Go Back   Computer Forums > Articles | Tutorials | Tech Notes > Articles | Computer and Server Software
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-03-2011, 06:33 PM   #21
Site Team
 
celegorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,713
Send a message via AIM to celegorm
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aastii View Post
Very few consumers have 2 or more internal hard drives, but a lot of consumers have an internal drive and an external storage drive in one form or another, be it an external hard drive or memory stick. It doesn't have to be internal for it to be a conventional hard drive. As I say, a lot of people already have those alternative storage media, and so moving it over from one computer to another isn't an issue, they would carry on using the storage drive as they always have done and just see the computer as "faster, even if it does have less storage".
You're giving the standard consumer way too much credit. From my own experiences in the field I can easily say that most people don't even know what an external is and 9/10 when selling a hard drive people I've sold to went for capacity not speed.

Quote:
Hard drives are the biggest bottleneck, regardless of the use.
Simply not true. If it was, then there would be no speed differences when I copy large amounts of data over a 100-speed network, USB, and gigabit network and they'd all perform at the crappy 100-speed network. Instead, USB is faster than a standard network connection, Gigabit is faster than that and to add sugar, internal hard drive to internal hard drive is even faster. The point? It's the bus the data goes on that makes a difference most of the time when hard drives are involved and the hard drives themselves are not always the cause regardless of use as you say.

Quote:
The potential in mobile devices is probably greater than in the desktop industry. It will indirectly affect the desktop sector. As innovations in design and production are made for the the mobile market, these will be implemented into the desktop sector. Also, because they will be used more, initially, in the mobile market, desktop solid state technology will get money for R&D from the mobile device sales.

Think of it like AMD and Nvidia get money from people buying their very low end graphics cards and integrated graphics which then goes into the R&D of their higher end cards, people with the other needs (in this case the need for less power consumption in mobile devices) fund the R&D of the niche high end market, improving performance and lowering the prices
I actually think you have this backwards. Desktop development almost always fuels mobile development, same for low-end vs high-end video cards like you use for an example. So far as I can remember, Intel AND (and ATI when it was separate) and Nvidia all developed high end cards/chips and used that research to develop lower end cards. Let alone the logic gap that researching something that is a low performer will make something perform faster. To drive the point more, E6600 Core 2 Duo was released before the E6400, and the GeForce 480 was released well before the GeForce 420 and in both examples it was months until the mobile counter-parts made it to the mobile market.
__________________

__________________
"as a fanboy i refuse to admit it and will pull countless things out of my butt to disprove it"

Team Thelegorm! Total Kills: 21 (i iz in uor profile, editsing your sigz)
celegorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 12:56 PM   #22
In Runtime
 
Aastii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 329
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

@berry, Firstly, my point wasn't that we aren't close to having 2 to 1 price/storage ratio, it is that the prices don't have to be equal, SSD's can be substantially more expensive, in the case I mentioned twice as expensive, and at that point a hell of a lot more people would be on them rather than hard drives

Secondly, memory sticks, no, they can't really be used for major storage, unless you pay a lot for your larger ones, but even then you aren't getting as much as a hard drive. External hard drives though, or even internal drives in a caddy, they are absolutely a decent unit for storage of important stuff. You don't have to be moving them around all of the time. I know that in my household, I am the only one that would rather have a desktop, there are now 3 desktops in because another user wants to play games, and another wasn't going to be moved so the desktop was the better option. However, now, 2 laptops in the house, neither ever move, 1 of the desktops is hardly ever used. With the odd exception, very rarely do clients I repair computers for use the portability of their laptops. To have their hard drives outside wouldn't make a single bit of difference.

Still on the subject of storage, most users don't think about hardware failure, they will have a single copy of their important files on their hard drive in their laptop. Are you telling me a laptop, a unit that can be dropped easily, have stuff spilled on them, is more secure than external storage? I would sooner put pictures and videos on an external drive than the laptop.

No, my understanding of bottleneck is not wrong at all. The slowest component limits the speed of the system, and this component will be the cause of the bottleneck. Fair enough, if gaming or compiling code, how many users actually use that? Very, very few in the big scheme of things.

