Going RAID 0; clean install or restore?

thelumberjack said:

Richard,

I appreciate the response. I was just feeling kind of unsure, but you definitely reassured me to just go with the clean install. Plus I just remembered that I think you can tick an option to automatically get windows updates while installing.

I like your philosophy on reinstalling programs as well. It makes the task seem much less daunting.

Thanks!
Jake

What about two Intel X-25V's (40GB each) in RAID 0 then mirrored to a partition on the 750GB Caviar Black??

How about buying an extra hard drive for your data?

I have a RAID 0 setup for my OS and programs for performance. My data is one a separate non-raid drive. In case my one of the raid drives go bad, I don't lose all my data. Plus, if I need to take my hard drive to another computer (although very rare), I don't have to worry about the other computer having RAID. Also, I don't think having your word documents or movies or other data in a RAID 0 will increase the performance.

Also, I personally recommend fresh install each and every time. If you're concerned about updates taking too long, I remember reading somewhere that you can build the downloaded updates into a Windows install CD/DVD. Not sure about Win7 but I remember reading a method for XP some time ago.

Here's a Microsoft KB article. I'd love to find out if similar can be done on Windows 7.

How to integrate software updates into your Windows installation source files

wangster said:

Also, I personally recommend fresh install each and every time. If you're concerned about updates taking too long, I remember reading somewhere that you can build the downloaded updates into a Windows install CD/DVD. Not sure about Win7 but I remember reading a method for XP some time ago.

Here's a Microsoft KB article. I'd love to find out if similar can be done on Windows 7.

How to integrate software updates into your Windows installation source files

yes, I believe thats somewhere in the windows 7 tweak guide (TweakGuides.com - The TweakGuides Tweaking Companion). I would rather not fool with it though. After more thought, I really shouldn't be too much work.

Thanks for the response,
Jake

whs said:

high level SSD's that offer excellent performance; but they cost WAY too much.

A 30GB OCZ Vertex costs less than $100 - and it is one of the best. That is ample for Windows7. And it will beat any Raid by miles. The data then can go on the Raids.

Too many choices! I've been entertaining that idea as well, but i have to get a higher capacity backup drive as well (working with a 250gb external right now) before I even begin setting up the raid. So purchasing a vertex would tack another 100 onto that, and i'm a pretty budget purchaser. I'm only 17 and I have no time for a job right now, so the money only flows out and not in! I've been reading all sorts of SSD reviews as well, which makes the choice even more difficult. this one - ADATA S599 SandForce SF-1200 SSD | Review,ADATA S599,SandForce SF-1200,SSD Test,ADATA S599 Solid State Drive SandForce SF-1200 SATA Benchmark Performance Speed SSD Test - shows clearly how two VelociRaptors in raid 0 get spanked by just about every SSD tested.

Like everything else, it will come with time, but for now I think i'll have to stick with the caviar black's in raid 0 and perhaps a caviar green for backup

Thanks for the response,

Jake

Jake[/QUOTE]
What about two Intel X-25V's (40GB each) in RAID 0 then mirrored to a partition on the 750GB Caviar Black??[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting solution. That hadn't even occurred to me, probably because I automatically discounted SSD's, let alone two SSD's in raid. Kind of dumb comsidering two 30-40 gb SSD's aren't much more than two high capacity HDD's, which i'm buying. Unfortunately, I already have both caviar blacks and like I said to devane68, I also have to get another drive for backup. I just got the caviar black because it was $10 off (and the next day it was magically $15 off. thats my luck). But now it's back up to $80.

Thanks for the response,

Jake

Hey Jake, by the time you are my age, a 1TB SSD will cost pennies - so you have plenty of time to get there.

whs said:

Hey Jake, by the time you are my age, a 1TB SSD will cost pennies - so you have plenty of time to get there.

haha that's a good way of looking at it I guess. With the way computer technology has progressed, you really do have to put into perspective what's worth it or not, considering what you buy today could be obsolete tomorrow.

Thanks for the wisdom,

Jake

thelumberjack said:

whs said:

Hey Jake, by the time you are my age, a 1TB SSD will cost pennies - so you have plenty of time to get there.

haha that's a good way of looking at it I guess. With the way computer technology has progressed, you really do have to put into perspective what's worth it or not, considering what you buy today could be obsolete tomorrow.

Thanks for the wisdom,

Jake

Yeah, It is sometimes interesting to look back and then project into the future. I have been around computers since 1958 (for 52 years) and even 25 years ago I would not even dreamed of the things that are common today.
E.g. when Armstrong went to the moon in the 60's, one of the fastest computers on earth (the IBM 7030 Stretch) could do 1.2 Million calculations per second. A Pentium3 (which is even "old" by todays standards) can do 3.9 Million and an I7 Extreme can do 6.6 Billion.

whs said:

thelumberjack said:

whs said:

Hey Jake, by the time you are my age, a 1TB SSD will cost pennies - so you have plenty of time to get there.

haha that's a good way of looking at it I guess. With the way computer technology has progressed, you really do have to put into perspective what's worth it or not, considering what you buy today could be obsolete tomorrow.

Thanks for the wisdom,

Jake

Yeah, It is sometimes interesting to look back and then project into the future. I have been around computers since 1958 (for 52 years) and even 25 years ago I would not even dreamed of the things that are common today.
E.g. when Armstrong went to the moon in the 60's, one of the fastest computers on earth (the IBM 7030 Stretch) could do 1.2 Million calculations per second. A Pentium3 (which is even "old" by todays standards) can do 3.9 Million and an I7 Extreme can do 6.6 Billion.

wow that is incredible how things have progressed. I wonder if in 25 years i'll look back on my current system with nostalgia. 52 years around computers is quite impressive; i'm glad to have someone around to put things in perspective.

thanks,

Jake