Report says Microsoft will require SSDs for new OEM PCs soon

[DuckDodgers]

According to a report, Microsoft plans to make PC makers ship solid-state boot drives in all Windows PCs starting in 2023 or 2024, putting an end to the days of spinning hard drives for most of the PCs that still include them.

 

Quotes

Quote

Trendfocus analyst John Chen claims that Microsoft initially tried to make the change in 2022, but that resistance from manufacturers meant "it has been pushed out to sometime next year." Microsoft and the PC manufacturers are still negotiating the timeline and possible exceptions, "but things are still in flux."

Ars contacted Microsoft, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Acer for comment; most haven't responded. A Dell representative pointed out that nearly all of its systems already ship with SSDs, but couldn't confirm or deny the analyst's claims.

The systems that still use spinning hard drives overwhelmingly use 1TB models. Given that a good name-brand 1TB hard drive and an entry-level 250GB or 500GB SSD can all be had for between $40 and $50, it should at least be possible for the manufacturers to make the switch without raising prices.

 

My main concern is that OEMs will seek the cheapest bottom of the barrel SSD options, that might reflect negatively on reliability of their systems.

 

Sources

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsofts-reportedly-trying-to-kill-hdd-boot-drives-for-windows-11-pcs-by-2023

[leadeater]

Nice, please let this be real. End the suffering of cheap computers with 4200/4800/5200/5400 RPM HDDs.

[porina]

OEMs may be able to get different pricing than what we eventually see in retail, but it does look like 240/500GB class SSDs are comparable in cost to a 1TB HD. If smaller HDs are in use that might be harder to beat though.

 

I'd guess part of it might be those who know little about computers. They may see one system with 1TB of storage and another with 240GB, not knowing the difference between HD/SSD.

 

I wonder if SSHDs would be included in this? I hope not, as my experience trying a couple from Seagate they end up not much different from a raw HD.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

End the suffering of cheap computers with 4200/4800/5200/5400 RPM HDDs.

Seems like a detail to list specific RPMs? Is 7200rpm ok? It's better, but the last time I tried running Win10 on a HD it still wasn't a fun experience. Even if 10k or 15k consumer drives existed they'll still be far worse than a cheap SSD for an OS scenario. (I think there was a WD Black 10k drive years ago, but that's not going to end up in a cheap OEM box)

[saltycaramel]

macOS Ventura: hold my beer, I'll do it not only for newly sold PCs but for any PC in my compatibility list (save for a pair of 2017 21.5" iMacs that would still ship with an HDD as the boot drive). 

[Rauten]

Just realized, I think we're gonna switch one problem for another...

 

Yay, the computer has an SSD!

Boo, it's e-waste tier with no DRAM cache!

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, porina said:

Seems like a detail to list specific RPMs? Is 7200rpm ok?

OEMs stopped putting 7200 RPM HDDs in computers years ago, might be some but basically not any more. You basically have to buy 7200 separately now days.

 

But I listed those because if you've used them and compared to even 7200 RPM HDDs, omg it's just horrible. I have (had) a laptop with a 4200 RPM HDD, yuck.

[porina]

 

2 minutes ago, Rauten said:

Boo, it's e-waste tier with no DRAM cache!

It's relative. Even the low end SSDs are a LOT faster than a fast HD when it comes to random stuff, and there's an awful lot of random stuff in current OSes.

 

My side concern is that I've had suspected data rot on low end SSDs like Kingston A400 and WD Green models. Usually takes over a year of light usage to manifest.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But I listed those because if you've used them and compared to even 7200 RPM HDDs, omg it's just horrible. I have (had) a laptop with a 4200 RPM HDD, yuck.

When I still used HDs for game drives, I can feel the difference between similar 5400 and 7200 rpm drives. A low end SSD would still significantly beat the 7200rpm drive, as long as you don't do sustained writes anyway. Breaking it out seemed an unnecessary detail.

 

I only use HDs in my NAS now. I seek out 7200rpm CMR drives specifically for it although there are some older slower drives in it.

[Kisai]

24 minutes ago, Rauten said:

Just realized, I think we're gonna switch one problem for another...

 

Yay, the computer has an SSD!

Boo, it's e-waste tier with no DRAM cache!

Worse. SATA SSD's in products that were only engineered for 2.5" drives, and SATA M2 drives.

 

I can't tell you how much some of those dell latitudes suck even when they have a SSD in them.

