Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Intel Sdd Not Working As Thought.

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • Intel
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
July 5, 2009 1:10:39 AM

1st off, I want to say thank you for allowing me to be a member of your community. I have done alot of reading on this forum, but have never posted a question.

I just recieved, installed a new Intel 32Gb E SSD. I am running XP, Outlook 07, and some other apps. I am only using 50% of my capacity. My boot times did decrease by 50% at least! However, that seems to be the only thing I see an improvement in. I am coming from an Hitachi 320Gb 7200K drive and felt I would see improvements in much more areas.

My question is this. Could I have not set it up properly? I see some discussions about setting some other stuff up correctly. I hope somebody here could lead me in a direction to help find my problem.

My laptop is a Panasonic Toughbook CF-30 MKII. It uses an Intel Dual Core 2 chip. 4 gb of Ram.

Thanks for any help!

More about : intel sdd working thought

July 5, 2009 1:52:41 AM

toughbook said:
1st off, I want to say thank you for allowing me to be a member of your community. I have done alot of reading on this forum, but have never posted a question.

I just recieved, installed a new Intel 32Gb E SSD. I am running XP, Outlook 07, and some other apps. I am only using 50% of my capacity. My boot times did decrease by 50% at least! However, that seems to be the only thing I see an improvement in. I am coming from an Hitachi 320Gb 7200K drive and felt I would see improvements in much more areas.

My question is this. Could I have not set it up properly? I see some discussions about setting some other stuff up correctly. I hope somebody here could lead me in a direction to help find my problem.

My laptop is a Panasonic Toughbook CF-30 MKII. It uses an Intel Dual Core 2 chip. 4 gb of Ram.

Thanks for any help!


Program load times are the only place you'd expect to see an improvement, and those are also affected by CPU and memory performance.
Related resources
a c 127 G Storage
July 5, 2009 1:59:31 PM

You apparantly didn't read its first page; since that one clearly states the JMicron-controller being the curlpit, and Intel's controller being significantly faster. Such as in this real world benchmark:



Since the OP uses Intel X25-M and not a crap JMicron controller, you comments do not apply. Also OP, you shouldn't use Windows XP with an SSD, preferably use Vista or Win7 or even better: linux, to gain more from the potential that SSDs give you. All Windows XP partitions are created with a bad offset, causing a misalignment issue with RAID-arrays and SSD drives (which use internal channel interleave; comparable to RAID0).
a b G Storage
July 5, 2009 7:31:07 PM

@sub mesa: Do you expect him to see any *noticable* imporvement in performance (other than bootup and program load times) given his hardware configuration and use?

I don't.

Which is why I pointed him to Page 2 of that article (the history) rather than the beginning. In retrospect, I should have been more clear.

Of course, he also has the added security that an ill-timed ding to his toughbook won't hurt the HD now.
a c 127 G Storage
July 5, 2009 8:13:32 PM

All i see the TS wrote about his usage was:
Quote:
I am running XP, Outlook 07, and some other apps

That doesn't really tell us if he's using powerful applications that will dish out alot of non-sequential I/O to the disk. But judging from the fact that he already bought an Intel X25-E (E for Extreme; the much more expensive SLC-based version), i think disk I/O performance is either very important to him or he requires it for powerful apps.

But i would argue an SSD would be beneficial also for casual "internet" pcs. I'm using a cheap SSD on my second computer at home, for internet browsing and email; light stuff. My own experience was when i switched the notebook HDD for the SSD, a significant increase in responsetime. Since i'm a quick worker at the PC, able to checkout webpages and multitask much faster than most users, the SSD really allowed me the speed. Opening of tabs, reloading all tabs at once, changing sessions, everything i do does rely ultimately on disk I/O performance, because the CPU is no longer a bottleneck. Especially on Linux/BSD which use multicore processors very well, while Windows' kernel is still largely single-threaded. The disk I/O subsystem is, anyway.

