Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #2138 > unrolled thread

SSD - is it ok to use in XP laptop

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

Contents

  SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-12-09 22:17 -0600
    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-09 20:31 -0800
    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2013-12-10 00:21 -0500
      Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2013-12-10 09:15 +0000
    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop WayPoint <somewhere@over-the-rainbow.oz> - 2013-12-10 16:24 +1000
      Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-11 21:36 +0000
        Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop WayPoint <somewhere@over-the-rainbow.oz> - 2013-12-12 08:54 +1000
    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-10 08:53 +0000
    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-12-11 21:18 -0600
      Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-11 20:47 -0800
        Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2013-12-12 10:48 -0700
          Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Gene E. Bloch <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> - 2013-12-13 10:24 -0800
            Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> - 2013-12-13 23:10 +0000
              Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-13 22:39 -0800
                Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com> - 2013-12-15 08:24 -0500
                  Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> - 2013-12-15 23:03 +0000
                    Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com> - 2013-12-15 21:00 -0500
                      Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2013-12-16 09:15 -0500
                        Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2013-12-16 09:33 -0500
                          Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2013-12-16 11:26 -0500
                          Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Gene E. Bloch <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> - 2013-12-16 12:23 -0800
                            Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> - 2013-12-16 22:30 +0000
                              Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Gene E. Bloch <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> - 2013-12-16 16:44 -0800
                            Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2013-12-16 16:55 -0700
                        Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-16 10:11 -0600
                        Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2013-12-16 13:20 -0800
                          Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> - 2013-12-16 22:33 +0000
                            Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2013-12-29 15:21 -0600
                              Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-29 15:32 -0600
                                Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2013-12-29 16:19 -0600
                          Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2013-12-29 15:41 -0600
                            Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> - 2013-12-30 07:51 +0000
                              Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2013-12-30 04:02 -0600
                Re: SSD - is it ok to use in  XP laptop Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-12-15 05:56 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2164

On 12/16/2013, (PeteCresswell) posted:
> Per (PeteCresswell):
>> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
>> paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB 
>> disc used for backup...

> And how about putting another 8 gigs of memory in the PC and, either
> just calling it a day and disabling pagefile.sys altogether or
> installing some sort of ramdrive utility and assigning pagefile.sys 
> to the ramdrive?

The disadvantage of paging to the SSD is that it might hasten the 
eventual decrepitude of that drive.

The disadvantage of paging to a RAM drive is that you're using the 
memory that you're paging *from* to hold the page file that you're 
paging *to*.

It's worse than a Ponzi scheme :-)

-- 
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2166

In message <bh95qaFmkeuU1@mid.individual.net>, Gene E. Bloch 
<blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> writes:
>On 12/16/2013, (PeteCresswell) posted:
>> Per (PeteCresswell):
>>> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
>>> paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB 
>>>disc used for backup...
>
>> And how about putting another 8 gigs of memory in the PC and, either
>> just calling it a day and disabling pagefile.sys altogether or
>> installing some sort of ramdrive utility and assigning pagefile.sys 
>>to the ramdrive?
>
>The disadvantage of paging to the SSD is that it might hasten the 
>eventual decrepitude of that drive.
>
>The disadvantage of paging to a RAM drive is that you're using the 
>memory that you're paging *from* to hold the page file that you're 
>paging *to*.
>
>It's worse than a Ponzi scheme :-)
>
Not if the RAM drive is in a part of the RAM that the normal OS doesn't 
have access to, surely? (I. e. that above 4G, in this case?)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... he wants to have a porn filter. Which is all very well, but who's going to
empty it? (Jeremy Harding, News Quiz 2013-7-26.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2169

On 12/16/2013, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
> In message <bh95qaFmkeuU1@mid.individual.net>, Gene E. Bloch 
> <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> writes:
>>On 12/16/2013, (PeteCresswell) posted:
>>> Per (PeteCresswell):
>>>> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use 
>>>> several
>>>> paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB 
>>>> disc used for backup...
>>
>>> And how about putting another 8 gigs of memory in the PC and, 
>>> either
>>> just calling it a day and disabling pagefile.sys altogether or
>>> installing some sort of ramdrive utility and assigning 
>>> pagefile.sys to the ramdrive?
>>
>>The disadvantage of paging to the SSD is that it might hasten the 
>> eventual decrepitude of that drive.
>>
>>The disadvantage of paging to a RAM drive is that you're using the 
>> memory that you're paging *from* to hold the page file that you're 
>> paging *to*.
>>
>>It's worse than a Ponzi scheme :-)
>>
> Not if the RAM drive is in a part of the RAM that the normal OS 
> doesn't have access to, surely? (I. e. that above 4G, in this case?)