In a modern system a hard drive is required, a DVD drive is not. Of course a DVD drive is slower than a hard drive, but when do you ever use your DVD drive? To listen to music or watch a film, where it isn't at full speed, to install a program, which is done once, it isn't done all of the time. Your hard drive though, it is used to load your OS, it is used to open every program, it is used to load every feature, it is used to save everything. In certain applications, yes, the hard drive isn't so much of a big deal, but you keep jumping between the "average" user and then to gamers and other uses. So few users game on computers or compile code or do any other CPU/GPU intensive task, the majority will be using their computer for the internet, office programs, facebook etc. At that point, an old single core CPU will run it, poor integrated graphics will run it, they would be loving faster boot, load and save times.

For the hard drives speed, if my argument saying the speed increase will be negligible, and you agree with it, then what was your point in the first place? And the momentus XT drives,compared to 5400 or 7200RPM drives, are faster. We both agreed thatthe mobile market is only growing and is the biggest influence on most technology, so why would 10k+RPM drives ever become the norm? They wouldn't, they will always use more power than the 5400/7200 drives, they will always be louder, always produce more heat. If you can stick some solid state memory on there and get better performance without increasing power consumption, without producing much more heat, it is the better, more viable option.

To the final point, we again agree that the performance of solid state memory is far beyond that of conventional hard drives, but are more expensive for 2 main reasons - They are new, faster technology and solid state chips cost more, for the same capacity, to produce than conventional platters. Now the R&D that goes into the mobile sector will alleviate both of these issues - the technology will become more abundant, so it won't be seen as new or special any more, and like you say, better production efficiency. Once the price of producing solid state memory comes down, so too will the prices of the storage. That is just 1 part of it though. The speed of the chips and controllers will improve and efficiency will too, they can only pull away from hard drives performance wise because they have such better (speed wise) design than conventional hard drives.

Look at the 3 main producers of chips in the home computers (I mean the best known by the way, I know that other manufacturers produce more electrical components than 2 of them): Intel, AMD and Nvidia. For the last few years they have focussed on power efficiency rather than speed. With more efficiency comes better speed, so it is win win

@celegorm: Tell the consumer something is better, they will believe you. You can offer someone an old single core P4 @ 3.8GHz, or a quad core at 2.4GHz. If you knew nothing about computers, you would see 3.8 as a bigger number and think it is better, but people have been told quad core, it is amazing, it is always better, which isn't true. You say to someone "SSD, it is the next big thing, they are so fast!!" they will lap it up and try to get one in their system, even though they don't know the difference. You could say the same about external storage or anything else, you tell people something is better enough times, they will believe it.

For the final point you made, it is marketing, not the order they are produced. Which sounds better to a consumer:

Our first cards out from the new architecture, and they are the fastest!!

or

Our first cards out, and they work for the average user, but aren't as powerful as our last offering

?

The improvement sounds better. You think any of the main producers would say they have a new architecture, but only have single chip available for it? They have the full lot already there, or at least enough to satisfy the market until they bring out tweaks or upgrades. Take a look at Sandy Bridge, 20+ different (clocked) CPUs, but then look at Nahelem, it is ages since the first was released, but not that long ago since the hex cores were brought out. Money from the sale of chips doesn't get distributed as sales are, if 1000 low end chips were sold for every 1 high end chip, R&D budget of low end chips wouldn't be 1000 times greater than higher end ones, and time for R&D into lower end cards wouldn't be 1000 times greater than high end.

Also, look at the example you put - GTX 480 and GTX420. They are the exact same architecture, there isn't anything different between them, the GTX420 is just cut down, it has lower clock speed, less transistors, lower memory bandwidth, etc, they are, on the lowest level, identical. This is the same for every chip manufacturer, all Athlon II and Phenom II are the same, just Athlon II don't have L3 cache, but Phenom II do
__________________

__________________
Primary::: Asus M4A79XTD EVO | AMD Phenom II x3 720BE @ 3.4GHz | 2 x 2GB Corsair 1600MHz | XFX HD5770 + eVGA GTX260 Physx | 500GB Samsung F3 + 520GB Storage | Corsair Obsidian 700D | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Secondary::: Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus | Intel Q6600 | 2 x 1GB Corsair 800MHz | Gigabyte 9800GT | 180GB Caviar Blue + 250GB Storage | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Aastii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 01:35 PM   #23
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
@berry, Firstly, my point wasn't that we aren't close to having 2 to 1 price/storage ratio, it is that the prices don't have to be equal, SSD's can be substantially more expensive, in the case I mentioned twice as expensive, and at that point a hell of a lot more people would be on them rather than hard drives
I never claimed they had to be equal, in fact I claimed that if they were twice as expensive that'd be completely different! But as I pointed out earlier, we're seeing around 30 times more expensive in terms of capacity at the moment. That's crossing the border from substantial to ridiculous. Where do you think the line is? 15 times as expensive? 10 times as expensive? I think around twice is where it's probably at, if that - and as you admit, we're nowhere near there yet.