What i'm saying is that, i really enjoy having an SSD in my internet pc, even though that's really for light internet-related tasks. Personally it was a great improvement, because i noticed i wasn't frustrated any longer because the PC was too slow to follow my thoughts and clicks. :) 

So the gain for me was Instant-on apps and alot less frustration about waiting times. Surely an SSD isnt required to make a decent light internet pc, but it does have a better customer experience. Whether the money is worth it, is always a personal consideration depending on many factors.
July 8, 2009 3:15:07 AM

My Panny came with Vista and XP, my choice of which one I want to use. I had Vista loaded before, however a certain program I run 90% of the time for work was having problems with Vista. They have since fixed the problem, but instead of going back to it I am going to wait for W7.
As I use my computer more and more I am seeing alot more improvements than just boot times. I can load as many apps as I want and they do not even blink an eye.
I was thinking of going ahead and trying out W7 RC now and see how I like it. Heck I have unloaded/loaded so many OS systems lately I have got it down to a science!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason I went with the Intel SSD-E was I wanted a SSD for starters, and the E is SLC, not MLC, which of course is better, so that's what I sprung for. Do I regret not getting the 64Gb? Yea, a little bit. However, I have gotten down to only 15 Gbs used so far. If you spend some time and go thru some of the crap on Xp that you will never use you can really get it down in size.

Thanks guys for your comments! BTW, yes my ToughBook can and does take a licking. I have it mounted in a Gamber/Johnson dock in my work van. I love it when my CPU temp shows 150 degrees and it still is barely warm to the touch, and that's without having any fans. I can just see the Dells melting in plastic!
a c 127 G Storage
July 8, 2009 4:19:56 PM

Well you shouldn't use XP on that SSD, its a complete waste and alot of performance goes down the drain since XP formats all disks with BAD partitions; bad for SSDs and bad for RAIDs. Starting with Vista this problem is more or less resolved. Win7 may also have some other optimizations for SSDs, just make sure to NEVER defragment your disk; and turn automatic defragmenting off if you run Vista/Win7.

Also try using the latest firmware for the SSD, as it has performance and lifespan updates.
July 8, 2009 5:02:42 PM

SubMesa, 1st off there is not a firmware update for the E series, just the M. That I know of at least?

I wont be using XP very long at all. Actually if I find some time I plan on moving to my Vista.

I have all my programs set so that they do not defrag. Intel pretty much states that it is not needed and just adds to additional wear on the drive for no reason. In other words you don't "Hurt" it by defragging, just a useless job. With a 2 million MTBF I am not going to worry about wearing it out!

You are really increasing my curiosity between the difference of XP and Vista with this drive. It's hard to imagine that Vista is actually better at something than XP! Times are a changin..........

Thanks for your input, I really do appreciate it.
a c 127 G Storage
July 8, 2009 8:31:11 PM

Hmm i don't know the X25-E since i never worked with it, but it doesn't have the problems the X25-M had in the beginning, with older firmware. SLC flash based SSDs do not have 2-phase writes thats the major difference.

About your "moving to vista". You can boot the Vista setup DVD and let it create the partition for you, without actually installing Vista. Now install XP on that partition and you have a properly aligned partition with use of XP. Likewise, if you let XP create the partition and move to Vista without recreating the partition, both operating systems will have a BAD misalignment.

Defragging SSDs makes them slower because it will contaminate the sector mapping configuration in the SSD. Unlike HDDs which store all data linearly from sector 1 to the last sector, SSDs don't. They have a physical address space (only visible to the SSD) and a virtual address space (which the operating system sees and uses). So while your defrag may want to move stuff close to eachother and at the beginning of the disk, what actually happens on the SSD is that the data is being scattered across the whole drive and maybe even more fragmented.

In short, *never* defragment an SSD. If you did and want to regain performance, write zeroes to the whole drive and start over (copying/cloning back is fine tho!)
a b å Intel
a b G Storage
July 8, 2009 8:49:19 PM

sub mesa said:
You apparantly didn't read its first page; since that one clearly states the JMicron-controller being the curlpit, and Intel's controller being significantly faster. Such as in this real world benchmark:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/thessdanthology_031809001858/18649.png

Since the OP uses Intel X25-M and not a crap JMicron controller, you comments do not apply. Also OP, you shouldn't use Windows XP with an SSD, preferably use Vista or Win7 or even better: linux, to gain more from the potential that SSDs give you. All Windows XP partitions are created with a bad offset, causing a misalignment issue with RAID-arrays and SSD drives (which use internal channel interleave; comparable to RAID0).



An ssd will not improve application performance , nor fps in games , and not usually file transfer speeds [ because the slowest drive is the limitation ]
The only advantage of ssd is faster loading and boot times , and maybe a chance of a longer life .

Its a pity that many people have been lead to believe they are going to alter the performance of their computer by fitting an ssd . They wont
July 8, 2009 9:08:48 PM

SubMesa, Thanks for your help for starters! When I install Vista I will be doing a fresh install on a wiped clean drive. Will that be ok in regards to aligning the sectors?