Surely :-)

You are correct; I assumed 64-bit and lots of RAM even though Pete 
didn't say that. Even if he did, it's definitely worth pointing out 
what you said.

There was a thread a while back about that issue, where someone 
knowledgeable (hence, not me!) pointed out that RAM disk programs that 
can address that high memory definitely do exist.

-- 
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2168

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:23:37 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
<blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/16/2013, (PeteCresswell) posted:
> > Per (PeteCresswell):
> >> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
> >> paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB 
> >> disc used for backup...
> 
> > And how about putting another 8 gigs of memory in the PC and, either
> > just calling it a day and disabling pagefile.sys altogether or
> > installing some sort of ramdrive utility and assigning pagefile.sys 
> > to the ramdrive?
> 
> The disadvantage of paging to the SSD is that it might hasten the 
> eventual decrepitude of that drive.
> 
> The disadvantage of paging to a RAM drive is that you're using the 
> memory that you're paging *from* to hold the page file that you're 
> paging *to*.
> 
> It's worse than a Ponzi scheme :-)


Yes, assuming that you are running 64-bit Windows, and therefore using
all the RAM. Paging to a RAM drive is always a bad thing to do.

And he should also note that with 8GB+ of RAM, depending on what apps
he runs, there's an excellent chance that he would almost never use
the page file at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2162

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:15:16 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per Ron Hardin:
>>I think it corresponded to the SSD wearing out from writes, as SSDs are reported to do.
>>
>>The spot may read correctly or it may not, but the SSD as a whole is otherwise sane.
>
>After reading this thread, it's beginning to dawn on me that maybe the
>Windows paging file should be moved from the SSD card to a conventional
>hard drive.
>
>Correct so far?   Downsides?
>
>Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
>paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB disc
>used for backup...

In my desktop I do have the paging file set to a rotating disk,
leaving the SSD handling only windows and installed programs. However,
I really think the system rarely use the pagefile. Do you know a way
to tell haw many times the pagefile is used? I'd be interested in
that. 
I recall reading a thread recently about the pagefile, and I think the
conclusions were that the file "moves" around on whatever disk it's
on, so even if it's on your SSD, it doesn't use the same physical
locations over and over.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2165

On 12/16/2013 6:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Ron Hardin:
>> I think it corresponded to the SSD wearing out from writes, as SSDs are reported to do.
>>
>> The spot may read correctly or it may not, but the SSD as a whole is otherwise sane.
>
> After reading this thread, it's beginning to dawn on me that maybe the
> Windows paging file should be moved from the SSD card to a conventional
> hard drive.
>
> Correct so far?   Downsides?
>
> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
> paging files?   I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB disc
> used for backup...
>
This is based on research I did a year ago when I decided not to invest
in a SSD.  I'm sure the nitpickers can come up with a zillion 
counterexamples.
But, for most of us, a SSD is a bad decision.

If your primary concern is how fast your system boots, by all means,
the SSD is for you.  If battery life is a primary concern, the SSD
may be for you, but the percentages vary with what else is going on.
If you like to throw machine around while it's running, SSD is a good idea.
Otherwise, save your money.

If you need a swap file, you have too little ram.
Swap is where stuff goes when it won't fit in ram.
You're trading very fast RAM access for extremely slow disk access.
SSD is faster, but not very, compared to ram.
Swap was very important when RAM was expensive.
Today, not so much.
I ran XP with 2GB of ram and no swap for years.  Only time I ever
got an out of memory error was when I tried to run two virtualbox
sessions at once.   Had to turn swap back on for that.
If you have a second mechanical drive, put swap there.  Won't matter
how slow it is if it's rarely used.  I put swap on D: for a different
reason.  I don't have to keep telling the backup program to ignore it
when I backup C:.

SSD is written in whole blocks.  If you change one byte, the whole
block gets read, changed and rewritten back, probably to a different
location depending on the wear leveling algorithm.

I read one article that claimed that in active use, stock windows
could kill a SSD in a matter of days, based on write counts.

Those blocks need to be aligned with the methods used by the OS.
Modern operating systems have the nasty habit of updating the access time
when you access a file.  There's another block write.
Then there are caches, wear leveling, all manner of optimizations designed
to deal with rotating media.
If the OS was written with full knowledge of all the characteristics
of that exact SSD drive, it would be simple.
But all that magic is secret and constantly changing.

