After playing with Windows 7 and finding out my system rating is low becuase of my hard drive, which I always thought was fast.

Processor: Intel Core2Duo E8500 overclocked to 3.48GHz - 6.8

Memory: 8GB DDR2 1066MHz - 7.0

Graphics: whats the difference with the next one? - 6.9

Gaming Graphics: 768Mb XFX 8800GTX XXX - 6.9

Primary Hard Disk: 150GB WD VRaptor 10,000rpm 16MB Cache - 5.9

I have now been looking at these new beasties called Solid State Drives and getting quite tempted as they don't seem that dear.

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/80GB-Intel-SSD-Gen-2-MLC-Flash-25-SATA-3Gb-s-Read-250MB-s-Write-70MB-s-OEM

Has anyone had any experience running Windows using a SSD instead of a HDD, running recent SSD's not the ones from a few years ago which were not that reliable?

Had a Patriot Warp 32Gb as C: disc on my computer running Win XP Pro.

Q6600 (std), 4x1Gb Corsair XMS2-6400, Ati 4870 1024Mb

Very fast startup because it can read very fast. But reading and writing at the same time causes problems.

At first my Explorer temp was also on C: and caused for a stagnation very regularly. After changing the temp to a normal (other) hdd, the system was running normal.

Also trying to install new software could last very long.

I think the slower writing causes these troubles.

I now changed it back to a normal WD Blue caviar with 7200rpm and 32Mb cache. Also gives a 5.9 rating.

CPU Q9550 gives 7.1, Corsair XMS2-8500 7.1 and the 4870 gives 7.5/7.5

I might be tempted to go back to a primary SSD if prices get more affordable.

Payed over 100 euros for the 32Gb Patriot (over a year ago) and only 45 euros for the caviar a couple of weeks ago.

First of all... the windows ratings mean absolutely feck all.... download PCmark and see how you get on with that..

Secondly, SSDs are still too expensive and "buggy" for my liking... espec recently where a firmware update for the intel SSDs effectively bricked them... plus because of the technology, they get slower and slower over time, and only a full reformat can speed them up again...

Yes, windows will boot faster... but whats the point when Sleep mode is so reliable these days.

thirdly... my computers better than yours

Neo you are right. Only boot up seemed a lot faster, but everything else was equal or worse. That is why I took out the SSD.

Just wrote down the ratings, as a comparison to Tiggers.

And to your last comment, most computers will be faster than mine . But I can still go flat out in my car everyday

5.9 is pretty good for a HDD anyway, you wont get much faster. My HDD is rated at 5.3.

SSDs are really fast at reading, but writing is very slow and they have a short life as each bit can only be written a finite number of times before it becomes unwritable. If you run software that does a lot of read operations then SSDs are faster than HDDs, but if you do a lot of gaming then you will find it slower than a conventional HDD.

If you get an SSD, then you must move your windows paging file to a conventional HDD or disable it altogether and relocate your temp environment variable to a folder also located on a conventional HDD.

This is my PC rating, quiet an old system now but runs really well with Win 7, I dont use it for gaming so dont care about the graphics rating.

Processor Intel® Core2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz, 7.1 (Q6600)

Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB, 7.1 (cheapo generic ram)

Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GS, 3.5

Gaming graphics 2047 MB Total available graphics memory, 4.9

Primary hard disk 187GB Free (233GB Total), 5.3 (old Hitachi Deskstar)

Processor Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz 7.3

Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB 7.3

Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 6.9

Gaming graphics 2303 MB Total available graphics memory 6.9

Primary hard disk 81GB Free (120GB Total) 5.9

If people would like a long read about the Pagefile/Swapfile, here is an interesting link. It appears that running the swapfile/pagefile on the SSD could make things quicker.

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/how-to-optimise-your-windows-swap-file-634911?artc_pg=1

If people would like a long read about the Pagefile/Swapfile, here is an interesting link. It appears that running the swapfile/pagefile on the SSD could make things quicker.

