Does it make sense to upgrade - Page 3

Just go with WHS + Flexraid. Its a fantastic choice.

Again your defending your purchase decision of a 64GB drive. Owning one is making you "want" to believe this is true more than it really is.

It's not wrong- It's just your reaching a bit.

There is indeed a difference between larger and smaller Drives. Use a 64GB and a 512GB on Sata6 and you will see. Infact- a 512GB from a top tier model will more than fully saturate a SATA II port where as a 64GB will not. The port becomes an issue with a larger style higher end drive.

SataII or SataIII does not matter much with a cheapo 64GB drive.







Again- Your a bit biased and reaching. I said earlier in this thread...

I have a few 60GB drives and they do fill up to the point of being full with odd clutter. While it's not a big deal to trim it back deleting stuff it's a pain that is constant and won't go away. Having a full drive does not perform well either... so your getting a slower drive by having a smaller drive.

Also,

It's possible that having a 85% or greater full drive will reduce the life expectancy. Personally I see this as a non factor since I believe it will usually last beyond my intended ownership term.

And last- I prefer both the speed increase, the reliability piece of mind factor, and the extra room and head room- of a larger drive.

120GB is a nice choice for people who can afford $100-$150 on a SSD.

If your tight on budget and looking to stay under $100 then the choice is clearly a 60GB or 64GB variant.

Neither choice is wrong. But- your opinion of a 60/64GB is a bit biased. I happen to own many of both- Both are good. The choice is up to the individual. My choice having owned both is 120GB from now on.

Yup. I don't meant to copy you- but everything I keep learning seems to point me in this direction.

Nothing wrong with that. I research the @#%# out of things before I make a choice so choosing what I do usually isn't an unreasonable choice.

The fact you also make a guide about it usually helps too!

Your an amazing resource and asset on this forum.

Your Paid guides are clearly worth the money for anyone trying to do HTPC properly.

I remember when SATA first came out, and that spinner hard drives were all to be found. I kept wondering what the point of SATA, and then SATA II, was, as hard drives would never be able to pump out that much data.

Who would have ever thought that we would have disks made of NAND memory hovering around the $1/GB mark... that can easily start to saturate SATA I&II. Those clever, clever engineers foresaw this.

I look forward to the day when SSDs hit the $0.50/GB mark and saturate a SATA III port. What do you think? 5 years or less?

Yep. Nothing ever changes. Nothing new ever comes out that anyone would want to try. No one ever learns new things they would like to do with their system. No one ever upgrades or adds to their system once it's built. No one will be changing Windows versions in the next year or two. Everyone's system is exactly the same as it was five years ago.

And you called my post the "worst"? Thanks. I got a good laugh out of that.

Exactly! Remember, Windows 8 will be coming out in less than a year and will have several new technologies (well, at the consumer level anyways) that will be interesting for HTPC'ers to investigate like Storage Spaces and Hyper-V.

You will definitely not be wanting your tiny SSD and under-powered Atom/Llano/Pentiums when you start playing with Hyper-V.

I know, I know... I can already hear it now... "Who needs Hyper-V for 1080p?"

Please don't... you are missing the point, if this is your argument.

It's called an external hard drove. If I have 27GB free on my SSD and 5TB worth of external drives, why would I need a larger SSD? Oh, that's right, I don't. Programs on SSD, everything else on external. I stand by my claim that no htpc program is going to need 27GB to install during the life of my hard drive (5+ years?) As to your claim about new Windows versions, Windows 8 takes less space than 7 did.

The only thing you will notice between SSDs on a fast sata 6 port is transferring large files. The most important spec is random 4k read/write, but since the difference is not large enough manufacturers brag about their sequential speeds, which are meaningless 99% of the time. Doing everyday tasks like opening programs and navigating menus will provide little to no difference in real world usage. I would have bought a 100+GB SSD if I needed it, but I'm not going to waste money for no reason.

Ok, so your solution not only negates the very reason for having a SSD in the first place (which was to replace the hard disk, not to necessititate adding another one), it also mean hanging some sloppy, ugly external box off your htpc.