Google will find you many strategies for prolonging the life of a
SSD.  Suggest you decide which one you trust and implement it.
Maybe the drive vendor's one would be a good choice.

Google will also find you many stories about how SSD's start out fast
and progressively slow down with use.  Don't remember the term,
but you run a utility regularly to speed it back up.

I would not just plug in a SSD.
At the very least, turn off the last access update.  It's called -noatime
in linux.  Don't remember the term for windows.

Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2167

In message <l8nqok$449$1@dont-email.me>, mike <ham789@netzero.net> 
writes:
[]
>I read one article that claimed that in active use, stock windows
>could kill a SSD in a matter of days, based on write counts.

I remember seeing such a claim about USB memory sticks when used as 
extra RAM, about the time netbooks - and similar - first appeared. 
Except I think it said hours, not days.
[]
>I would not just plug in a SSD.
>At the very least, turn off the last access update.  It's called -noatime
>in linux.  Don't remember the term for windows.
>
>Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.
>
>
>
>
I tend to agree. But I saw three (expensive) laptops in my local 
Sainsburys on Saturday, so they _are_ entering the mainstream.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... he wants to have a porn filter. Which is all very well, but who's going to
empty it? (Jeremy Harding, News Quiz 2013-7-26.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2171

On 12/16/2013 4:33 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <l8nqok$449$1@dont-email.me>, mike <ham789@netzero.net> writes:
> []
>> I read one article that claimed that in active use, stock windows
>> could kill a SSD in a matter of days, based on write counts.
>
> I remember seeing such a claim about USB memory sticks when used as
> extra RAM, about the time netbooks - and similar - first appeared.
> Except I think it said hours, not days.
> []
>> I would not just plug in a SSD.
>> At the very least, turn off the last access update. It's called -noatime
>> in linux. Don't remember the term for windows.
>>
>> Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.
>>
> I tend to agree. But I saw three (expensive) laptops in my local
> Sainsburys on Saturday, so they _are_ entering the mainstream.

Oh man! I have three Asus netbooks from 2008 that sports SSD and they 
are still working just fine. Heck even this Dell Tablet (I have two of 
them) runs from a SSD. I was so worried about writes wearing them out in 
the beginning. But I haven't seen one of them wear out yet.

I was so careful at first, as I buffered all writes to RAM. And I only 
allowed about 400MB of writes per day to an Asus XP machine. Then I 
figured out that it would take like 4000 years to wear it out at that 
rate. Then I thought, who cares if it is still working 3999 years later?

Now I use them like regular hard drives and the writes that I do to them 
should last like 70 years before they wear out. Again, who cares? By 
then, you could use a 3D printer and print you a new one in no time. But 
this machine will probably be useless in 70 years from now anyway. ;-)

-- 
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 8 Professional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2172

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 15:21:13 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

<snip>
>Oh man! I have three Asus netbooks from 2008 that sports SSD and they 
>are still working just fine. Heck even this Dell Tablet (I have two of 
>them) runs from a SSD. I was so worried about writes wearing them out in 
>the beginning. But I haven't seen one of them wear out yet.
>
>I was so careful at first, as I buffered all writes to RAM. And I only 
>allowed about 400MB of writes per day to an Asus XP machine. Then I 
>figured out that it would take like 4000 years to wear it out at that 
>rate. Then I thought, who cares if it is still working 3999 years later?
>
>Now I use them like regular hard drives and the writes that I do to them 
>should last like 70 years before they wear out. Again, who cares? By 
>then, you could use a 3D printer and print you a new one in no time. But 
>this machine will probably be useless in 70 years from now anyway. ;-)

Bill,

My concern is that the SSD might slow down under XP because of the
lack of the TRIM function. Is there something equivalent to that in
XP, or an add-on application that provide do the same service?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2174

On 12/29/2013 3:32 PM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 15:21:13 -0600, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Oh man! I have three Asus netbooks from 2008 that sports SSD and they
>> are still working just fine. Heck even this Dell Tablet (I have two of
>> them) runs from a SSD. I was so worried about writes wearing them out in
>> the beginning. But I haven't seen one of them wear out yet.
>>
>> I was so careful at first, as I buffered all writes to RAM. And I only
>> allowed about 400MB of writes per day to an Asus XP machine. Then I
>> figured out that it would take like 4000 years to wear it out at that
>> rate. Then I thought, who cares if it is still working 3999 years later?
>>
>> Now I use them like regular hard drives and the writes that I do to them
>> should last like 70 years before they wear out. Again, who cares? By
>> then, you could use a 3D printer and print you a new one in no time. But
>> this machine will probably be useless in 70 years from now anyway. ;-)
>
> Bill,
>
> My concern is that the SSD might slow down under XP because of the
> lack of the TRIM function. Is there something equivalent to that in
> XP, or an add-on application that provide do the same service?

