SSD's; The Myth Exposed.

Back in this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=435052

I asked if an SSD would improve my productivity in my notebook vs. what eBoostr (beta 4 build 543) offered. Nobody cared to answer that particular question, even though quite a few people seemed to read my post.

Having just purchased a Patriot Torqx 64GB SSD, I am now in the position to answer it myself.

System:
VAIO P8400 8GB RAM Patriot Torqx 64GB SSD Win 7 x64. vs.
Identical system hardware except for 500GB Scorpio Blue HD.

First thing I did was install firmware 1819 on this Indilinx SSD.

I then installed Win 7, the hardware drivers, did the Windows updates and installed Security Essentials. Installed maybe 1/4 of my programs (64GB = 59.5GB actual space - less than my Music collection!) and let the system settle for a few hours. I disabled system restore (useless, any time I've ever used it), disabled scheduled defrag and set the pagefile to 512MB. That's all for 'tweaks'.

I copied 7GB of RAW image files and also 350MB (1 album) of Windows Media Lossless uncompressed music too. This left 13GB of free space left, well below the 20% 'suggested' free space for HD's (could have copied 2.1GB more files over, but left some room for temp files).

I ran a subset of the tests I did in the thread linked above (because I didn't have 67 of my programs installed) and the results are what I guessed at last Monday.

You can see the numbers below, but here is my conclusion: eBoostr does offer comparable performance to an SSD. Considering the price difference (10x more for the SSD) eBoostr's Value is phenomenal (for me and my specific system setup).

Now for some disclaimers:
Is this a scientific test that compares apples to apples? Not exactly. But good enough.

Was the Scorpio Blue installation exactly the same as the Torqx SSD's? No.

Was the mechanical HD at a disadvantage because it had more 'garbage' on it? Yes.

Was this as 'real-world' as I could make it considering the time and capacity (of the SSD) limitations? Yes.

The Scorpio Blue installation is over 3 or 4 months old now, includes many more programs installed (including much more startup programs) and also includes VMWare Workstation and XP Mode virtual machines installed. In addition, the hardware screen calibrator program is installed and runs on every boot too - this test definitely was not slanted in any way towards the mechanical HD's favour - no, the SSD had every advantage possible except the advantage of more free space.

The SSD felt fast - very fast, but it was also inconsistent in it's performance (extracting a 180KB RAR file took almost a minute on the Torqx - yes, that's KB, not MB and this aspect of its 'performance' is what makes the Torqx 'garbage').

Remember, that these tests were performed on a Trim enabled O/S with trim enabled firmware.

Okay, the tests and the numbers:

So these are my tests: time the SSD and see how fast the system: shuts down, shows the desktop, becomes usable (responsive to user input), opens and closes 48 of my most used programs, and finally the all important productivity test:

1) Open WMP11 and play an album encoded with Windows Media Lossless compression.
2) Start Outlook
3) Start IE8 and navigate to notebookreview.com
4) Start LR 2.5 and convert 373 12MP images to 1200x1200 pixel jpgs.
5) Wait until LR pops open an explorer window indicating its finished.

The time on the productivity test only includes how long it took to convert all 373 raw files.

Additional tests:
With No eBoostr installed: Adobe PS CS4 takes 16 seconds to start ('cold') (Scorpio Blue HD).

On SSD it takes 7 seconds to start 'cold'.

Close CS4 and time to start it again (warm start): 4 seconds (both SSD and Scorpio drives).

With eBoostr (no RAM cache) CS4 takes 5 seconds to start. Again, to restart its 4 seconds.


..............................SSD..................ScorpioBlue+eBstr(57%)

Shut down...............15sec...........................10sec

Desktop...................42sec...........................45sec

Usable...................+18sec.........................+75sec

Total Start Time....... 70sec..........................120sec

Open/Close 48 Apps.....8min............................9min

Convert 373 images....26min............................25min

Kinda interesting huh?

I also ran the Patriot.exe manual Trim tool - did nothing for the numbers above. I ran PerfectDisk 10 Defrag Free Space. Made the drive slower. I Ran the wiper again - no difference. (This was supposed to be the 'Tony Trim' method; Indilinx, you lie ).

Okay, let me state this straight out; past 50% filled, the Torqx started slowing down. With Win 7 freshly installed (and about 40GB free space) the computer flew. But a 'clean' computer does not do any work; the software does and putting the bare minimum on it (and with only 7.5GB of personal data) makes this size drive unusable. Why?