This gets funnier with each successive post.

The beauty of building your own HTPC is that you can put in hardware that you want to put in BECAUSE YOU CAN, and you don't need to justify it to anyone, ever, period.

That being said...

If you need more than 64gb in an SSD to run Media Center etc, you're probably doing it wrong. (IMO )

I agree again.

If I have an ugly thing hanging off my PC over USB it first better be 3.0 USB and second it better have like 8TB of storage to be worth my trouble.


Even then- Rather just make a $150 WHS server... and run SSD only on my PC.

Well based on that 27gb free on SSD comment, I went back and checked my drive again and sure enough i was obviously overlooking the word "free" in 48.7gb free on my hdd partition. My C drive is only occupying 31gb not 48 like i thought so this 90gb Corsair Force GT is too big and i could get away with the more reliable 64gb Crucial.

Also I have 7TB on my P4 WHS, and 300gb drive for Recorded TV.

On another note, everyone says how the Sandforce 2281 drives are garbage but why is Intel making some??
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57...news&tag=title

Regarding the Hyper-V and Virtualization, it appears that will be in Windows 8 Pro which doesnt come with Media Center, but can be added on via "Media Pack" http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b...-editions.aspx

In case anyone is interested I just ordered a 64gb M4 from Staples for $89 then pricematched to Amazon for $79 then used the $25 off $75 coupon, bringing toal with tax to $53.xx. Delivery isnt until 23rd though

Posts like these get under my skin. So much is wrong with everything you said I don't even know where to begin.

I guess cause I am a Sandforce and OCZ fan boy I could start there.



First - Sandforce is not garbage. The Sandforce drives are among the fastest and highest performing drives out right now. The average Sandforce based SSD from a multitude of MFG's will eat that Crucial you hold so dear up for lunch in any modern SSD benchmark. Sandforce based drives are also quite affordable and represent both good performance and good value. That is why Intel chose to make one. Because- without it they were never competitive in the performance benchmarks for SSD's. Intel realized if they wanted to own the claim for a "fast" drive they needed a Sandforce controller. Many buyers will go that direction because they feel Intel is a trusted MFG with proven reliability- You can get Intel reliability and Sandforce performance. For those who know better- they would just keep buying non Intel branded drives because they are also just as reliable, without having to pay extra for the name Intel and the warranty.

Second, you made an idiotic comment about the Crucial being more reliable.
Who says it's more reliable? Where is the proof? Your fine with the SSD you have now and the Crucial would provide no significant benefit over your current SSD.

Reality is the Crucial is less reliable. Crucial M4's are known to die at around 5000 hour mark, and it's well known that they require an updated firmware to prevent such. Only the very newest ones have the proper firmware. I read across forums all the time about Crucial M4's having issues. They will bring on the blue screen of death crashes about every hour without the firmware fix. OUCH!

Now some personal experience:

I own 13 Sandforce based SSD's, the oldest being close to 2.7 year old Vertex2 with countless hours on it. I have never had a single issue or updated the firmware on any of them. I own only 1 Crucial M4 and I have had trouble with it.

I own only 1 Crucial M4, and aside from being slower in side by side vs. my same size Vertex3- it is the only SSD that has given me trouble. It's buggy enough that I swapped the first 6 months ago, and still had to update the firmware on the replacement.

I have two identical PC's side by side in the office with only difference being the SSD's and I can tell you that the windows benchmark score for the Vertex3 60GB is 7.8 and the Crucial 64GB only 7.6. This made me run a more serious benchmark- and I was amazed at the score difference. The vertex3 was ~425 while the Crucial was ~250.

Big enough difference to notice in real world.

Truth is that Crucial is not any more reliable than people think- and it's slower than most Sandforce Drives. In a serious benchmark a Sandforce SSD like the Vertex3 will embarrass a Crucial M4. In fact, a 120GB Sandforce will outperform a 256GB Crucial at most tests.








now that is settled here is some more about the Crucial:

You can read more here.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5424/c...the-bsod-issue


So it just amazes me how people can place the Crucial M4 up on a pedestal and claim it's the holy grail, and think really good drives are as you say "garbage"



Lucky for you- I am tired now and I won't go any further about why a larger 120GB Drive is better than a 60GB SSD drive - for a variety of reasons- Including life expectancy, performance, value, future flexibility, speed, and reliability.