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/how-to-optimise-your-windows-swap-file-634911?artc_pg=1

... and kill your expensive SSD in next to no time due to the limited number of write cycles flash has.

The SSD is very slow at writing because to do a write you have to do approximately the following (or the drive controller does):

- Read data into memory

- Start an erase cycle to mark all the bits high

- Update the data in memory,

- Write the data to the now erased SSD

- Optionally verify the write.

That takes a lot of time compared to a write to RAM or a hard disk.

The you have the issue with MLC flash chips, where there are fewer and fewer electrons representing your data, so the time that you would guarantee data on the cells for is lower and lower.

If you want to speed your system up, get lots of RAM and turn off the page file. It will probably cost no more than an SSD anyway and not die for the same reason.

As for running windows on the SSD, while it might be good for the boot up time, you will need to make sure you turn off indexing etc or you will knacker the drive with the regular writes.

If you really wanted to use flash, then get a fast flash drive or compact flash etc, put the core, fairly static, files for the faster boot up on there and hold everything else a hard drive.

It's a bit harder to do this under windows then Linux, but it can be done.

All of course IMHO.

... and kill your expensive SSD in next to no time due to the limited number of write cycles flash has.

The SSD is very slow at writing because to do a write you have to do approximately the following (or the drive controller does):

- Read data into memory

- Start an erase cycle to mark all the bits high

- Update the data in memory,

- Write the data to the now erased SSD

- Optionally verify the write.

That takes a lot of time compared to a write to RAM or a hard disk.

The you have the issue with MLC flash chips, where there are fewer and fewer electrons representing your data, so the time that you would guarantee data on the cells for is lower and lower.

If you want to speed your system up, get lots of RAM and turn off the page file. It will probably cost no more than an SSD anyway and not die for the same reason.

As for running windows on the SSD, while it might be good for the boot up time, you will need to make sure you turn off indexing etc or you will knacker the drive with the regular writes.

If you really wanted to use flash, then get a fast flash drive or compact flash etc, put the core, fairly static, files for the faster boot up on there and hold everything else a hard drive.

It's a bit harder to do this under windows then Linux, but it can be done.

All of course IMHO.

Already tried the switching Pagefile/swapfile off and yes the computer did boot up a lot quicker but then found a few games actuaully require this file to even boot up.

This was after reading the original article from the link I previously posted which was in PC Format a few months ago.

Also how do you work out the Write and Read speed of a HDD?

You can use a tool such as HDTACH which is a benchmarking program for HDDs.

Already tried the switching Pagefile/swapfile off and yes the computer did boot up a lot quicker but then found a few games actuaully require this file to even boot up.

This was after reading the original article from the link I previously posted which was in PC Format a few months ago.

Also how do you work out the Write and Read speed of a HDD?

If the game "needs" a page file, create a RAM Drive in some of your 8GB, put the swap file here and the games will think you have one.

Pointless really as you're swapping to RAM, so make it small and hopefully the game will accept that.

or just get another hdd and spread stuff out.. i always keep pagefile on separate drive to windows/apps drives

or just get another hdd and spread stuff out.. i always keep pagefile on separate drive to windows/apps drives

Aye, and something newer, with a high density and a large cache will certainly help things

Aye, and something newer, with a high density and a large cache will certainly help things

Yup.. the last time i bought a hard drive i made damn sure it was one that had 320gb platters.. and that flies along!

ooo that PC format article did mention using the pagefile on a RAM drive, also I do currently use the page file split over 2 drives.

Anyway back to my original thought with this thread, does anyone have a Windows 7 rating of higher than 5.9 for the primary drive and what type/make of drive are they using etc?

As from peoples experience it looks like the SSD aint gonna beat it, im just being nosey really and wondering why only 5.9 for what I thought was quite a quick drive.

Only a measly 5.4 here.

Depending on the access profile used for the test some 7k2 drives will outperform the 15k drives.

The 15k drives have a great seek time, but the more dense drives will potentially win when it comes to sustained sequential data transfer.

Really it's a case of knowing your workload before you can work out what is best for you.