SSD drive difference

hi, i was just wondering the effect of SSD drives from someone who has one...

i'm looking more into my laptops bootup speed/shutdown speed. (from power button, not loading into windows)

so if i was to change my 7200 RPM to a solid state drive, would that make my computer boot up considerably faster??

and whats everyone's bootup time (from powerbutton to login).. for vista or xp.. (i'm on vista)

i'm starting up in 50 seconds right now :/ i was at about 35 seconds when i first got my laptop so i'm kinda bummed

 

Well, my SZ has a 7200rpm drive and my G1 has the original generation 32GB SSD. The G1 boots a bit faster, but in general operation, the SSD is a bit faster as well. The newer SSDs are supposedly even faster than that. So I wouldn't say it's going to be 10x faster on bootup. Now, also keep in mind that the G1 is a Core Solo 1.33 which should drag and the SZ is a Core Duo 2.16. That should tell you something. On all other ultraportables I've owned, the bootup time was S-L-O-W, and the 4200rpm drives were only part of the issue.

But, for example, I can come out of sleep mode in like a second or so. So SSD has other benefits.

Boot time is also a function of how fast your processor is (i.e. what are you starting up and how fast can your processor handle it), how much crap you're loading at startup time, etc.

 

I use a small Transcend model that only reads at about 20 MB/s and writes even slower at about 10 MB/s. The HDD it replaced was faster and I don't need benchmarks to notice. That said, there are models that are significantly faster than their HDD counterparts. They have a price tag to match so it might pay to wait a year or two before jumping on the SSD ride. My little 8 GB model was $170, not too bad as SSD goes. Only $70 more than the last HDD I bought.

I still love my SSD, though. It's silent. There is no vibration. And it's a little power miser. My laptop dropped a watt at idle and 2 watts under heavy disk load - measured at the wall plug with a Kill-O-Watt meter.

 

i'm on core2 duo 2.16ghz 2gb ram 7200 rpm, with about 47-49 processes loading up vista ultimate...

 

Wow. My W2k has 12 and my XP Pro has 13 when I deduct for RMClock and Task Manager itself. That is, of course, after some manual disabling. You might look into it yourself.

Black Viper's site has a lot of info on start-up programs and services. My advice is to be conservative about disabling. If you are conservative you can eliminate things that run automatically but are and will never be used. It might turn out that you wont feel the need to buy a new drive and end up saving some money.

For example, I don't use a printer off my laptops so print spool is disabled. I don't use the modem so telephony is disabled. I use Intel's small driver for my wireless card and enter the SSID manually so I disable Windows' wireless configurator. There are many things available to stop that I just won't use. My XP and W2k both only consume about 65 MB of RAM, which includes about 7 MB consumed by RMClock. Vista is much more complex and sophisticated so I wouldn't expect the same kind of numbers, but I would think you might be able to make some improvement.