Re: HDD vs SSD

[email protected] wrote:
> I have a 9 year old Dell that came with a 960 GB ( approx ) HDD . 
> 2 years ago I added a 240 GB ( approx ) SSD to serve as my C drive
> and elevate the HDD as an F drive. Both have worked flawlessly. 
> Before too very much longer I'll likely be getting a new system. 
> It will probably come with a HDD by default, but I'm cobsidering 
> specifying a SSD instead. I like the isea of a SSD because it has
> no moving parts etc. Advice and comments most welcome and thanks.

You didn't get the memo.

It's because OS developers rely on SSD speed, to make
their monstrosities of OSes work, that you will
*need* an SSD.

It makes all the difference to boot time.

Requirements in 2020:

    Quad core or better, CPU (no single core! no dual core!)
    It's getting more likely these are soldered in place, as
    time passes, so it's important to get this right when
    you purchase it. And to answer your question "yes,
    there are *still* manufacturers who put inadequate
    CPUs in computers" - they will do anything necessary to
    hit a price point. Don't be a victim... Three of the
    cores can be wasted by your new OS, leaving one core for you.
    That's where the idea for "quad" comes from. "Three for me,
    one for you." Think of it, as a form of taxation.

    4GB RAM minimum (no virtual machine usage planned).
    The OS doesn't need that much, but bloated browsers do.
    Going way above 16GB RAM, may lead to longer start times
    or longer hibernation times perhaps. It's pretty easy
    today to get 16GB, as 2x8GB sticks. A system with 4GB RAM
    today, would be a single stick, single sided, 8 chips, and
    they'd have trouble making, say, a 2GB stick (it would cost
    them a few pennies more to use x16 wide chips). You probably
    can't get less than 4GB on a desktop. If they use something
    other than DDR4, they could make a lesser-RAM machine.

    SSD for C: (when your file system is being scanned, this
    prevents the scanning activity from interfering with what
    you want to do - SSDs have [quote] zero seek time). SSDs
    easily support multiple consumers, without the grinding
    noises.

Just make sure you're doing backups, OK ?

SSDs are not inherently bad. But, they're short tempered,
and if one decides it's "time to die", unlike a hard drive
it can die instantly. Modern hard drives, will announce
"I'm sick" in various ways, for weeks, before conking out.
Some people still manage to ignore the symptoms and
lose all their data though, even with the heroic behavior
of the HDD.

The SSD isn't in the mood for that sort of thing, and will
go "kerplunk" just like that. Turn it on some morning, and
"inaccessible boot volume" or equivalent.

With the hard drive, a lazy user could "make a backup just
before it dies". Whereas with an SSD, you really have to
plan ahead. An SSD is a Ninja, in life and in death.

    Paul