Outlander, Yes I do agree that alot of people think that an SSD is the mother of all. However, there are more benefits than just boot and faster loads. They run cooler, which means the fan doesn't have to work as much, which translates into better battery life. An SSD drive also consumes less power, again, better battery time. Some items I am sure I'm missing as well. Battery life is one of the consumers biggest concerns with a laptop. Thankfully mine can get me close to 10 hours on XP with the single battery, if I install the 2nd battery in the optical drive slot I can get close to 18 hours. It amazes me when I read some reviews on laptops that are the top dog, but you can only get about 3 hours max out of it.
a c 127 G Storage
July 9, 2009 12:33:41 AM

SSDs do not improve application performance? Could you ellaborate on that, since there are tons of reviews that contradict that. If you say it won't increase my FPS, sure, if you say an application that uses no/minimal I/O won't get any benefit, sure. But there enough applications that would warrant a fast disk, and game loading times are important to (online) gamers since that can mean you can play sooner and get an advantage over gamers with slower disks. :) 

The 30.000+ random IOps versus 200 for the HDD ought to translate into faster application performance. Also since alot of Windows applications are using blocking I/O (causing often a queue depth of just 1) - any disk I/O will be bottlenecked by latency; which is something SSDs excel at. For write latency you need a good SSD tho like the Intel ones.

The problem is, how do you notice the speed? Speed is something you get used to very quickly. You won't think why it took so fast to load firefox with alot of tabs, cause you have no reference. Only if you perform the exact same steps on one PC with SSD and one with HDD, you will see the real difference. Aside from that, if you're an impatient user like me, an SSD can help bring frustration and annoyance down, and can improve your productivity. For me it was worth it, my experience has boomed. I can click anything and it happens, that really satisfies me. I can imagine people with a higher patience threshold would benefit less from an SSD.

But don't say they're not faster, they are. :) 
Especially disk-bound servers can replace whole 16-disk RAID-arrays with just a single fast SSD, consuming much less being much more reliable and saving the cost of the RAID-controller, and performing faster than the whole 16-disk SAS RAID array, because alot of this I/O is almost 100% random, which is what HDDs suck at, since they have to seek everytime which takes ages. One seek means your HDD wastes about 30.000 cycles, i calculated. The CPU can't continue and sits on its bum until the data finally arrives. Even with 16 enterprise disks that's going to be very slow on a high loaded server.

Software counts alot too, in fact its were most of the real bottlenecks come from. Running Linux/unix may help too, but i heard Windows 7 has some optimizations for SSDs as well. I don't know what that means, it may just be support for the new "TRIM" command SSDs have to release a block that has been deleted/no longer in use.
July 9, 2009 12:44:42 AM

sub mesa said:
SSDs do not improve application performance? Could you ellaborate on that, since there are tons of reviews that contradict that. If you say it won't increase my FPS, sure, if you say an application that uses no/minimal I/O won't get any benefit, sure. But there enough applications that would warrant a fast disk, and game loading times are important to (online) gamers since that can mean you can play sooner and get an advantage over gamers with slower disks. :) 

The 30.000+ random IOps versus 200 for the HDD ought to translate into faster application performance. Also since alot of Windows applications are using blocking I/O (causing often a queue depth of just 1) - any disk I/O will be bottlenecked by latency; which is something SSDs excel at. For write latency you need a good SSD tho like the Intel ones.

The problem is, how do you notice the speed? Speed is something you get used to very quickly. You won't think why it took so fast to load firefox with alot of tabs, cause you have no reference. Only if you perform the exact same steps on one PC with SSD and one with HDD, you will see the real difference. Aside from that, if you're an impatient user like me, an SSD can help bring frustration and annoyance down, and can improve your productivity. For me it was worth it, my experience has boomed. I can click anything and it happens, that really satisfies me. I can imagine people with a higher patience threshold would benefit less from an SSD.

But don't say they're not faster, they are. :) 
Especially disk-bound servers can replace whole 16-disk RAID-arrays with just a single fast SSD, consuming much less being much more reliable and saving the cost of the RAID-controller, and performing faster than the whole 16-disk SAS RAID array, because alot of this I/O is almost 100% random, which is what HDDs suck at, since they have to seek everytime which takes ages. One seek means your HDD wastes about 30.000 cycles, i calculated. The CPU can't continue and sits on its bum until the data finally arrives. Even with 16 enterprise disks that's going to be very slow on a high loaded server.

