New to SSD

Thanks! So I don't want to install anything into Program Files, right? Or can I also relocate program files?

And someone said something when I install windows not to user my user name, use "user" for some reason, but i forget why. Any idea?

So, so far all I need to do is change bios to ACHI, then install windows, then change default profile location? sounds too easy... i keep reading on user reviews thinks like make sure you set it up right, or make sure you know what your doing, or ssd is complicated
 
Last edited:
YamahaAlex37 said:
Thanks! So I don't want to install anything into Program Files, right? Or can I also relocate program files?

And someone said something when I install windows not to user my user name, use "user" for some reason, but i forget why. Any idea?

So, so far all I need to do is change bios to ACHI, then install windows, then change default profile location? sounds too easy... i keep reading on user reviews thinks like make sure you set it up right, or make sure you know what your doing, or ssd is complicated
Click to expand...

nope... there really isn't anything extra to do.

why someone would suggest you set the name to "user" is beyond me --clearly this is a policy invented by someone whose never seen the lusrmgr console.

Your bios should be in Advanced Host-Controller Interface mode (AHCI) anyways.

There is nothing to do. What I've done is mirror program files onto D:, so there's a C:\Program Files (x86)\ and a D:\Program Files (x86)\ (as well as 64bit counter-parts), then, as installers pop up asking for a path, just punch in a "D" where a "C" normally is.

trim is the only other thing: most SSD's have trim support and most TRIM functions work natively with the windows 7. If it doesn't, there will be a TRIM exe that you'll need to run once in a while manually. Or dont --your drive wont die or fail if you dont TRIM it. I'm not Trimming my SSD's (I cant, TRIM cant see through RAID yet). All that happens is you get a degredation (to an absolute minimum) of 50%, and even then, trim is kind've a false technology.
 
Thanks wizard.

Now if, for example, I have OS on the SSD, and photoshop on 7200rpm, will it load up any faster?

Because I read this elsewhere: "Yes you can install you programs to a different drive other than the OS drive. You need to understand that if you run a program installed to a non-SSD drive. You OS which is installed to an SSD will see a performance loss."

More importantly, if I have my OS on SSD, and Steam installed on the HDD, considering I always have steam loaded in the task bar, and use source sdk alot, is it going to take some performance hit loading data from HDD?
 
Last edited:
cditty said:
You don't need to do any of this crap. Put the bios in AHCI mode, install your OS, enjoy your new SSD.
Click to expand...

My steam folder alone is over 70GB, and only going to expand, so yes I do need to do separate my programs. I'm wondering if having steam installed on the HDD, and being one of my startup programs, will give the ssd trouble constantly going back and forth to the hdd, and considering i do alot of work in source sdk. it may not be worth it for me to switch to SSD if i can not afford the GB to at least keep my program files and os together i think i am reading...

so would having steam on the hdd be a negative? would photoshop, for example, load faster if it was on the hdd and the os on a ssd was loading it?
 
Last edited:
MrWizard6600 said:
where on earth did you get that?

my whole big push is for users to buy 32GB drives and then change default directories in registry to D: (a 1TB drive or whatever). The performance boost is excellent: an OS is very very rarely going to give the drive a big sequential read, so that's exactly where you'd want an SSD to be!
Click to expand...

What performance boost? As I've already said, putting the OS on a SSD doesn't magically make the OS better (explorer and such sit in RAM anyway), it essentially just boots up faster.

Someday SSD's will be big/cheap and I'll put everything on them. For now I just use them for applications.
 
applications like... photoshop, premiere, 3dsmax, etc?
and i should install steam into hdd?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
applications like... photoshop, premiere, 3dsmax, etc?
Click to expand...
Whatever you use most often and want to open quickly.

and i should install steam into hdd?
Click to expand...
Steam itself isn't very big, is it? But yes, you can put it on another drive if you want to.

Also I'm reading that separating OS and program files is a bad idea...
Click to expand...
I've never heard of such a thing. I've been installing my applications on other drives for years.
 
Hmm, now that I've looked I think you should put Steam on the drive where you want the games to install. Moving the game directory looks to be a pain. For some reason I thought it was easy to change...
 
dandragonrage said:
Not sure. Possibly? I installed Steam to a different drive to begin with and the behavior was as expected - it put the games with it on the other drive.
Click to expand...

