I had SSD but went back to HDD: Anyone else do the same?

I love SSD but its just too expensive. The smallest size HD id go for now is 320GB cause I have a lot of big programs on my MBP. My SSD was a 80GB Intel X25M (which is for sale now, if interested PM me). But i just got tired of having to always monitor how much space i have left and carry an ext HD or flash drives with me all the time.

It was a tough decision on whether i was going to put my 80GB SSD in the MBP or go to 7200RPM. It was really hard to decide cause I just LOVE the speed of the SSD. But 80GB just wasnt gonna cut it and i was willing to pay $500 for a $250GB. So I picked up a 500GB 7200rpm Western Digital Black for $60 and having never used or seen the performance of a 7200rpm drive I have to say its great and very fast! My MBP boots in 20secs or less.

I will use this til the prices of SSD come down to at least 50cents per GB then i will get another one.

 

Have you considered an external drive as your second drive holding your documents, pictures etc. while retaining the SSD purely for loading applications and the OS?

 

We aren't going to get 50 cents per GB for awhile. I believe some people have replaced the slot loaded drive with a secondary hard drive.

 

Seriously, that much? I can fit my Linux install on 4GB pendrive (it's 3.8GB). Windows one, which is really bloated by photo/video/audio editing stuff, is only 29.8GB.

I'm perfectly fine with 64GB SSD, so I can't understand how you couldn't fit info 80GB one.

 

do you seldom utilize the mbp's Optical Drive ?
do you want the speed of SSD and the storage size of HDD ?
do you mind forking out extra cash to gain the best of both worlds?

if your answer is YES , then ditch the ODD , get a HDD caddy and put your SSD on it!

you can always buy an external enclosure for the ODD and convert it into external optical drive

 

Infact I have an ext drive at home, itsa 1.5TB but i wasnt willing to carry that thing around everywhere. With my MBP i just prefer to carry that itself, most cases i even leave my mouse at home.

I was looking into swapping out the ODD for a secondary drive but then i have to buy an adaptor i was told. Plus what if i ever want to watch a movie? To me, just having everything on 1 HD and keep the ext HD at home was the most ideal.

To be honest i havent noticed my new 7200rpm drive being that much slower than my X25 M SSD.

 

Yeah, with a 7200 RPM HDD, a fresh install and 8GB RAM an SSD is not really an upgrade if capacity is also an important factor.

I too agree that removing the ODD just to say you have an SSD powered system is going backwards, not forwards.

Interestingly, my 100GB SSD was inside my U30Jc w/8GB RAM but also had to be put in its place (as a USB 'key' in an external enclosure) by a Scorpio Black 500GB model (soon to be replaced by a 750GB Scorpio Black - when I have the time).

 

If you don't need such speed (I can't imagine not seeing difference between HDD and SSD, but that's me) don't buy SSD or wait another 5 years.

 

Unless you are a heavy disk user, the only time you would notice that are during boot up(which can be avoided in general using sleep/hibernate). I have 4 laptops in use and only one is equipped with the x25m.

 

thats true. I had the X25M in my asus and it boot me in 25secs. Im actually selling my Asus and try selling a laptop with an SSD drive to general public - good luck. Most average consumers dont even know what SSD is, let alone wanting one. All they look at is size of the hard drive. When they see 80GB on mine, they immiedately look away.

Thats why i took the SSD out and trying to sell it alone. Then put a 320GB 5400 in the asus.

 

I replaced my X-25M 80GB with a 500GB Scorpio Black.

I just found on too many occasions I needed the space on the laptop and it wasn't there. Adding a 2nd drive isn't an option in a M1530 and an external drive removes the whole 'all in one box' thing for me. Anyway to be honest except for booting I don't notice any real difference.

I have to admit that once 512GB SSD's come I'll probably look again, mainly because I want to run VMs on the Laptop.

 

I don't do anything CPU intensive, but I multi-task. File sharing is always going on, so I'm always writing to disk. Backblaze is always on and backing up, so I'm always reading the disk. Of course, multiple browser windows and multiple tabs within each. This is just my basic setup that's always on.

So on top of that, there's either iTunes or some .avi/mkv playing as well.

I'm not CPU bound, but any halts in my system are due to disk. I can never, ever go back to HDD for the OS drive.

This is probably a dumb question, but I'll try anyway.
1. You have already replaced your DVD drive with an aftermarket 750GB drive like in my sig; or
2. You haven't replaced it because you totally use your DVD drive everyday.

Right?

 

still using an ODD is going backwards.

and you fail, as usual. ssd is an upgrade even with capacity as a factor. but as you failed to use your ssd, it's no question that you can't understand them. my ssds (even the oldest ones) laugh at your scorpios.

 

Since I now have a 500GB in my MBP ill probably just get an ext HD that ill leave stationary on my desk.

