Yeah that's very reasonable, and was the same reason I held off on getting an SSD until most of the problems had been sorted. Imagine being one of the early adopters before TRIM support! You can always use something like Steam Mover to compare the difference between being on a HDD vs SSD. http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover
I would look at driver issues or for a pre-existing unrelated problem that was hindering performance. Personally, I would just download all new drivers and wipe/reinstall.
Can anyone confirm the point that it is no longer necessary to disable the page file, hibernation, superfetch, etc., for the latest versions of Windows and SSD models because the OS will recognize the devices and disable the features automatically?
I've only saw defragmenter being disabled for SSDs automatically in Windows 8.1. I disabled hibernation manually and left pagefile on SSD.
It will still use the pagefile. Defrag will skip the SSD, even if you manually tell it to look at it. IIRC, I think it did disable hibernation (I can't say for sure since I disable it anyway). Superfetch would be pointless and I read that it skips it but I haven't confirmed it definitively, though I've not seen the process running. ReadyBoost is disabled and they're pretty much the same thing.
In the BIOS have you set to ACHI mode from SATA,IDE mode and if your Mother Board supports it? https://www.google.com/search?q=AHCI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and or here: https://www.google.com/search?q=AHCI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=ahci bios HTH, TH
I was reading earlier that Windows apparently does do some monthly 'intelligent defragmenting' of SSDs: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheRealAndCompleteStoryDoesWindowsDefragmentYourSSD.aspx
This article refers to Win 7: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx but I don't know if the same applies to Win 8. In my case, I started using an SSD only recently on Win 8.1, and had disabled only automatic defragmentation first. Two days ago, I disabled write caches, the page file, hibernation, superfetch, prefetch, search, and system restore, but experienced problems concerning delays in programs loading, etc. I experimented by enabling write caches, setting a small page file, and setting it in a hard drive, but the problems still took place. They disappeared only when I set everything back to default except for automatic defrag and search.
It doesn't (in 10 anyway); I replied to that here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...pc-for-an-home-use.379838/page-3#post-2528940
Ahh - ironically that might have been where I first saw that link! Have you found much difference in performance with defragging SSDs? Also is it something that is distinct from say the effect of using DiskFresh on a Samsung 840/840 EVO?
I only defrag annually (maybe a little sooner--I defrag when MyDefrag shows mostly red) so files don't take up more blocks than necessary. It's doubtful that its a perceptible performance gain but I do it to reduce wear, not to increase performance. That would do absolutely nothing but wear your drive faster. SSDs don't have a magnetised medium to regenerate.
I thought you might have run benchmarks or such. Not true, although the 840s/EVO were a specific case. Are you unaware of the flaw in the Samsung 840/EVO series? Samsung 840 EVOs experienced a significant and sudden drop in read performance for old files ~roughly 3 months IIRC. This was measurable with a tool specifically designed to benchmark read performance compared to the age of the file (I forget the name of the utility, but it'll be archived in one of the many Samsung 840 EVO threads). The graph would show clearly the sudden slump in read performance. Samsung released a temporary fix which was basically a tool that worked the same way as DiskFresh - refreshing old files in order to restore read performance. In using either tool, the performance noticeably improved in subsequent benchmarks. Similarly, the standard 840 series (one of which I owned at the time) were also affected - but the drop-off in performance was far more gradual. I had become unhappily aware that my high-powered, customised laptop wasn't performing like it was when new, and I had been unable to determine the cause for quite some time. My performance graph matched other users with 840 series drives - noticeable and significant decrease in read performance the older files were. Again, using DiskFresh brought the read performance back to normal. I chose to sell on that drive though, with full disclosure to the person I sold it to.
My guess is that all the rewrites triggered mass wear-levelling, redistributing all the blocks on the drive. I remember reading an issue with the 840s but don't remember what, exactly, it was (not even sure it was explained); I had guessed that people filled it up and the wear-levelling routine didn't handle it well. Samsung makes theirs a bit differently: faster media but it doesn't last as long but they provide a bunch more spare blocks to compensate.
haha! Oh yeah, that's right. I remember that now. I also remember having similar feelings, to wit, "meh. Whatever. Not my drive and I already bought a couple of 850s. I have receipts and backups if necessary!" For my first SSDs, I did stay away from Samsung (and SandForce) because they did seem too bleeding edge to the point of having problems/will have problems. The m4s I opted for are still peachy after 4 years.