Sorry to hear this ... lol. (just kidding)

Here is another poster complaining about his Crucial M4 here at AVS:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21915890

Dude, i wasnt trying to offend anyone. I was kinda siding with you on the Sandforce. Basically saying they cant be that bad if Intel is using them as well. Now I would love a Vertex 3 or 2 but i cant afford one. Like others have said i got to get the best for what i can afford.

Knowing that the Vertex is much better than the Agility 3, which was my other option, i had a hard time trying to purchase that one just based on user reviews not benchmarks. $55 is much easier for me to swallow now than the $150, i was even pressing my luck with the GT because it was $150 before rebate. Also the fact that i only use 31gb as opposed to 48gb. If i used 48gb then the bigger faster drive would be perfect because its double my space but as of now, the 64gb doubles my space.

I also agree that reliability is subjective and i try to weed out the obvious reviews. My hopes now that you point out this 5000 hour thing is that hopefully it'll be fixed by December which is when i should be hitting that mark give or take a month.

I will keep reading because i still ave 10days left to make a decision on which to keep.

First- A big sorry for my aggressive words.

Also,
You did fine. Your deal was excellent and no doubt that Crucial should serve you well for a long time. For the price you paid- I doubt there is really anything better anywhere.

I am sorta jealous actually- cause for that price I might be tempted myself

Your right about the Intel thing- if Intel is using them they can't be all that bad.

Sorry to come off so strong but I get all worked up when I keep reading people say stuff about the Crucial being tops and the Sandforces being "garbage" It just is opposite what I personally have experienced.

I am an admitted fan boy But I also feel I have earned the right to be through trial and error and experience.

My apologies for coming across strong. I get passionate about my SSD's

Just update the firmware on that M4 if it's not current and you should be fine. It might be current at this point. It's been some time and M4's sell well.

Real world there is very little difference between an M4 and any other SSD of the same size, including the Sandforce drives like Vertex3's.

Benchmarks don't always tell the whole story- I doubt you would even notice a difference.

My point was certainly not to trash the M4; it's a great drive. It was more expose the perception, and how it's not always reality. It's trendy to hate on OCZ and it is also trendy to hate on Sandforce. It's also trendy to talk up and worship the M4. But trends come and go. It's time for this trend to go IMO.

It's been a year- and fools still regurgitate year old info that's not accurate today. The Sandforce needed firmware fixes, and it got crucified for that. M4's need it and it gets swept under the rug.

I didn't buy an SSD to replace my hard disk and be the only drive on my system, I bought it for the increase it brings in speed to the OS from boot times, opening programs, and general snappiness of the whole system. Everything runs faster.

SSD for OS and programs, HDD for media. This is standard practice for htpc use with the high cost of SSDs. You don't need the fast speeds of SSD for media playback, only the program on the SSD to launch them. You can't run a media pc solely on SSDs and expect to have any kind of storage space. To get 5TB of SSDs would cost what, $5000 minimum? And that's with 40 128GB drives? Get real.

Hanging some "sloppy, ugly external box" off your htpc? Dude, how anal do you have to be to have a black box smaller than a book sitting next to your pc? I can barely even see it from my couch since it blends in with the smoked glass on my tv stand. It's the least offensive looking thing on my entire entertainment rack.

It was a bug that was found and fixed. You sure wrote a lot in that wall of text for something that is not an issue anymore.

That's cool, It's kinda like not every song in the Top 40 is actually a good song and not everything that's popular is right.

Here is the entire explanation:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/i...y-to-sandforce

Basically, Intel spent a year writing and validating its own firmware for the controller, it delayed the release by many months while it continued to validate it, with this effort it seems to have fixed the bugs, and the fixes it included in its firmware will not be made available any time soon to any of Sandforce's other customers.