Well, lets list the reasons:
1) Mech HD don't ever, ever choke on small files (especially with eBoostr).
2) Waiting for a minute to extract a 180KB file is ridiculous for a $380 drive.
3) Scorpio+eBoostr shuts down faster (with a much larger install)! Hmmm....
4) The times 'saved' by using an SSD or eBoostr is only for the first launch of the program, afterwards the speed is the same no matter what HD you are using (thanks to SuperFetch & 8GB of RAM).
5) Converting the RAW images was actually faster using the Scorpio/eBoostr combo! I'm not only surprised at this, I'm truthfully shocked.
6) On a much smaller installation, the SSD is faster by a whole 3 seconds than the Scorpio/eBoostr combo. It is much faster to be usable though (50 seconds faster), but how many times do you reboot in one day?
7) Granted, the SSD opened and closed the same programs one minute faster than the Scorpio, but keep in mind that that one minute is only 5 programs to open/close out of 48 and also remember the much larger install on the Scorpio so although its a technical 'win' I see it as getting about 12% faster for almost 10 times the cost.

I also tried the Torqx with eBoostr and it did make a difference - the biggest being that the audio wouldn't skip during the RAW conversion process.

So, the bottom line is this; if I reboot only once a day I would save 50 seconds with the SSD. Additionally, the first time I open my (48) programs, I would save an additional minute... however, if I convert 373 images during that time (while listening to my music! ), I would loose that minute I just saved. So... $380 for 50 seconds saved? Ya, here's my cash - not!

@hollis_f, I also tried the same conversion test above but to my USB connected Scorpio (rebooted in between, of course) the time to convert was exactly the same; 26min (RAW files imported from and final jpegs outputted to, the USB connected mechanical drive in LR2.5).

@davepermen, so - I've tried one of the latest and greatest and... it's returned already - not even a tear from me... bad, bad drive...

@everyone,
So, for me, Indilinx based SSD's are relegated to the scrap heap, along with Samsung SSD's (they both 'stutter' - even though everyone says they don't).

I still want to try an Intel G2 - but this generation of SSD's looks bleak (two out of three are bad (go Meatloaf! ).

Intel! Where is Braidwood?

 

Do I not see the SSD's attractive side? Yes I do.

No noise, no heat, no vibration.

In my particular case above, I saw no increase in battery life either though.

If I had an underpowered netbook, with barely enough RAM (less than 2GB is silly in 2009) I can see how an SSD can seem to make that type of computer 'better'. It may seem faster, but in the end, you still will not do any real work on it (meaning CPU intensive, not meaning real as in 'valuable' or not).

But if we are trading our hard earned dollars thinking that an SSD can make a productivity increase on our same old hardware - we are sorely misguided.

At least, if we don't explore all our available options ourselves (instead of believing the hype).

 

Which strongly suggests that the jpeg production process is processor/ram limited. The test I did was to render 1:1 previews in LR. That's where I saw a big difference.

 

you just want to be cool (just reading your title i knew several things.. a) it's from you b) you foudn something more to bash on them c) you failed at it)

yes. ssds don't improve your cpu, or your ram.
no, nobody cares about the patriot 64gb.
yes, you should really finally just test out the intel.
yes, you should learn what it's about, when it's good, when it's bad, and why i rocks exactly then.

you can't beat that. at least not for the sound

 

As you know we are still in the early stages of SSD. Things will get better.

 

actually, no, things ARE better (And are since about a year). but he still failed to pair a good system with a good ssd. so far he played with known bad ssds, or known cheap ssds, or on very old systems that just suck by default.

he just doesn't get it. but i said it before, i don't care about it anymore. all the time and money spent trying all those things could have been invested in a single intel 160gb gen2, and all would have been perfect. but no.. he likes to try and play, and bash and cry, and hopes to get famous in the web trough that.

good luck with that.

 

hmmm, I sense some resentment towards the OP.

Things have definitely gotten better in the last year. No one wants to go back to those jmicron controllers but I do think it's still early and in the next year we should see even more improvements.

What's the definition of a good system by the way? Looks like he is testing with a Montevina based Vaio.

 

anything not vaio

well, to be fair: he tested a variety of combinations, but none with a good system + a good ssd together. and always got mediocre results. this is to be expected.

and he, time and time again, tries to push his eboostr, failing to understand how this is just a bandaid fix instead of the real fix. and he directly tries to show me how right he is. while i have to laught about it, sort of, sitting in front of several system proving him wrong each day.

