my legacy hardware. The boot time is no where near 5 minutes. Maybe 20 seconds or so. 

 

W10, well that might be a different story haha.

I use Windows 7 on a hard drive as well,20-25 seconds boot time.

The experience is good as long as you don't have the drive at 100% active time and use the PC at the same time.

And you need to wait a bit if whatever you are trying to open isn't cached in Superfetch.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vishera said:

I use Windows 7 on a hard drive as well,20-25 seconds boot time.

The experience is good as long as you don't have the drive at 100% active time and use the PC at the same time.

And you need to wait a bit if whatever you are trying to open isn't cached in Superfetch.

Most of the post time is the board running it's diagnostics. I'm including that time.

 

The actual post time from when the drive is read from to desktop is less than 10 seconds.

 

I'm using a very lite w7 OS. But most features enabled for internet. A lot of the other garbage is off. Nothing starts with it. Stripped W7 x32 starter  

[oali24]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

It's still going to be slower than an SSD. It may still be usable but... why not keep the system on the SSD and add the hard disk as a data drive?

I can sell the 500 GB ssd for almost as much as the hard drive cost which would basically mean an almost free upgrade to 2 TB

[whispous]

1 hour ago, oali24 said:

I can sell the 500 GB ssd for almost as much as the hard drive cost which would basically mean an almost free upgrade to 2 TB

That cannot possibly be true.

 

And you are going to hugely regret selling the SSD if you're seeking any performance whatsoever.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

14 minutes ago, whispous said:

That cannot possibly be true.

It is.

A 500gb ssd (depends on which) can sell for about $50.

A baracuda compute 2tb is about 50$.

But it's not a upgrade. It's most definitely a downgrade

[BondiBlue]

2 hours ago, oali24 said:

I can sell the 500 GB ssd for almost as much as the hard drive cost which would basically mean an almost free upgrade to 2 TB

The capacity isn't what makes the difference. Moving from an SSD to a hard drive is in no way an upgrade, even with more storage. 

[oali24]

11 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

It is.

A 500gb ssd (depends on which) can sell for about $50.

A baracuda compute 2tb is about 50$.

But it's not a upgrade. It's most definitely a downgrade

 

10 hours ago, BondiBlue said:

The capacity isn't what makes the difference. Moving from an SSD to a hard drive is in no way an upgrade, even with more storage. 

Let's just say it's a storage capacity upgrade.

[oali24]

So guys I just did my capacity upgrade, and now after some issues with fitting in an unrelated new cooler and with partitioning I finally have the hard drive bookable and my hypothesis seems true, the hdd boots xubuntu in about 50 seconds, the data ssd would boot in maybe 20-30 seconds so the hdd is not too bad with a lighter OS, It's definitely way faster than when I boot windows 10 installation on my other hard drive, that takes at least 2 minutes although it is a 5400rpm western digital blue while my new drive is a 7200 rpm toshiba.

[whispous]

35 minutes ago, oali24 said:

So guys I just did my capacity upgrade, and now after some issues with fitting in an unrelated new cooler and with partitioning I finally have the hard drive bookable and my hypothesis seems true, the hdd boots xubuntu in about 50 seconds, the data ssd would boot in maybe 20-30 seconds so the hdd is not too bad with a lighter OS, It's definitely way faster than when I boot windows 10 installation on my other hard drive, that takes at least 2 minutes although it is a 5400rpm western digital blue while my new drive is a 7200 rpm toshiba.

50SECOND BOOT? DAMN.

 

Well, if you're happy.

 

Also you're so wrong for declaring this a win when comparing to Windows 10 on a 5400 HDD. That is such an invalid comparison.

[pythonmegapixel]

Hell no... I'd sooner use a Chromebook as my main machine than go back to something which boots off a hard drive.

 

Currently, on my SSD-based system, I can get from the computer being shut down completely to having the browser open and reading some delightful flamewars on the VAG thread in less than a minute. I do not want to go back to boot times of multiple minutes.

 

But hey, to each their own...

[Helpful Tech Witch]

4 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Hell no... I'd sooner use a Chromebook as my main machine than go back to something which boots off a hard drive

Eh.... It wouldn't be to bad. I'd probably just turn it into a Linux laptop (you can turn the firmware into a normal uefi).

 

[pythonmegapixel]

Just now, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Eh.... It wouldn't be to bad. I'd probably just turn it into a Linux laptop (you can turn the firmware into a normal uefi).

It's not just the software, it's the hardware.

 

I've had to help people use some of the cheaper Chromebooks, and believe me, those keyboards are NOT nice to type on. And I say that as someone whose regular keyboard is some cheap Trust one that I bought from Tesco 5 years ago for a pittance.

[Bitter]

When he has to run some larger system updates is when he'll really hit the HDD bottleneck with it's much much more limited iops. My mother and I had nearly identical Dell laptops, both i3 370M's with the same 4GB RAM both running Xubuntu/Win7. Hers it still using the mechanical hard drive, mine has a SSD. Not just booting but running updates or doing many things at once, mine would FLY compared to hers.

 

Also 50 seconds to boot Xubuntu on modern hardware is horrible slow. Xubuntu in VM on Windows 10 host on a 2700X with 4GB and 4 cores boots from my SATA 860 Evo 500GB in 13 seconds. Factor in the VM overhead penalty there, your 50 seconds is very slow for something as light as Xubuntu.

Edit: I'm counting boot time as from when I click the start button in VirtualBox, so there's a few seconds before the VM starts booting, so you could call it an 8-10 second boot.

[BondiBlue]

7 hours ago, oali24 said:

the hdd boots xubuntu in about 50 seconds, the data ssd would boot in maybe 20-30 seconds so the hdd is not too bad with a lighter OS

Thats.. That's terrible. I've had old laptops with IDE hard drives boot modern versions of Linux faster than that. 

[oali24]

9 hours ago, whispous said:

50SECOND BOOT? DAMN.

 

Well, if you're happy.

 

Also you're so wrong for declaring this a win when comparing to Windows 10 on a 5400 HDD. That is such an invalid comparison.

I'll probably move the windows 10 install to the same drive for comparison. but it was really bad on the windows 10 like I would leave it to go turn on the kettle to make tea bad.

[oali24]

2 hours ago, Bitter said:

When he has to run some larger system updates is when he'll really hit the HDD bottleneck with it's much much more limited iops. My mother and I had nearly identical Dell laptops, both i3 370M's with the same 4GB RAM both running Xubuntu/Win7. Hers it still using the mechanical hard drive, mine has a SSD. Not just booting but running updates or doing many things at once, mine would FLY compared to hers.

 

Also 50 seconds to boot Xubuntu on modern hardware is horrible slow. Xubuntu in VM on Windows 10 host on a 2700X with 4GB and 4 cores boots from my SATA 860 Evo 500GB in 13 seconds. Factor in the VM overhead penalty there, your 50 seconds is very slow for something as light as Xubuntu.

Edit: I'm counting boot time as from when I click the start button in VirtualBox, so there's a few seconds before the VM starts booting, so you could call it an 8-10 second boot.

yeah, my point is just that the hard drive isn't so slow to the point that its uncomfortable to use when you stick a lighter os on it.