or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › SSD vs HDD for OS (poll included)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SSD vs HDD for OS (poll included) - Page 2

post #31 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I know. It's like "the" feature.

besides having enough SATA ports, I can't think of anything I would rather have.

My Asus Z68 Deluxe has Intel (dual).

But I want it for my server board, and I want something cheaper.

PCI-e is $22-$30 for one. That's pretty affordable for something potentially even more important than a SSD.
post #32 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

PCI-e is $22-$30 for one. That's pretty affordable for something potentially even more important than a SSD.

That is where I am at.

get a $150-$200 nice motherboard with integrated intel LAN (like my Asus now)

or get a $79-99$ board from Asrock and add the $25 Intel Lan card to it.

cost is within $30 of each other... wondering if the better board is the way to go... or not.
post #33 of 126
I would love an SSD for my laptop but I see them as a waste of money in an HTPC that doesnt benefit from the massive speed increases you get when launching programs. There is literally nothing in my HTPC that can be sped up since my tuner is the bottleneck and takes longer to wake from sleep than WMC, and its still not an annoying amount of time. I think the noise argument is rubbish, modern HDD's are totally silent unless you are in a fanless environment and can hear a pin drop from across the room.
post #34 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That is where I am at.

get a $150-$200 nice motherboard with integrated intel LAN (like my Asus now)

or get a $79-99$ board from Asrock and add the $25 Intel Lan card to it.

cost is within $30 of each other... wondering if the better board is the way to go... or not.

I'm planning on a server build and was initially thinking of using the mobo's integrated Realtek LAN. If you don't mind, could you tell me why an Intel add-in NIC card would be better? Thanks
post #35 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Theimpaler View Post

I'm planning on a server build and was initially thinking of using the mobo's integrated Realtek LAN. If you don't mind, could you tell me why an Intel add-in NIC card would be better? Thanks

Integrated LAN will work just fine.
post #36 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars99 View Post

Integrated LAN will work just fine.

Agreed.

You'd have to serve *a lot* of media before you saturate even a run-of-the-mill gigbit NIC.

-Suntan
post #37 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksc318 View Post

I also like SSD a lot and built the last few computers at home with them. But there does seems to be some issues with them after using quite a few SSDs in work computers.

We noted quite a bit of crashes after sleep modes. These are mostly Samsung made SSDs used in Lenovo notebooks. The closest I could tell is that the SSD did not finish TRIM operation and the computer went to sleep or powered down, then it would crash.

If the computer is not set to use sleep modes, then this problem doesn't show up.

I've been having this issue with my HTPC going into sleep and not resuming. Were you ever able to resolve it?
post #38 of 126
I just put an SSD into my second HTPC. After some amazon rewards I got it for $16. The great thing about SSDs is the pricing is dropping rapidly. Hard drives got fairly expensive after the Thailand floods and haven't dropped much since.

SSDs definitely make my HTPC feel more like a set top box and less like, well, a PC. Paired with a recent Intel processor, things are pretty much instantaneous. Also, although I don't reboot much, my HTPC (running Windows 8) boots in less than 15 seconds. I think that's faster than my Xbox 360.

Also, they're silent and run cool, which is especially good for HTPCs.
post #39 of 126
Thread Starter 
You will soon see $79 2TB drives by the end of the year. HDD production is ramping back up.

But you probably will see $50 60GB SSD's too.

Good combo right there.

I am not complaining.
post #40 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

Agreed.

You'd have to serve *a lot* of media before you saturate even a run-of-the-mill gigbit NIC.

-Suntan

I don't think anyone is saying that you won't be able to handle the Realtek. For me it was occasional stuttering that has since completely resolved. And my speeds seemed to increase by about 20% as a bonus.

Worth $22 to me.
post #41 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by kesawi View Post

I've been having this issue with my HTPC going into sleep and not resuming. Were you ever able to resolve it?

Not, yet, other than not allowing sleep mode.
post #42 of 126
I've put SSDs into a few builds now. The boot up time is quick and for a system that isn't on 7/24, the drive I would choose.

For a harsh environment, I'd either go for a single board solution or SSD. "Harsh" to me means storage in ~120F+ and will operate with a 20-30F degree delta to ambient (hey, I live in Tucson, yes you CAN fry an egg on the sidewalk)

For build from scratch? No doubt- SSD.

But for an existing system that's on all the time, not sure it would be worth it to retrofit to SSD.
post #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksc318 View Post

Not, yet, other than not allowing sleep mode.

What SSD and what motherboard?
post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayw69 View Post

What SSD and what motherboard?

I'm using a Gigabyte GA-Z68MZ-D2H-B3 Rev 1.3 motherboard and Crucial C400 64GB M4 (CT064M4SSD2) with 0309 firmware.

It never really worried me as I keep my HTPC on full time and never put it to sleep, although it is on my todo list to fix.
post #45 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayw69 View Post

What SSD and what motherboard?