 

Thanks hollis_f,

I too think my 'test' may not show an SSD to its full potential, but let me point out what it did do:

Read 7GB of RAW image data. Spit out 400MB of jpg files. I think that an SSD should have done something, no?

Even if I'm wrong here, I'm not wrong in that this is how I would use my notebook anyway.

Oh yes, reading and outputting the same raw data (but on a USB attached Scorpio) yielded the same time - now, you may say this proves it's slightly CPU limited, but how do you explain the import/export to the USB taking the same time?

My explanation is that the SSD is not fast. At least, it's as fast in this case as a USB connected mechanical HD.

And there is the data point to consider that with that very same Scorpio Blue and eBoostr, the conversion finished a minute faster.

Not doubting you saw your difference, but I think my test is 'fair' too.

 

davepermen,

lets just say that I thirst for real knowledge about these SSD's - what you're suggesting is otherwise and I will not be drawn in.

I agree that I need to test the Intel, but I simply can't get my hands on one yet.

I thought that since Indilinx based SSD's are the next best thing and the opportunity presented itself, I would try them.

I'm glad I did, because I know not to waste anymore time with Samsung or Indilinx based drives based on my specific criteria of 'better', based on my actual experience on them.

As to the video link, yes I've seen that - but opening programs (fast) does not translate to more productivity as I have shown.

 

well, if something takes the same time to output to usb, then it shows that disk speed is 100% UNIMPORTANT in that test. as there's about nothing slower than a disk on usb.

so your explanation that the ssd is not fast, is false. the ssd was underutilized in this test, as the bottleneck was elsewhere.

 

well, it related to fixing the bottlenecks about experience when using a pc. anything that was not fast before now is. for the rest, please upgrade cpu, software, ram, gpu, what ever is needed..

 

This whole post is a non-sense.

"2) Waiting for a minute to extract a 180KB file is ridiculous for a $380 drive."

LOL.

 

davepermen,

No, things are not better in the 'real-world'. I live in the 'real-world' and SSD's are, so far, snake oil from a productivity perspective. What have you shown that 'proves' SSD's have made you more productive? Really, I'm interested to know.

My system is not old, nor are the SSD's I've used 'cheap'. As a matter of fact, you must make up your mind if SSD's improve a 'bad' system or if they are better suited to a 'great' system. Your inconsistency in this matter is tiring.

Not trying to get famous, just trying to get an edge over the competition by getting more done in less time, or (in this case) save my money for a real performance improvement - but you seem to conveniently forget that I have used a G2 160GB Intel and in the system it was in, I still am not impressed even with a G2.

However, I couldn't really test that system with programs I'm interested in - hence, my desire to still test a G2 when I'm able to get my hands on one.

I'll post an update if and when I get a G2 in my hands, I'm sure someone will appreciate the effort I'm putting in and not accuse me of chasing 'fame'.

 

How do you have shown that? If i have more time in front of a program is obvious i am more productive.

 

as said, you failed to use the g2 in a system where it could shine. like having a ferrary only available to drive with it a circle in a town.

you create several threads to discuss the same topic: that is fame-grabbing.

the ssds you've used are considered cheap, yes. samsung got proven time and time to often fall back to hdd-speeds, and espencially, to not show the "snappiness" of ssds. i can't comment on indilinx, but i would never buy any of those drives that are just there for quick money (like from ocz). so i would never have bought that torq thing. and it's a quite small one you bought => it's not even a fast indilinx (they scale performance with amount of gb, so a 256gb ssd would have been faster).

and i never said it makes all your work faster. i said it makes the pc faster there where it is slow. booting, loading files, saving files, starting apps, etc. exactly the stuff where people often cry at their pc how they are such crap and slow and it's all windows fault and it sucks and blabla. the ssd normally fits exactly in there, solving all those issues. but for that, you need a good one, obviously.

in apps, you only see gain if the app actually puts it to good use. most apps don't have that much use for a fast disk, they are actually designed around using slow disks (so are the os', but they get faster at adapting to the new performance king).

and yes, there is some inconsistency regarding some of my statements. but not in what i mean: you had a g2 in an old crap system (that even was singlecore, not?). most of the g2's power gets unused then. then you had crap ssds in a good system (your owns). these is equalling out: crap+good against good+crap. what you should do is testing good+good. then you see real good.

other than that, i've seen tremendous gains in putting ssds in to atom systems. but atoms are multicore, at least a bit with hyperthreading.

anyways. this is so annoying to state the same time and time again. you bought the wrong disk. you should have known better. everyone suggests intel, you buy what? patriot torqx. i mean, just read that name and then say "yep, that sounds like a professional designed thing, not some marketing crap".

