Can I update to a 1.5 TB internal HDD on a 6 year old Dell xps9000

[provlima]

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

 

[ignatzatsonic]

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.

 

[samuria]

The only thing is most drives now are now SATA iii your system may only be SATA ii it should still work but slower

 

[jack3]

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

 

[Digerati]

however I would add this as a 2nd drive

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.

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.

 

[jack3]

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

 

[Eric3742]

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

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.

 

[Digerati]

Also have the largest drive as storage and 2nd drive always.. no ifs no buts

Nah! Depends on the size of each. Typically the secondary is the largest, but to say "always.. no ifs no buts"? Nah! No way!

I never have apps running from anything other than a boot drive, to me that is a silly idea.

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.

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.

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)

Sorry but that is just silly and makes no sense at all!

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
3. Regardless your drive of choice, you should always have a backup plan that involves several layers of backups.
   
4. 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,

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...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)...

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.

 

[Digerati]

I'm so sick and tired of seeing people giving that idiotic lunacy as a reason not to use an SSD for anything.
SSDs are actually more reliable than HDDs
There is no valid reason for not using an SSD

Well said!

 

[Layback Bear]

Never use a SSD for boot drive.

Well that caught me with my nickers down.
I never thought I would see a post like that.

Yes, yes, yes use a SSD for the boot drive.
The speed of a SSD is not really needed for a Data drive or for backup images
Myself I use SSD for Windows 7 drive and for my backups and clones.

I'm not really understanding all the fear some have of SSD's.

SSD's work very good and fast. Just like they were designed.
In the last few years the quality or SSD's is as good as any other hardware.

Jack

 

[Digerati]

I never thought I would see a post like that.

Me either - especially from one claiming advanced expertise.

I'm not really understanding all the fear some have of SSD's.

I can only assume it is out of ignorance. That is not meant as a criticism of the person, just their lack of research or unwilling to accept the "current" facts and truth about the state of the art.

Years ago when the first generation SSDs first hit the general consumer market, there was some justification for not using SSDs for the OS because of the limited write limitations they suffered from. The sad part there is two fold. First, those limitations, while true, were greatly exaggerated. The fact was, it would take many years for those limits to be reached under "normal" use. But that fact was often ignored. Second, recent generations do not suffer from those limitations yet folks neglect to accept that. They believe what once was, still is and always will be. That is just silly when it comes to advanced high-tech technologies.

In the last few years the quality or SSD's is as good as any other hardware.

And even significantly more so than hardware that has moving parts.

 

[AddRAM]

Exactly, that`s what images are for, and you are not supposed to be storing data on C anyway.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...Second, recent generations do not suffer from those limitations...

Oh, they still have write limitations; some can go only as high as a Petabyte or so. Samsung warranties their 850 EVOs and Pros for no more than 150TB (which doesn't mean they will drop dead at one Byte past it; ironically, it was an earlier Samsung SSD that lasted longer than any others in a recent torture test). But, then again who the heck will put 150TB of writes on an SSD before replacing it with newer technology? Not many.

And it is people who are counting getting either a warning before a drive fails and/or expect to be able to recover data from a failed drive who have heard that SSDs pretty much always fail without warning and any hope of data recovery who are afraid of SSDs. Trying to convince them they need to back up their data is like pulling teeth with tweezers.

 

[Digerati]

Oh, they still have write limitations

True, nothing lasts forever. But it is highly unlikely any home user will reach those limits with a current generation SSD. And I note EVERY hard drive WILL fail too - eventually. Some sooner than later.

Trying to convince them they need to back up their data is like pulling teeth with tweezers.

lol That said, is there a good way to pull a tooth!

I don't know what it is about backups. I call it the teenager syndrome. The attitude of, "it won't happen to me". I don't know of anybody who doesn't know they should have a viable backup plan. They just keep putting it off or don't think about it, until it is too late.

And as I noted above, you have to have several layers. I tell all my clients to keep one backup off-site. Most don't. I had one who used external drives and backed up his PC and the wife's notebook every week. I told him to have an off-site back up too. If he didn't trust "the cloud" (and I still don't), to keep a copy at a trusted neighbors, or even his bank safe deposit box. He didn't. Then his house was broken into and they took his big screen TV and home theater sound system, his computer, her notebook, and the two external drives they used for backups he kept on his desk next to his computer. People don't think about "physical" security either.

Most of my private clients are seniors. I set them up with a password safe but keep finding their passwords written down on an index card under their keyboard or in a notebook in their desk drawer. I tell them a badguy is going to look around arm's length from their computer chair. But "it won't happen to me!"

 

[Digerati]

and you are not supposed to be storing data on C anyway.

Sure you can. The truth is, the vast majority of the 1.5 Billion Windows computers out there only have one drive with one partition and it works just fine.

A second drive is something extra most don't have, or need for that matter. You still need to keep backups. In reality, if you have two drives, you have twice the chance for a drive failure!

 

[Layback Bear]

I have a simple system.

About once a week I make clones and images on separate SSD's. Tuck them away.
I use SSD hot-swap bays. It's a very handy way to do backups SSD to SSD. About 6 to 8 minutes and I'm done.
I still have no faith in cloud storage that someone else is in control of the security.
Then again I don't have anything on my computers worth stealing but the thieves don't know that.
**I use the Intel Toolbox about once a week to check the health of my Intel SSD's.


Jack

 

[Golden]

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)

They would if they were smart enough to backup/image regularly.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Oh, they still have write limitations

True, nothing lasts forever. But it is highly unlikely any home user will reach those limits with a current generation SSD. And I note EVERY hard drive WILL fail too - eventually. Some sooner than later.

Trying to convince them they need to back up their data is like pulling teeth with tweezers.

lol That said, is there a good way to pull a tooth!

I don't know what it is about backups. I call it the teenager syndrome. The attitude of, "it won't happen to me". I don't know of anybody who doesn't know they should have a viable backup plan. They just keep putting it off or don't think about it, until it is too late.

And as I noted above, you have to have several layers. I tell all my clients to keep one backup off-site. Most don't. I had one who used external drives and backed up his PC and the wife's notebook every week. I told him to have an off-site back up too. If he didn't trust "the cloud" (and I still don't), to keep a copy at a trusted neighbors, or even his bank safe deposit box. He didn't. Then his house was broken into and they took his big screen TV and home theater sound system, his computer, her notebook, and the two external drives they used for backups he kept on his desk next to his computer. People don't think about "physical" security either.

Most of my private clients are seniors. I set them up with a password safe but keep finding their passwords written down on an index card under their keyboard or in a notebook in their desk drawer. I tell them a badguy is going to look around arm's length from their computer chair. But "it won't happen to me!"

Lessee... I have a set four backup drives for every data drive in my desktop computer. Two of each set are kept at home and the other two are in my safe-deposit box in the vault at my credit union. I swap them out with each other at least once a month; more if I dump a lot of new or changed data onto one of my data drives. I also have a Carbonite.com account to cover any files that get changed or added to my computer after I placed the HDDs in my safe-deposit box. Think that is enough? Oh btw, I'm a senior citizen.

 

[AddRAM]

and you are not supposed to be storing data on C anyway.

Sure you can. The truth is, the vast majority of the 1.5 Billion Windows computers out there only have one drive with one partition and it works just fine.

A second drive is something extra most don't have, or need for that matter. You still need to keep backups. In reality, if you have two drives, you have twice the chance for a drive failure!

I didn`t say you can`t, I said you shouldn`t, why am I repeating myself ?

Your data should at least be stored on another partition if you only have 1 drive, but yes, most people don`t know any better.