Quote:
Secondly, memory sticks, no, they can't really be used for major storage, unless you pay a lot for your larger ones, but even then you aren't getting as much as a hard drive. External hard drives though, or even internal drives in a caddy, they are absolutely a decent unit for storage of important stuff. You don't have to be moving them around all of the time. I know that in my household, I am the only one that would rather have a desktop, there are now 3 desktops in because another user wants to play games, and another wasn't going to be moved so the desktop was the better option. However, now, 2 laptops in the house, neither ever move, 1 of the desktops is hardly ever used. With the odd exception, very rarely do clients I repair computers for use the portability of their laptops. To have their hard drives outside wouldn't make a single bit of difference.

Still on the subject of storage, most users don't think about hardware failure, they will have a single copy of their important files on their hard drive in their laptop. Are you telling me a laptop, a unit that can be dropped easily, have stuff spilled on them, is more secure than external storage? I would sooner put pictures and videos on an external drive than the laptop.
Judging by the amount of USB sticks I see left plugged in and forgotten about at university, then yes! But regardless, I think your understanding of what users would be prepared to put up with is flawed somewhat. Try explaining to a layman buying a PC that he needs an external hard drive because the one inside isn't as big as the one in his PC he bought 3 years ago. What's he going to do, go to company B down the road who can offer him many times the storage for a lower price, or go "oh, that's ok because it's a bit quicker!" I have an external hard drive too, but I use it for a) backups and b) huge files like DVD rips that can comfortably sit elsewhere and be brought in when I need them. It's simple enough. But with the situation you're talking about, users might need to install some applications to the external drive because the internal one just isn't big enough, or worse install parts of applications to the external drive. Then if they unplug their external drive or leave it somewhere, half of their applications are either missing or unusable.

Fact of the matter is, people will just not accept smaller storage inside the machine is ok because they can buy an external hard drive!

Quote:
No, my understanding of bottleneck is not wrong at all. The slowest component limits the speed of the system, and this component will be the cause of the bottleneck. Fair enough, if gaming or compiling code, how many users actually use that? Very, very few in the big scheme of things.
Moot point somewhat, but very, very few users who own a desktop machine play games?!

Quote:
In a modern system a hard drive is required, a DVD drive is not. Of course a DVD drive is slower than a hard drive, but when do you ever use your DVD drive? To listen to music or watch a film, where it isn't at full speed, to install a program, which is done once, it isn't done all of the time. Your hard drive though, it is used to load your OS, it is used to open every program, it is used to load every feature, it is used to save everything. In certain applications, yes, the hard drive isn't so much of a big deal, but you keep jumping between the "average" user and then to gamers and other uses. So few users game on computers or compile code or do any other CPU/GPU intensive task, the majority will be using their computer for the internet, office programs, facebook etc. At that point, an old single core CPU will run it, poor integrated graphics will run it, they would be loving faster boot, load and save times.
Yes, the hard drive is (usually) the bottleneck in booting up a system and loading programs. If you're talking about faster boot and load times (a specific bottleneck rather than a general use one) then I agree. But even taking the tasks you use there the hard drive isn't the bottleneck when you're actually using them. Internet usage (so facebook, email, general browsing) is high up on the average users list, and is used to load many features (so it's not the hard drive that loads every "feature" at all.) Yes, the hard drive is used to store cookies and session details and the like when I load something like facebook. But is it the limiting factor? Of course not! The connection speed almost certainly is, and if that's not it then it'll be the rendering speed of the browser. The hard drive is certainly the bottleneck in some cases, just as the CPU / GPU is in some cases, but to say:
Quote:
Hard drives are the biggest bottleneck, regardless of the use.
is just plain wrong.

