Going to SSD......a few questions

[Golden]

Hi,

I've decided to take the great plunge and invest in a SSD.

From what little I know about how SSD's work, its best to limit them to read-only operations. Thus, I propose to only install the OS (Windows X64 Ultimate) to this drive (C, and all other programs (MSOffice, MBAM, NIS2011 Steam etc. etc.) to my existing WD 10EARS 1TB SATA drive (let's call this D.

I've searched within the forums (albeit only briefly, and had a look at a few tutorials (also briefly), and can't quite find the answers to a few questions I have.

So, here goes:

1. Once the OS is installed to C: (the SSD), how do I go about "informing" the OS that the C:\Temp and/or any other Windows temporary files/folders should now reference D:, and not C:?

2. When I install my other programs, do I create a D:\Program_Files into which all my other software is installed? Does this conflict with the default C:\Program Files that the OS creates during installation? How does the OS installed on the C: (the SSD) "interact" or "link" with the software installed on D: (the SATA drive)?

3. During anti-virus and anti-malware scans, will there be some temporary files that are written to C: (the SSD) that will be outside my control?

In essence, if I have understood correctly, my new setup should look like this:
On C: (the SSD) ONLY the OS is installed
On D: (the SATA) ALL other software is installed

My questions, I suppose, are really what is the interaction between C: and D: in terms of temporary files, but also in terms of installed software? I hope that makes sense.

Are there other issues I should be aware of?

Thanks for your time,
Golden

 

[mpcrsc562]

You manually set the temp location.

The best way I have done with my computer is here: How-To: Optimize Your Windows Profile and Media Storage with a SSD | Maximum PC

For installing (large) programs (games mostly), I have mounted a partition in an empty folder inside of C:\Program Files (x86). To the OS, the folder looks like it is part of Program Files, but in actuality, it is on another drive.

On D: (the SATA) ALL other software is installed

You can install some to C: and some to D: or all to D:

For antivirus/antimalware scans, everything is scanned--C: and your temp files in D:

 

[DirtyElf]

the point of the SSD is to have applications, and the OS load fast... if you only put the OS on the SSD then your applications will still be on the slower spinner drive... id put all of the applications on the SSD, and use the "D:" for data storage only

at least thats the way i understand it

 

[Golden]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I just found out that a Western Digital Velociraptor is the same price as the SSD I had in mind. These are the specs:

SSD $163
A-RAM SSD ULTRA II 60GB 2.5" MLC, 285/275MB/s, Sandforce controller, SATA II, TRIM support/Garbage collection

WD $162
WD WESTERN DIGITAL 150GB WD1500HLFS VELOCI RAPTOR 10000RPM 16MB SATA II

What would you do if you were in my shoes, and had my budget?

 

[richnrockville]

Windows 7 requires most programs to put some files in the C:\windows directory and there is not much that you can do about it. I install many programs on my D drive when it asks where to install them. All data is on the D drive and it works fine.
SSD's are getting cheaper by the day. I just put a 256Gig SSD in my laptop.. works great...

Rich

 

[Golden]

Thanks Rich. Unfortunately SSD's are still very pricey here down-under, so I may wait it out a bit and go with the WD Velociraptor.

 

[mpcrsc562]

the point of the SSD is to have applications, and the OS load fast... if you only put the OS on the SSD then your applications will still be on the slower spinner drive... id put all of the applications on the SSD, and use the "D:" for data storage only

at least thats the way i understand it

That's not really an option if a person is going for the speed of an SSD on one of the "boot" drive SSDs, ie, the 32 GB and 40 GB models.
In my personal setup, I do have most programs installed on the SSD, but i have my games and other very large programs installed on a secondary drive.

 

[mpcrsc562]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I just found out that a Western Digital Velociraptor is the same price as the SSD I had in mind. These are the specs:

SSD $163
A-RAM SSD ULTRA II 60GB 2.5" MLC, 285/275MB/s, Sandforce controller, SATA II, TRIM support/Garbage collection

WD $162
WD WESTERN DIGITAL 150GB WD1500HLFS VELOCI RAPTOR 10000RPM 16MB SATA II

What would you do if you were in my shoes, and had my budget?

Thanks Rich. Unfortunately SSD's are still very pricey here down-under, so I may wait it out a bit and go with the WD Velociraptor.

You don't need a Velociraptor... Use a good terabyte drive for the secondary drive. Personally, I have a 640 GB Western Digital Caviar Black for the drive my user profiles are stored on. Works great. Besides, you'll more than likely be needing more space than 150 GB if you're planning on installing all of your programs on the secondary drive anyway.