That might be a worry that is overrated too. As I have two machines, one 
running Windows 2000 and the other running XP from SSD since 2008. And I 
haven't noticed any slowdowns at all as time passes after all of these 
years.

-- 
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 8 Professional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2173

On 12/16/2013 3:20 PM, mike wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 6:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per Ron Hardin:
>>> I think it corresponded to the SSD wearing out from writes, as SSDs
>>> are reported to do.
>>>
>>> The spot may read correctly or it may not, but the SSD as a whole is
>>> otherwise sane.
>>
>> After reading this thread, it's beginning to dawn on me that maybe the
>> Windows paging file should be moved from the SSD card to a conventional
>> hard drive.
>>
>> Correct so far? Downsides?
>>
>> Also, is there anything to be gained by having Windows use several
>> paging files? I've got 3 2-TB discs used for media plus a 1-TB disc
>> used for backup...
>>
> This is based on research I did a year ago when I decided not to invest
> in a SSD. I'm sure the nitpickers can come up with a zillion
> counterexamples.
> But, for most of us, a SSD is a bad decision.
>
> If your primary concern is how fast your system boots, by all means,
> the SSD is for you. If battery life is a primary concern, the SSD
> may be for you, but the percentages vary with what else is going on.
> If you like to throw machine around while it's running, SSD is a good idea.
> Otherwise, save your money.
>
> If you need a swap file, you have too little ram.
> Swap is where stuff goes when it won't fit in ram.
> You're trading very fast RAM access for extremely slow disk access.
> SSD is faster, but not very, compared to ram.
> Swap was very important when RAM was expensive.
> Today, not so much.
> I ran XP with 2GB of ram and no swap for years. Only time I ever
> got an out of memory error was when I tried to run two virtualbox
> sessions at once. Had to turn swap back on for that.
> If you have a second mechanical drive, put swap there. Won't matter
> how slow it is if it's rarely used. I put swap on D: for a different
> reason. I don't have to keep telling the backup program to ignore it
> when I backup C:.
>
> SSD is written in whole blocks. If you change one byte, the whole
> block gets read, changed and rewritten back, probably to a different
> location depending on the wear leveling algorithm.
>
> I read one article that claimed that in active use, stock windows
> could kill a SSD in a matter of days, based on write counts.
>
> Those blocks need to be aligned with the methods used by the OS.
> Modern operating systems have the nasty habit of updating the access time
> when you access a file. There's another block write.
> Then there are caches, wear leveling, all manner of optimizations designed
> to deal with rotating media.
> If the OS was written with full knowledge of all the characteristics
> of that exact SSD drive, it would be simple.
> But all that magic is secret and constantly changing.
>
> Google will find you many strategies for prolonging the life of a
> SSD. Suggest you decide which one you trust and implement it.
> Maybe the drive vendor's one would be a good choice.
>
> Google will also find you many stories about how SSD's start out fast
> and progressively slow down with use. Don't remember the term,
> but you run a utility regularly to speed it back up.
>
> I would not just plug in a SSD.
> At the very least, turn off the last access update. It's called -noatime
> in linux. Don't remember the term for windows.
>
> Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.

Oh man! I use both SSDs and classic mechanical hard drives. And I have 
been using SSDs really heavy since 2008. Thus IMHO, the fear of wearing 
them out is so overrated. For most people, I don't think you will wear 
the average one out in about 70 years plus. If you get 30 years out of 
your average mechanical hard drive, you are doing great. But I don't 
think most would care after 10 years anyway since new drives will always 
be so much larger and faster and cheaper anyway.