[DuckDodgers]

26 minutes ago, porina said:

Seems like a detail to list specific RPMs? Is 7200rpm ok? It's better, but the last time I tried running Win10 on a HD it still wasn't a fun experience. Even if 10k or 15k consumer drives existed they'll still be far worse than a cheap SSD for an OS scenario. (I think there was a WD Black 10k drive years ago, but that's not going to end up in a cheap OEM box)

I have a test installation of Win11 on a speedy 7200 RPM HDD (~1300 random IOPs) and it definitely drags the system, and thats with just few apps installed.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

A low end SSD would still significantly beat the 7200rpm drive, as long as you don't do sustained writes anyway. Breaking it out seemed an unnecessary detail.

Well yes I'm not saying 7200 is better, just that you won't find 7200 in an OEM computer so no reason to list it. Can't replace what you aren't even getting 

 

Also given how much worse those slower RPMs are to even 7200, I rather list those as a way to show just how bad OEMs have really been. Not all HDDs are created equal, only the worst of the worst go in to OEM pre-builds.

 

That's like saying DRAM-less is a minor detail not worth mentioning 

[Rauten]

5 minutes ago, porina said:

My side concern is that I've had suspected data rot on low end SSDs like Kingston A400 and WD Green models. Usually takes over a year of light usage to manifest.

Oh god I hadn't even considered the endurance of the SSD.

[cmndr]

7 minutes ago, DuckDodgers said:

I have a test installation of Win11 on a speedy 7200 RPM HDD (~1300 random IOPs) and it definitely drags the system, and thats with just few apps installed.

Are you sure you didn't add a digit to that?
HDDs are usually on the order of 100-200 IOPs.

[Dabombinable]

40 minutes ago, porina said:

OEMs may be able to get different pricing than what we eventually see in retail, but it does look like 240/500GB class SSDs are comparable in cost to a 1TB HD. If smaller HDs are in use that might be harder to beat though.

 

I'd guess part of it might be those who know little about computers. They may see one system with 1TB of storage and another with 240GB, not knowing the difference between HD/SSD.

 

I wonder if SSHDs would be included in this? I hope not, as my experience trying a couple from Seagate they end up not much different from a raw HD.

 

Seems like a detail to list specific RPMs? Is 7200rpm ok? It's better, but the last time I tried running Win10 on a HD it still wasn't a fun experience. Even if 10k or 15k consumer drives existed they'll still be far worse than a cheap SSD for an OS scenario. (I think there was a WD Black 10k drive years ago, but that's not going to end up in a cheap OEM box)

This is with very old HDD...it gets even worse with modern ones. SP is 7200RPM, SV is 5400RPM, and this isn't even the access times:

[Kisai]

10 minutes ago, porina said:

When I still used HDs for game drives, I can feel the difference between similar 5400 and 7200 rpm drives. A low end SSD would still significantly beat the 7200rpm drive, as long as you don't do sustained writes anyway. Breaking it out seemed an unnecessary detail.

 

I only use HDs in my NAS now. I seek out 7200rpm CMR drives specifically for it although there are some older slower drives in it.

 

You'll only notice SSD's on games that are relatively large and were designed around having a SSD, vs being on an optical disc. For example, Detroit Become Human, I have on a SSD, the first time you boot it up, it spends around 15 minutes compiling shaders, but after that point, the loading time is like 10 seconds or so. Kingdom Hearts, which I had to install to the mechanical drive, and is equally as large, has no loading time at all, and it's 60GB.

 

In between that however, PSO2, Fortnite and FFXIV are deeply affected by disk speed, because you will join a party/instance, and be the first one there if you have a NVMe drive, or the last one there if you have a mechanical drive. Nothing is more obnoxious in a MMO than having to wait for the slowest player to finish loading. So even though YOU might have a SSD, you're going to wait another 2 minutes for the guy on a 5400RPM laptop to load in.

 

How this can be rectified, ultimately is by having NVMe SSD's be standard, and bring back the entire "windows rating" thing so people can compare the laptops in the store like they would before.

