View Single Post
26 Jan 2011  

Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Cr00zng View Post
If you remove the performance incentive of the USB 3.0 SSD drive, then might as well stick with HDDs for OS and applications as well.
Why would you stick with HDD's for the OS and want these to boot, and run super fast. You use them, day in and day out, all of the time. Might as well be as fast as they possibly can be. I don't think the same is true of an external hard drive. You use them randomly, and not all that often.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Cr00zng View Post
I could get one of the Windows backup image, about 30GBs size, onto one of these USB 3.0 external drive in about 1.25 minutes if essenbe's calculation was correct. Compare that to copying the same image from one HDD to another, it took just over seven minutes to complete. That's more than five times than it would take for an SSD...
While true, wouldn't you simply run the backup application and create the actual backup file directly onto the external drive itself? If you do this, there is time involved with the application and such running and how fast it can collect the data, compress it and drop it onto the drive. So, rather than taking just 1.25 minutes from a sheer throughput standpoint, maybe it's only 5 minutes to create the image versus 7 minutes to copy it. Now, it's not as dramatic.

And again, if you are backing up an image that is on an internal hard drive over to an external hard you have a pressing need to finish in under 2 minutes...or can you wait 7 minutes as you are likely doing something else? So, I would still want 20-30X the capacity at less then 1/2 the cost by continuing to use standard HDD as externals. Down the road when capacity is up and prices are down on SSD, my opinion will likely change.
My System SpecsSystem Spec