Reply to this thread
Discussion
Started by bpearsz | | 6 answers
Is it worth having a separate HDD for boot only, and one HDD for storage?
On Windows 7. Soon, Windows 9
I would be using HDD for both, not any SSD. Im upgrading my hard drive to a larger drive, and am considering using the old for boot only.
On Windows 7. Soon, Windows 9
I would be using HDD for both, not any SSD. Im upgrading my hard drive to a larger drive, and am considering using the old for boot only.
bpearsz
September 20, 2014 10:25:51 PM
bpearsz
September 20, 2014 9:52:50 PM
gizzard1987 said:
I'd suggest using whichever drive is faster for your boot drive. Not sure what your old HDD is, but if it's a 5200, and you buy a 7200, then I'd use the 7200 for boot. Otherwise that should work out just fine. I use several drives for dumping my fraps videos and editting and various other things. I don't use RAID, just use them as if they were just a big flash drive.Its an laptop hard drive for my old drive, 250GB HDD. I think it is 5200, and it is the smaller platter size because its from a laptop. The new HDD is 7200 and 2TB. So I would have to use the slower one for boot, just because of the size.
The reason I am considering this, rather than just using one drive is so the boot time will stay decent no matter how full my 2TB gets. But I've been reading that programs try to install on the boot drives anyway? And that they will bloat up?
What do you guys think? All I can find in searches is stuff about SSD boot and HDD storage.
gizzard1987
September 20, 2014 7:03:35 PM
I'd suggest using whichever drive is faster for your boot drive. Not sure what your old HDD is, but if it's a 5200, and you buy a 7200, then I'd use the 7200 for boot. Otherwise that should work out just fine. I use several drives for dumping my fraps videos and editting and various other things. I don't use RAID, just use them as if they were just a big flash drive.
See all answers