OK let me clarify, I'm not hoping for increased performance with my steam games by installing the OS into SSD and steam into HDD, but im wondering if having them on seperate drives will give me even slower than normal performance, like slower than if i had steam and os installed on the same HDD.
 
Yeah, you'll be fine. Performance will be better than having everything on one HD, but not as good as having everything on SSD.
 
OK, i just wanted to make sure about that. In reality however, I am going to want some of my steam games on the SSD (mainly the source sdk), and most games on the hdd. Because steam only allows games to be installed into the drive you first install steam into, I have two strategies to accomplish my goal and was wondering which one you recommend:

first, i can install steam into C:/ (ssd), and then use symbolic links to point to a copy of the steamapps folder in D:/ (hdd) for all the games i don't play alot.
My only problem with this method is that every time i install a new game, whether i want it on ssd or not, It will auto install into C:/ and then I will have to copy it into D:/, but isnt alot of unnecessary writing bad for the ssd? Unless I could, for examples, create the "/crysis" folder in C:/ and symbolic link it to "/crysis" folder in D:/ before i install the game, then it should automatically install rerouted to D:/, correct?

the other method is to initially install steamapps to D:/, and copy the games i use alot back into C:/ and send a symbolic link there for /steam. but i'm not sure if this way would be efficient, because the SSD would still be searching to HDD, then linking back to SSD, or would that matter? Also, i'm not sure if this way would be less efficient as the steam client would then reside in D:/ and that is a client i load on startup, as well as use to chat,etc 24/7.
 
:eek: NOT UNTIL I PURCHASE MY SSD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Actually, im just not convinced ssd is the best route for me to take if its just for os. i dont care if my system boots 15 seconds faster, its always on anyways. 40gb would barely fit more than my OS. Windows 7 says it requires 20gb, and adobe master collection requires 24gb during install... so already im fucked! but then i see so many great user reviews of 40gb ssd's and read about people using them as "os boot drives" and loving them but WTF benefit am I gainging if I have tons of games and apps: adobe suite, 3dsmax, maya, softimage, udk, etc etc?!?!??? So I can load calculator and paint and system manager and excel and word all at once 50 times in record speed but WTF these programs already load almost instantly?!?!?!?!? Maybe i should just stay mechanical until AT LEAST 2x120gb raid 0 is affordable for me? or will i enjoy that 40gb OS SSD that keeps tempting me as much as they do...
 
40GB is too small IMO. I have 50GB and I wish I had more. But it's still very much worth it in my opinion.
 
Well, access to the OS happens constantly. So it's not just boot times involved here. Same thing with some program files. Programs can, of course, be installed on separate drives, using the SSD for only the ones that actually benefit from the greater performance. Windows itself, however, isn't designed to be spread around across multiple drives. Various hacks can be configured to work around this, but many will eventually bite you in the ass when an update comes along.

If you've spent the money for high-end programs like the ones mentioned then you should have no trouble accepting the greater cost of a larger SSD. But if you're bootlegging them, well, kwitcherbellyachin.
 
wkearney99 said:
If you've spent the money for high-end programs like the ones mentioned then you should have no trouble accepting the greater cost of a larger SSD. But if you're bootlegging them, well, kwitcherbellyachin.
Click to expand...

I am a student.. I get everyone one of these programs free, yes even max, maya, and softimage are free to students now (except adobe suite, of which i do not have installed, only photoshop/premiere elements, but was considering buying it student version)
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
I am a student.. I get everyone one of these programs free, yes even max, maya, and softimage are free to students now (except adobe suite, of which i do not have installed, only photoshop/premiere elements, but was considering buying it student version)
Click to expand...

Well, it's not free since there's likely tuition involved, but that's another discussion. But it's still an even better explanation for not complaining. You're already getting quite a price break. Use the money 'saved' and buy the SSD. Or grasp the reality of want != need.
 
Thanks!

I guess there is only one way for me to find out if i like it as much as everyone is raving about them, but I am confused as to whether I should use it as just an "os only" boot drive, hence going 40gb, or stretch my budget and try to cram as many apps onto a 60 or 80gb as i can my app usage is really widespread and i think i will get hardly any of them on there so it seems pointless for me to try, which is why im so tempted to just stick with 40, even 30gb for "os only"
 
64GB OCZ Onyx is cheap. Not as fast as the higher end drives but I assume you're looking at X25-V and they're probably comparable.
 