PS Z:\> Get-CimInstance Win32_WinSat


CPUScore              : 9.3
D3DScore              : 9.9
DiskScore             : 9.15
GraphicsScore         : 9.9
MemoryScore           : 9.3
TimeTaken             : MostRecentAssessment
WinSATAssessmentState : 1
WinSPRLevel           : 9.15
PSComputerName        :

Microsoft got rid of this because they wanted to promote the idea that all hardware runs Windows equally, which we know is not the case. Above is my desktop with a 11th gen cpu and 3070Ti, below is my laptop with a 9th gen CPU and a 2070:

CPUScore              : 9.1
D3DScore              : 9.9
DiskScore             : 9.05
GraphicsScore         : 8
MemoryScore           : 9.1
TimeTaken             : MostRecentAssessment
WinSATAssessmentState : 1
WinSPRLevel           : 8
PSComputerName        :

 

And if I go to my older laptop with the 7th gen CPU and 1050Ti

 

CPUScore              : 9.1
D3DScore              : 9.9
DiskScore             : 8.9
GraphicsScore         : 6.4
MemoryScore           : 9.1
TimeTaken             : MostRecentAssessment
WinSATAssessmentState : 1
WinSPRLevel           : 6.4
PSComputerName        :

All three of these have PCIe 3.0 NVMe boot drives . WinSAT gives the computer a final score based on the slowest part in the system. The 7th and 9th gen CPU's get the exact same CPU scores, but what tanks the older laptop is the much weaker GPU that can barely do 1080p.

 

Most of those crappy iGPU-only laptops will be either hobbled by the iGPU or the disk score.

 

[Blademaster91]

This would be nice if it happens, even a DRAM-less SSD is so much better than an HDD.

[Arika]

good, should be illegal to sell PCs with only HDDs these days....

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

macOS Ventura: hold my beer, I'll do it not only for newly sold PCs but for any PC in my compatibility list (save for a pair of 2017 21.5" iMacs that would still ship with an HDD as the boot drive). 

Except the 2016 macbooks and the 2017 macbook air, which all had SSD's and are still capable laptops.

I find it kinda sad that support gets artificially cut even though I've put Windows 11 on Intel Skylake systems, even though MS claims it's not supported.

[mr moose]

I'm torn, I for one am easily in the boat that no new PC should have mechanical parts (beyond cooling),  but I also hate the concept that a software company can dictate what hardware I can buy.

 

 

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

While a good thing, this also strikes me of "MS wants to have to stop optimizing libraries and other dependences" more than anything else.

[Rauten]

Random thought - could it also be for competitive reasons?

As in, random person that finds their work computer ridiculously slow and bothersome, one random day for a random reason, tries a random relatively new Mac product and is blown away by how much faster and responsive it feels.

 

Did I say random? random!

[Middcore]

Good.

 

If Microsoft had come down harder on the dumb shit OEM's did in computers sold with its OS earlier then Windows might not have developed such a bad reputation over the years.

[DuckDodgers]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

Are you sure you didn't add a digit to that?
HDDs are usually on the order of 100-200 IOPs.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

Are you sure you didn't add a digit to that?
HDDs are usually on the order of 100-200 IOPs.

It's 100 IOPs for large IO sizes, IOPs doesn't really mean anything without also knowing the block size and also access pattern.

[Doobeedoo]

Makes sense. Can't imagine not having SSD for boot drive. I mean I've used them for over a decade.

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nice, please let this be real. End the suffering of cheap computers with 4200/4800/5200/5400 RPM HDDs.

It is real, but not quite what people think. The requirement is only for partners looking to earn marketing incentives through various Microsoft programs. Companies that do system builder kits for licensing or those that don't participate in the programs can ignore this requirement entirely.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

OEMs stopped putting 7200 RPM HDDs in computers years ago, might be some but basically not any more. You basically have to buy 7200 separately now days.

 

But I listed those because if you've used them and compared to even 7200 RPM HDDs, omg it's just horrible. I have (had) a laptop with a 4200 RPM HDD, yuck.

Actually this trend has reversed slightly for companies that are struggling with CEC title 24 requirements because you can significantly increase your power overhead by adding an HDD into the mix. I know for a fact Dell still includes HDD's in their XPS desktop lineup for this exact reason.

 

A SATA HDD can give an extra 15 points, which can be the difference between passing or failing. 

51 minutes ago, Rauten said:

Random thought - could it also be for competitive reasons?

As in, random person that finds their work computer ridiculously slow and bothersome, one random day for a random reason, tries a random relatively new Mac product and is blown away by how much faster and responsive it feels.

 

Did I say random? random!

This is exactly it. People upgrading from an old W7 system with an HDD to a W11 system with an HDD might not notice much of a performance improvement. People upgrading from W7 with an HDD to W11 with an SSD would notice a significant improvement in response time and would likely attribute this to the W11 OS because they are ignorant on hardware. This causes them to sing the praise of W11 to their friends and results in more adoption.

 

I am not against this practice though, frankly raising the minimum hardware requirement bar is something I have always been in favor of and I am very vocal about backwards compatibility being the devil when it comes to hardware innovation.