Solid state disk makes vista slower not faster

Hello,
I replaced my system disk (hard disk) with a much faster SSD (solid state
disk 128G)
and now my system is slower not faster. (boot and shut down are much slower)

When I check the disk using HD Tune the results say the disk is much much
faster then the old one (old type) I had. My Windows experience disk index
went from 5.6 to 5.9.

Before I go into exact timimgs can we have some comments/thoughts on what
might be happening here. It was even worst when I defined a pagefile.

I;m running vista 64 bit with 8G memory.

I did discover a news item which confirmed my findings but doesn't go into
much detail as to why.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07...sd_vista_beef/

I don't know the answer to your problem, but are you sure you've done the
right thing?

SSDs have a distinctly limited number of read/write cycles. I would think
that normal paging file activity would eat up your SSD life very quickly
indeed.

Also, SSD isn't really faster. It has much lower seek times (because it
doesn't actually need to move the head, obviously), but the data throughput
is similar or slightly slower than a normal hard disk.

I thought SSDs were not recommended as the system disk, but rather as data
storage.

Or have I misunderstood?

SteveT

Well I'm on a learning curve here but why are they being installed into
laptops then which wouldn't normally have a data disk?

Mick

"Steve Thackery" wrote:

> I don't know the answer to your problem, but are you sure you've done the
> right thing?
>
> SSDs have a distinctly limited number of read/write cycles. I would think
> that normal paging file activity would eat up your SSD life very quickly
> indeed.
>
> Also, SSD isn't really faster. It has much lower seek times (because it
> doesn't actually need to move the head, obviously), but the data throughput
> is similar or slightly slower than a normal hard disk.
>
> I thought SSDs were not recommended as the system disk, but rather as data
> storage.
>
> Or have I misunderstood?
>
> SteveT
>
>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:35:02 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

[snip]

You need to start quoting what you are replying to. This is the third
reply from you that I've found this session, and none of them have any
quoted material.

If your posts had been the only one's I saw this session, I would have
had no idea what you were talking about.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:07:02 -0700, Mick
<Mick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Well I'm on a learning curve here but why are they being installed into
>laptops then which wouldn't normally have a data disk?

To lengthen time between recharges of the battery. Those systems are
probably optimized somehow for that type of drive.

>Mick
>
>"Steve Thackery" wrote:
>
>> I don't know the answer to your problem, but are you sure you've done the
>> right thing?
>>
>> SSDs have a distinctly limited number of read/write cycles. I would think
>> that normal paging file activity would eat up your SSD life very quickly
>> indeed.
>>
>> Also, SSD isn't really faster. It has much lower seek times (because it
>> doesn't actually need to move the head, obviously), but the data throughput
>> is similar or slightly slower than a normal hard disk.
>>
>> I thought SSDs were not recommended as the system disk, but rather as data
>> storage.
>>
>> Or have I misunderstood?
>>
>> SteveT
>>
>>

You can read this one too - SSD's but not in Vista.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2326348,00.asp

M


"Mick" <Mick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A76C543E-DDB5-4131-89F3-AD11B3CB5091@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I replaced my system disk (hard disk) with a much faster SSD (solid state
> disk 128G)
> and now my system is slower not faster. (boot and shut down are much
> slower)
>
> When I check the disk using HD Tune the results say the disk is much much
> faster then the old one (old type) I had. My Windows experience disk index
> went from 5.6 to 5.9.
>
> Before I go into exact timimgs can we have some comments/thoughts on what
> might be happening here. It was even worst when I defined a pagefile.
>
> I;m running vista 64 bit with 8G memory.
>
> I did discover a news item which confirmed my findings but doesn't go into
> much detail as to why.
>
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07...sd_vista_beef/

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:07:02 -0700, Mick
<Mick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Well I'm on a learning curve here but why are they being installed into
> laptops then which wouldn't normally have a data disk?


The main advantage of a solid state drive in a laptop is that it is
much lighter than a rotating drive.

Personally, I would gladly give up a little speed to make my laptop a
couple of pounds lighter.


> "Steve Thackery" wrote:
>
> > I don't know the answer to your problem, but are you sure you've done the
> > right thing?
> >
> > SSDs have a distinctly limited number of read/write cycles. I would think
> > that normal paging file activity would eat up your SSD life very quickly
> > indeed.
> >
> > Also, SSD isn't really faster. It has much lower seek times (because it
> > doesn't actually need to move the head, obviously), but the data throughput
> > is similar or slightly slower than a normal hard disk.
> >
> > I thought SSDs were not recommended as the system disk, but rather as data
> > storage.
> >
> > Or have I misunderstood?
> >
> > SteveT
> >
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Was your motherboard designed to utilize a SSD?
If it wasn't, you won't get the performance benefit.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows Vista Enthusiast

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Mick" <Mick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A76C543E-DDB5-4131-89F3-AD11B3CB5091@microsoft.com...
Hello,
I replaced my system disk (hard disk) with a much faster SSD (solid state
disk 128G)
and now my system is slower not faster. (boot and shut down are much slower)

When I check the disk using HD Tune the results say the disk is much much
faster then the old one (old type) I had. My Windows experience disk index
went from 5.6 to 5.9.

Before I go into exact timimgs can we have some comments/thoughts on what
might be happening here. It was even worst when I defined a pagefile.

I;m running vista 64 bit with 8G memory.

I did discover a news item which confirmed my findings but doesn't go into
much detail as to why.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07...sd_vista_beef/

"Phillips" <afn18721@afn.org> wrote in message
news:E6AAE934-B9C8-46D7-8635-E069BCA062A8@microsoft.com...
> You can read this one too - SSD's but not in Vista.
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2326348,00.asp

Regarding the above article (Vista was part of test so don't understand "but
not in Vista"):

"We used Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and all patches installed for
running HDTach. PCMark Vantage was run using Windows Vista Ultimate Edition,
again with all updates installed....

In Windows Vista, SSDs still offer a substantial performance edge in all but
the Windows Media Center test, which is typical behavior."