If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
"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* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
"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* |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
"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* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Win7-SSD, or Win7-HDD-SSD
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SSD or HD for Win7 | Guillaume Tello | Homebuilt PC's | 11 | December 27th 11 10:30 AM |
win7 and P4's | mc | Dell Computers | 24 | September 21st 10 09:35 PM |
M2N-E and Win7 | DraggonFodder | Asus Motherboards | 11 | October 25th 09 01:34 PM |