Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Is a 60GB SSD enough for Windows 7 and a few other programs?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 soulweeper

soulweeper

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

 

I do Exede internet installations, and use my Asus laptop to set it up, so it goes in and out of my truck quite a bit, so I'm going to install an SSD, after transferring an image of the current HDD. It's a matter of time before the HHD suffers from all the movement, and the faster boot up will be nice too.

That being said, I don't use this laptop for much, besides work, so it doesn't need much beyond the OS, which is Windows 7. Right now it has a 320GB, 5400 rpm hard drive, and I'm thinking of using either this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006VCP72W/ref=ox_sc_s...

but I'm wondering if I'm pushing it, as far as being too small? I've heard that the general rule of thumb is not to go beyond 80% of capacity.

Like I said.....I use it to do my Exede installs, and it has a few other programs, but it's very minimal.

On that note......my current HDD is partitioned from the factory, and it shows up as
OS ( C: ) 79.7GB free of 119GB
and
DATA ( D: ) 153GB free of153GB
so how will that work if I clone it and put it on a 60GB SSD?

I'm assuming it will simply show about 20GB free of 60GB, and no "D Drive"??, or will it partition the new SSD?? Hope I explained that right.

Would it be easier to just delete the D drive, as there is nothing on it, and just expand the C Drive to one big drive, then clone the drive???

My main question is regarding the 60GB SSD being big enough, especially with what I use the computer for, but I am curious about tha partition issue as well.

If not, I will go with this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQ4F9ZA/ref=ox_sc_s...

Any feedback or input of any kind IMMENSELY appreciated!!

Thanks in advance!


Edited by soulweeper, 23 June 2013 - 02:40 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Noviciate

Noviciate

  • Malware Response Team
  • 5,277 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Numpty HQ
  • Local time:04:22 PM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

Good evening. :)

I have an 80 Gb SSD with Windows 7 on it, which makes for a really short boot time, and a couple of programs that I use regularly and a 1 TB HDD with 4 partitions for all other programs, those being the vast majority, and general storage. Given my turnover of games I usually stick them on the HDD to reduce wear and tear on the SSD - although they are getting better I understand that they don't have the same life expectancy as the "old-fashioned" ones.

 

In my case I didn't have any issues with a previous system and program load times, just on booting, and so I bought a drive that would happily take Windows and some spare capacity for whatever and I don't regret it.


So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

 


#3 babicz

babicz

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:08:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

No idea what the hell the guy above me is talking about...

 

As for your question, 60GB should be fine for your use.  As long as you're not planning on storing any media (photos, videos, music), I think you'll be fine.  If you want to be able to use it in the future for another computer perhaps, and you know you'll be needing more storage, it's quite worth the money to invest in a 120GB drive.

 

Hope this helps!

 

P.S. Partitions are stupid, unless you actually know what you're doing.


Edited by babicz, 23 June 2013 - 04:15 PM.


#4 buddy215

buddy215

  • Moderator
  • 13,196 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Tennessee
  • Local time:11:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 04:22 PM

Hello babicz...Would you please edit your post and remove the first sentence.

Thank you....


“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded and the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics...you are all stardust.”Lawrence M. Krauss
A 1792 U.S. penny, designed in part by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, reads “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry.”

#5 soulweeper

soulweeper
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 04:29 PM

No idea what the hell the guy above me is talking about...

 

As for your question, 60GB should be fine for your use.  As long as you're not planning on storing any media (photos, videos, music), I think you'll be fine.  If you want to be able to use it in the future for another computer perhaps, and you know you'll be needing more storage, it's quite worth the money to invest in a 120GB drive.

 

Hope this helps!

 

P.S. Partitions are stupid, unless you actually know what you're doing.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go for a 120GB.....either Intel or Crucial.The Crucial will save me a few bucks, and it's still a solid company.



#6 killerx525

killerx525

    Bleepin' Aussie


  • Members
  • 7,220 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Local time:03:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:10 PM

In terms of value, the Crucial is a better buy and 60GB SSD is just not enough for todays standard with windows updates, system restore files etc which chews up space over time.

