Examples of Productivity increase with SSD use...

Ya, I don't plan on launching 99 programs at once. I actually go out of my way to minimize the amount of things that start up.

But I do get your point, and believe me, I know how much faster SSDs are. I'm with you all the way on that. I mean I was salivating over getting an SSD. But when I got my laptop, man, I was shocked at how quick things started up. First time I open programs, like I said, probably takes a second or two. But the second time I open them, man, it's bloody instantaneous. Even the first time, I mean, two programs I consider to be not exactly optimized, FF and iTunes, only take 2-3max seconds to open.

So I'm thinking where am I going to see the boost? Ya, the SSD will take that down from 1 second to no second, but...dang man, it's already bloody quick. Factor in the price, and it's like, is it really worth it? At least for me, where I stand, I don't think so. Eventually I will upgrade to an SSD. When I can get a 300GB drive for $300...or that Crucial M225 drive or whatever that was refurbished with a 1-month warranty for $256, but brand-new, I will buy one. So basically, $1 for 1GB.

To put it in car terms... it might be a Porsche, but I feel this 7200RPM drive when combined with the bad roads, turns it into an M3. On these roads I'm driving on, I feel like I can almost keep up with you.

 

Who cares about productivity. It`s all about getting rid of that ANNOYING clicking you get from HDDs

 

If an SSD is a Porsche, well, I work and drive in Manhattan, NYC, so a Porsche (SSD) gets me nowhere faster. On top of going nowhere faster, I need to keep it looking pretty from the damn gravel and potholes everywhere (TRIM) and it cost alot more than a Camry (HDD). But on the plus side, maybe I'll get a bit of a jump off the green (response time) and stares from admiring onlookers (geeks), and I can really let it rip once I get out of my normal humdrum daily behavior.

My HDDs don't click. They whirrrr forever, but click? Are you using a Deathstar?

 

This analysis might be way too abstract, but I'm going to post it anyway.

If you want to quantify productivity, then you can simply measure the financial value of your time and see which storage solution saves you time. This is in accordance with the old saying "time is money."

An SSD will obviously be faster than any given conventional drive, but the ultimate question is more difficult: whether an SSD will increase your productivity depends on what you paid for the SSD versus what you would pay for a conventional drive.

If your SSD costs far more than your previous conventional drive, then you should consider how much time the SSD will cumulatively save over the course of your computing time; thus you can equate your computing time saved to the value of your time spent working. If that saved time is not worth more money than the cost of the SSD, then you've really wasted your resources in getting the SSD in the first place.

Of course, when answering whether an SSD will increase "productivity", the answer provided above can be simplified to the following: is the cost of an SSD worth more or less than the time saved by using it? If it worth less, then you've made a wise purchase regardless of your song quality. If it isn't, then you've wasted your money AND your time (you'll have to work longer now to recover the money you wasted).

 

Bog - well said +1 to that.
Productivity and wait time go hand in hand - time spent waiting for the computer to respond is wasted productivity time. Go back and forth to large working files during the course of the day. Here's an example:
My netbook with an SSD (some will question the value of that in the first place - I travel a lot for work) can load apps faster than the desktops and laptops we have at work - especially the large Excel and PowerPoint files I work on. Waiting 30 seconds for the computer to load the Excel file is wasted productivity time.

 

The only test that counts: do what you normally do on your mechanical HD and given the identical O/S, apps setup, do the same thing on your SSD.

Is there a significant time difference between the SSD and the mechanical HD?

Each time I've attempted to report the above on this forum, I've basically been told that my hardware must be defective because there is no way an SSD is slower than a HD.

I would like to know yours (and other's) findings on the above 'test'.

I don't think so: when I use my quad core 4 x Raptor driven workstations I get an obvious productivity boost compared to a more basic/standard setup.

When I upgrade to the next platform next year, I'll be able to measure (easily) how much more productive I will be compared to where I'm at now. If I don't see the benefits, I'll wait till the next generation platform is ready to try.

Krane,
The increased performance of an SSD is not superficial (at first) - but my main issue with them is that the excellent start they have initially is not sustained as the drive is used in a day to day manner.

Mechanical HD's do not have this issue unless they are ready to die.


Kent1146,

SSD's do not compare to a Porsche (to me).

What SSD's promise a Porsche delivers.

I wouldn't buy either to simply use them in 1st gear.

Well, I do!

I do agree though that the silence of an SSD is addictive (but then you just notice all the other fans that are actively cooling your system.

And, if you have really good/young ears: you actually can hear an SSD.

 

I must respectfully disagree with both you and Bog.

I don't think that the value of faster computer hardware simply comes down to efficiency of time and money. If I was an employer, and considering buying SSD's for my workforce, then yes, it would come down to efficiency. But as an individual buying computers and parts for myself, it is a hobby.

I use PC's because I like to tinker with computers. I like to tweak my hardware to get the most performance out of it. I like to configure my OS so that my boot times are as minimal as they can be. And when I discover some way to improve performance out of my hardware, I *LOVE* it.