Quote:
Tell the consumer something is better, they will believe you. You can offer someone an old single core P4 @ 3.8GHz, or a quad core at 2.4GHz. If you knew nothing about computers, you would see 3.8 as a bigger number and think it is better, but people have been told quad core, it is amazing, it is always better, which isn't true. You say to someone "SSD, it is the next big thing, they are so fast!!" they will lap it up and try to get one in their system, even though they don't know the difference. You could say the same about external storage or anything else, you tell people something is better enough times, they will believe it.
You're simplifying this a great deal - consumers these days measure storage capacity in the number of photos, mp3s and films they can store on it. It's written on the back of every hard drive box, SD card and the like. If they're parting with more cash (which they will be) try and explain something that can store fewer mp3's is better... This may have been true 10 years ago, but consumers these days are generally more tech savvy just because they're exposed to technology so much in their daily lives.
__________________
Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 03:09 PM   #24
Site Team
 
celegorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,713
Send a message via AIM to celegorm
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aastii View Post
You say to someone "SSD, it is the next big thing, they are so fast!!" they will lap it up and try to get one in their system, even though they don't know the difference. You could say the same about external storage or anything else, you tell people something is better enough times, they will believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berry120 View Post
You're simplifying this a great deal - consumers these days measure storage capacity in the number of photos, mp3s and films they can store on it. It's written on the back of every hard drive box, SD card and the like. If they're parting with more cash (which they will be) try and explain something that can store fewer mp3's is better... This may have been true 10 years ago, but consumers these days are generally more tech savvy just because they're exposed to technology so much in their daily lives.
^This. The most common questions and largest selling factor for the standard consumer is about how many songs, pictures and videos they can store. The only time I've ever seen "it's the next big thing" work without other supporting facts, is on people who only need the system for internet, and what good is it to have chrome, FF or IE open instantly if they are on a slow connection anyways?

What you need to understand is I do this for a living, I'm not just pulling this crap out of my butt or using theoretical data. It's all real experiences from real people across the slate of technical knowledge. I know what people ask and what most people will buy into, and for that fact what most people need. My parents would never need more than 60GB on their system, but don't need the speed of a SSD (see my internet example above) so I would never waste that money just because it's "the next best thing". As a life lesson, remember HD-DVD? That was supposed to be the next best thing according to some circles as well but look where that needed up. Nothing is guaranteed in technology, it is only warrantied
__________________
"as a fanboy i refuse to admit it and will pull countless things out of my butt to disprove it"

Team Thelegorm! Total Kills: 21 (i iz in uor profile, editsing your sigz)
celegorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 05:23 PM   #25
In Runtime
 
Aastii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 329
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

@berry - once the prices come down, which they will do, they will become the norm, that was my initial point, that is my point now. Large SSD's are available, size isn't an issue, you can get up to 2TB drives, granted, they are PCIe rather than SATA, but they are available, though for a small fortune. Thousands of £ is completely ridiculous for a storage device, however I do not think for a second that 5 years down the line SSD's will be "one of those things some people had 5 years ago", I think they will be something computers come with as standard because prices will have dropped.

Though there are different view points, every single source says that prices are going to drop, and it is common sense that they will do. On average, you are looking at around a 40% drop a year, which would put prices to roughly $.60/GB USD by 2012. In real terms, that would put a 100GB SSD at $60. I personally am a little sceptical of those numbers because other factors will contribute to the price, but the sub $1/Gb, maybe even sub $0.80/GB is more than possible in that time. To wait 2 years is nothing really, essentially those buying them now are guinea pigs, and although they had to fork out, their payment is better performance.

Saying external storage is an option is just that, the average user does use external storage and would continue to use it if they realised they don't need 1TB internal + 1TB external storage. The chances of them realising are slim, however it is completely possible and storage isn't a factor I don't think, it is just the price, the price which will drop, and the price which will, in time, make SSD's the best option for storage devices, even if they are more expensive.

If you have used an SSD, you will notice that the difference in speed, even in every day apps, or games if gaming is your thing, is ridiculous. The biggest effect is seen in boot times, but in near everything else you will still see improvements, I know for a fact when I alt tab out of games on my current system (by which I mean the one I am on mine, not mine), it lags like a bitch, yet my CPu is on ~40% and my memory is only on just over 50%. You look at hard drive and it is pinned at 100%, the lag seen would be alleviated massively.

