Have an old Dell xps9000 Desktop with a 750GB SATA HDD that is nearing its capacity and was wondering if I could replace its internal HDD with a new 1.5TB internal HDD. I'm concerned that there may be a bios or other problem that might prevent a larger capacity HDD from working correctly
Thanks for your help
The Dell XPS 9000 is still around, so there are lots of variations over the years.
I'd guess it is a near certainty that 1.5 TB would be fine.
To remove the remaining uncertainty, I'd go to the Dell support site and enter your machine's particular ID number--I think it's called a "service tag" or something like that.
That should lead you to specification sheets and manuals that should specifically state the maximum supported hard drive size or if any BIOS flashing is required. I seriously doubt that you need to update the BIOS as 1.5 TB drives were around 6 years ago when your machine was made.
The only thing is most drives now are now SATA iii your system may only be SATA ii it should still work but slower
I would power off, take the current drive out, connect the to be new drive 1.5 TB and power up whats the worst that can happen?
if all fails swap it back
however I would add this as a 2nd drive if at all possible and use it for data storage and keep the existing drive as it is, disconnect the data drive as required for added security - or use in external drive case, remember this will be slower in performance, generally thats not such a big problem
I have 160gb Sata II primary and 2tb secondary not connected for data on the PC i an using right now
This is the direction I would take. It is highly unlikely you really need full time access to 750GB of data on your boot drive. The easiest solution would be to install a secondary drive into your PC and move a bunch of your less often used data, to that secondary drive. You can uninstall installed programs from that 750GB drive and reinstall them on the new drive to free up space. This will improve performance too as Windows can access both drives simultaneously.jack3 said:
The replacing of a boot drive introduces a whole bunch of potential issues and pitfalls when it comes to moving/copying/imaging the OS to the new drive without any corruption. If you are set in replacing the hard drive, I would suggest getting a SSD instead and moving that 750GB HD to the secondary drive position or into an eSATA external enclosure (since the specs for your computer show it supports eSATA.
You will see a significant performance boost going SSD.
Also have the largest drive as storage and 2nd drive always.. no ifs no buts
I never have apps running from anything other than a boot drive, to me that is a silly idea.
My reasons are simple, I have been around long enough, the estate is 15,000 computers all I care about the data, nothing else
No one has money to throw around with new bits and bobs, so advising a solution is pointless if its outside the current kit someone has or can gain access to unless the original poster states they are buying or can get etc ..
So work with what you got
If a PC plays up, in the bin it goes if needs be, or a fix if can be done
if a HDD fails it gets hit with a hammer hard and busted and in the bin, recycled of cause
If the PC fails, its the hammer for it as well
So ... back to my post
PC fails all data on 2nd drive, easy peasy... replace the windows disk, boot disk and your up and running, i have a draw full of build corporate OS pre build ist swap time ... if unable to fix or resolve the fault
i would NEVER have or use an SSD as main boot drive if it fails your never get it back (realistically no one will ever get the data back)
Thats why good companys log don systems so no save to local drives, all goes to network storage
I open tell people you even saved on downloads or mydocs or desktop -- Im not saving them, they are lost
People listen as its best for them as well
Save problems everytime
A home user should do the same - windows and apps are worthless, data is critical
You have to check if your system can handle 1.5TB HDD.
Most BIOS can detect much higher size of HDD.
But the computer itself, may not able to use 1.5TB HDD.
As mine is limited to 750GB only.
I "play safe" stick to, up to 500GB SSD
In conclusion, as what others said, leave it and do the housekeeping.
For this you have to find out the max storage space your computer able to handle.
Else it may able to use up to 750GB and the other 750GB would be lost.
Especially for some older computer, as mine include.
Nah! Depends on the size of each. Typically the secondary is the largest, but to say "always.. no ifs no buts"? Nah! No way!jack3 said:
Is there a typo or missing word in there somewhere? This says you always run your apps from the boot drive, then says that is silly.I never have apps running from anything other than a boot drive, to me that is a silly idea.
But for the record, it makes perfect sense to run the OS from the boot drive and your apps from a secondary drive, if the drives have similar performance. Why? Simple. Windows is perfectly capable of optimally utilizing multiple drives at the same time.
If your OS and Word are on the same drive, for example, the OS and you must wait for the single drive's one R/W head to perform its OS tasks before it can perform a Word task. This introduces a bunch of waits states - a bad thing (in terms of performance).
If the OS and Word are on different drives, the call to read or write tasks for the OS or Word can happen simultaneously on both drives. Both R/W heads can swing (literally) into action to gather and/or write data at the same time. No wait states! A very good thing.
If your boot drive has the best performance (a SSD for example) and is big enough to support your OS and your apps and leave enough free space for temp files and Windows to operate in, it makes excellent sense to install Windows and all your apps on the SSD, and save your personal documents, songs, videos, and backups on the secondary, slow HD. Unless of course, everything will fit on the SSD (with room to spare). Then just use the HD for backups and less important files.
Sorry but that is just silly and makes no sense at all!i would NEVER have or use an SSD as main boot drive if it fails your never get it back (realistically no one will ever get the data back)
- SSDs, with no moving parts, are more reliable than antiquated and slow electromechanical devices (read: subject to friction and mechanical wear) such as slow and noisy hard drives.
- The slowest SSDs are many times faster than the fastest hard drives providing an overall performance gain, not just in boot times, but in any operation that involves reading from or writing to the disk.
- Regardless your drive of choice, you should always have a backup plan that involves several layers of backups.
- Having a hard drive IN NO WAY provides protection from corruption, malware, fire, flood or theft.
It seems jack is also ignoring (because I reminded him in another thread) that many new computers (especially notebooks) are coming as SSD only devices. He would like you to believe these computers are doomed from the start. Simple put, he is just flat out misinformed, out of date, and wrong.
FTR, we only build computers with SSDs these days. It makes no sense to use hard drives except for mass storage requirements (like backups). Yeah, they cost more but prices have come down significantly in recent years. And when you factor in the cost of use (less energy and less heat) and spread that over the expected life of the computer (at least 5 years) those added costs become negligible.
15,000 computers? Ummm,
I'm so sick and tired of seeing people giving that idiotic lunacy as a reason not to use an SSD for anything. Yes, it s true that when SSDs fail, it's usually if not always, suddenly with no hope of recovery. So what? HDDs can do the same thing (and often do). Depending on being able to recover anything from a failed drive is playing Russian Roulette with bullets in half the chambers. Adding insult to injury, professional data recovery is very expensive with no guarantees of success. However, if one properly backs up their drives, it won't matter if a drive fails without warning since one can easily and quickly recover using one's backups.
SSDs are actually more reliable than HDDs and are far less susceptible to damage from physical shock. Drop an HDD from waist height, you can probably kiss it goodbye whereas an SSD will probably shrug it off. I not only don't hesitate to use an SDDs for a boot drive (such as in my current desktop machine), I use them as the sole drive in two notebooks. The desktop machine I'm currently building will start out with five SSDs; one 512GB NVMe m.2 SSD for the boot drive (OS and programs) and four 4TB SATA SSDs for data (it will have room for four more data drives). Eventually, even my backup drives will be SSDs (but the cost will have to come down quite a bit first unless someone tomorrow morning has one heckuva a Cyber Monday sale for them).
There is no valid reason for not using an SSD other than the fact they still cost more than HDDs. Even then, many people feel their advantages outweight the added cost.
Quote