I dont use my ODD except for when i install stuff or the rare movie. Whats the benefits of having 2 HDs in 1 laptop? I could keep my 500GB 7200 in the main and add another 500GB 5400rpm drive.

 

No, ODD is not going backwards - you're just not imaginative enough to see where it helps.

You fail, again, to understand that SSD's are not the end all and be all of computer 'upgrades'. Many in this same thread have mentioned the almost indiscernable difference between SSD's and HDD's in normal use, yet I am the one you attack. Even when my usage style specifically makes SSD's look like the toys they are (currently).

Your SSD's can laugh at my collection of Hitachi's, XT's and Scorpio Blacks - but that only shows how little you demand from your storage subsystem - not how much better they are.

I too value 'snap' and responsiveness a great deal in my systems - but SSD's are the 'throw money at the problem' approach that simply doesn't work for me. Money is not the issue - final (and lasting) performance is.

As I mentioned in another thread where someone asks specifically for reasons to buy an SSD:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7334839-post17.html


I'm not against SSD's per se...

- what I am against is wholehearted recommendations for SSD's without any other reason other than 'But! It's faster!!!' (yammer, yammer, yammer).


As to your point that I fail to 'understand' them... ???

What is there to understand? I've tried them, they don't work for me - the story ends here until something new comes along.

(but davepermen thinks otherwise, as usual).

 

Just wanna point out that SATA is a connection not a drive. So going from an SSD to SATA makes no sense, unless the SSD didn't use a SATA connector.

And I've always found my SSD very good over the HDD. Noticeable speed improvement even though I had to sacrifice 50% of my space. Had it for 1.5 years now.

 

I did. I sold my Intel SSD because I don't think the price is worth it. I'm waiting until SSD's come down to $1/gb across the board before I will consider buying one again.

 

This is the only way Ill be able to afford a usable SSD drive. I would however like to test an SSD to see what all the fuss is about. Currently my x200s with a 250gb WD scorpio black, LV core 2 duo cpu cold boots to a usable desktop in ~30sec.

For now it seems SSD pricing is still at the gimmick levels, while Im sure could survive on an 80GB drive for now, the $2.44 per GB price before tax/shipping is just too much. When will the price drop from gimmick to high? I dont know, but SSD prices will never be considered affordable at this rate.

 

You click the MKV file

Seriously, is there anyone who is using a laptop and these cumbersome, optical disks? They take too much space when packed in a way they don't scratch and break. Very old fashioned technology, I must say.

 

I also returned to HDD's. This was after 3 SSD's died on me lol. Want to return to SSD's soon though. Once sata III drives are established.

 

I am returning my Kingston V+ 64GB SSD to go back to my Hitachi 500GB hard drive because 64GB isn't enough for me. I already notice how much slower the Hitachi is but I can deal with it since I am gaining more storage space.

 

I could have said I told you so.

There is no doubt SSDs will replace harddisk but you need to read the signs.
When the prices fall to comparable prices as harddisk drives then it is time to get SSD.

A good disk layout has booting/loading speeds close to SSD without any of the insane cost.

But now it is the time to get 7200RPM Harddisk drives prices are now comparable with 5400RPM Drives.

The better solution for storage is to get 2 HDD.
Do a clean installation Windows 7 Install on 1 complete with Programs and optimize the disk layout.
Then Clone it. or do it on a monthly basis before you sleep.
When you get malware/disk failure simply pop the other in and send the damage 1 to repair or reclone from the clean one.
You can either manually transfer the file diff but make sure you change the disk signature for Windows Partition.

 

I have gone back to HDDs several times. Especially for my (light) usage it's easy to avoid the negatives of HDDs by keeping programs open and using standby/hibernate.

 

There are a few already, or did you mean once sata 3 is more or less the standard when compared to 2?

 

I'm on the cusp of switching back to HDDs, but I'm doing so begrudgingly. Running on two HDDs does help ease the pain a bit, but there's no question that I'll be back on the SSD bandwagon once the price/GB ratio is a bit less lopsided.

 

I have the admit the price is pretty steep, but I look at like any other high end component. I mean a high end videocard is 400-900 dollars, depending on what you go with.

I just put a 250gb Vertex 3 in my new thinkpad t520. It has sata 6 and benchmarks at 500mb reads/writes. Usually I went with a smaller drive, like 80-100gigs, because it was more affordable. I figured this time I'd rather have something that I can install/download without worrying about it. In the event I need more I can use an external usb3 drive.

I've also had no problems with sleep on the newer sandforce drives.

 

Old fashioned technology, but unfortunately ALL of my movies are on DVD. So yes, I do still use them.

 

I rarely use the optical drive.
In fact, I think I've used it only twice over the past 6 months.
Once to do a clean Win 7 SP1 x64 install (which I really have to put on my USB stick to replace the regular Win 7 (without SP1), and second time to read an old anime from the discs (which I since transferred to my external 1TB hdd).