Lenono X2xx, T420s Thinkpads and Samsung SSDs.
post #46 of 126
I'm all for new techonolgy however I kindof prefer to wait for it to prove itself plus the prices to decline.

please explain to me what benefits a SSD provide compared to a mechanical HDD when the machince is never turned off?

STB
post #47 of 126
I chose the first option but of course it all depends, for one thing it depends what you will be using the computer for.

Love the SSD on my HTPC which I boot up and down a lot.

On a desktop that I mostly leave on, I haven't bothered to get an SSD, I don't think it's worth it.
post #48 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevethebrain View Post

I'm all for new techonolgy however I kindof prefer to wait for it to prove itself plus the prices to decline.

please explain to me what benefits a SSD provide compared to a mechanical HDD when the machince is never turned off?

STB

Much lower benefit if you don't boot up and down. It's still a benefit though. Programs will load faster, files will copy faster. Basically wherever you do something that is hard drive-intensive, it's faster. But as I just said above, I personally don't think it's worth it for my desktop that I mostly leave on.
post #49 of 126
So i booted and used my normal drive last night, and you guys are correct it was night and day. I been using the SSD all weekend and when i went back to normal i found myself waiting around and counting.

Everything took longer and i found myself clicking on things (links in quicklaunch) twice to be sure i clicked it. I opened control panel and it took a couple seconds to bring up a window then a few more to display contents. After thinking about it i did realize i would normally click links twice very often due to thinking i didnt press it. On the SSD everything was shown in maybe 2 secs with one click.

So in the end if you're not really doing anything with the htpc you can be fine with the normal drive but if you mess around a lot with opening apps and settings or ripping movies then the SSD may not be a bad option. Thanks Mfusick for setting me on the path.
post #50 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by cigga24 View Post

or ripping movies then the SSD may not be a bad option.

The disc drive you are using to rip the movie will be orders of magnitude slower than your HDD. You will gain no benefit with an SSD for disc ripping.

-Suntan
post #51 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I don't think anyone is saying that you won't be able to handle the Realtek. For me it was occasional stuttering that has since completely resolved. And my speeds seemed to increase by about 20% as a bonus.

Worth $22 to me.

That's great that you gave him your data point. I was just giving him mine. I've never had an issue with data transfer using non-intel NICs.

-Suntan
post #52 of 126
As I already have a 12TB file server and with HDD prices still fairly high owing to the Thailand flood, it's easy for me to stick to SSD OS installs. 60~64GB SSDs often go on sale for $60~70 - same as it would cost a 160~320GB HDD. I don't really need local storage for most of my HTPCs and given my penchant for ultra small builds (with poor drive ventilation), I've had a lot of 2.5" HDD failures.
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by cigga24 View Post

So i booted and used my normal drive last night, and you guys are correct it was night and day. I been using the SSD all weekend and when i went back to normal i found myself waiting around and counting.

Everything took longer and i found myself clicking on things (links in quicklaunch) twice to be sure i clicked it. I opened control panel and it took a couple seconds to bring up a window then a few more to display contents. After thinking about it i did realize i would normally click links twice very often due to thinking i didnt press it. On the SSD everything was shown in maybe 2 secs with one click.


This.

A few months back, I migrated my desktop OS partition from a 500GB Seagate 7200RPM SATAII HDD (which occupies roughly 20GB of the entire drive) to a 64GB Crucial M4 SATAIII SSD. The OS is WinXP Pro 32-bit SP3, so this made the transition a bit tricky (had to straighten out AHCI and correct the SSD partition alignment after the OS migration).

Once it was done, though, it made a big difference in performance. Boot time (as measured from power on to desktop ready) went from 1 minute to 35-40 seconds. System response to mouse clicks is now instantaneous, with no perceptible lag whatsoever, for most applications.

And then there's Win7, which was designed for SSD compatibility out of the box. I did a build for a friend almost a year ago, and he wanted SSD for his system drive (OS/programs). I told him okay, but drop XP and move up to 7. He did, and I built his computer with a fresh Win7 install on SSD... no kludgey (sp?) HDD -> SSD migration... and, wow, that system FLIES. Boot time (from power on to desktop loaded and ready) was 15 seconds!

So, I too am sold on SSD for the OS and programs.
post #54 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Theimpaler View Post

So, I too am sold on SSD for the OS and programs.

Aren't we all?

I don't really understand the creation of this thread and poll. Of course SSD is better and superior in every way.

The real question are what unusual circumstances would it be okay or acceptable to not use a SSD?

I think really its just the person that is on an incredibly insane budget that has to penny pinch just to buy a HTPC in the first place (and there are some of those out there. See the numerous Zotac, Dell, etc threads created here at AVS every week looking for the absolute cheapest HTPC possible). Other than that there really is no contraindication.

