Does anybody still use mechanical hard drives?

More false information then why have a HDD or SSD then if you say SSD storage matters? Oh and you want people to lug around more ext storage and lest me remind you laptop was made to be a portable computer so you don't have to take anything more the just the laptop and it power source. So your own reply is ironic for the reason to have a laptop in the first place aka... portability and being on the move without restrictions......

Your making another false claim again...remember not everyone can get broadband nor do they have such broadband connections where they live the best is either Dial-up or DSL if they can get that. So it's not equal. Oh and loads a few seconds faster yeah I want a SSD...need a better argument.....

Why even load so many pages that what RAM and Faster processor is for that and a SSD is pretty worthless without the other two halves as it can't do anything without RAM and Processor. Loading to many pages affects your RAM more then your HDD or SSD another grabbing at straws that unrelated when the more RAM you have the more multitasking you can do and the SSD can't functions with the RAM.

Really RAM and CPU diminishing ok how about this you take all AMD processors and Ram and I will take a Intel processors and RAM with SSD or HDD and you tell me which one will beat the other.....?? Anyone reading this will tell you which one will win. And that video really that is all they can do to justify the seconds nothing else more substantive? Also take a good look at John and Jane Doe do you think they are doing what the video is doing...really reality check not even at the extreme. The masses will never do what that video does they are more concerned Facebook check my email and post my picture or watch my family video or Skype or Word processing not that many apps or excel or stream movies assuming their subscription and ISP doesn't throttle their internet. Even core Gamers don't run 27 apps. That kinda of comparison not based on real world usage doesn't give much credit to itself.

 

Qing Dao, first off, I agree with a lot of your statements above.

I too did not see or 'get' the allure of SSD's (circa 2009) - HDD's have always been fast enough, reliable enough and cost wise? I guess the $$$ didn't matter; I was always buying the latest, greatest, fastest, biggest available model that would give me any edge over what I was running at that time (yes; it was something I tested for - I wasn't trying to simply keep up with the Jones').

However, you also have a couple of things wrong in your quote above. Drive speed (performance) is not greater with higher capacity drives - I actually find that the performance always dips when I move(d) to higher capacity drives. The main thing giving real 'performance' is the spindle speed. Yes, 7200RPM models are always faster (overall) than slower models (at the same capacity point). Now, keep in mind that that was usually based on Hitachi HDD's; they were the fastest, most reliable lowest power usage and most cool running drives you can buy. NOTHING compares to them (even now; check out the backblaze blog).


But, even when I was buying $400 60GB Hitachi's (when 100GB and larger HDD's were available) for performance reasons - it wasn't because of how fast they rebooted or how fast they opened programs (although that was a factor too, of course).

Just as with today's SSD's - that is not what drives me towards them. And for one of my workflows (LR5) they barely make a difference in my productivity.

See:
Will an SSD Improve Adobe Lightroom Performance? | Computer Darkroom

As can be seen with the link above, the drive speed (or SSD's speed, in this case) does not accelerate every workflow (this is why you and I believe that HDD's are still viable today for many uses).


But when I was testing the new HDD's that were announced I wasn't testing a cloned image of my setups - no, I was installing Windows from scratch, I was installing the programs from scratch and installing the updates and patches needed to get to a usable and current state.

THIS is where SSD's shine. The proper setting up (and regular maintenance... MS's Update Tuesdays) of any modern system.


And here is where this post originated from:

A client calls for a recommendation for a general office system.

I recommended an Win8.1x64 Pro, i5 QC with 16GB RAM and a 240/256GB SSD (partitioned with 30% left 'unallocated', of course). This system could be had for around $1K (and easily affordable by the client).

Of course, they bought an i3 DC with 4GB RAM and a 500GB HDD. And, they still wanted me to set it up for them. They even thought they were being smart; the 500GB HDD was a 2.5" model; because everyone knows that smaller is better and faster (right...).

I told them to upgrade the RAM to at least 8GB (nope; can't justify +$100 for 'just' RAM). I told them to spring for an SSD (no! This system is ready to go. It just needs Office installed and it will be fine).

I had already mentioned to them that the i3-3110M cpu was good enough for an office workload (and it is...).

So, with the agreement that they're paying by the hour, I started the task of setting up this system for them.