Also, as a side note which doesn't necessarily make a huge difference to a lot of people, but will make a difference to some - page files and for the few with very little primary memory, disk thrashing. The time taken to move data from primary to secondary storage will be reduced massively with an SSD, which may only save a fraction of processor time, but to the end user, it will make a lot of difference, especially if, as I say, disk thrashing is occuring.

As for the gaming machines, look at the number of systems that can be called modern gaming machines, and those which you wouldn't. My mum has herself an Athlon x2 with integrated Nvidia 6150SE and 1GB memory. It will play CSS fine, it will play online games fine, it will play a fair few indie games fine. Is it a gaming rig and is its primary use as one? Not at all, and that is true for nearly every system out there, gamers and enthusiasts make only a tiny fraction of the computer market.

As for the picture, video etc thing, they only work in that because it is easy for people to understand. You set a standard for speed and let ads, stores and videos harp on about it for a couple of months people will see lower number (or higher rating, however it would work), and think I would rather have this because it is quicker. Whatever you feed them, if it is easy enough for them to understand, they will eat it up, understand it, and use the information.

@celegorm, HD DVD was a failure because at the time, few people had HD systems or cared about HD. It is like now apart from at cinemas, few people have experienced 3D, only a handful of people have Bluray. The technology is still there, yet after years it still isn't in the mainstream yet. You walk into a home and near enough everyone will have a DVD player of some kind, be it a console, DVD player or their computer, I know only 3 people that have a bluray device, all 3 have PS3's, 1 of them also have a bluray player. There are certain things that will become big, and certain things, like HDDVD, that obviously won't because they don't have a great use.

There are 2 things that I will eat my hat if they don't catch on at some point - SSD's and phototonics

The price of which will, at release, be ridiculous until production prices drop, we have seen it with SSD's, phototonics in processors has only just begun to happen proper, so when it first enters the market, the production of them will still be nowhere near as "easy" as it is to make current chips
__________________
Primary::: Asus M4A79XTD EVO | AMD Phenom II x3 720BE @ 3.4GHz | 2 x 2GB Corsair 1600MHz | XFX HD5770 + eVGA GTX260 Physx | 500GB Samsung F3 + 520GB Storage | Corsair Obsidian 700D | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Secondary::: Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus | Intel Q6600 | 2 x 1GB Corsair 800MHz | Gigabyte 9800GT | 180GB Caviar Blue + 250GB Storage | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Aastii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 05:49 PM   #26
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
@berry - once the prices come down, which they will do, they will become the norm, that was my initial point, that is my point now. Large SSD's are available, size isn't an issue, you can get up to 2TB drives, granted, they are PCIe rather than SATA, but they are available, though for a small fortune. Thousands of £ is completely ridiculous for a storage device, however I do not think for a second that 5 years down the line SSD's will be "one of those things some people had 5 years ago", I think they will be something computers come with as standard because prices will have dropped.
I've said all along I think they'll become the norm eventually - I just think it'll be a fair while before they do, and I don't think everyone will rush out to buy one in a couple of years time.

Quote:
Though there are different view points, every single source says that prices are going to drop, and it is common sense that they will do.
Of course they will. No arguments there.
Quote:
On average, you are looking at around a 40% drop a year, which would put prices to roughly $.60/GB USD by 2012.
On average based on what? I don't agree with that figure at all.

Quote:
Saying external storage is an option is just that, the average user does use external storage and would continue to use it if they realised they don't need 1TB internal + 1TB external storage. The chances of them realising are slim, however it is completely possible and storage isn't a factor I don't think, it is just the price, the price which will drop, and the price which will, in time, make SSD's the best option for storage devices, even if they are more expensive.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The average user uses external storage because they need to move things around, so it's not the capacity or speed they're particularly worried about in this case.

