Web lists-archives.com

Re: OT: New external drive

Tanstaafl wrote:

[ I'm mostly agreeing with you ]

On Thu Mar 15 2018 12:41:39 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), Good Guy
<hello.world@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have found that anything less than 1TB for a C drive is completely
waste of time and money.

Not everyone has the same needs...

Very true. A lot depends on how much digital media that you want to store, and how important it is to store on your primary hard drive. If you don't have digital media at all, or you store on an external drive or a networked drive, 500 G may be plenty, even 256 GB. Conversely, if you have 256 G or smaller, then you're pretty much committed to doing all your data storage on other devices.

I bought a brand new machine that came with 256GB SSD and 2TB normal
HD and after installing VS2010, 2013, 2015, 2017, MS Office 365, SQL
Servers 2012 and 2016/7 the drive was full and unusable!!.

Yet a 256GB SSD is more than enough for a large number of people - I'd
say more than 50%.

You needed a bigger one for your needs, that is all.

Yep. That's a lot to install in 256 GB. For that kind of mix, the only thing that I would install on the SSD would be Office. And yes, that means that all the other stuff doesn't get the benefit of SSD.

I chose to install the main packages on D drive (the 2TB
Normal drive!!) but still Windows needs C drive to copy some files and
all I could do was to reformat everything and start again.  Now the SSD
drive is just for documents which I don't have many as I use Microsoft
Azure Cloud Based storage.

SSDs are best used for the system drive, as that is where the speed
advantages really shine (boot/OS load times, program startup times, etc).

Yep. See above. Beyond the files used by the O/S, virtual memory. If you tinker, you might also get some benefit by locating your browser cache on the SSD.

I don't see any benefits of a SSD drive;

Then you aren't looking at it correctly.

Stuff that's disk-intensive.

For things that access the hard disk frequently, SSD helps. For things that don't frequently use the hard disk then SSD isn't helpful.

In fact they are relatively expensive than normal SATA drives

Yes, a bit more still, but well worth the money when implemented properly.

Which is why you see mixed configurations, as described here. A relatively small SSD for the operating system, and where the expectation is that applications and data go to the HD. It's the O/S that gets the biggest benefit.

which are still as fast as anything because of the current
technologies we use

Ummm, no, a basic/cheapo SSD will be dramatically faster than even a
10,000rpm spinning rust drive.

But it depends on how you're using the drive. Not everything is bound by the speed of the drive.

Perhaps in future when prices becomes competitive and SSDs become
common than it is a different matter for now don't waste your money
on that crap unless somebody gives you a free drive for them to
market their product.

Crap? Please. Upgrading an aging laptop to an SSD has saved numerous
people I know from the expense of buying a new computer, with the added
advantage they can migrate the SSD to a new computer later if they do
ever decide to upgrade (or the old computer dies).

And they are competitive now, considering the bang for the buck, and
prices continue to come down over time.

Price differential is narrowing, but slowly. But for practical purposes, if you simply want to replace a 2 TB HD with an equivalent SSD, it will cost you $$$, where a lot of the data doesn't have need for what SSD will do. SSD is a crummy media for doing long-term archival storage, but by the same token, you shouldn't be doing archival storage on a computer that you use every day, even if it's HD.

Beyond that, the value of SSD for software installation is less compelling. And it looks like the OP is trying to run servers and do code development on his installation. SSD doesn't really help for that, either.


general mailing list