-- 
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 8 Professional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2175

In message <l9q4u3$2su$1@dont-email.me>, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> 
writes:
>On 12/16/2013 3:20 PM, mike wrote:
[]
>> I would not just plug in a SSD.
>> At the very least, turn off the last access update. It's called -noatime
>> in linux. Don't remember the term for windows.
>>
>> Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.
>
>Oh man! I use both SSDs and classic mechanical hard drives. And I have 
>been using SSDs really heavy since 2008. Thus IMHO, the fear of wearing 
>them out is so overrated. For most people, I don't think you will wear 
>the average one out in about 70 years plus. If you get 30 years out of 
>your average mechanical hard drive, you are doing great. But I don't 
>think most would care after 10 years anyway since new drives will 
>always be so much larger and faster and cheaper anyway.
>
There is still the matter that failure, when it comes, is more likely to 
be sudden and total for an SSD than for a rotating drive. (S&T failure 
does of course occur for the latter, but isn't the normal mode of 
failure.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The summit of Everest is marine limestone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2176

On 12/30/2013 1:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <l9q4u3$2su$1@dont-email.me>, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> writes:
>> On 12/16/2013 3:20 PM, mike wrote:
> []
>>> I would not just plug in a SSD.
>>> At the very least, turn off the last access update. It's called -noatime
>>> in linux. Don't remember the term for windows.
>>>
>>> Too much hype for too little performance/price ratio for me.
>>
>> Oh man! I use both SSDs and classic mechanical hard drives. And I have
>> been using SSDs really heavy since 2008. Thus IMHO, the fear of
>> wearing them out is so overrated. For most people, I don't think you
>> will wear the average one out in about 70 years plus. If you get 30
>> years out of your average mechanical hard drive, you are doing great.
>> But I don't think most would care after 10 years anyway since new
>> drives will always be so much larger and faster and cheaper anyway.
>>
> There is still the matter that failure, when it comes, is more likely to
> be sudden and total for an SSD than for a rotating drive. (S&T failure
> does of course occur for the latter, but isn't the normal mode of failure.)

Once again, have you ever seen a failed SSD before? I have and that 
wasn't in my experience either. As I purchased an used Asus 702 netbook 
that the seller claimed it suddenly couldn't see the SSD one day. 
Instead of sending it back for warrantee repair, he decided to just sell it.

When I got it, I got a repair RMA number and I was going to send it in 
for warrantee repair. Although I decided to repair it myself instead. 
And while playing with it I got busy on another machine. And when I got 
back to it, the SSD was suddenly working just fine. Then I discovered 
that if you have power applied for at least 90 minutes first, then the 
SSD would operate normally. This is hardly a total failure.

Of course I purchased another SSD and dropped it in there. And much 
later I discovered that the failed SSD was from a known lot that had a 
manufacturing defect. And besides that one defective SSD, I've never 
found another SSD with a problem. Wish I could say the same for a number 
of complete failed hard drives I've ran into. :-(

-- 
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 8 Professional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2157

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:39:17 AM UTC-6, Todd wrote:
> On 12/13/2013 03:10 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> 
> > In message <bh11m0Fpu0U1@mid.individual.net>, Gene E. Bloch
> 
> > <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> writes:
> 
> >> On 12/12/2013, Ken Blake posted:
> 
> >>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:47:41 -0800, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> On 12/11/2013 07:18 PM, ps56k wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>> My biggest concern, is that when a SSD goes bad,
> 
> >>>>> you will lose ALL of your data at once.
> 
> >>>>  He has a point.  If you are going to use an SSD, become
> 
> >>>> a backup whore.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Regardless of whether you use SSDs or HDs, you are always at risk of
> 
> >>> losing everything at once, to many of the most common dangers: drive
> 
> >>> crashes, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus
> 
> >>> attacks, even theft of the computer.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> That's why you should *always* protect yourself by frequent backup to
> 
> >>> external media, regardless of what medium your data is on.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> A hearty +1.
> 
> >>
> 
> > Not denying the importance of backing up regardless of what you're using.
> 
> >
> 
> > The fact remains, however, that as ps56k says, SSDs fail completely and
> 
> > without warning - something that makes those of us who're used to HDs
> 
> > somewhat wary of them. This is quite separate from whether one takes
> 
> > backups or not - or, for those who live in the real world of
> 
> > probabilities, rather than theory, means you might take them _more
> 
> > often_ when using SSDs, as Todd suggests.
> 
> 
> 
> 1+
> 
> 
> 
> And spend a little money on an enterprise grade SSD.  I love
> 
> the Cherryvilles from Intel.  Not one single problem.
> 
> 
> 
> You buy a cheap one, you are asking for what John states.
> 
> 
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
> 
> in a couple slices of baloney
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Todd, I'm not sure where you posted from (it was multi-posted in comp.sys.laptops,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,alt.windows7.general) but it's one of the ones I frequent.
I enjoy your responses in alt.home.repair, and your thoughts on belief.
Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web