Every hobbyist knows the feeling of getting new hardware, and seeing how much faster it is than the old hardware. Windows installs faster. Your computer boots faster. Your applications load faster, and your framerates are smoother. To a computer hobbyist, that feeling is the very reason why we love our sport.

And the reason why we love it is because it is OURS. My desktop system is configured the way it is because *I* chose all the parts that went into it. My laptop is mine because *I* picked exactly the hardware I wanted, and exactly the software that runs on it. Everything I see and do with my computer is the way it is because it's *MINE*.

You will never talk people like me out of wanting a top-end part like a Solid State Disk with logical arguments about time efficiency or productivity. My hobby is illogical. I may not buy an SSD because I can't afford it, but I will always want one. And when the time is right, I WILL buy one and put it in my system. Because I will never stop chasing that next big discovery that gets me more performance.

 

kent1146,

I like your enthusiasm!

I too will keep chasing the same everly increasing performance goals.

The difference is that while you worry over one or two SSD's to 'get you there', I worry about a couple of dozen or more (to fully 'convert' my workstations to solid state drives). And, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not made out of (that kind of) money...

 

My main reason for my first SSD was "because I can", and I too like to tinker. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I bought an 80GB Intel G2 to use in my gaming desktop. Not necessarily the fastest, but still top notch especially when I got it seven months ago. It replaced my 10,000RPM Raptor. I didn't notice a whole lot of difference. Part of my problem is my mobo switches to a different chip or whatever and takes an extra 10 seconds to identify and boot AHCI devices. Plus coming from a 10,000 RPM raptor I'm sure the improvements would be minimal.

Then I bought a 40GB X25-V for my netbook. I mainly wanted longer battery life, and a more robust machine, and didn't need a whole lot on the drive. Well, battery life was good, went from a little over 4 hours with hard drive to near 5 hours with SSD. Massive improvement. Well, I realized keeping programs and data less then 30GB was a struggle, so I opted for a 64GB Kingston V-series (not V+) and battery life went down the tubes again. 4:10 battery compared with 4:50 with the Intel. I guess you have to pay more for better battery life.

Finally, what I am very impressed with is both the Vertex 2 60GB and Momentus XT which went into my Sager 15" laptop. Not that I use this laptop on battery much, but from the Momentus 7200.4 500GB that was in it, I get about same battery life with both the Momentus XT and Vertex 2. Kinda crazy. Response time is incredible, and I can easily recommend a Sandforce drive to anyone now.

In the end, is my productivity improved much? Probably not. Most of what I do is web browsing, some basic photo/video editing, play with virtual machines to test networking and various software, and gaming. Games load fast... big whoop. My machine boots in about 20 seconds compared with about 45 seconds previously. Nice, but again, big whoop. Games load faster too, big whoop. But I do like that I don't have to wait as much.

 

I can see why some people have pointed out that they have a different perception of value with respect to computers, and I absolutely understand that. I can understand that because I used to view computers in the exact same way by experimenting with Linux, virtual machines, undervolting, copper modding, overclocking... you name it, I did it. Since then I've changed; I no longer view a computer as a toy, but rather as a tool from a purely utilitarian point of view.

When faced with any new technology I no longer ask "how can I tweak it better?" Rather, I ask "what tasks can this tool accomplish for me, and what is it going to cost?"

How you perceive the value of technology depends on what you seek to get out of it: self-satisfaction, knowledge, acquiring new skills, or just plain old productivity. I value the latter.

 

The OP is questioning productivity as it seems this is their important quantification for purchasing a SSD. I'll agree with you though from a hobbiests standpoint SSDs rock all the way around.

Personally I also agree with the productivity value. I have moved more and more away from tweaking into what can the hardware do for me. I am expanding more and more into other hobbies of phot, video and radio controled flight. My P7805 and SSD function just perfectly for the Real Flight simulator for the radio controled flight and my photo and video software.

So my previous never ending search for faster and faster hardware has dimmed quite a bit. I no longer feel the pressing need for RAID0 and quad iCores etc...........

 

This had to be one of the worst posts I have made, I was under the influence of heavy duty pain medicine yesterday do to a medical issue.

Thanks for not giving me to much grief!

I should have qualified my statement for the typical user where large data sets with intensive CPU/HD usage is not an issue. As far as the thought or voice stuff, well lets just forget that part.

 

Bog, you once again stated eloquently what is bouncing around my head.

htwingnut, I too have a SandForce drive that with my experience/usage patterns, I can't quite recommend as freely as you can.

TANWare, I too was a RAID0/RAID5 kind of user until I realized that a single glitch on this (once) superfast setup put me behind weeks, if not months (depending how busy I was at the time of the crash).

othonda, okay, you get a 'pass' this time. But next time - RUN!


Hasn't anybody bought an SSD to make more money with (ie be more productive)?

And... that wants to post their experiences here?

If I wasn't so busy right now, I would do it myself (properly, as Phil has suggested - same machine, same setup, same usage - different HD/SSD).

One day I'll (eventually) have the time to do that and report back here.

 

I have the time and the setup. Intel X25-M and an awful Seagate 7200.4. Can image the Seagate to match my SSD setup, but need to know what you'd like to have done as a test and how to time it.