Software counts alot too, in fact its were most of the real bottlenecks come from. Running Linux/unix may help too, but i heard Windows 7 has some optimizations for SSDs as well. I don't know what that means, it may just be support for the new "TRIM" command SSDs have to release a block that has been deleted/no longer in use.


Nope, no improvement in the performance of most programs, and the ones that "count" aren't even used by most fanatics, let alone normal people. Look at programs that use a lot of HDD bandwidth and I/O:

TMPGEnc encoding is mostly limitted by either CPU or memory performance, drawing data from an 80MB/s drive at around 1/4 to 1/2 drive activity

AVG Antivirus: CPU bound, it takes longer to analyse than read the data

WinRAR: CPU bound, see AVG

WinZIP: CPU Bound, see WinRAR

The only way to make the hard drive "slow" these programs is to use an extremly slow drive. I'm sure I have a notebook drive around here somewhere that's like...20GB and 15MB/s...
July 9, 2009 2:50:54 AM

I wonder what drive are you using? I am 100% positive it is a HDD, not a SSD. LIke Submesa stated, if you use a SSD, then go to a HDD you will be wondering what the heck is wrong with your computer.
a b G Storage
July 9, 2009 3:23:03 AM

Because your boot and program load times will increase, and that you will notice.

The point that's being made is *exactly* your original post . . . "Did I do something wrong? I don't notice any (other) gains."

Nope, you did nothing wrong. For what you said you were running, you won't notice.
July 9, 2009 3:23:44 AM

toughbook said:
I wonder what drive are you using? I am 100% positive it is a HDD, not a SSD. LIke Submesa stated, if you use a SSD, then go to a HDD you will be wondering what the heck is wrong with your computer.


We've been saying all along those are load times. And many of those aren't much faster. I've used Intel's SSD's, in RAID 0 at that.
a c 127 G Storage
July 10, 2009 3:24:55 PM

Crashman, the applications you mentioned are CPU-bound, not disk-bound. What about a common application like Firefox? I'm a person that keeps tabs open and they reload when i open, i also reload all tabs occasionally to identify updated pages. With a HDD, this would lead to jerky behavior. Text i write would not appear instantly, menu's would not expand instantly, etc. Back in Windows-times, i remember even the start menu would require a seek on the disk, because i still used loud disks back then i could hear it accessing, and the delay was quite noticable.

It depends on what you do on your computer, ofcourse, and how impatient you are. But aside from all the benchmarks and numbers, i would argue my speed experience and overall experience of using my SSD workstation has improved.

The applications you mentioned, will be requiring you to wait anyway; what's the difference between 2 minutes and 4 minutes of compressing? I simply dismiss my archiver to the system tray and it disappears when its done. Meanwhile, i can go ahead and browse and i won't notice a thing of my background activity. I can imagine this being very different on a HDD.

This kind of experience is hard to test, hard to measure. You can measure average read latency, but that doesn't tell you if that read action is something important. Like something the application will wait for and be unresponsive to user input during that time, until the data has arrived and the program continues normal operation. That kind of behavior is extremely boring and annoying in my experience. And this is something the SSD can fix.

Things you have to wait for anyway, are pretty much background tasks. I multitask alot so i don't really care about its performance really.

The problem in this thread is probably the OP not having the experience he was hoping for. If he's up for it, there is a way to do an ultimate performance test, unlike many others. :) 

First, backup everything. Then install Vista or Win7 on the SSD - you can download the Win7 RC's for free i believe, why not try that? Then install all your applications, whatever you normally would use and install. And continue using that system for as long as possible (a few months would be ideal, with many installations/removals etc).

Then, clone the entire SSD to a HDD using a Ubuntu livecd, with a command like:
sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=1M
note: *change* the disk names in bold to the actual disk names, sda is the ssd which will be read from. sdb is the hdd which will be written to. The command will not display any output initially, only when its done. In the ubuntu livecd, you can view your disks with a command like "dmesg | grep sd" or use the partition manager to see the size and names of your disks.

When that's done, power down, disconnect the SSD (important since Windows won't tolerate two exact copies of a filesystem!) and leave the HDD connected. Boot from the HDD and resume normal operation. If your user experience drops rapidly, that would mean the SSD does improve your experience. If not, then i would be puzzled, especially with the X25-E since it has no flaws in performance.
a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
July 12, 2009 3:30:05 AM

sub mesa said:
Crashman, the applications you mentioned are CPU-bound, not disk-bound. What about a common application like Firefox? I'm a person that keeps tabs open and they reload when i open, i also reload all tabs occasionally to identify updated pages. With a HDD, this would lead to jerky behavior.

