Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD

Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

*TimDaniels*

On 4/18/2013 12:32 PM, Timothy Daniels wrote:
Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

Google "SSD 4K alignment"! That could be a problem when you used ghost.

Suggest you just take the chance to re-install Window$ into the SSD. You
got a cleaner system that way, free of virus!

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 18 i686) Linux 3.8.7-201.fc18.i686
^ ^ 00:51:01 up 8:50 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 4/19/2013 10:01 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 4/18/2013 12:32 PM, Timothy Daniels wrote:
Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

Google "SSD 4K alignment"! That could be a problem when you used ghost.

Suggest you just take the chance to re-install Window$ into the SSD. You
got a cleaner system that way, free of virus!


Well assuming the hard drive is not going to be in the system later, I
suppose win7 could be installed on both drives just for the sake of
science. The problem I see is MS gets nasty about win7 installations of
the same "key" on what it believes to be different hardware. That is, MS
is ever vigilant for what they perceive to be fraud. Just beware you may
have to authenticate the win7 installation.

I used ghost for linux when I did my notebook upgrade. I have what Dell
claims to be the installation DVD, but I wasn't about to mess with it
unless the ghost failed.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/09...d-performance/

This hit looks useful. Apparently I have to partitions not aligned.
Needless to say, clone your drive before doing any of these "fixes".

On 18/04/2013 12:32 AM, Timothy Daniels wrote:
Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

I did it both ways. I did an HDD to SSD conversion on two of my own
systems, while I did a fully fresh install on a friend's desktop. Hardly
any difference in performance.

Yousuf Khan

On 19/04/2013 3:53 PM, miso wrote:
On 4/19/2013 10:01 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
Google "SSD 4K alignment"! That could be a problem when you used ghost.

Suggest you just take the chance to re-install Window$ into the SSD. You
got a cleaner system that way, free of virus!

Most newer cloning utilities, such as Macrium Reflect can automatically
align the partitions properly before transferring.

Well assuming the hard drive is not going to be in the system later, I
suppose win7 could be installed on both drives just for the sake of
science. The problem I see is MS gets nasty about win7 installations of
the same "key" on what it believes to be different hardware. That is, MS
is ever vigilant for what they perceive to be fraud. Just beware you may
have to authenticate the win7 installation.

Windows has never needed re-authentication simply on a hard drive swap.
Even if it did, it would simply re-authenticate itself over the
Internet, it'll do it in the background without you even noticing it
much (it might tell you it's reauthenticating, and it'll be done before
you click the "Ok" button).


Yousuf Khan

"miso" wrote in message ...
On 4/19/2013 10:01 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 4/18/2013 12:32 PM, Timothy Daniels wrote:
Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

Google "SSD 4K alignment"! That could be a problem when you used ghost.

Suggest you just take the chance to re-install Window$ into the SSD. You
got a cleaner system that way, free of virus!


Well assuming the hard drive is not going to be in the system later, I suppose win7 could be
installed on both drives just for the sake of science. The problem I see is MS gets nasty about
win7 installations of the same "key" on what it believes to be different hardware. That is, MS is
ever vigilant for what they perceive to be fraud. Just beware you may have to authenticate the
win7 installation.

I used ghost for linux when I did my notebook upgrade. I have what Dell claims to be the
installation DVD, but I wasn't about to mess with it unless the ghost failed.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/09...d-performance/

This hit looks useful. Apparently I have to partitions not aligned. Needless to say, clone your
drive before doing any of these "fixes".


The online forums regarding the latest version of Norton Ghost seem
to say that the correct partition alignment is used for SSDs. The websites
for Casper (Future Systems Solutions) and True Image (Acronis) say the
same for their products. SSDs seem no longer to be "leading edge".
BTW, Symantec is discontinuing Norton Ghost at the end of this month
(April, 2013), and it will introduce an "improved" product called
"Symantec System Recovery".

*TimDaniels*

"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
Timothy Daniels wrote:
Would you expect that there would be any performance difference
between a 64-bit Win7 installed directly onto a solid state drive versus
a 64-bit Win7 installed first onto a spinning hard disk drive and then
ghosted (imaged) onto a solid state drive? I want to install an SSD
in my laptop PC about the same time that I install 64-bit Win7, and
I thought that by installing the OS first to the HDD, I'd get a better
idea about which step gave which perceived performance increase
- the Vista-to-Win7 step or the HDD-to-SSD step - but I don't want
to introduce any performance affect due to the migration from the
HDD to the SSD.

I did it both ways. I did an HDD to SSD conversion on two of my own
systems, while I did a fully fresh install on a friend's desktop. Hardly
any difference in performance.

Yousuf Khan

OK, thanks for the info, Yousuf.

*TimDaniels*

On 19/04/2013 9:17 PM, Timothy Daniels wrote:
OK, thanks for the info, Yousuf.

*TimDaniels*

The cloning will save you a lot of headaches in reinstalling applications.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" added:
The cloning will save you a lot of headaches in reinstalling applications.

Good point. It would also put off the purchase of the SSD, perhaps to
a time when I can afford a larger SSD so I can continue dual-booting.

*TimDaniels*

On 21/04/2013 2:16 PM, Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Yousuf Khan" added:
The cloning will save you a lot of headaches in reinstalling
applications.

Good point. It would also put off the purchase of the SSD, perhaps to
a time when I can afford a larger SSD so I can continue dual-booting.

One thing I did prior to purchasing my SSD (months and years prior to
purchasing it, as a matter of fact, because I knew I had purchasing an
SSD as one my goals), was that I purposely limited the size of my C:
partition. So even though I was buying larger and larger hard drives
over the years, I would never increase the size of the C: partition. I'd
keep the the C partition at a reasonably comfortable level, let's say
200GB, and create a second partition on the same drive for data only.
This gave me good reason to make sure that my C partition never grew too
full, so I'd always keep it nicely trimmed of junk. Moving unnecessary
stuff over to the other partition or to other drives.

So as soon as I saw SSD's of the right size available, at reasonable
prices, I bought it. E.g. a 240 GB SSD would be able to hold the
contents of my 200 GB partition, so that's what I got. I waited by the
wayside through the generations of 40 GB SSD's, 64 GB, and even 128 GB,
before finally plunking down for a 240 GB. They now have 500 GB
versions, but maybe not yet at reasonable prices.

Yousuf Khan