 

If I can make the time this weekend or early next week, and the Alzheimers permits, I will also test this out. I have dual drives, WD 320 Black and 128 ssd. I do a lot of photo, spreadsheet and ftp transfer work (4 times a week, every week). I will time each operation on the hdd and then duplicate it on the ssd. I have not actually timed it, but I used to use a Dell e6400 for this, then upgraded to an Asus G73jh with a 5400 hdd, and it was way faster. Then I added a ssd to the second bay, and it really became faster to do the same work each week. Once I changed the hdd to the WD 7200, I noticed the hdd was faster than the one it replaced (I was using it to keep the writes down), but having used the ssd, I still feel it is much faster than the new hdd. Now I only use the ssd for my work. I just didn't ever time the difference, because faster is faster, that was all I cared about. So over the next week I will use my workload to compare the two. As far as I know, the ssd is much faster, but as someone wrote on here somewhere... is it the placebo effect??? We shall see.

 

Thanks guys for the offers!

My suggestions would be to use your computer in the ways you know best and also the most 'strenuous' at the same time.

Then you'll have a better chance of seeing any difference in your specific scenarios and myself and others will be able to fit it as good as we can into our own usage scenarios.

Looking forward to any comparisons to come!

 

Don't be fooled by this thread. SSDs still beat notebook HDDs in every real world scenario thinkable.

When you look at it from a price/performance perspective there is a point to make though. The price/performance of a 500GB Momentus XT is hard to beat. If this drive didn't have other downsides (sound, vibration, higher power consumption than SSDs) it would be my drive of choice.

 

i dont even see how you can compare an ssd to an hdd other than price.
i use an xt and i dont have any issues with it that phil listed (im always on a/c) but compared to my friends ssd in sheer performance it gets beat handsdown.
would it increase my productivity? in video editing/compositing/encoding/rendering it most probably would; from the stuff ive read etc, but i havent tested it myself.
other than that however, the increased performance of ssd would lend very little to my ms office, photoshop, surfing and media usage imho. it would make my computer usage more pleasant for sure but would add little to actual productivity (other than video editing).

 

IMO although SSD produce better performance numbers, for Home Users there is simply no need.
1)Usually I use Suspend and my boot performance isn't bad if you "RunIdleTask (google)" and "defrag C:\ /b /v /u"
2)The OS doesn't use your harddisk as swapfile/paging consistently because RAM is cheap and plentiful
3)Currently it is too expensive you could buy 2 harddisk for the price of a SSD with superior storage capacity. Mirror/image the harddisk if you want a backup storage.
I would wait for the price to fall and the tech to go mainstream before buying one.

 

I think most in this thread would agree, on both sides of the argument, that SSD performance will beat or match HDD in any particular benchmark. The problem is that externalities outside of pure benchmark performance that reduce the impact of the benefit well below the potential indicated by a synthetic benchmark. A big factor in this is that we all value an hour of our time differently. If my time were worth $200 an hour and I could save that much within a reasonable time, I'd grab a $200 SSD in a heartbeat. Assuming I can improve productivity by perhaps 10s per day, I could recover the cost in about a year. The problem is that the mean hourly wage in the US is $20/hr, not $200/hr. To offset the cost (10 hours of work) at that same rate (10s/day), would take roughly 10 years - not a reasonable time frame.

 

Just curious guys what your tests showed?

Did you have time to run them, or like me - does life/work just get too much in the way?


Seems to me that except for some very specific scenarios - a modern, well tuned HDD is more than a match to an SSD when productivity is the target/goal.

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove with your crusade against SSDs, but seems like to me your conclusion above should be the opposite: Except for some very specific scenarios, an SSD beats an HDD when productivity is the target/goal.

Why I said that, because everyone seems to benefit from the faster loading time, faster transfer time of an SSD - whether it makes them happy for not having to wait, or even when it saves them a few miliseconds at a time. Except for a few, for example you and your video/photo editing work. Coupled with "modern well tuned HDD" part of your argument, it makes the exception even narrower. I strongly think there will be some in your line of work that will say that SSDs do increase their productivity over HDDs.

And lets face it, most of the productivity from using a computer, by the very nature of it, i.e. a computer computes, is really in the CPU power. There's not many tasks that involve the storage as the limiting factor in productivity. So it will be less of a factor. But the storage can contribute to it, and from many people's experience, an SSD does benefit.

So SSDs do not benefit your work, so what? Suck it up and move on. Stop trying to convince others otherwise, because a lot of others have the opposite experience. If you're trying to make yourself feel good because you couldn't get your SSDs to perform, or because you have to switch to HDDs, sorry buddy, can't help you there. Because just like most of those who got the SSDs, I feel the difference and it does increase my productivity, even if it's only a tiny improvement.

 

Tilleroftheearth has been on a crusade against SSDs for months now.

This thread will be closed as it is yet another attempt to spread his message.

Any current generation SSD beats any laptop hard drive in any scenario that's bottle necked by the storage.

The hybrid HDD/SSD Seagate Momentus XT comes close to SSD performance but doesn't match it.

The extra performance of an SSD can positively influences productivity, if it does and how much it does depends on the usage scenario.