Quote:
If you have used an SSD, you will notice that the difference in speed, even in every day apps, or games if gaming is your thing, is ridiculous. The biggest effect is seen in boot times, but in near everything else you will still see improvements, I know for a fact when I alt tab out of games on my current system (by which I mean the one I am on mine, not mine), it lags like a bitch, yet my CPu is on ~40% and my memory is only on just over 50%. You look at hard drive and it is pinned at 100%, the lag seen would be alleviated massively.
I have used an SSD, and yes the difference in speed with boot time and application load time is great. But in general, once you've started an application up the speed difference isn't really noticeable. Hard drives these days (SSD or mechanical) are fast enough to save the average document before a user blinks. As a one off operation, whether that's in 100ms or 0.1 ms isn't really a big deal.

Quote:
As for the gaming machines, look at the number of systems that can be called modern gaming machines, and those which you wouldn't. My mum has herself an Athlon x2 with integrated Nvidia 6150SE and 1GB memory. It will play CSS fine, it will play online games fine, it will play a fair few indie games fine. Is it a gaming rig and is its primary use as one? Not at all, and that is true for nearly every system out there, gamers and enthusiasts make only a tiny fraction of the computer market.
Ah, but you're looking at all machines and not just desktop machines. Desktop machines are heading into the realms of specialist users, and at least one big group of these users are gamers. Rumours suggest that Microsoft's trying to do something with Windows 8 to boost PC gaming as well, so in a few years this number will probably increase further.

Quote:
As for the picture, video etc thing, they only work in that because it is easy for people to understand. You set a standard for speed and let ads, stores and videos harp on about it for a couple of months people will see lower number (or higher rating, however it would work), and think I would rather have this because it is quicker. Whatever you feed them, if it is easy enough for them to understand, they will eat it up, understand it, and use the information.
But how would you set a standard for speed and make companies use it? There's no way companies are going to start adopting a standard, easy to understand speed rating when it makes their products look slow and the SSDs across the road look super quick. It'll only be the SSDs that use it, and as such people are going to still stick with the "I can't store 1,000,000 photos on this so it's worse" attitude and turn a blind eye.

Quote:
@celegorm, HD DVD was a failure because at the time, few people had HD systems or cared about HD. It is like now apart from at cinemas, few people have experienced 3D, only a handful of people have Bluray. The technology is still there, yet after years it still isn't in the mainstream yet. You walk into a home and near enough everyone will have a DVD player of some kind, be it a console, DVD player or their computer, I know only 3 people that have a bluray device, all 3 have PS3's, 1 of them also have a bluray player. There are certain things that will become big, and certain things, like HDDVD, that obviously won't because they don't have a great use.
Err, no, HD-DVD was a failure because it lost out to a better technology, Blu-ray.

But either way, you're illustrating celegorm's point very well - just because something is new and technically better than the current offering doesn't mean it's going to beat the current offering and become the new standard in the next couple of years. There's still more DVDs about than Blu-ray discs, but plenty of people thought DVD would be completely gone by now...
__________________
Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 12:27 PM   #27
Golden Master
 
sniperviper21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,438
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
But either way, you're illustrating celegorm's point very well - just because something is new and technically better than the current offering doesn't mean it's going to beat the current offering
THIS^

Beta Max Vs VCR Tapes.


Also, that 24 SSD video doesn't impress me one bit.
2 or 3 Spinpoint Drives in Raid 0 in my Computer an ill bet id probably get almost as badassery results as they did.
__________________
You got to have a Fiddle in the band!
sniperviper21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 02:21 PM   #28
In Runtime
 
Aastii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 329
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

For the % drop, do some searches and make an average. I personally also disagree with the figures as I said, I don't see them dropping anywhere near that much, but getting to a competitive level with in the next 2 years, I don't see why not.

For the external storage and for the speed marketing, yes, right now people use the storage for portability, but you tell them they can get a better, faster computer by paying extra + using their external for storage, they will start to use that after a while. Everything is marketing, look at who you have as the major manufacturers of SSD's - Corsair, Intel, Kingston, Crucial, OCZ, G.Skill. Look at names that aren't there, WD, Seagate, Samsung, Hitatchi, although Samsung and WD do make SSD's, neither are big names in the market, if the biggest names started to market SSD's heavily to the masses, which will end up happening once prices drop a bit, none of the SSD manufacturers will be losing out, only gaining, and there are some massive names in there.