OK I see, but I thought that all games should be installed on the Windows partition. OK, I assume this will save disk-space, looks cool. But yes, I'm planning to install gaming platforms like Origin and Steam, hopefully it won't be too rough on my 128GB Toshiba SSD. I have also decided not to install virtual machines, to spare my SSD.
One has nothing to do with the other. If you have, say, two HDDs, games/intensive applications would be better installed on the non-OS HDD to prevent hitching when Windows and other background processes access the system partition and to separate fragmentation. It's splitting hairs but that could mean the difference between a fun gaming experience and an annoying one. Steam lets you define multiple installation locations ("Libraries") and you can pick wherever every time you install a game. I have games on both, SSD and HDD.
OK I see, so Steam is installed on the Windows partition, but games are loaded from the HDD (or SSD), makes sense. This is a relieve to me, because games will of course take quite a lot of disk-space.
I love them. I have two Samsung 850 Pro SSD's, one each in two Inspiron 530 desktop computers I have that replaced SATA HD's. They're much quicker, mostly in terms of data transfer rates but also in all facets. They're much quieter. Not only the drives but the fans don't have to run as hard because the temperature of the box is cooler, which I'd think increases the life of the rest of the box... except for the drive itself, as no, they are not as durable as traditional HD's. I haven't had one die on me yet but it's well known they have a shorter shelf life. I doubt it's as bad with the mSATA SSD's though. I'm sure they have a limited amount of writes too, but doubt they brick as quickly or easily. And they're even quieter & cooler. I have a Samsung 850 EVO mSATA SSD for my Dell Precision M6800 Mobile Workstation. The thing is lightning fast and so tiny. I love it. The machine came with a Lite-On mSATA SSD, and a (regular) Lite-On SSD as well. But I bought the Samsung one as I liked what I read about it & the integrated features + things you can utilize via Samsung Magician, software that comes with it. I put the regular Lite-On SSD in an old Dell Dimension 3000 I have with a converter, and it works nicely there... again nice & quiet & snappy. With a 2.4 Ghz CPU & 2 GB of RAM running XP it works just fine. I could use it as a main machine now and have no problem with it. In fact I did up until just 2 years or so ago. And use a different setup on the other (Lite-On) mSATA SSD, with Win7 Pro 64-bit I use mostly for gaming to utilize the 16 GB of RAM in the Precision. I recommend them, and especially the mSATA variety if applicable. While my experience with the Samsung's I mention have been fine, I've heard several in here say theirs broke down on them. But then also I noticed when mentioning it they seemingly all used different models than the ones I use... either the 850 EVO's (regular) SSD's, or even more-so 840 EVO's. The 850 Pro's, I don't hear the problems with, which is what I own. And also haven't heard the same problems regarding the mSATA's, although that may be because hardly anyone has them yet. Durability wise the consensus seemed to be (based on a past thread) that Intel was the most reliable brand for SSD's. Though based on my own personal experience the "Samsung 850 Pro" & "Samsung 850 EVO mSATA SSD" are both reliable, not to mention very fast. And if you get them you can really get the most out of them using the Samsung Magician software.
I believe that the opposite is true. From what I've read about SSDs, some of the early models there had some problems, but with current SSDs, they should outlast a hard drive. For example, see the article Modern SSDs can last a lifetime at Betanews.
@luciddream did you notice any real-world difference when you switched from a LiteOn to a Samsung SSD?
Just sometime I'm a bit paranoid : it's harmful to format an SSD ? I mean only if I have to reinstall Windows, using only the DVD installation command.
Not at all...just do a quick format (the default anyway) rather than a full format. Windows installation also formats--there's no way around not formatting as your partition needs to be formatted in order to use it. Blank disk (or delete partitions if not blank) -> create partitions -> format partitions (this is where you select your file system to use) -> use your disk
Thank you. I asked because i have a new SSD but I had to do a quickly format and reinstall twice the OS.
Another question: is a good idea to move the cache of the browser to the RAM, using something as RamDisk ?