 

davepermen,

I'm not pushing eBoostr per se, what I'm using it for (I'm only using the free beta!) is to show what other technology can do - as a counterpoint to the 'just get an SSD' mantra that I received from everyone when I mentioned I wanted to spend a few thousand dollars on computer upgrades.

Specifically, I'm thinking Intel's future Braidwood technology - but for now, we have eBoostr that makes a real and noticeable difference - without any of the troubles that I've seen with SSD's (let alone the cost factor).

You can laugh, but your systems do nothing for me.

 

And you would explain the exact same system, but with a Scorpio Blue and eBoostr being a minute faster as...?

Note that these tests were run each 3 times, with listening to the audio for 'skips' and the only ones where the audio didn't 'skip' is with eBoostr (on both the Scorpio and the Torqx SSD).

Also, the SSD was a 'clean' new install whereas the mechanical HD was much more thoroughly used and had twice the programs installed on it.

 

i call it a 4% difference.

or in other words: nothing i'd ever care about.

 

No, what would have been nonsense is to buy this drive, experience this 'performance' and still promote SSD's as the newest, must have 'bling'.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to see this, but maybe I have to be one of the first to post about it?

 

you have a crap disk, you bought crap. get it?

or maybe your sata settings where all wrong, disk cache wasn't on, what ever.. but anyways, the config is crap the way it is. maybe the disk, maybe wrong drivers, maybe wrong settings.. i can't test, i can't see, so i don't bother

 

last thing to consider: does this vaio allow sata2? some don't. and some even, depending on the bios, result in utter stuttering on most ssds, and varying, often crap performance.

 

davepermen,

thats my whole point! Even if we reversed the tables and the SSD was the faster one, what is the point for $400?

I'm not saying this applies to everyone's situation - I came here to answer my own specific needs.

If anyone can extract any useful information from my posts, great!

When I came here, if I had found my post (or similar) I wouldn't have bothered to test this for myself, but constantly slamming me for not finding a fitting use for a new and still emerging technology serves what purpose?

 

all you've proven is that you have some workflow which is not disk related. wow. congrats. i can give you TONS of such workflows. fact is still, ssds help when ever the disk IS related.

like my work system. down from 30 minutes untill all apps are booted in the morning and ready to use including outlook, down to 3 minutes. that's 27 minutes gained EACH DAY.
that is real gain.

 

Bullit,

If it takes one minute less to open 48 programs and the next time you open these programs (if you don't shut down your computer) they open at the same speed because of SuperFetch and 8GB of RAM - whether on a mechanical HD or an SSD, then Okay, I'll admit you'll be one minute more productive than me.

If, however, the programs are not effectively any faster (once open) whether an SSD or mechanical HD is used - then what is the point of an SSD upgrade? When you are looking specifically for a productivity gain?

 

when ever there's a ****ING disk access. because everytime there is, on a hdd system, i have to wait. only seconds, yes, but i have to. and it's annoying. now i don't have to wait, ever. i have about no app that takes more than half a sec to boot. this reduces all those tiny blocks you experience troughout the day where those tiny little blue spinning circles put you back out of your workflow, not allowing you to instantly continue with what you do.

 

other than that, you know that you shouldn't fill the disk that much. any disk gets issues then (just as hdds do).

 

I agree with most of davepermen's points. I find little point in this thread.

Now, please, to all members. Check the Forum Rules, and cool down. Very aggressive thread in general. Thanks!

 

davepermen,

yes, I have SATA2.

Granted, you save 27 minutes a day just booting - I would have saved 50 seconds - not a wise investment in my case (to keep the SSD).

Okay, I know I bought crap, but I didn't keep it - its gone.

I know a thing or two about setting up a system (really!) - when Win 7 was minutes 'fresh' it flew - but like I stated, a computer with just an O/S is not usable - are you suggesting now that using an SSD requires you to only use 25% of its capacity (instead of 75% that I, like any normal person, would)?