 

[Golden]

Thanks for the reply mpcrsc562.

I think I was unclear in the post : I meant ditch the SSD and use the Velocirator as the primary disk. My secondary disk will still be my existing 1TB WD.

So, given the price, do I go the SSD, or the Velociraptor. High quality SSD's in Australia are phenomenally expensive, hence I'm considering the Velociraptor instead.

I hope that makes better sense now,
Golden

 

[mpcrsc562]

Oh, cool.

I did in fact misunderstand your post.

Glad you got it sorted out.

Good luck and happy building!

 

[Golden]

Oh, cool.

I did in fact misunderstand your post.

Glad you got it sorted out.

Good luck and happy building!

Thanks. So, whats the consensus:

a) Poor mans SSD, or
b) Velociraptor?

 

[Devilz]

alright, i need some advice as well. I'm planning to get SSD, which will be running OS i.e. win 64x, adobe photoshop 64bit and openoffice and few other but photoshop and openoffice are the must. So my question is how much space do I need to install OS and photoshop and openoffice on SSD?

I'll be installing all the games on 1TB and will use 250GB to backup SSD data. So what size SSD will you recommend and which one?

Thanks

 

[Wishmaster]

Well, I have my OS on a 40GB Intel and its more than enough space.

As an idea:
I have disbaled the Hiberfile and Indexing on the OS SSD. (Although not really recommended, I also have System Restore disbaled but have Acronis making Daily Backups.)
The OS (64bit Win7) and all programs are installed there.
Probably my heaviest are Nero 9 & Photshop Elements. Then theres many other smaller programs as well.
At any count I still have roughtly 16GB of space free with everything.

I Install my Games to other drives, and keep all other DATA (Music Videos Pictures) on other drives, as well as My Documents Folder.

I would say that so long as you have a large enough Spinner for DATA anything from 40-60GB would be plenty.
Possibly 80GB if you want a bit more headroom. It really comes down to what you want to keep on the OS drive.
If you want to keep your "My Document" folder with the OS for example, allow a bit more room.

All in all, for the Os and Apps only, I think a 40GB would suit the large majority just fine.


Personally, I prefer Intel drives. My Second Choice would be OCZ.
I actually have 1 of each. And although I really like them both, the Intel quickly won the spot of OS Drive on my PC.
It just feels faster and snappier, even though if you judge them by Seq. Read/Write it looks to be slower on paper. But it isn't at all.

 

[smarteyeball]

Thanks. So, whats the consensus:

a) Poor mans SSD, or
b) Velociraptor?

Neither.

Most newer models of 7,200 RPM drives can keep either up with / outperform the Velociraptors.

They were good for their time, but are now largely redundant (and still too expensive to warrant a purchase.)

For the price of a cheap SSD, you can RAID a couple of drives to easily outperform a Velociraptor.

As for a cheap SSD - well, you'd find yourself disappointed if you bought one.

Personally, I prefer Intel drives. My Second Choice would be OCZ.

OCZ prices for Intel drives would be better

 

[Golden]

Neither.

Most newer models of 7,200 RPM drives can keep either up with / outperform the Velociraptors.

They were good for their time, but are now largely redundant (and still too expensive to warrant a purchase.)

For the price of a cheap SSD, you can RAID a couple of drives to easily outperform a Velociraptor.

As for a cheap SSD - well, you'd find yourself disappointed if you bought one.

OK, thanks. The RAID0 sounds good.....I suppose I could go down the SAS route too..................damn, I hate it when I have choices.

 

[smarteyeball]

Choice is good - too many is another matter

For less than $100 :

Two of these puppies for an OS / app drive

Samsung F3 500GB

Or for a tad over $100:

Samsung F3 1TB


Or WD Blacks if you prefer:
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=210_344&products_id=11863

 

[Golden]

Yeah....I got excited, I don't have SAS connectors. I'm thinking 2 x Samsung F3 RAID0 as per your suggestion

 

[Ageeb]

Intel Generation 3 (25nm) ssd's are slated for Q1 2011... roughly double capacity for the same price.

Can you hold out for a month? Might drive prices down, down-under

 

[smarteyeball]

Time and price take longer to trickle down this way

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Do you own a laptop? I vote for the SSD, it's the singular most transformational component you'll likely to ever replace in your computer....trust me it's amazing like no spinner can be! Get a 60-80gb SSD and get ready to be set on your heels. Then when the prices fall on the next generation or if the current large capacity drives fall a lot in price then replace the 60-80 with whatever and put it in your laptop and run a usb data drive on it. Jump in the SSD pond my friend the water is fine !