>Michael 
System1: CPU- Intel Core i7-5820K @ 4.4GHz, CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14, RAM- G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Kit(4Gx4) DDR3 2133MHz, SSD/HDD- Samsung 850 EVO 250GB/Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB/Seagate Barracuada 3TB, GPU- 2x EVGA GTX980 Superclocked @1360/MHz1900MHz, Motherboard- Asus X99 Deluxe, Case- Custom Mac G5, PSU- EVGA P2-1000W, Soundcard- Realtek High Definition Audio, OS- Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Games: APB: Reloaded, Hours played: 3100+  System2: Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15inch   OFw63FY.png


#7 buddy215

buddy215

  • Moderator
  • 13,196 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Tennessee
  • Local time:11:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:20 PM

There is some good info in the link below for users who want to install an SSD for the first time.

The Complete Guide to Solid-State Drives


“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded and the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics...you are all stardust.”Lawrence M. Krauss
A 1792 U.S. penny, designed in part by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, reads “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry.”

#8 soulweeper

soulweeper
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:24 PM

In terms of value, the Crucial is a better buy and 60GB SSD is just not enough for todays standard with windows updates, system restore files etc which chews up space over time.

Would you say that Crucial and Intel are neck and neck, as far as quality?



#9 killerx525

killerx525

    Bleepin' Aussie


  • Members
  • 7,220 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Local time:03:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:28 PM

Yes although Intel's SSD have always been expensive.

>Michael 
System1: CPU- Intel Core i7-5820K @ 4.4GHz, CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14, RAM- G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Kit(4Gx4) DDR3 2133MHz, SSD/HDD- Samsung 850 EVO 250GB/Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB/Seagate Barracuada 3TB, GPU- 2x EVGA GTX980 Superclocked @1360/MHz1900MHz, Motherboard- Asus X99 Deluxe, Case- Custom Mac G5, PSU- EVGA P2-1000W, Soundcard- Realtek High Definition Audio, OS- Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Games: APB: Reloaded, Hours played: 3100+  System2: Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15inch   OFw63FY.png


#10 soulweeper

soulweeper
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:22 AM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:30 PM

Yes although Intel's SSD have always been expensive.

Yep......and that's why I haven't ordered it already. :)



#11 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:11:22 AM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:38 AM

I think Intel got a reputation for reliability  because of their competition in the "early days" of consumer SSDs.  Intel was easily the most reliable of the bunch at the time, and they damn well charged for it.  They still charge for it even though the competition has caught up, and in some cases surpassed them.  As far as I know, Intel uses the same controllers on a lot of their SSDs as other makers.
 

 

I have no problems trusting data to Crucial, Intel, or Samsung.  Like any SSD, I tend to wait for others to be BETA testers, and let the requisite firmware updates become available before I adopt.  There was a great site, a forum, where members bought various SSDs and essentially tested them to destruction/failure.  24/7 write/rewrites, just the ultimate hell, for an SSD.  Almost all of them exceeded their lifespans, some (I remember Crucial M4s and Samsung 830s) were rock solid well after their lifespans were "up".  I wish I remembered where this forum was.

 

Size matters, even though some will tell you it doesn't (theres a joke there somewhere).  Smaller SSDs often have compromised speeds due to the memory configuration (lack of parallelism).  Some small cap SSDs used to/presently  have a lower MTBF.  A 128 gig SSD half full is a lot happier/faster than a full 60gig SSD.  If you don't get into too much of a hurry, you can find 120-128gig SSDs in the sub $100US range on sale.  I picked up 2 SSDs, both 256gig for $160US each.


I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#12 killerx525

killerx525

    Bleepin' Aussie


  • Members
  • 7,220 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Local time:03:22 AM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:44 AM

I think Intel got a reputation for reliability  because of their competition in the "early days" of consumer SSDs.  Intel was easily the most reliable of the bunch at the time, and they damn well charged for it.  They still charge for it even though the competition has caught up, and in some cases surpassed them.  As far as I know, Intel uses the same controllers on a lot of their SSDs as other makers.
 

 

I have no problems trusting data to Crucial, Intel, or Samsung.  Like any SSD, I tend to wait for others to be BETA testers, and let the requisite firmware updates become available before I adopt.  There was a great site, a forum, where members bought various SSDs and essentially tested them to destruction/failure.  24/7 write/rewrites, just the ultimate hell, for an SSD.  Almost all of them exceeded their lifespans, some (I remember Crucial M4s and Samsung 830s) were rock solid well after their lifespans were "up".  I wish I remembered where this forum was.