Spoiler alert: To do the following with an SSD and 8-16GB RAM (even on a lesser cpu):

Install Win8.1x64 Pro: 10 Minutes.
Install Drivers: 30 Minutes.
Install Office 2013 (full install): 5 Minutes.
Customize Windows 8.1 settings: 15 Minutes
Update Windows/MS programs: 30 Minutes.
Deliver system to new owner: 20 Minutes.

Total time: less than 2 Hrs.
Cost: $275


Now, the client knew all the above; but didn't believe me how much longer the HDD based, RAM starved, i3 based system would actually take.

Turn On Computer to Desktop (first time): 20+ Minutes.
Uninstall Norton: 15+ Minutes.
Run Windows (Win8) Updates: 145+ Minutes.
Reboot after WU's: 135 Minutes (lol...).
Run Windows 8.1 upgrade from Windows Store:
Download Win8.1: 12 Minutes (yeah; fast connection ).
Install Win8.1: 180+ Minutes (includes 3 automatic reboots).
Install Office 2013 (full): 23 Minutes.
Update Windows/MS programs: 90+ Minutes.
Customize Windows 8.1 settings: 15 Minutes.
Deliver to client: 20 Minutes

Total time: over 655 Minutes or almost 6x longer.
Cost: He owes me first born.

(I can't charge for waiting for the system; price remained the same ($275) - but this happened over 2 days (not 2 hours), while I was working on other projects).


I haven't done the above in a few years: it was an eye opener.

An SSD would have made short work of the setting up and configuring of a new system.

As would the extra RAM.


A couple of things I did find interesting between Win8 and Win8.1 and Win7x64:

Reboot times went from ~140 seconds to about 90 with Win8.1x64 (yawn!).

Increased responsiveness was easily seen with the Win8.1x64 setup: even with 4GB RAM and a HDD.

The Win8.1 'boot to desktop' option is a mind blower.

The girl using this new office system did not see a difference from Windows 7 x64. ("The files look the same to me.").




The client asked to compare the new system to my Asus U30Jc (8GB RAM, 512GB M4 SSD, Win8.1x64 Pro).

I said sure; but let's turn off both systems and compare them from 'off'.

He walked away when the U30Jc had booted and I was browsing on the net, Word, Excel, Outlook and Acrobat XI Pro loaded (each with a document or two) and the system he had picked was still displaying the manufacturer's logo (during boot) and the HDD's light was solid green. (it did boot up eventually (~90 seconds total); but nothing was responsive for another minute or two).


He was sure the new system would win because he had done his homework...

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i3-3110M @ 2.40GHz - Price performance comparison

See:
PassMark - Intel Core i3 M 350 @ 2.27GHz - Price performance comparison


and, the salesmen had told him anything over 4GB would be a waste (as would an SSD for an office workload).


Sometimes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.




Qing Dao,

I recommend you get your mobile storage capacity issues worked out and get an SSD into your system asap.

As I've been saying for a long time now; sure, the storage subsystem doesn't affect the basic productivity that a given platform can offer (the classic and unalterable CPU+RAM=Work equation).

But in the things that a storage subsystem does come into play, such as monthly maintenance (as the above examples show), the difference is like living in the stone age, instead of earth; 2014.

Trust me, keep using a system as current as possible, systems with the RAM maxed out, systems with Win8.1x64 Pro and systems with an SSD (240/256GB or larger) powering at least your O/S and programs.

The time that you'll save (in your life...) is worth so much more than the small cost an SSD (and the inconvenience the smaller capacity) might indicate.


One note: putting an SSD into an (much) older (or RAM limited) platform is not really gaining you much, imo. The newer the system, the more that an SSD makes more and more sense: you simply will not get the performance you expect from a modern platform and a HDD based O/S + Program drive (as my client's choice of a new system showed so painfully).


Yeah; this topic is close to my heart: the balance of a system is the ultimate goal for overall performance (including daily, weekly, monthly maintenance of our systems: A/V scans, backups, MS Tuesday Updates and miscellaneous program installs).

HDD vs. SSD is not the question; just like with partitioning (which many think is not needed anymore) we are partitioning where we put what data (programs, O/S) to the appropriate and most effective component.

Doing anything else and thinking we have a performance based system is just wishful thinking.

 

Why people need more than 3 games installed?

Anyway I have started grinding my own coffee so I'm using my HDD for that job

Its really shock resistant I tell you that

dosed, mixed and stirred, not shaken, from taptalk

 

Steam library, you know?