If you can, I'd get an 80GB Intel X25-M. They are about $200. Then you can install Windows 7, and pare it down to the least amount of disk space. After that, you should have about 60GB where you can install your most used applications that can fit in that space.
 
john4200 said:
If you can, I'd get an 80GB Intel X25-M. They are about $200. Then you can install Windows 7, and pare it down to the least amount of disk space. After that, you should have about 60GB where you can install your most used applications that can fit in that space.
Click to expand...

For that price he could get 2 OCZ Onyx 64GBs and RAID-0 them for 128GB.
 
Unstable? Where does that come from?

Okay, so X25-V is faster in some benches, but the Onyx is still better than a mechanical HD, so you can pick between 40GB and faster or 64GB and not as fast.
 
Don't limit yourself with just a 40GB drive. It is simply too small if you want to get real benefit from it (unless you only use one or two applications - gamers need not apply). And stop worrying about "unnecessary" writes to the SSD - they have more than sufficient lifetime for anyone reading this forum - all the fears were totally overblown on that issue.

Read this thread on how to move folders to a storage drive easily:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1482722
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
Maybe i should just stay mechanical until AT LEAST 2x120gb raid 0 is affordable for me? or will i enjoy that 40gb OS SSD that keeps tempting me as much as they do...
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with waiting, they're just going to get bigger/faster/cheaper with time.
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
WTF benefit am I gainging if I have tons of games and apps: adobe suite, 3dsmax, maya, softimage, udk, etc etc?!?!???
Click to expand...

You're gaining the overall performance boost every single time one of those apps hits on a system file on the SSD, which is quite often in some cases. You're also gaining the speed from your swap file being far faster than it would ever be on a normal HD (and in some cases the swap file gets used a LOT).

You don't buy SSD's for capacity right now, you buy them to boost the OS speed and respnsiveness for all the other things that use system files and resources.
 
No, buying an SSD to speed up swap file access is not a good idea. If the swap file is getting a lot of access, then you should buy more RAM.

If really true that none of the commonly used applications will fit on the SSD (I find that hard to believe), then it probably is not worth it to upgrade to an SSD now for someone on a tight budget. Yes, there would be some speed gains, but it may be better bang for the buck to wait a year or two for a larger SSD to be affordable.
 
Why disable Superfetch just because you have an ssd? I wouldn't imagine it does many (if any) writes to the disk, and no matter which way you slice it RAM is always MUCH faster than even an SSD.

Also - when I put a OCZ Vertex 2 in my laptop with a fresh W7 install it did NOT disable Superfetch (it did disable defrag however)
 
chinesepiratefood said:
Why disable Superfetch just because you have an ssd? I wouldn't imagine it does many (if any) writes to the disk, and no matter which way you slice it RAM is always MUCH faster than even an SSD.

Also - when I put a OCZ Vertex 2 in my laptop with a fresh W7 install it did NOT disable Superfetch (it did disable defrag however)
Click to expand...

According to Microsoft, Superfetch is automatically disabled for files on the SSD.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck. See the FAQ section for more details.
Click to expand...
 
john4200 said:
The Intel SSDs are as fast or faster than the Sandforce for random and sequential reads, which are the most common I/Os for most everyday usage.

Also, the Intel SSDs are much more likely to be trouble-free than OCZ Sandforce SSDs. I just checked the 1- or 2-egg reviews on newegg.com, and they are only about 3% of all reviews for Intel. For OCZ Vertex 2 and Agility 2, more than 15% of all newegg reviews are 1- or 2-egg.

The Intel SSDs are still the best choice if you value reliability and a hassle-free experience. If you are willing to sacrifice reliability and possibly have a lot of trouble, in order to get a little better write performance, then Sandforce drives might be the way to go.
Click to expand...

I can't say it better. When it comes to storage, my 1st priority is reliability. Having a SSD disppear when your machine boot up, quite frankly, I have to draw the line on that 1, so Corsair SSD can only be used as door stopper for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top