I think I provided enough information (without writing a book as I was accused of in the beginning when I joined ) so that anyone could see that I was testing it for my specific requirements and within those constraints, an SSD effectively fails.

Even if it provided a few % difference in productive benefits, the fact that it took almost a minute to extract a small file (180kb) I would still not be praising SSD's today. Especially not when it was less than two days old the drive.

So, you can't see, you can't test but you do bother to assume the worst of me, my abilities, my intentions and my equipment. How is this furthering our understanding of SSD's? All you're doing is trying to undermine the solid, non-biased information I am providing on my own time.

 

nah, i don't see much agression. just egos hitting each othes (and he yet has to learn that he's wrong and i'm right, as always.. takes time to learn that *smile* ^^ how's your fullhd64 goin? )

 

yeah, but you went far beyond that. 87% full you stated. at this point, it gets very hard for an ssd (just as, for nfts as well) to find nice free space to store data on, which results in stuttering, performance slowdowns, etc.

any normal person.. lets check: my main pc with all my apps (including ableton live, visual studio, the office package, and some) still has 30gb free, or more than 50% (27 filled, 32 free). that is a real life production system for an ordinary user.

this just shows that you essentially killed your ssds performance, and drove it into it's worst case. it, at this point, had no free cells to write to, and hit the actual problem jmicron drives always had: low random writes in their worst cases. one can trigger that on nearly every ssd by just filling it. a full drive has no free space left (excluding the intel with 20% free extra storage in) => where does it want to write? that's hell for it. and you've shown you've triggered hell for this drive.

yes, as you made several failures, some possibly (arguably) on purpose to show lack of the ssds performance. because you're utterly evil and have planned that all your life to treat me like that then on an online forum, hitting my archiles heel.

or so.

no, but you've shown that you failed to do it right, and look for the right things. might be hard to accept, i know.

 

davepermen, LOL

Okay, you made me laugh!

Where did I state 87% filled? If I did, I apologize now, because I only filled it to 46GB out of 59.5GB or 77%.

But seriously, you have to keep your story straight; either I use an SSD as I would any other HD, or they're useless unless they're babied.

The drives I've used are not only useless, they're crap (as you are quick to point out). We agree on this.

 

well, you don't seriously want to use a hdd to 87%..

and lets see.. scrolling upwards... okay, failure from my part:

read that as 13%.

and yes, i keep my story straight. i've used hdds that are 80% full. the system slowdowns are no fun AT ALL.

if you want to use an ssd just like a hdd, you have to consider having the same sized hdd. a <60gb hdd, when was the last time you used that? for me, it's about 2 weeks back. and it was terrible.

 

Wow Dave. I'm going to have to defend Tilleroftheearth here. He posted a thread and expressed his views. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. It is his money, his computer, so thus his tests are going to reflect his needs. I see nothing wrong or unscientific about it. He is using as real world observations for his goals, which was, "Is an SSD right for his situation?"

To blast his opinion about his own needs is not only shortsighted, but it is a bit prideful and arrogant. You do yourself no favors and I really don't see where your final goal for all this other than to show you are a fanboy.

On the note of the thread, I am a bit surprised no one had recommended a better drive. I myself have only a very limited experience with SSDs, but I personally would only use Intel drives. SSDs performance can vary greatly in all situations based on which disk controller they use. So far, Intel has shown to make the best all purpose performing controllers on the market.

On the note of overall performance, I still think extra HD space of mechanics trumps SSD's speed benefits. The time you saving using an SSD is limited to only certain situations. That does not include any situations where you have a near filled SSD. Any time you spend deciding which files to keep and which ones to delete/offload to an external is time that would of been gained using a mechanical drive.

I do wish every user goes through such an evaluation for their buys. This habit, while you may not agree with the results, is something to commend.

 

LOL...ok ok good to hear that ^^

thanks very well. I kinda suck cause I dont get the controls very well, but lets see, some time and it shall work fine. Any recommendations?

Sorry for the OT-ish topic.

 

Hmmm.... 60GB HD? In my own system? To do work with?

2003? (Hitachi 7K60 $480).

 

i never attacked his stuff. but his importance to post this in at least 3 different places in the forum, trying to make him the truth. he's just one case, and i try to find out why he's a failed case.

and i suggested him time and time before that he should get an intel into his system.

i spend 0 time thinking about what files need to be where btw. so yes, they have 100% benefit fo rme.

 

work system. end of 2009. sucks...

 

surfasb,

Thanks for that. I was beginning to question myself there for a second!