 

Gaming's an impulse to me. If I have to wait for a game to install, I'll quickly get bored and go do something else.

Also, because I have enough HDD space and because I can.

 

Yep, those seconds keep adding up.

Maybe glad she still has time to do her finger nails while waiting lol.

 

We have one of those, too bad it tastes like water.

Btw, i'm laughing at how elitist some people in this thread can be.

 

I have 87 games on steam, around 15 on origin (basically all of their catalogue!), 20 or so in GOG, X on impulse...

and I rarely if ever have more than 3 games on my pcs.

to avoid download times I put the back ups on the NAS, with the relevant save data for those older games that don't have cloud saving

 

You're not doing it right. Or you need a better blend.

You prefer the obsequious?

In any event, my mechanical drive should arrive today. And at this point they're quieter and more reliable than ever, so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Well, we can afford to be elitist

// sarcasm

 

for me my 15" laptop only has space for hard drive and an IDE optical drive. even if i converted my optical drive to USB the performance would still be lacking. that doesn't even matter i have over 1TB of steam games.

http://mysteamgauge.com/account?username=cdoublejj

Until 2TB SSDs come down in price i'll be getting a 2TB 2.5" drive sooner than later. (preferably a 7200 RPM 2TB with SSD cache, 2.5" )

 

Too expensive plus single hddslot and my hm55 does not support trim..

 

I only use SSD for my OS + Programs, and Skyrim... nothing else really. Everything else is put onto HDD's for storage since for that I find no need for the speed of an SSD.

 

And where exactly would you get such a device?

 

thye already are selling a 5400 rpm 2tb 2.5 or rather they should be. we know it exist it's been announced. a 7200 rpm 2tb 2.5 with SSD cache does not exist yet but, would be nice.

 

SSDs offer huge gains in certain areas. In everyday usage the performance increase isn't really noticeable aside from boot and certain loading times, but for gaming, it is wonderful. I have a 1TB platter drive and a 180 GB SSD in my desktop and I use Steammover to kick games back and forth between the two depending on what I'm currently playing. For example, BF4 load times on my platter drive can be up to a few minutes, versus under 30 seconds on my SSD.

 

I think this discussion is more related to laptop concerns then desktop units. As Laptop are limited in their storage size capacity and some only have one drive bay with older units with one drive bay and optical drive with newer smaller laptop missing a optical drive all together. So trying to compare a Laptop to Desktop isn't a fair assessment of hardware limitations and that should be clearly stated. Some laptops have two drive bays but most in the Mass usage is one drive bay and one optical if they still exist and that makes your upgrade options limited to what you can do so more planning is required in laptops as compared to desktop upgrades.

 

This is all obvious, I was just trying to illustrate the gains that can be achieved with SSDs.

 

If I could only have one drive, it would be a SSD (my old Lenovo Y470, I kept my optical drive).
If I could have two..., it would be a mixture (my current Dell M3800 and even my aged Nehalem gaming desktop).
If I suddenly won the lottery...it would be pure, giganto storage SSDs all the way

I need my boot times man!

Now, if SSDs got a lot cheaper...I would take a laptop with a 512GB mSATA, no 2.5" bay, and an optical drive annnny day haha

 

That'd definately be my choice for main hdd, yarrr!

 

I only have mechanical drives on both my laptop and desktop. They suffice and I'll probably use them 'till the moment they die. See no point in spending money on new or SSD just for the sake of following tech fashion.

 

I used the mechanical drive that came with my last machine until it (the drive) died. Then I sprung for the SSD which was a great upgrade, and lasted until the mobo on the computer went.

When I got my new machine, the SSD went in as a boot drive, and the mechanical drive went in a caddy in the optical bay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Word, man. That's why I'm still rocking a Pentium 2 and a 3dfx video card.

 

I envy you guys that can use technology and hardware from the last century.

Seriously! Shows just how good the old stuff can be (longevity, endurance and stability) for the appropriate workflow.

I wonder if the stuff we use today will be viable in any way shape or form 15 or 20 years down the road?

 

I could probably safely say a 15 year old SSD would be more viable than a 15 year old mechanical HDD.

 

Wait and see, shall we?

I still own a 4GB IBM TravelStar hard drive from 1998, works perfectly well within its limitations...

