Replaced the drive in my ancient (2002 vintage) Dell dual-core laptop
with a 240GB SSD. Never have to worry about moving it while in use or
if a bump or jar will damage the drive. Just close it up, tuck it
under my arm and go to the next place. Would have been nice to have
it 15 years ago when I carefully carried a laptop around a network lab
to talk to big pieces of Cisco hardware.
If there weren't so much stuff to load at startup (antivirus,
firewall, etc) it would run a close second to my Lenovo tablet on boot
There is no reason to do so and all it does is waste time (and write
cycles). Defraggers/optimizers are intended to put files together so
the head is where it needs to be when it needs to be there. Since
SSDs have no head, defragmenting is rather silly. Add to that, the
SSD screws up file sequencing, intentionally, and keeps moving stuff
around to "load level" (keeps the number of writes constant across the
Do you mean "defragmenter"? Windows 7 does some sort of defragmentation in
the background, but I don't remember any of the details. They might turn
it off for SSD, after all there's no delay as the drive waits for the head
to move and platter to come to the right point.
I paid about $220 for a Intel 40GB ssd when I built a PC 5 years ago.
Then $100 (on sale) for a second Intel 40GB ssd about two years after that.
It's worth noting that I had to update the firmware in the first ssd in
order to make them compatible with the Intel "SSD Toolbox" (a
necessity). A full-backup is strongly suggested by the manufacturer
(though I didn't run into any problems).
Maybe the most (only?) important point in my post. Not all ssd
components are created equal. When I bought mine, Intel had the best
I'm glad to see the price trend!
At my time it was the Crucial M4, not the fastest, but best overall.
Tom's Hardware still thinks highly of Crucial. SSD reviews:
Note Samsung 840EVO 250GB @ $135
That's a deal...
Out of curiosity I checked regular laptop HD prices:
$80 for a 2.5 1TB Seagate momentus
Decent hardware is getting really cheap. As cheap as the junk.
Yeah, tempts me, but it has to go at the end of the list.
Seagate has been around for a long time, so to speak. Have you had any
luck with that brand? I have had two computers with a Seagate drives,
one about 25 years ago and one as recently as 2 years ago. Both failed
and those are the only hard drives that have failed IIRC. I have heard
that this is not unusual for a Seagate drive.
I'm not in the hardware business, so I can't really say, but my Seagate
Barracuda ST2000DM001 2TB 7200 RPM is running fine. So is a friends
bought a couple years ago. Others aren't so happy with theirs. I have
the crucial SSD and 4 Gigs of RAM so the drive is just handling data.
Seems like HD companies have their ups and downs. Both Maxtor and WD
went through a really bad patch and I went with them on that. I've had
drives from both where not only the original failed, but the replacement
also! I've heard really bad things about the current Green WD.
Looks like Hitachi is the current champ:
It's been said that good judgement comes from experience. And experience
comes from bad judgement. You don't always know until after the fact!
My last Seagate was external strictly for data and would spin but would
cause my computer to freeze daily. I was unaware that was the problem
until I started seeing that data was occasionally not obtainable.
Finally I unplugged after 6 months of aggravation and the problem was
solved. Hummmmmmm ;~)
Good to hear, that is what my new primary drive brand is.
My biggest problems were with the IBM drives quite a number of years
ago. I had to buy multiples for my raid setup, and those drives failed.
I was treated poorly by the IBM people (kids), and it was awful. They
finally sent new drives ( I was still under warranty) and those failed
quickly. Long after that I saw a class action for those same drives.
How PC mag rated them the best is confusing.
I have had luck with both WD and Seagates.
Crucial 64GB for about $100 a few years back. Fabulous for a boot drive.
My understanding at the time is that you don't get as many write cycles
on a SSD as a HD. They have wear leveling software in them for that
purpose. Not so much an issue as to counter the clear benefits. And I
suspect they are improving. Many thumbs drives are purely driven by cost
and seem to be getting worse!
Well maybe not. My primary SSD was 128 gig and I keep my data on
another internal drive. If you are using Windows you will quickly out
grow 64 gig. My 128 was 82% full just from security updates, the OS,
and program files. I recently went to a 256 for my primary drive.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.