Actually jerky behaviour in Firefox is probably better solved by getting more RAM so that Firefox can keep all that stuff in memory instead of having to write it out to the disk (and even if it writes it out to disk the file system can keep it cached in RAM).

If you don't have enough RAM, then things are going to get paged out to the pagefile. Putting the pagefile on an SSD will speed things up but it's a bad solution for two reasons: (1) While SSDs are faster than mechanical drives, they're still a LOT slower than RAM, and (2) because of the lifetime limit on SSD writes you should avoid using them for write-intensive tasks like the pagefile or temporary files.

Whether or not SSDs speed up your application depends ENTIRELY on whether it's speed is limited by it's need to perform disk I/O. Some people really do have disk-bound applications. Video editing and batch processing of RAW photos are two that immediately spring to mind, and I've no doubt that others can come up with some very good examples too.

But in response to some of the naysayers - buying an SSD is a perfectly sound thing to do if you understand the problem you're trying to solve and whether or not the SDD will help.
a c 127 G Storage
July 12, 2009 1:03:09 PM

I have 4GB RAM, so i don't think memory constrain or swapping is an issue. Normally RAM would be great, especially because it caches your most used applications. But RAM can't prevent disk writes, and alot of applications are single-threaded apps. So if they read something, it'll block the entire app. My experience is that SSDs remove the interface lag, and make you continue working instead of waiting for virtually everything you do. Even alt-tabbing may result in disk I/O. I just can't stand waiting everytime.

Now when good PCI-e SSDs come out with a reasonable pricetag, i'll migrate all my PCs to SSDs and HDDs are only found in NAS boxes for large data storage. Aside from all the benchmarks, this is a hardware upgrade that i actually could feel. At least i'm happy with it. ;) 
July 12, 2009 3:10:33 PM

I am going to try and give you guys a more detailed look into my computer, and what I do with it. I hope yall can give me some tips or ideas.

Panasonic CF-30 Toughbook
Intel Core 2 Duo L7500 1.6 Ghz
4 Gb Ram

Right now, with Windows open only it is showing me 4096Mb of free space in paging file, and 2550Mb free physical memory.

I do not fully understand the paging file crap?? Do I want it too allow paging file, or not?

I have this laptop mounted in my van in a Gamber/Johnson Mag Dock. I have an embedded Verizon card that I use almost all the time.

I have a mobile fleet repair business here in Atlanta, I use a program called Shop Controller for my business. This is where all my customers, vehicles, stocking parts, labor, etc are on. I also use a program called AlldataPro for my diagnostic, repair info. It is web based.

I use Outlook 2007 for my email, it always open and running, as well as IE.

This is mostly what I do with this computer, and of course surf the web like I am doing right now with you guys.

My Toughbook came with 2 cd's. 1 being XP with all the drivers and such on it, and 1 with Vista with all the drivers, programs and such.

I wan to install W7. From what I read I could load my Vista with all the programs on the CD, then slide on over to W7 from there. You have to do a clean install from XP to W7.

If I go from Vista to W7 am I going to be adding alot of crap that I don't need? Or should I just load W7 and download all my drivers and programs from Panasonic's website? Which would be better in your opinion?

I run a program called Tune-up Utilities. It does some amazing things to XP. It also allows me to adjust my GUI to the look I want. I was blown away at the difference in performance after I loaded it and let it do it's thing. It was amazing how much crap it found that was not needed.

If you guys could help me in any way I woulf greatly appreciate it. I come here because you guys seem to be a couple of notches higher on the tech level than some other places I visit alot. One of my customers had a great IT guy that would help me in so many ways. He died earlier this year to cancer. God bless him and his family, he was a great person and Father for sure!

Thanks guys.
Steven
a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
July 12, 2009 4:00:20 PM

toughbook said:
I am going to try and give you guys a more detailed look into my computer, and what I do with it. I hope yall can give me some tips or ideas.


The pagefile is a BAD thing in terms of performance. To get good performance, you want to AVOID having stuff overflow out of memory and into the pagefile. So if your pagefile is mostly empty that's a good thing.

You said that you use "XP, Outlook and some other apps". Is that MS-Office Outlook, or "Outlook Express"? Can you briefly describe what other apps you use, what aspect of them seems slow to you, and whether your disk light is flashing at the times when they seem slow?

It would also be useful to open up Task Manager (Ctrl-Shift-Esc), click on the "Performance" tab and tell us what the "Commit Charge - Peak" figure is. The page file won't be an issue if it's no more than a couple of GB.

