ssd or hdd

Krane,

LOL, sorry, but you lost me.

There's a 'legal' limit to how fast a computer should run?

Of course I have use of that extra speed, but so far I see no hints of it in a productivity setting. Certainly not anything that would warrant $600 plus a few days rebuilding my current working computer.

Note that I have spent $400+ on a notebook HD (7K100) and thought that was a good deal; I'm not adverse to spending money, but I am adverse to spending money foolishly.

 

It was a simple enough
analogy? The SSD is only worth it if you have a use/need for it. Unless your comparison has some standard of reference, anyone can deny the use of anything. In other words, to me a diamond is just a rock!

 

Krane,

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing.

My standard of reference is how fast the computer is with an SSD vs. how fast it is with a mechanical HD.

Your analogy, although simple to understand, has no bearing on this topic.

Again, let me ask you - what actual task(s) does an SSD improve so dramatically that it is worth upgrading from a mechanical HD to (instead of upgrading the CPU, RAM or Video card - if those other components affect your specific 'tasks' more directly and offer a more tangible benefit than an SSD).

 

There are many factors where SSDs improve on HDDs, not just performance. SSDs can have faster sequential read/writes, which is important if you do work with editing big files (such as videos) and faster random read/writes (along with the most important metric of access time), which is important for loading up programs and O/S and general responsiveness of your system (though this is more subjective as it is difficult to actually quantify; however, there can be quite a noticeable difference in some HDD intensive programs such as torrenting several files).

Aside from this, other benefits can include lower average power consumption for better battery life, cooler operation, and less noise. There is a higher shock tolerance and durability to those working in the field. Some weigh less than traditional HDDs, and this along with the power consumption, is most noticeable in minimizing weight and maximizing run time on ultraportables. If money is no object, SSDs are more dense than HDDs and hence can have higher capacity than mainstream HDDs.

Of course not everyone needs any of these benefits, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. You have to decide if the cost outweights the benefits (which for most consumers it still does) and hence isn't worth the investment.

 

It's already been stated by sgogeta4;5526130 and others: it's best used a your primary programs and OS disk. If you use your computer for labor intensive tasks like video editing, the merits of SSD are clear.

 

@Tilleroftheearth

More posts does not equal more persuasive.

I accept your view that for the work you do all day (process RAW image files of 80MB to 200Mb size) a SSD is not beneficial in your estimation. Please accept that your workload is far outside the typical notebook user. Many of us have a different experience. For example:

I ran into something similar. I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking so I can be more productive by dictating to my computer rather than typing. I assumed this software was CPU-dependent but to my surprise it works faster with my Intel SSD, and keeps up with my speech better.

 

T61Dumb,

sorry, I'm not trying to be more persuasive, just trying to find the right words to ask my question properly.

I do not know if an SSD would be beneficial for me. I'm trying to extrapolate from my experience on two other SSD equipped systems for what they might do in my situation.

You have answered with your Dragon Naturally Speaking example. Thanks. Any threads that more of the same is discussed (instead of benchmarks)?

Also, hollis_f seems to do exactly what I'm doing! Where is that thread?

@Krane, you still don't answer the question - even when you put it in bold. Sigh.

I agree with everything sgogeta4 posted, but I am talking about examples of measurable productivity gains - actually getting work out of the computer faster - not simply making the computer nicer to use.

 

Value is relative to each user, while normal HDD are fine for most. For me, it made my laptop a lot more pleasing experience, everything is more responsive than it used to be, all applications open in couple of sec, i enter games in a fraction of the time, starting and closing windows is extremly fast, does all this make me more productive... probably not. In simple terms i don't wish to be on desktop much anymore (aside from the screen size), this is enough for me to justify the price, weather its worth it for all... i guess each individual has its own value for what they should get for any given amount of $$$.

 

You have 12 out of the 58 posts on this thread. Your point is clear: you don't find an SSD to be better for you for your work processing 200MB RAW photo files all day, so you don't believe an SSD is better for any of us in the work and play we do. We get the point. You've made the same point endlessly on the SSD thread. We got your point there too. I hope that you could accept that others have different types of work or different interests or different priorities.

Personally I like a snappier computer that does things faster, just as I like a snappier car that does things faster, or a snappier woman that...uh, well, maybe not that...

 

Even when I get quoted I am still not understood.

Sorry for thinking I might get an answer to my questions.

But, I do like where you were going with the snappier woman...


Edit: Maybe this thread will make things more clear?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5526537&postcount=1

 

looking forward to a 'snappier' notebook but clicking on the buy-now buttons has not been good. most out of stock (or never had them) or prices are higher than listed. others have pictures of the early g1 black case ones.
cheapest so far (for delivery to uk) is Dabs at £341.53
Intel 160GB SSD (snappier state drive)

will this upgrade help me attract snappier woman?

DOH! they are also out of stock, 1-2 days, yeah right...

 

Ah! I hadn't read this when I replied in another thread. Here's my real-world test (see post #8) on using Adobe Lightroom (not sure what you use for your raw processing, but this must be one of the most common). From my measurements just rendering previews will save you 2 seconds per image. That's about half-an-hour a week. And that's just on that one step of the process.