You then factor in Apple using them in their MacBooks, and probably soon making them standard in their desktops too where smaller drive, so thinner all-in-ones, and you have a massive unit there bringing SSD's to the masses and, more importantly to making them well known and something people want, they will make them a "must have" thing. Apple, although they make some great products, are seen to most not for their quality, but for the status their item has, they make must have items - iPods, iPhones, Mac's. They do mention SSD's as optional extras and it is sort of a side note, but once they are the norm for them, they will start to say about them more and more, taking them into the mainstream market

I'm not saying the marketing or speed rating system will happen, I'm saying it could happen, and as I have been saying all along, you feed people information they want to hear, they will believe it. Right now, you see everywhere about bigger = better, a few months of instead saying faster = better and people will have forgot "it stores this many songs and videos".

For the speed of SSD's, that is why when you use an SSD, you put your OS and frequently used programs on them. If it cuts 30 seconds off the boot time and then 3 seconds off opening every other program, say in 1 day you open 10 programs, which really isn't a lot, that is 1 minute each day. That is a lot of saving to make those fractions of a seconds catch up. To use a clichéd phrase, it is the little things that make a big difference. SSDs make for a more responsive system, not just a faster booting system. For the price, not worth it for most people, but I would sooner take £80 on an SSD than £80 upgrading my CPU or graphics card, the SSD will give the bigger performance gain, but of course, upgrading isn't an option many people think of, they just buy a new computer every few years.

For Bluray, nobody wanted HD DVD, it was marketed poorly, the whole system was worse than bluray, from the way it was set up to technology used. It was out at the wrong time, it was managed poorly. Bluray was, and is, better, I agree, but it still isn't "all that", after nearly 3 years, it is still a ridiculously low number that use a technology that should have overtaken DVD by now. Bluray will eventually take over, but not for a good while yet I don't think. SSD's are different though because they aren't similar to hard drives, other than they too store data. They give massive pros over hard drives, with the only con really being price (for now). Once that con isn't any more because the prices get closer, why would anyone choose a hard drive over SSD? There are more devices that can utilise SSD's than there are DVD players (potential bluray players), so more chance of it taking off.

@sniper, are you being serious about 2 or 3 spinpoints hitting 2GB/s? 24 SSD's was overkill, you can hit 2GB/s on just 4 or 5 drives, but I'm going to give you some sort of credit and say go and look at the difference between 2Gb/s and 2GB/s, I assume you are saying that 3 conventional hard drives in RAID0 can hit 2Gb/s, which is doable, but nowhere near 2GB/s
__________________
Primary::: Asus M4A79XTD EVO | AMD Phenom II x3 720BE @ 3.4GHz | 2 x 2GB Corsair 1600MHz | XFX HD5770 + eVGA GTX260 Physx | 500GB Samsung F3 + 520GB Storage | Corsair Obsidian 700D | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Secondary::: Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus | Intel Q6600 | 2 x 1GB Corsair 800MHz | Gigabyte 9800GT | 180GB Caviar Blue + 250GB Storage | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Aastii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 02:25 PM   #29
Golden Master
 
sniperviper21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,438
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

im not stupid Aastii

and yes i know Raid0 can hit 2Gb/s

but my argument is that the 2GB/s is pointless and has no use.
__________________
You got to have a Fiddle in the band!
sniperviper21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 03:35 PM   #30
In Runtime
 
Aastii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 329
Default Re: How to speed up Windows

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniperviper21 View Post
im not stupid Aastii

and yes i know Raid0 can hit 2Gb/s

but my argument is that the 2GB/s is pointless and has no use.
Oh I agree it is pointless (at the moment), my point in posting it was to demonstrates what happens when you unlock more of the potential of the CPU/memory more often and reduce the bottleneck caused by secondary storage. A single SSD will be outperforming a couple of RAID0 hard drives, so I still maintain you would need more than 2 or 3 hard drives to get anywhere near the "badassery results" shown there. It will be quick, but not jaw droppingly so
__________________

__________________
Primary::: Asus M4A79XTD EVO | AMD Phenom II x3 720BE @ 3.4GHz | 2 x 2GB Corsair 1600MHz | XFX HD5770 + eVGA GTX260 Physx | 500GB Samsung F3 + 520GB Storage | Corsair Obsidian 700D | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Secondary::: Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus | Intel Q6600 | 2 x 1GB Corsair 800MHz | Gigabyte 9800GT | 180GB Caviar Blue + 250GB Storage | Win 7 Ultimate x64
Aastii is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0