 

Size matters, even though some will tell you it doesn't (theres a joke there somewhere).  Smaller SSDs often have compromised speeds due to the memory configuration (lack of parallelism).  Some small cap SSDs used to/presently  have a lower MTBF.  A 128 gig SSD half full is a lot happier/faster than a full 60gig SSD.  If you don't get into too much of a hurry, you can find 120-128gig SSDs in the sub $100US range on sale.  I picked up 2 SSDs, both 256gig for $160US each.

Wow, 256GB for $160, that's madness! I'm looking at the Samsung 840 Pro 256GB and it's going to cost me $255 over here.


>Michael 
System1: CPU- Intel Core i7-5820K @ 4.4GHz, CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14, RAM- G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Kit(4Gx4) DDR3 2133MHz, SSD/HDD- Samsung 850 EVO 250GB/Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB/Seagate Barracuada 3TB, GPU- 2x EVGA GTX980 Superclocked @1360/MHz1900MHz, Motherboard- Asus X99 Deluxe, Case- Custom Mac G5, PSU- EVGA P2-1000W, Soundcard- Realtek High Definition Audio, OS- Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Games: APB: Reloaded, Hours played: 3100+  System2: Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15inch   OFw63FY.png


#13 sh4rkbyt3

sh4rkbyt3

  • Members
  • 415 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:22 PM

Posted 30 June 2013 - 08:07 PM

The cost of SSD's now are within reason for almost any user at this point. I adapted early when 64GB was the maximum and saw tremendous speed increases across the board from Start Up to Programs and finally Shut Down. Where you'll get the best immediate benefits are if you do any system maintenance using programs such as Malwarebytes etc (scanning) and especially your gaming. Since your looking at a specific app (Exede) I would say you most definitely will benefit from the SSD in both speed and durability.

 

I've tried a couple of the Intel's and because of the cost I was not overly impressed although they do tought their controllers to be exceptional (didn't notice much there either).

Within a year of my first 64GB Crucial I upgraded to an OCZ III 120GB SSD. For the cost and speed it was a no brainer. For the average system you could most likely get by with a 120GB so long as you're not looking for tremendous storage space for photos etc. If storage is a consideration though you may want to look at a 240GB - 256GB SSD. OCZ for the most part has been my best performer but I do like the software Samsung 840 Series uses to copy and transfer your HDD to your new SSD. Just make sure the drive (HDD) is as clean as possible before using their Data Migration tool i.e. clean of infections and programs you don't want or need.

I'm currently using a Samsung 840 256GB drive on my main desktop system and although it doesn't quite have the speed of an OCZ Vertex III SSD, it still performs fast enough for my needs and will exceed anyone who's only used to HDD speeds expectations.

I also use an OCZ Agility II 120GB in my netbook (HP). It again, doesn't have quite the speed of the OCZ III Vertex but was considerably less in cost and much faster than even the fastest HDD.

 

And don't be suckered in by Seagates hybrid XT HDD/SSD. The SSD part is only 3-4 GB and does increase transfer speed rate very little and a portion of the start up speed, but you won't benefit from the cost difference over a regular HDD in performance enough to warrant the increased price.

 

I would only caution you against the OCZ Vertex II series which has had a lot of major issues concerning failures (you can check this out on newegg.com as well as tigerdirect.com reviews). All of the other drives I've mention previous to this I've been in using for at least 2-3 years without a single incident!

 

Keeping in mind the final size of Windows 7 OS and at least some storage space, minimimally I would have to absolutely suggest a 120GB as your starter size. If you'd like to go bigger that's fine but no less than 120.

 

Also as dpunisher mentioned going beyond a certain point in SSD size with your storage capacity seems to weigh a little on your SSD's performance. After 50% you will notice a very small degradation in actual speed and after about 75-85% of capacity you will most likely see yet another very small degredation in speed. These slight changes though still keep the performance level well beyond that of a 10,000 RPM WD Velociraptor HDD, so don't worry.

Just be sure to use the link buddy215 provided for you to setup your SSD properly and benefit from all of it's maximum potential. The initial setup is uber in importance!!!


Edited by sh4rkbyt3, 30 June 2013 - 08:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users