It's not "anal"; your solution just creates clutter and looks like garbage. It certainly is a ridiculous alternative to paying $30 more for a larger internal SSD in the first place. Indeed, it looks exactly like someone who didn't plan very well in the first place and so has to come up with a kluge.

BTW, no one was talking about putting media on the SSD. Hanging a USB external hard drive off the htps was your solution for having bought too small an SSD. To each his own, but I don't think it's a very good one.

An SSD isn't "necessary" at all.

The only point was that it now makes sense price wise to buy the 128 because the gap has gotten very small. 128s are now the "sweet spot."

As I said, it's no different than before the flood when you could buy a 500gb hard disk for $49 or a 2tb hard disk for $69. Would the 500gb work? Of course it would. What was the smart buy? The 2tb of course.

You get more reliability, more speed, and less hassle of having to delete or move things, less risk of Windows getting cramped, more flexibility to deal with new things what WILL happen during the life of the computer, all for about $30. It's a no brainer.

And the notion that's been repeated here is that anyone knows EXACTLY how much stuff they will ever have on their system or how much space they will ever need during the 5 year or so expected life of the unit is simply ridiculous.

Personally I like being able to have things in my documents on the SSD and enough room for games and programs.

I love downloading to the standard download folder and installing programs from there on the SSD. They install so much faster and better.

If I am going to buy an SSD I want to use it and enjoy the advantages.

I don't want to move stuff around or be constantly deleting.

I don't want to be bouncing off the ceiling of capacity or lower the performance by being 85% or more full.

60gb only makes sense when extreme budget limitations exist. In that scenario it might make sense.

If I was building a daily driver for personal use double the size for $30 or $40 is a good deal. No more 60gb for me. I own five and regret it already.

Your probably right Isn't that what makes forums fun? lol.


If you put a few games, office, players, programs, and some odd downloads... .. you hit 50Gb pretty easy. I know, I have a few PC's with 64GB drives that are in the 45-50GB range of used space. And- I delete stuff to keep it down.

My 120GB's are around 70GB with windows back up working, and about 60Gb when I disable it. It's clear to me I am a 120GB kinda guy.


You sound like your in need of a server with autoback up and imaging. I don't even bother to uninstall things anymore. I just restore to a previous and known perfectly working set up. Best way to uninstall IMO.. without registry clutter. If I try something and want to go back, I never uninstall it. I revert back. If I like it I keep it. If something messes up I revert back.

Uninstalling is for noobs.


If your going to flash freeze your basic HTPC and never touch it for years your logic and argument does seem right.

But- I doubt I will ever do that. I am always playing, tinkering and stuff. This is my hobby.... so I guess I am just different than you.

I also like stuff on the SSD because it works so good. I don't keep HDD in my HTPC. Only my main PC and server. So if it don't install on the SSD it would be located on the server. I just need more. I hate the idea of using 50GB out of 60GB. The drive slows down, and you burn them out faster. Plus- 120GB drives are faster

Each their own. Nothing wrong with 64GB drives. I have some. They work great.
I just won't buy anymore since 120GB drives are now cheaper ($99-$150) and better/faster. Spending $80 on a 64GB just seems silly to me.

What you really mean is that it's not YOUR idea of an HTPC. We have 10 pcs and laptops in the house. We don't need to use the HPTCs for general stuff. The HTPCs get used for exactly what the name implies and nothing else. No games, no Office, no other non-htpc stuff. But my main one has Sony Vegas Platinum Suite, Nero Platinum 10 suite, J R Media Center, several other editors, cutters, and transcoders -- all HTPC stuff. Yes, it fits on a 64gb SSD, but not with enough room left over. And if you want to live in a time warp, with a locked down system for the next ten years, that's your choice, but that's not how everyone chooses to use their htpc. I wish I had a 128gb SSD in my htpc but they were prohibitively expensive at the time. Now that is the smallest that I buy and I've put 128gb SSDs in my other pcs and I'm working on doing the same in the laptops. And for the small price gap nowdays there's really no good reason to buy anything smaller.

And if your htpc is connected to the internet it is both foolish and irresponsible not to keep Windows updated and to have a security suite that you also keep updated.