Crazy to think that nowadays Windows 7 is the most expensive single component in any system when building a budget HTPC. And often times it costs about 50% of the entire hardware build itself.
post #55 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Of course SSD is better and superior in every way.

As others have already pointed out, this is an incorrect statement.

For one, you can't get them in capacities that compare to HDDs. This may not be a consideration for you, but it is still a limitation and can be a consideration to others.

Second, their reliability is widely known to be less than a regular HDD.

Personally my HTPC usage consists of turning the TV on and having the HTPC output already there (the PC boots on its own prior to use so it is ready for any scheduled recordings or playback.) Whenever I pushed the button the video plays. Honestly, switching between an SSD and a HDD has had zero noticable effect for HTPC usage.

So for some of us, there is an acknowledgement that they provide increased performance in disc heavy activities, but realize that the benefits do not materialize in normal HTPC usage. Yet the drawbacks (reduced potential uptime, reduced storage and increased cost) do manifest themselves.

Don't make it out to be some idea that people don't choose SSDs just because they are increadibly cheap people. That's a strawman argument that doesn't help anyone else trying to educate themselves about the discision for their future useage.

-Suntan
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

As others have already pointed out, this is an incorrect statement.

For one, you can't get them in capacities that compare to HDDs. This may not be a consideration for you, but it is still a limitation and can be a consideration to others.

Second, their reliability is widely known to be less than a regular HDD.

Personally my HTPC usage consists of turning the TV on and having the HTPC output already there (the PC boots on its own prior to use so it is ready for any scheduled recordings or playback.) Whenever I pushed the button the video plays. Honestly, switching between an SSD and a HDD has had zero noticable effect for HTPC usage.

So for some of us, there is an acknowledgement that they provide increased performance in disc heavy activities, but realize that the benefits do not materialize in normal HTPC usage. Yet the drawbacks (reduced potential uptime, reduced storage and increased cost) do manifest themselves.

Don't make it out to be some idea that people don't choose SSDs just because they are increadibly cheap people. That's a strawman argument that doesn't help anyone else trying to educate themselves about the discision for their future useage.

-Suntan

Okay. They are superior in almost every way.

Is that better?

Let me put it this way. Assuming you don't need storage space and the price was exactly the same and you were giving away 100 SSDs and 100 hard drives how many of the hard drives would be left over when the SSDs were all given away?

Some people do, indeed, choose not to use a SSD because of cost. I deal with them on a weekly basis. Do you?
post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

Second, their reliability is widely known to be less than a regular HDD.

Really? Is that widely known to be true TODAY? Or is that a widely held old wives tale leftover from several years ago.

Intel and Plextor wouldn't be providing 5 year warranties if they were remotely as unreliable as you suggest.
post #58 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Really? Is that widely known to be true TODAY? Or is that a widely held old wives tale leftover from several years ago.

Intel and Plextor wouldn't be providing 5 year warranties if they were remotely as unreliable as you suggest.

This is a pretty interesting read with this question...

With that question weighing on an increasing number of enthusiasts' and IT professionals' minds, we set out to investigate SSD reliability and sort the facts from the fiction.

Their conclusion:

Quote:


Reliability is a sensitive subject, and we've spent many hours on the phone with multiple vendors and their customers trying to conduct our own research based on the SSDs that are currently being used en masse. The only definitive conclusion we can reach right now is that you should take any claim of reliability from an SSD vendor with a grain of salt.

Giving credit where it is due, many of the IT managers we interviewed reiterated that Intel's SLC-based SSDs are the shining standard by which others are measured. But according to Dr. Hughes, there's nothing to suggest that its products are significantly more reliable than the best hard drive solutions. We don't have failure rates beyond two years of use for SSDs, so it's possible that this story will change. Should you be deterred from adopting a solid-state solution? So long as you protect your data through regular backups, which is imperative regardless of your preferred storage technology, then we don't see any reason to shy away from SSDs. To the contrary, we're running them in all of our test beds and most of our personal workstations. Rather, our purpose here is to call into question the idea that SSDs are definitely more reliable than hard drives, based on today's limited backup for such a claim.

Hard drives are well-documented in massive studies because they've been around for so long. We'll undoubtedly learn more about SSDs as time goes on. We leave a standing invitation to Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Micron, Crucial, Kingston, Corsair, Mushkin, SandForce, and Marvell to provide us with internal data demonstrating reliability rates for a more comprehensive investigation.

Bottom line: There doesn't seem to be any objective information to definitively make a statement about either side of the argument.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rate,2923.html
post #59 of 126
It's interesting that their starting point which they couldn't verify was the assertion that current SSDs are MORE reliable than hard disks. They didn't even look at the question of whether they were LESS reliable.

That's a far cry from assuming they are less reliable.
post #60 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I deal with them on a weekly basis. Do you?

So now this is the "listen to Assasin tell you how it is" forum?

Anyway, I've said my piece. Take it easy.

-Suntan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › SSD vs HDD for OS (poll included)