Solid State Samsung

The minimum HDD space of 40GB required to run Vista is what stopped me buying one. The technology just isn't there yet...but it bodes well for the future.
 
right now where did I put my magnifying glass :rolleyes:

Personally not worth it yet except maybe for a page file. As to raptor, wouldn't bother with those either, I'd go for a seagate 7200.10 (or the equivelent Western Digital one which I can't remember) or one of the new 7k1000 hitachi drives, they near enough rival the raptor in all but seek time. They give you more storage too
 
Thanks for the replies,
I had forgotten about vista's 40gb required hard disk, good point.
Yeah i think i will still go with the
Raptor X 150GB WD1500AHFD 10,000RPM,
storage not a problem as also getting a 1TB external Maxtor.

Would there be any real gain in getting a couple to create a RAID0 config?

Been weighing up a new pc or mac pro,
i think i'll get more bang for buck with a pc.

Thanks
 
Mud said:
The minimum HDD space of 40GB required to run Vista is what stopped me buying one. The technology just isn't there yet...but it bodes well for the future.
Click to expand...

Edit: Was going on about the 40GB requirement. Just want to point out that it will actually install in a lot less, having installed it quite successfully on a 16GB partition previously for testing (Vista Business.) It should be quite possible to do a clean install on e.g. a 32GB Solid state disk and have an extra conventional disk for data/apps or whatever. Not too sure about only having 100,000 read-write cycles and the wisdom of a pagefile (and/or temp folder) on that sort of disk.

Edit2: Just slammed Vista Ultimate on a VM again to check. Installed on 16GB disk, after installation there'a about 6.5 used and 9.5 free. There you go. Don't really know why they claim it needs 40GB diskspace...

 
Last edited:
very interesting, thanks for that.
Really tempted to try that now.

Might wait for quadcore prices to fall and then see
if anything new appears solidstate wise.


Cheers;)
 
well the thing i don't get with the solid states is. internally normal drives have all the space taken up with a small controller card on the bottom. the solid state drives, well, we all know how much space the memory takes up, a tiny tiny amount of space. hell, just like with the IRAM being a bodged up memory ram drive, don't see why someone can't make a small controller card which would essentially smack a whole bunch of little memory cards into a raid 0 array, hell a raid 10 array or something. the reason they suck right now is despite next to no latency the transfer rates, read and write, are just crap compared to even the slowest 5400 drives around.

considering the size of the memory and the price this is what i don't get. i mean a top quality 1-2gb flash mem now at £10 a pop, plop 20 of them into a custom controller that raid's them and you would theoretically have something that could write/read at pretty massive speeds. i dunno where the cost for these drives has come from tbh.
 
ByteJuggler said:
Edit: Was going on about the 40GB requirement. Just want to point out that it will actually install in a lot less, having installed it quite successfully on a 16GB partition previously for testing (Vista Business.) It should be quite possible to do a clean install on e.g. a 32GB Solid state disk and have an extra conventional disk for data/apps or whatever. Not too sure about only having 100,000 read-write cycles and the wisdom of a pagefile (and/or temp folder) on that sort of disk.

Edit2: Just slammed Vista Ultimate on a VM again to check. Installed on 16GB disk, after installation there'a about 6.5 used and 9.5 free. There you go. Don't really know why they claim it needs 40GB diskspace...

Click to expand...

My Vista Ultimate Windows folder is currently 11.5GB...but Windows folders have always tended to balloon somewhat, and as you say...system restore (if you use it) and the pagefile (surely a large part of the reason to go solidstate, although the read/write cycles are worrying) will add up. I appreciate what you're saying, but given that minimum specs are usually the barest minimum, I'm not sure I'd want to invite problems.
 
ByteJuggler said:
Edit: Was going on about the 40GB requirement. Just want to point out that it will actually install in a lot less, having installed it quite successfully on a 16GB partition previously for testing (Vista Business.) It should be quite possible to do a clean install on e.g. a 32GB Solid state disk and have an extra conventional disk for data/apps or whatever. Not too sure about only having 100,000 read-write cycles and the wisdom of a pagefile (and/or temp folder) on that sort of disk.

Edit2: Just slammed Vista Ultimate on a VM again to check. Installed on 16GB disk, after installation there'a about 6.5 used and 9.5 free. There you go. Don't really know why they claim it needs 40GB diskspace...
Click to expand...

Even if Vista fits on the drive you would be limited on how many applications and games you could install on it. I find myself feeling a bit cramped on a 74gb raptor drive with just the OS, Applications and Games on it. If you installed applications and games on a regular hard drive it kinda defeats the point of having an SSD now.

drunkenmaster said:
considering the size of the memory and the price this is what i don't get. i mean a top quality 1-2gb flash mem now at £10 a pop, plop 20 of them into a custom controller that raid's them and you would theoretically have something that could write/read at pretty massive speeds. i dunno where the cost for these drives has come from tbh.
Click to expand...

Raiding flash drives wouldn't give you massive speeds, most of them are like 2-4MB/s of throughput, so even ten of them in RAID0 wouldn't be as fast as a regular HDD.

I read on Engadet about an SSD which had a read speed of ~60MB and a write speed of ~40MB, they are getting closer to normal hdd speeds :)
 
Don't worry about the read/write cycles - it is not limiting - on the maths you would get between 5 and 10 years out of one of these, and because the individual 'blocks' fail, rather than the whole drive, they are arguably longer lasting and safer than standard drives - just a pitty that the read/write is still so slow - give it a couple of years however... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom