I updated my Acer netbook with a SSD (solid state drive) and am installing WIN 7 today

[DainBramaged]

It improved boot up times DRAMATICALLY. From the time I press the power button until the log in screen appears takes LESS than 20 seconds on average and that's with Win XP home installed. So I am downloading WIN 7 to see the improvement in performance on this little guy. I upgraded to 2GB PC 6400 ram so that in and of itself helped before the drive change.


Should be interesting.







On edit, You have to install Win7 from and external hard drive (I downloaded the package) since the netbook has no way to upgrade itself from XP to7.

[hobbit709]

1. 7 will probably not be an improvement over XP

If I remember right the graphics on a netbook are not quite up to 7 specs.

[EOTE]

23. But 7 does offer more options with SSDs than XP does.

XP doesn't support trim and many of the indexing functions that 7 does. When you first install an SSD on an XP machine, things are very snappy and responsive. Over time, however, after many reads and writes, the XP machine will get gradually slower. Windows 7 does not suffer similarly.

[IDemo]

2. Nice to see more adoption of these by the consumer

I'm in the SSD R&D department of a US manufacturer. The dollar/GB price premium of these versus traditional hard drives can make them a tough sell, so most of the SSD market is currently targeted toward the large enterprise. Hopefully, with some volume sales, the cost will drop.

[DainBramaged]

3. I bought mine used from someone who bought it for testing

and then moved up to a 160GB. This 64 is PERFECT for a netbook the way I use it. I paid $103 for the whole package.

[EOTE]

24. Newegg now has the 64GB Kingston for $100 after rebate, free shipping.

I got one for my mom's laptop and the difference in speed is amazing. I'll be getting one for my SO's laptop shortly and we can't wait. Not only does it provide a massive performance boost, but a substantial battery life increase as well.

[DainBramaged]

4. Also, I see TRIM is supported by WIN7, is that a native feature of WIN7 or

is it an execuitible I need to download?

[IDemo]

5. It is a native part of Win 7

I've heard that they have also created the code to enable it in the Linux kernel, but haven't yet included it.

[DainBramaged]

6. Installation is complete, appx. 70 minutes total including activation

now it's time for updates.

[MicaelS]

7. You do understand

You are not supposed to defrag an SSD, right? Here's a neat little free tool for SSD users that makes all the appropriate settings in one package.

SSD Tweaker http://sourceforge.net/projects/ssdtweaker/files/

[DainBramaged]

12. OH?

I'll try that package

[MicaelS]

21. Yes defragging an SSD can harm it

For more information, here is a guide from the OCZ Forums that applies to W7 and all SSDs, not just OCZ brand. The part that applies to SSDs is the SSD Windows 7 Tweaks. But if you run the SSD Tweaker it should make all the necessary settings. The rest of the W7 stuff is optional.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?63273-*-Windows-7-Ultimate-Tweaks-amp-Utilities-*

[DainBramaged]

22. Harm, to an SSD in a netbook with an Atom processor?

OK.

[MicaelS]

26. It's not about the CPU or the OS

It's about the physical damage to the SSD done by defragging. Anandtech has a series of tech articles about SSDs.

The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738

The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829

Anadtech is in the forefront of SSD reviewing. http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage

[DainBramaged]

27. I scanned all 31 pages of the Anthology article, and there was NO giant red-lettered sign

or header saying '

DON'T DEFRAG YOUR SSD UNDER PAIN OF DEATH'

I already set my trim command and unless the netbook slows to a crawl and I need to erase it and recopy it from my external original, I just don't see why you are so concerned.

[EOTE]

28. It's not so much something you need to avoid as it is something that's unnecessary.

It doesn't matter where in the SSD the data is located, it will take the same amount of time to retrieve it. Unlike a platter drive where having non-contiguous data takes a good deal longer to retrieve. So defragmenting really won't help you at all when dealing with SSDs. Defragmenting can, however, reduce the life of your SSD.

[DainBramaged]

30. See my question is this, if the computer lasts me two years

then why is lifespan important since I am lucky if my computers remain untouched over six months? I am constantly upgrading and replacing, so lifespan isn't a concern. I have systems that have been turned on once, and that was to install the OS and haven't been turned on since (one Phenom Raptor system and one I5 raptor system).

[EOTE]

33. I tend to keep my hardware longer than that.

I've got some hard drives in my system that are 5+ years old. I guess if you just plan to toss it in your closet after a few years, it really wouldn't matter much. However, it would be a shame to waste a perfectly good SSD as it would still be well faster than the fastest of platter based hard drives in a few years. More than anything, it's not so much verboten as just pointless. There is nothing to gain by defragmenting an SSD.

[CRF450]

8. I want one too for my new'ish HP laptop

I'm holding out for a good 300gb+ SSD for a decent price. Even on the ordinary 7200rpm hard drive, W7 runs very well.

[IDemo]

9. These will generally come in doubles of 16GB

That is - 32GB/64/128/256, etc. Be prepared to open your wallet for a 256GB or higher.

[DainBramaged]

13. Start up time improved to 17 swconds with Win7

Declined to 23 with Microsoft security essentials installed. That's still LIGHT YEARS faster than any of my other computers includng the Mac Mini

[Heidi]

10. I have an Acer Aspire 1640 that I _love_ but all of my colleagues deride me for not having a Mac

laptop. Even my husband, who has a new iMac. :(

[DainBramaged]

11. I have more laptops and netbooks then humans should have, and I love this guy the most

now that WIN7 is installed. No Macbook yet, but I see no reason to own one.

[Call Me Wesley]

14. Get a Mac.

No need to ever restart the darn thing. I pressed the power button only once. ;)

Really!

[DainBramaged]

15. Get a clue, I have a Mac mini, and it doesn't do ANYTHING better than my PCs

:eyes:

[Call Me Wesley]

16. Well, okay, but PCs are just not magical enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnHG79fWMfI

:rofl:

You know I'm just kidding, right? :hi:

[DainBramaged]

19. Yes

:hug:

[kentauros]

29. Yeah, but how many macbooks can make beer while surfing the 'net?

http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2007/10/04/personal-computer-into-brewery

:P

[HopeHoops]

17. I bought an HP mini a year ago with a SSD drive (preloaded with Linux) - it SCREAMS!

You open the lid and it is just on. A reboot takes a few seconds. It also doesn't way much and gets almost 6 hours out of a single charge.

[struggle4progress]

18. I just bought one of those ssd for a minitower build: I put reasonably static directories on the ssd

and more volatile ones on hard disk. The bootup was about 20 secs to login screen and another 20 secs from login to desktop, and of course apps launch almost instantly. I then redid the installation with the more volatile files on a (completely unsafe) two disk RAID 0: this substantially reduced the time from login screen to desktop

I haven't played around with RAID 10 at all, but the experiment makes me wonder whether for me on a desktop (with enough bays) a RAID 10 might not be a reasonably alternative to a large ssd. It wouldn't be as fast as an ssd, but it would be faster than just writing to a single disk, especially if some critical OS files were segregated on a small ssd. Reasonably large hard disks aren't terribly expensive: a four disk RAID 10 with a terabyte of backed-up storage might cost $200 in disks, plus $200 - $400 for a controller card (if you don't like software RAID). Hard disk replacement costs and energy use would go up -- but a terabyte ssd runs $3K or over, so for a comparable backed-up ssd system one might be spending at least $6K, and that would buy lots of hard disks and electricity

Of course, for laptops an ssd might be a perfectly good investment since it extends battery usage

[DainBramaged]

20. My purpose was to improve the performance of the netbook saddled with an Atom

and extend battery life. I haven't tried actual rundowns yet, but with WIN 7 it now shows 5 hours remaining when unplugged.

[EOTE]

25. Large capacity SSDs really aren't necessary.

You'll get the biggest performance jump by just putting the OS on the SSD. After that, you should have enough room to install a few apps and games, but the great bulk of apps, games, videos and such can be stored on a cheap, large SATA spindle drive with little negative effects. My recent build is an i7 system with a 64GB SSD and two terabytes of storage in RAID 0. All I keep on the SSD is my OS and files I really don't want to lose (not much), I use the RAID array for everything else. It's not the most secure setup, I know, but in 15+ years of running RAID arrays, I've never had one fail. As it is, my new system screams. I used to have my hard drives (a similar 1 terabyte RAID 0 array) give me a 5.9 on the Windows Experience Index, now I get a 7.7 which has brought my whole system score up to 7.7. In my opinion, SSDs are just about the best bang for your buck upgrade you could add to any system, laptop or otherwise.

[Odin2005]

31. 64 gigs for an SSD? HOLY SH*T!!!

Solid State drives are going places!

[EOTE]

32. 64 gigs is actually on the smaller side of SSDs available today.

They have SSDs now up to a terabyte in capacity. You'll pay a ridiculous sum for one, but they're available.