 

I'm about to buy a few 4TB HDD storage drives, SSD's as far as I know don't come in 4TB, and for $170 per 4TB mechanical drive you really cannot go wrong with the price per GB ratio. In my opinion now is the perfect time to be buying HDD's, they are dropping in price and you can buy loads of storage for dirt cheap compared to SSD's. SSD's are nice to have for OS and programs, and for that no more than 120GB is needed.... I barely use half of my 120GB SSD in my desktop. For storage and gaming drives, SSD's are not needed at all, as long as you have a good CPU then you can access your files still pretty fast, and in gaming SSD's offer no performance boost other than levels loading quicker (but I prefer to wait a few seconds to have a small breather after completing a level in a game).

And for the amount of storage I need, SSD's would take up too much space physically, for every 4TB mechanical drive instead with SSD I would need 4x 1TB SSD's + each of them connected with sata/power cables. My desktop has 8 sata connections, so with my current drives installed + additional SSD's I would be locked to 9.12TB; costing me $3000 if I buy 5 1TB SSD's for $600 each. With My current drives + additional 4TB mechanical drives I would have 24.12TB storage; costing me $850 if I buy 5 4TB HDD's for $170. It's a no brainer, not only are SSD's cheaper, but when taken into account how many drives you can connect to your computer they will offer far more storage and physically take up less space if you have the same amount of HDD storage in SSD's. This is current times of course, things will change in the future, but there is no way I am going to wait for the full SSD takeover when I can get what I need now with HDD's.

 

I may agree with you about some of todays SSD's. Not of anything from circa 2009-2012.5 though.

I have used systems (even my own) with ancient HDD's - 10 years and older (continuously in use) with some HDD's over 15 years old (at least technology-wise, not sure about the actual age of the drive in question - the last one; a Barracuda manufactured in 1997 lol...).

If the SSD's today can do this (equivalently) I'll be more than impressed.

 

You have more limitations on laptop then desktop. I have no SSD drives mostly HDD drives cause there is no SSD that can be bought for under 100US for a 3tb drive only when a SSD 3tb is under 100US then I consider it but not til then. Also my HDD for O/S works just fine speed wise and load time and I install my games onto my WD Black HDD and it works just fine but I don't hardcore gaming much anymore so all those SSD benefits in the end doesn't benefit me or improve my bottom line other then burn a hole in the wallet.

Couldn't say it better myself...

 

Fixed for you. I still don't forget the old Deathstar scandal.

Actually old Samsung RBX SLC SSDs...are still somewhat usable these days. You still see X25-E pop up from time to time, showing SLC SSDs still rock.

 

Okay, but these are 2008/2009 tech - let's see if they're still around in 2026...

 

Ah but you're mistaken...Deathstar = Deskstar. The mobile ones (Travelstar) were actually pretty decent for their time.

They most certainly do, and will continue to do so.

The SATA-modded T43p that I'm typing on right now sports a X25-E as a boot drive.

 

I actually have an old deathstar that still has data on it. Every 5 or so spin ups it works... cachunk cachunk cachunk

To answer the OP, I just upgraded my thinkpad with one of these babies:

Spoiler

It's a new thing called MFM, nobody has heard of it.

Spoiler

View attachment 108602

Spoiler

Actually, everyone has heard of it. You can hear that thing spinning from down the hall.

Spoiler

 

I raise you one ...I have a 2GB HDD in a Toshiba Libretto 100CT from '96 w/ Windows 95 and it works perfectly to this day (though the battery is kinda dead).

 

This time last year I would've beaten that Toshiba of yours since I still owned a 701C "butterfly" with a stock 720MB HDD and W95 which was fully functional apart from...you've guessed it: the battery.

However, that one is no longer around, so good sir, honourably you win...:thumbsup:

 

Didn't take long before SATA SSDs were out of date. Now PCIe-based flash storage is 2.4 times as fast as SATA SSD. Of course, for playing with games, it isn't a big deal. Just give me huge GPU, and screw the other specs!

 

Bah, all rookies. I have an 80MB hard drive in my Amiga 500.

 

Honestly, I run 2 SSD's + 750GB mechanical in my m17x R3 (the mechanicals in the optical bay) Yes i still use mechanical drives but only for bulk storage, SSD's are good for Mmorpg's and can and have been shown to improve minimum FPS in games such as world of warcraft, Where it's constantly streaming textures from the install drive, So if your in a high pop area where hundreds of things are being loaded and unloaded, What do you want, A slow mechanical drive, Or a speed SSD, I know what im choosing there

As for everything else, I cringe at machines without SSD's in them.