Other than that, I don't use the ODD and can easily do without it since I store all of my stuff on the laptop HDD or the external hdd.

As for the SSD... simply NOT worth the price tag.
I don't care about the speed differential.
The mechanical 7200rpm HDD (Hitachi Travelstar 7k500 for example) is great in terms of speed, booting, etc.

I WOULD prefer an SSD, but until the significantly drop in prices, forget it.
I'm not about to pay through the nose in order to downgrade my storage space for speed (which is adequate for my needs -and I still do plenty of writing on my hdd).

 

I bought a Kingston 128 GB SSD drive for 139.00. Which is right at 1.00 per GB.

 

Notice I said "across the board". And no, that's not $1 per gb.

 

i've yet to find ONE place where my ssd is slower than your hdd, ever. this is my final point to this. and this is why i can't ever understand you. a correct working good quality ssd (so nothing from ocz for example ) is always better than a hdd, except in cost/gigabyte and actual available gigabyte/disk.

if that is NOT true, something's WRONG with it. with mine, it's absolutely ALWAYS true. no exceptions.

 

Hard drives, I have plenty of them. Most are raided up in a mini-san but it will be a cold day in hell before I ever again put up with a personal use system that has its OS and (main) programs all on spinning platters.
My last 2 laptop buys ditched platters completely, 3rd will be the same.


BTW, re: dvd drives in laptops...

Pretty much my entire dvd collection is in boxes in a closet.

However, I watch the movies all the time even though those boxes collect dust. A bunch of discs in their cases that were read once or twice and sit in pristine condition as a backup for my ripped movie collection.

Getting an optical in a laptop seems like a big waste of space and weight these days, a lot like floppy drives ended up. (and quite frankly they hung on in standard builds far longer than they ever should have mostly due to stupid bios/F6 disks)

 

SSD's are not for everyone. If they were HDD's would be a thing of the past........

 

Yeah. An SSD might be fast and all, but I don't feel like paying for it and I need lots of storage space. Besides most of the time for me the stuff that is bottlenecking on the drive is mass storage kind of stuff.

Their high cost and the fact that I only really feel my computer being slow when I max out my ram, means it is just a waste of money for me.

 

if you think your computer is only slow when you max out your ram, you have not yet experienced an ssd. but yes, cost and storage size are the problems.

here the discussion is, if performance is one, too. and that is just not true, except if something's really wrong.

 

I notice quite a few people mention sacrificing storage space for speed or spending a lot of money on small SSD's. This all makes me wonder where we would be now if the vast majority of us simply refused to spend that money until prices were more reasonable. Would SSD's still be so expensive if hardly anyone actually purchased them I wonder.

 

I moved from HDD to SSD for boot drive and have USB backup, even though cost is a factor,, I still prefer the SSD to HDD.

Cheers
3Fees

 

I just wish SSDs were more affordable. If I had a multi HDD system still I would just get a 40GB OS SSD and run a large cyclical HDD for data. But for now Ill just dream of when i can afford a decent sized SSD.

 

My thoughts exactly.

Reading about SSD's for almost two years and still no 'reasonable' alternative to a fast, modern HDD.

 

Probably still be expensive. Selling cost is a combo of wholesale component cost + margin. While SSD manufacturers have some leeway on the margin, the wholesale numbers are what they are. So, there might be a bit of diff in pricing, but I doubt very much. While I don't know the profit margins on this SSD stuff, I doubt it's very fat, as the pc component biz, including drives, is a cut throat biz.

 

I have long refused to pay SSD prices - I'd rather just close the lid on my computer and wait the extra seconds for Photoshop or whatever to load.

These days I think I have the best of both worlds: I bought an OptiBay for my MacBook Pro, and plan to replace the optical drive with my 1TB drive, and install an SSD in the main bay as my boot drive.

80GB SSD + 1TB HDD = fast loading and lots of space. That's the only reasonable solution for me. People have been saying SSD prices would fall for 2 years, and while they've moved a little, there haven't been any drastic price reductions. I wonder when/if that's going to happen. I feel like it's time already, but who knows.

 

Well 3 weeks now running my 500GB Western Digital 7200rpm black and I dont miss my Intel X25M SSD at all.

SSD is great but not worth the money.

To me the biggest benefit of SSD is no moving parts = less chance of failure/shock. But I feel I have my MBP in my sleeve everytime I commute with it so as long as im extra careful with it, i have nothing to worry about the hard drive.

 

Its a conspiracy, the flash fabs are just overcharging you for melting plain old sand!

It will never be 'reasonable' when the only metric is your subjective wallet.

SSDs are a clear step above hard drives, and when the speed is worth the price to the buyer there is no denial left. That list of buyers is growing, and objective analysis shows prices are going down.