Conventional Vs. Solid State Hard Drive Race, Sony TZ91 (Video)

Hello everyone

I notice a lot of post about SSD vs Normal HDD and I thought it would be nice for those who don't have SSD to see the difference.

I don't know if anyone post this before. I just found this video at Gizmodo.com, Enjoy!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/clips/conventional-vs-solid-state-hard-drive-race-sony-tz91-328872.php

Ch28Kid

 

lol i just saw it at gizmodo and thought about posting it but u beat me to it.
ya, im not too impress with SSD drive at the moment. 5400rpm only loss by 12seconds on bootup. SSD kinda look stupid right now and so is my 190 on delivery too.

 

The normal hard drive in a TZ is 4200 rpm though.

 

Would like to see the difference between a 7K200 Hitachi and the SSD as well. But $1000 for an extra 12 secs? hmmmm, not for me but im sure a lot of people will find it worth the price.

 

I think I like the SSD for the quietness.. but I'm sure for lots of people that doesn't justify the cost..

Most of it is just marketing gimmicks anyway. Yeah, i got tricked.

 

I have to say the video is a bad advertisement for SSD... $1000 for 12 sec improvement on OS boot? not to mention 47sec boot time on conventional HDD can be accepted by most users. If you complaining 47sec been a slow boot... u should seriously stay away from ultra portable.

 

regarding the tz91 with a 2.5" conventional HDD, what did they do to the 1.8" mounting space? Just left it empty?

 

If interested, I have written a number of NBR articles below. With respect to cost, the present trend seems to be to negotiate a good computer deal with the SSD included, thus offsetting the cost of the SSD.

My initial SSD, the Sandisk, really held no value as I got such a great price from Dell. I don't know if this could be done with a Sony.

The quiteness of the SSD is also enhanced by a lack of moving parts, less heat overall which significantly reduces your systems use of the fan. In fact, when I use my laptop without the external screen, I hardly ever notice the fan to come on. This is a significant difference from other systems with the HD spinning at an incredible rate.

I really don't believe there has been any marketting gimics because, really, there is not an avenue that allows the average purchaser to just go out and buy one. You can get one off ebay or through Dell but, as of yet, no companies have set up really effective retail sales through distributorship which would lead to reasonable prices down the line.

EDIT: There are alot more benefits from an SSD than the start up time, many discussed in the suggested reading.

 

what SSD manufacturer does sony use on their TZ?

 

I believe its Samsung.

 

I think most viewers of that video haven't realized that although it's only 12 seconds, that's about 25% reduction in boot time, which in my opinion is significant considering boot time isn't the only measure of performance.

 

I dont think anyone is really concerned about the 12 sec difference, but moreso the $1000 premium for the 25% performance gain, for most right now it doesn't yet justify that price. Once the price comes down below the stratospheric levels I'm sure a lot of us would jump on the SSD bandwagon, I for one would love to for sure. Would love to see BF2 loading times on the fastest SSD.

 

Its not exactly 25% performance gain. Unfortunately, this 25% decrease doesn't carry through applications. SSD speed up the time required to start an application, but it loose its effect on performance once the data is loaded into RAM. I have tried my co-worker's TZ190 (32GB SSD) before purchased a TZ150 with 2gb. The application experience between conventional HDD and SSD are generally the same. Again, I only use basic softwares, Office, Quickbook and IE.

However, I do appreciate the less power consumption of SSD. If there is any reason I should get a SSD, this would be it. Speedy boot time is great, but I don't boot my OS every 5 mintues. It doesn't really benefit me much.

 

This is a jaded performance view, if you were using the Sandisk which has absolutely abismal write speeds.

The Dell site is littered with dissappointment in this drive as can be seen here:

http://www.dellcommunity.com/suppor...type=message&sort_by=-date&q=ssd&page_size=10

 

My G1 has the Samsung 32GB SSD and I can tell you that it's just fine. I did poke at that Dell link - yikes!

Think of it another way: outside the TZ which has the 2.5" option (for which you sacrifice the DVD drive), there's no real way to speed up most ultraportables in terms of I/O because they usually use 1.8" drives at 4200rpm. Been there, done that way too many times.

I have yet to check out the 64GB SSD in my new G2 (been busy and haven't configured the computer yet), but it's supposedly faster than this one. I'd say performance is close to if not on par with 7200rpm drives with the one in my G1, so I'm looking forward to the G2.

The SSD makes at least my ultraportables much more usable, but yeah, if you got stuck with that SanDisk, my condolences.

 

Agree totally...the Samsung 64Gb is tested and proven much better than the Sandisk in the in the below comparison article (sig block).