I've already moved to SSDs for boot drives, but admittedly this is because I favor a dedicated drive just for the OS and critical systems programs. My rationale being that if you have to wipe a...
I've already moved to SSDs for boot drives, but admittedly this is because I favor a dedicated drive just for the OS and critical systems programs. My rationale being that if you have to wipe a drive to start the OS over from scratch, at least you save your stored files.
That wouldn’t solve the core problems at play that IMO are leading to this decision: aggressive indexing and AV scanning behavior for all files + terrible performance penalties when dealing with...
That wouldn’t solve the core problems at play that IMO are leading to this decision: aggressive indexing and AV scanning behavior for all files + terrible performance penalties when dealing with lots of small files on NTFS. Quick access to system files isn’t really the issue at play here; access to user content, installed programs, and system files are all getting hit across the board - mostly regardless of the drive they’re on. Basically, the OS is just DOSing itself nowadays and Microsoft are trying to paper over that fact by throwing more horsepower around.
OTOH even on Linux you get a much nicer experience using an SSD. At the end of the day, operating systems are all about random reads and writes, which spinning disks suck at.
OTOH even on Linux you get a much nicer experience using an SSD.
At the end of the day, operating systems are all about random reads and writes, which spinning disks suck at.
Depending on which Linux variant you use your experience might be night and day. For first time, I've been using NixOS on SSD and operations are 5-20 times faster. I'm not even joking and this is...
Depending on which Linux variant you use your experience might be night and day. For first time, I've been using NixOS on SSD and operations are 5-20 times faster. I'm not even joking and this is with WSL overhead.
On Windows however I'm afraid these newfound speeds will be eaten by software cpanies going even slacker.
I think this would do a lot to alleviate those problems. Files on spinning rust getting hit would still incur a performance penalty, but now it wouldn't come at the cost of the operating system's...
I think this would do a lot to alleviate those problems. Files on spinning rust getting hit would still incur a performance penalty, but now it wouldn't come at the cost of the operating system's responsiveness, or that of any apps installed to the SSD. Users could happily browse away in Firefox or do anything else running off the boot drive even while apps using the HDD are struggling.
The problem with solid state drives is not just that they're more expensive, it's that they don't last as long as hard drives. When they do fail, they fail hard.
The problem with solid state drives is not just that they're more expensive, it's that they don't last as long as hard drives. When they do fail, they fail hard.
It's not really a factor. It is true that nand flash has a limited number of reads and writes over its lifespan, but that is a 10+ year problem. On the other hand, especially in laptops, which...
It's not really a factor. It is true that nand flash has a limited number of reads and writes over its lifespan, but that is a 10+ year problem. On the other hand, especially in laptops, which move around, HDDs will more than likely have a mechanical failure by then. Not to mention that in 10 years, any SSD you can buy now, and absolutely any HDD you can buy now, will be so painfully slow I cannot imagine anyone willingly still using it as their primary storage device.
For those not up on these matters... Those estimates for hard drive failure of SSDs are for total drive overwrites. It's very hard to overwrite 128GB 10,000 times on a consumer device. For an...
For those not up on these matters...
Those estimates for hard drive failure of SSDs are for total drive overwrites. It's very hard to overwrite 128GB 10,000 times on a consumer device.
For an average consumer whom streams more than they download/create, a 512GB SSD would probably be sufficient for 8 years or more of use.
Maybe 10 years ago. Today the write endurance on consumer-grade SSDs is good enough that I really wouldn't be concerned. Per GB, SSDs are still more expensive than spinning rust. However, you can...
Maybe 10 years ago. Today the write endurance on consumer-grade SSDs is good enough that I really wouldn't be concerned.
Per GB, SSDs are still more expensive than spinning rust. However, you can get a 128GB or even 256GB SSD for the same or less than the cost of the cheapest 2.5" HDD I can find. This is because the minimum cost of creating an HDD regardless of size is so high that it no longer makes sense for manufacturers to put out anything under 1 TB. So for someone who just needs to browse the web and send emails, an SSD is actually more economical than an HDD while being faster and more reliable.
I've already moved to SSDs for boot drives, but admittedly this is because I favor a dedicated drive just for the OS and critical systems programs. My rationale being that if you have to wipe a drive to start the OS over from scratch, at least you save your stored files.
I wonder if they could move to a 64 GB boot disk and a 1 TB hard drive for everything else?
That wouldn’t solve the core problems at play that IMO are leading to this decision: aggressive indexing and AV scanning behavior for all files + terrible performance penalties when dealing with lots of small files on NTFS. Quick access to system files isn’t really the issue at play here; access to user content, installed programs, and system files are all getting hit across the board - mostly regardless of the drive they’re on. Basically, the OS is just DOSing itself nowadays and Microsoft are trying to paper over that fact by throwing more horsepower around.
OTOH even on Linux you get a much nicer experience using an SSD.
At the end of the day, operating systems are all about random reads and writes, which spinning disks suck at.
Depending on which Linux variant you use your experience might be night and day. For first time, I've been using NixOS on SSD and operations are 5-20 times faster. I'm not even joking and this is with WSL overhead.
On Windows however I'm afraid these newfound speeds will be eaten by software cpanies going even slacker.
What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away..
I think this would do a lot to alleviate those problems. Files on spinning rust getting hit would still incur a performance penalty, but now it wouldn't come at the cost of the operating system's responsiveness, or that of any apps installed to the SSD. Users could happily browse away in Firefox or do anything else running off the boot drive even while apps using the HDD are struggling.
The problem with solid state drives is not just that they're more expensive, it's that they don't last as long as hard drives. When they do fail, they fail hard.
It’s my understanding that this was the case 10 years ago with consumer hardware. But today I’d bet on an SSD outlasting a hard drive every time.
It's not really a factor. It is true that nand flash has a limited number of reads and writes over its lifespan, but that is a 10+ year problem. On the other hand, especially in laptops, which move around, HDDs will more than likely have a mechanical failure by then. Not to mention that in 10 years, any SSD you can buy now, and absolutely any HDD you can buy now, will be so painfully slow I cannot imagine anyone willingly still using it as their primary storage device.
For those not up on these matters...
Those estimates for hard drive failure of SSDs are for total drive overwrites. It's very hard to overwrite 128GB 10,000 times on a consumer device.
For an average consumer whom streams more than they download/create, a 512GB SSD would probably be sufficient for 8 years or more of use.
Maybe 10 years ago. Today the write endurance on consumer-grade SSDs is good enough that I really wouldn't be concerned.
Per GB, SSDs are still more expensive than spinning rust. However, you can get a 128GB or even 256GB SSD for the same or less than the cost of the cheapest 2.5" HDD I can find. This is because the minimum cost of creating an HDD regardless of size is so high that it no longer makes sense for manufacturers to put out anything under 1 TB. So for someone who just needs to browse the web and send emails, an SSD is actually more economical than an HDD while being faster and more reliable.
And they use less electricity. So they’ll give you more battery life in a laptop and cost you less in electricity.