 

I was actually joking, because I thought MadHaters post was silly. By his logic, "following tech" is somehow not a reasonable thing to do.

 

I use a combo of both in my laptop.

I have a 128GB mSATA SSD for my OS and a few more used applications
a 750GB 7,200 Seagate for more lesser used yet still important applications as well as my games. (As games don't really benefit too much from SSD's)
and a 5,400RPM HDD for media and downloads (you don't need the fastest HDD for watching movies or listening to music.


Even the 10K drives are left in the dust by SSD's, there is no comparison. I don't go with a high capacity SSD just because I can't afford it, let them come down in price more.

But a combo is nice if you can pull it off (cost, the system supports multiple drives.) If not I need capacity, so a single HDD is my default.

I am currently waiting for parts on a desktop build I am doing. My budget pretty much allowed for either a high capacity HDD, or a small capacity SSD (128GB) I choose the HDD just because I need the capacity right now. And when I say need I mean it. It's a budget gaming rig, so I concentrated on the cpu, gpu and psu cost wise. But in order to install all the games I have, I would need at least 200GB at minimum, and a 256GB SSD isn't feasible after OS and misc installs. So I would need at least 400GB. Yeah a 400+GB SSD is expensive. That and the desktop will be on most of the time so I won't have to deal with boot ups too many times. But I do plan on adding an SSD sometime, as I can tell the difference in speeds. Even with a high amount of ram. When you start getting multiple startup items and such it can really bog down an HDD. To me, personally, I would love to go all SSD for the speed. But capacity wise, I just can't afford to as I'd need at least a 750GB SSD to make it worth it, even then may need an HDD for extra capacity down the road.

So I am of 2 minds. I want SSD, but can't have it the way I want it, so I use HDD's as they are still at least fast enough.

 

soon we'll have TBs of SSD storage in laptop. my laptop can fit 12tb of SSD if samsung evo msata 1TB ssd is used, but I dont have that much money.

 

Keep dreaming like you can afford that price hike on the SSD compared to HDD the cost of 1tb SSD is over budget compared to 1tb HDD laptop. Not til the price of SSD capacity matches the size and capacity price for HDD that is going to be a hard swallow for everyday computing users.

 

SSDs have already dropped from 7 years, magnetic drives have easily been out 3-4x longer than SSDs. I remember a 64 GB SLC SSD was a 1000 dollar upgrade on the Alienware M9750, and now a 1 TB SSD is ~500-600. Most users don't even need close to 1 TB storage space, your average joe won't need more than a 128-256 GB SSD.

 

But your average joe will need more than 256GB of Storage. I managed to fill my laptop's 1TB hard drive to 40% capacity after one week of getting it.

 

You won't be able to sway his opinion. He is adamant that SSDs don't have a place in the mainstream market until they're the same price as mechanical HDDs.

Your average Joe will not need more than 256GB, even 128GB suffices for most people. Your average Joe uses their laptop for Netflix, Facebook, and typing up documents, not storing huge media collections. Your average enthusiast needs more space than that, and that's why laptop manufacturers offer mSATA slots. Put a HDD in the 2.5" bay and a SSD in the mSATA slot and you have the best of both worlds.

 

Your laptop has 12 mSATA slots?

 

Clevo P570WM can have 9 Msata's, assuming one Msata in the Msata slot, three 2x Msata caddies in every HDD slot, and one 2x Msata caddy in the Optical bay, allowing for 9 Msata's, or 9TB of SSD storage

 

So where are the other three? Battery bay?

All jokes aside, that's *a lot* of mSATA slots...

 

Well, if you are gonna buy that laptop, i'd suggest 1TB Msata + 3x1TB 7200RPM in Raid 5 + Blu Ray... but that's just me.

 

exactly. my alienware m18x R2 with mod can have 5 x 2.5" + 2 x msata. with 2.5" to two msata adapter you can have maximum up to 12 msata slots. with samsung evo 1TB msata SSD you can get up to 12TB. (24TB would fit all of my data from my external HDDs)

but again 12 TB at 600 each, thats just way too expensive, and I wouldn't do it for 12, i'd do it for 24 lol maybe that day will come, in a few years time. there were 1TB 2.5" evo sold for 400 on ebay.. so prices are really going down, for TLC.