OTish : worth uograding laptop to SSD, more ram?

All this talk of SSDs got me pondering whether to refresh my hand me down Toshiba satellite Pro lappy.
Its this
http://www.toshiba.co.uk/discontinued-products/satellite-pro-l450-13r/
Running Ubuntu sluggishly after last update, bit nippier on Lubuntu but just wondering....
I see I can double the ram to 4gb for 20 odd quid, & a 250gb SSD for 50 odd quid.
Worth it? Or put towards a newer one?
TIA
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 13:36, Jim K wrote:

Depends how heavily and often you use it. I'd get the extra ram first and see if that makes things more tolerable before upgrading the disk.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think it would be worth it, but it really depends on what its to be used for. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It may depend on the machine too. I have one laptop which speeded up considerably with an SSD. So fitted one to an older smaller one I mainly use for car stuff. Made no real difference.
--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd go for it. It might even,shock horror run windows better. Might also be a good idea to see if there is a newer bios too. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:36:09 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Jim K

I'm very happy with SSD. Added benefits are faster start-up and no need to defragment. I assume they are more reliable with no moving parts but I may be wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 16:10, Scott wrote:

My second SSD just died this year after 11 months. Bad blocks everywhere.
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Make?
My 4 or so Plextors have been running for 3-5 years in various computers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 18:41, Tim Watts wrote:

Kingston.
Replaced under warranty.

This 120GB kingston (desktop) is getting on for 4 years old.
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 18:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I tend to stick with SanDisk, Plextor or Lexar for flash products in general. SanDisk is my default go-to, but sometimes they don't have a particular format of device in the size I'd like (why I went with Plextor for my M2SATA SSDs). Never had any go bad (across SATA, SD and USB flash+USB external disk).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 18:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The only one I have ever had fail was a small fast Intel one which was sat as a buffer cache on a much larger classical disk (back in the days when they were expensive). I expect it got hammered into the ground by the load it was under. I replaced it with a 500GB SSD drive which ISTR cost about as much as the 32GB Intel device had 5 years earlier.

I favour the Samsung ones these days as they deliver real performance on my incompressible data. Some makers have optimistic assumptions about the compressibility of data built into their peak performance figures.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've just upgraded to a Lenovo X220T. Came with 4GB, W7 64-bit and a 500Gb drive. It cost ?106 from a known supplier (Tier1) on ebay who replaced a faulty 2GB ram module with a single 4GB without question. This let me upgrade to 8GB with a module I had here.
I replaced the WWAN module with a 240GB mSATA boot drive and put in a new 1TB main data drive (I still do a lot of audio work and some video and run a VM for Turnpike etc.). This cost another ?90 or so.
Being a T (tablet convertible) version, it has a capacitive touch and pen screen. In laptop mode, the touch screen, particularly the ability to scroll with a finger, has been an eye opener.
Small, light, fast, I'm typing on it now. The only negatives were the initial weird faults caused by the faulty ram, which had me thrashing around a bit. Nowadays, I'd always look at moving forward a generation or two rather than updating an old machine.
I'm now trying to decide which of the two machines it replaces to sell.
--
Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 13:42, Martin Brown wrote:

I think SSD is the single best upgrade to any old lappy.
I see that model came with 2GB - yes 4GB is where I like to be these days. So do that as well
This desktop is actually useing - caches and buffers excepted - around 3GB
And you dont want to use swap a lot with an SSD.
--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 18:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It may depend on the laptop. On my old Toshiba Satellite laptop a ssd made very little difference which possibly indicated that the hard disk access wasn't the performance bottleneck.
I would upgrade RAM first but be aware that the manufactures have a habit of filling both memory slots. 2G may mean 1G in each slot so upgrading to 4G may mean ditching the 2 x 1G in order to fit 2 x 2G or fitting 1x 4G to one of the slots. Check the manual for the allowable combination of memory in the slots. I seem to remember on my Toshiba laptop all the memory had to be in one slot or alternatively the same size memory had to be fitted to 2 slots. There may have been other combinations of sizes but there were limitations.
--
mailto : news admac myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 13:36, Jim K wrote:

I've not tried running anything under 4GB for many years. I think that upgrade RAM is probably worth doing, but look at the ram usage to see if you are running out.
I also run all my laptops on SSD's, generally hand me downs as I upgrade desktops, even my router has an SSD (32 GB, gods knows when I originally bought that). I've only ever had one SSD die of old age.
128 GB SSD is enough for Ubuntu. I generally remove the CD player and keep the old mechanical disk on a laptop.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Replace the whole thing. That celeron cpu is way past its useby date.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 13:36, Jim K wrote:

See if its paging a lot, if it is then more RAM.
If its just too slow to boot then SSD.
You can also strip out a lot of processes on windows and linux as they both run a lot of crap that most people don't need.
The 90% of users only use 10% of the OS is true for both. Of course its a different 10% for each user.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/18 13:36, Jim K wrote:

Your processor is a tad slower than the one I'm using here in my 4 year old Dell (i5-4310U) according to
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4310U-vs-Intel-Celeron-900
So I would say: Yes, it may be. I have 16GB RAM, I'd suggest going to at least 8 if you can.
and yes, the SSDs I have made a huge difference. This run Ubuntu and still boots in about 10 seconds (timed from when linux starts booting)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/2018 13:36, Jim K wrote:

With an Celeron 900 I wouldn't bother. It would be putting good money on a poor machine. If it was a modest dual core I might proffer a different opinion.
I have seen 248GB SSD for nearer £30.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.