 

you got support. great. i try to find out why your experience was so bad. because that experience is a wrong one. there must have been a reason, maybe more than one. and, espencially, a solution.

that's why i try to point out every possible error you made (and because it's fun. you're counter-argumenting very well, which is nice)

 

or, to quote IBM from a few years ago "Cool costs me money"

The current generation of SSDs simply cannot be used/managed as conventional drives can.

Some can and do argue that "new tech requires new approaches" and within the strict context of that statement, they are correct.

But, with costs running from $3/Gb to over $10/Gb, the price/performance differential does not justify the use of SSD tech in anything other than very specialized applications.

 

davepermen,

contrary to all you've said or hinted about me and my motives, as long as you give me shreds of new information, I'll stay and take a beating!

Would you agree then, for my next test (G2 hopefully) that I should keep the drive filled to less than 50% to expect 'great' performance?

Oh, and I promise that I'll think up a test that hammers the HD's so you can't hit me with the '... but it's a CPU intensive task!' again.

(Even though it was reading/writing 7GB/500MB of data in my example, which is where I understand SSD's are supposed to shine - in reads).

 

well, as far as i know, my intel is still <50% filled you could test it with <50%, and with >80%, and then again with <50% (if you have one with trim support enabled thanks to an actual firmware). that would be fun, it should show good, worse, good again.

and to why i attack you that much: so far, it was always strange when someone walked in and said ssds suck, they don't deliver. because to anyone that could use one of mine, they are the best thing since sliced bread, and everyone wants mine. so it's always triggering a simple "it must be you, then" in me, that has to be fixed and solved somehow. that's nothing personal (for as long as it stays on a half-civilived niveau ).

and so far, most that had problems did failures.

so did you, not getting an intel


now if you get an intel and still fail to feel the wow effect, then i'm in serious trouble ^^ (but i still have the wow effect here, so i win )

 

That is exactly what I'm finding out the hard** way!

**davepermen technique to smash you down until you say 'uncle'!

 

Yeah, all the haters, like myself, would hang out in the Politics/Religion forum where it was kosher to spit on each other's views. With our home disbanded, we now go terrorize all the other forums!!!!

Screw less than 50% capacity. That would make the benchmark un-real. I'd fill it to whatever capacity you would normally work at and test it from there.

But yeah, definitely get an Intel drive. Until the other SSD drive manufacturers start to show comparable benchmarks, there is no point going with a subpar SSD drive.

Good thing the OP wasn't using a Mac for all these tests. I would predict even more hate.

So what is up with all the recent hostility in the forums these past few months. It is everywhere. WNSIB, Windows, OT, Dell, Asus, Apple, Alienware. The only time I see people soften up is if you have a hot chick in your avatar or if users believe you are a chick IRL.

Take note Tilleroftheearth!!!!

 

there is no special hostility from my part. i was just pissed that he raised the same issue again and again, now in an own thread, after i'm told him his faults before, several times.

and don't screw less than 50% capacity. it's at least worth a try. i agree to fill it to what ever capacity you would noramlly work at, but that should not be >80% anyways even on a hdd (while it was a mistake by me to think he had >80%)

 

Okay, Thanks.

But, now I know where you're coming from... you're still using drives I gave up in 2006! (60GB models) So no wonder you think SSD's are so fast! Use a modern mech HD and at least try PerfectDisk once!

 

i used perfectdisk for years, that's why i moved away from it, never touching it again. try defraggler, it really does less harm than perfectdisk.

and this was my WORK machine. i, for myself, didn't use such hdds. i did, though, had to use an 1.8" 4200rpm 100gb hdd in my 2710p until about a bit more than a year ago. that was hard. vista booting: 5 min. firefox starting: 1 min. switching to the mtron (80mb/s read, 60mb/s write) suddenly made that half a minute, and 1 sec for firefox.

but i have systems with fine hdds. they still suck compared to my ssds. newest example: office 2010. very fast (on hdds, too), but still, word is finished starting completely before the splashscreen came up on the hdd version. it's the tiny things, but they count massively if you get used to them.

 

If there are the same 3 threads, report them. It goes against the Forum Rules to cross-post

 

nah, i just reply three times to him, starting it to get heated, all that mess.

i didn't feel the need to report it, as it was more, a progression of the same topic, not the same per se. he sure didn't have done anything wrong. except for being wrong on the internet.. you know..