My initial impression is that with that much memory you probably end up with pretty much everything loaded into RAM. In that case the SSD wouldn't really be getting used much and so you're not going to see much of a performance boost AFTER everything's been loaded. But without more info it's just a wild guess.
July 12, 2009 6:35:27 PM

Ok, here is what I am showing. BTW, I am running Microsoft Office 2007.

PF USAGE: 734MB

CPU 2-14%

PHYSICAL MEMORY {K}

TOTAL 3397932
AVAILABLE 2512860
SYSTEM CACHE 792604

COMMIT CHARGE {K}

TOTAL 754200
LIMIT 6628716
PEAK 2873280

TOTALS

HANDLES 17464
THREADS 701
PROCESSES 50

KERNEL MEMORY {K}

TOTAL 183356
PAGED 99232
NON PAGED 84124

This is with IE, Outlook, Shop Controller, and Task Manager open. My disc light will blip about every second while idling with these programs open. My MP light flashes at about the same rate, but I can't remember what that light is for. :??: 

I hope this helps. Let me know what else you want!!

Thanks Big Time.


a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
July 12, 2009 8:26:33 PM

Well it doesn't look to me like you've got any memory issues. The commit charge (number of pages actually allocated to active processes) is well under 1GB, and even the peak isn't unreasonable.

Once you've got Office 2007 loaded, it isn't likely to be very disk intensive unless you're doing something specialized like a large Access database, a huge spreadsheet, or some sort of high-volume mail merge. Don't know too much about Shop Controller, but their web site says 2GB recommended so it sounds like it can be more intensive.

The crux of the matter is this: if whatever you're doing doesn't use the disk much, then an SSD isn't going to help. It's easy to get a ballpark feel for the disk activity just by watching the disk light on your machine. If it's constantly flashing and blinking, and if that happens at times that you perceive the system to be slow, then an SSD is definitely going to help. If it just gives occasional blips (and I'd lump a "blip every second" into that category) then the SSD probably isn't doing much, if anything for you.

But even if the SSD doesn't help much during normal use, it can still make a big difference in getting your system and applications up and running. I'm looking at equipping a new Windows 7 system with an SSD specifically to reduce boot / logon / application startup times.

Whether it's worth it to you really depends on your situation. For example if you're driving to a customer site and then starting your system up to do invoicing and process payments, and if the customer is standing around waiting for you while that's going on, 60 seconds can seem like an hour - anything you can to do shave that time down is probably well justified.
July 12, 2009 11:04:05 PM

You have helped me out alot more than you will ever know. With explaining the numbers too me was what I was concerned about. I got my boot times down to20 seconds from roughly a minute with my HDD.

I think I might go ahead and install my Vista dics, then onto W7. From what I have read Vista is better setup for a SSD. Plus I think the support support for XP is going to start going down in a couple of months.

The boot times, or coming out of standy really are important too me. When i am working on a truck and need to access my tech info I hate having to wait.

Again, thanks for your help and for sharing your knowledge!
a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
July 13, 2009 12:47:38 AM

toughbook said:
I think I might go ahead and install my Vista dics, then onto W7. From what I have read Vista is better setup for a SSD. Plus I think the support support for XP is going to start going down in a couple of months.

Vista is a little more SSD-friendly for some SSDs because it doesn't have the odd partition offset that XP uses. But that's not supposed to make a very big difference for the Intel SSDs, at least according to: http://techreport.com/articles.x/17136

I wouldn't worry about XP support. XP service packs have long since ceased, but Microsoft has committed to providing security patches for the next 5 years.

July 15, 2009 3:11:04 AM

Well I hve installed Vista SP2. I can without a doubt state there is a big difference in performance Vs XP. Everything is just much more snappier, more stable. I will be running some tests later to see the proof better.

Thanks for your advice on all!
a c 127 G Storage
July 15, 2009 4:16:12 PM

Another low-level difference between Vista & Win7 and windows XP, is that the maximum virtual request size of Windows XP is limited to 128KiB, whereas there is no limit with Vista and above. This could help improve performance on RAIDs and SSDs since less buffering / read-ahead is necessary. Besides i don't know how to tune Windows for things like read-ahead; where on linux/unix you can adjust the setting and see how it affects performance.

Either way, this discussion is getting too technical; the real issue i think is: does switching to an SSD improve my performance experience and overall pleasure of working on my computer. Maybe we should do some tests, like the disk clone test i talked about. That would be something everybody could reproduce, with at least a SSD and a HDD.
!