How rude. There's no need for that, is there? Because I disagree with your arguments? For me, the few seconds (if that) needed to load apps and folders and documents is not something I would pay more than 10p per GB for. I do not value those precious seconds as much as you do, so therefore buying an SSD would be bad value for money for me. Yes, for many whom value those precious seconds and those who find themselves waiting for folders to open etc. then it is worth the money. As my hard drive spends a lot of it's time idle, I would not see the enormous benefit that you would see. I concede that I shouldn't have generalised, as peoples needs differ.
You was a little rude saying "Clearly you don't understand still". When I do, and it's a little ironic coming from someone who hasn't used an SSD.
By that I mean you're not understanding my point of view. I have used an SSD, just not for a long period of time.
I don't see what the issue is, infact I agree heavily with alot of what terrorbyt said. I don't regret getting an SSD, but it's an upgrade I held off for 2 years simply because I found more useful stuff to do with the £100 odd; paid for a large chunk of my 570 for example. Yes, I love how fast my pc boots and loads things, No, it wouldn't have killed me if I hadn't bought it. I get the same frames as I always have and that's the only thing that really matters to me.
I can see terrorbyt's point of view here. I held off getting a SSD for a long time. I have one now, and yes, it's brilliant, but if it was a choice between SSD and a new GPU for instance, no contest... GPU every time. Yes, games will take longer to load from HDD, but once loaded, the benefits of a GPU upgrade will outweigh the SSD. I waited until a 512GB SSD was doable for me financially, as I didn't want to compromise anything.. I wanted everything that was currently installed on my 512GB HDD to be on my new SSD. I too fail to see the point of a small SSD just for boot times. He has a point, and it's a valid one. He sees the benefit, but for him, it's not an investment he's prepared to make yet. Reading this thread I get a sense of people bullying him a little. He makes a very good case for not getting a SSD, and it's his choice, and his money.
I have a small SSD and it's nothing to do with the boot times why I chose to have it. I don't know why you repeat the myth that it's 'just for boot times'. You certainly got your SSD for more than the boot times, correct? So why would that be any different for people who bought smaller SSDs? I can still fit the whole OS and apps on it, with a few GB free, but if I gamed on the PC I'd have a separate SSD for them. As I don't, 60GB is currently sufficient for me, and I would have partitioned the HDD anyway had I not had an SSD. I paid £100 for it last march, which is much worse value than can be had now, but I don't regret for a split second. It's made my computer an absolute joy to use for the year and a half I'v had it. Because it's so easy to just put the OS and apps on the SSD, and personal files like music, pictures, whatever on a 1TB HDD, it makes sense with them being so cheap to just buy a 60/120GB SSD for OS/apps, and keep all your media on a HDD (even if you're on a budget). For such a punitive cost, I can't believe more people don't do it. It's his money of course, but I wouldn't want him thinking that the only benefit is boot times, and for him to then miss out on all the other benefits, because of that. That myth has got extremely boring now.
When i got my 64gb ssd at first i was dissapointed that i couldn't put a lot of my programs on, i underestimated how much stuff i have but actually I have realised that 90% of the time i spend on the computer i am using the same few programs then i turn it off again. I boot, open chrome, and throughout the day i probably open word, guitar rig, guitar pro, fsx and maybe pro tools (that is on the hdd though) so having those small programs on the ssd, i.e. the ones i use most probs made a big difference i have just got used to
^Make sure you've turned off hibernation, made your pagefile smaller if you have 16GB ram, and if you like you can delete the Windows service pack backup files. All that frees up precious GBs for people who have smaller SSDs.
That wasn't my intent. It was in response to another comment the OP made higher up the thread about games still being on HDD etc. I'm a SSD advocate now... I could never go back. My post was pretty much just siding with Terrorbyt a little because I can still see his point: A decent sized SSD is still a reasonably large investment, and if anyone needs to upgrade other stuff, especially GPUs then I would still put a SSD lower down the priority list. I'm not repeating the myth that boot times are the only noticeable advantage at all.. rather that a very small SSD means that you probably, for instance, still have your steam folder on a HDD.. if that's the case, then you are missing out on one of the great features of a SSD... game map loading, and game loading times themselves. I'm with you all the way on the SSD front. ....I still respect terrorbyt's point though. Other system components would come first for me too if I had to chose between them. ^^this.... Elevated command prompt, then ..... Code: DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded Saved me 5GB approx.
Oh yeah, if I gamed on PC I'd want every single game on an SSD. Understand that completely. That would cut loading times considerably and be another reason why they are so useful. I currently have all my games on my 360's HDD, and even that's better than disc. However, I wouldn't let the fact I couldn't (yet) afford to have all my Steam games on an SSD put me off buying an SSD for my OS/apps, simply because of how much a benefit they are for general computer usage (at least in my eyes). If you buy a 120GB model, I'm sure there would be enough room (as a stopgap measure) to have a couple of your most played games on there as well as your OS/apps. This can be done, so I have read, using steam mover, while keeping your main catalogue on a 1TB HDD. Then months down the line I'd buy a 240GB one for all the games, or some other combination along those lines. There are currently some awesome deals on 120GB SSDs, like the Kingston Parge mentioned for £70. At that price it's oozing with value and I'd recommend it even for people on a budget.
cheapest GB/£ I'v seen for a while was £80 for a 2TB disk. currently the SanDisk SATA II are all down in price, so can get 120GB for same price. ok, not as much storage, but it manages a respectable 250ish mb/s. I have a 64GB SSD as my boot drive and it had a dramatic effect on boot up times, program start up times, and generally everything felt more responsive. AFAIK, every tech site has basically said that a SSD has the most impact of any upgrade to a machine. with regard the OP subject of ebay pcs, mine was an ebay one, at the time I couldn't build it for less (would have broken even). overall very little problem with it - other than a PSU burning out (though it wasn't the one that came with the PC) it cost me £320 at the time (though no OS, but I ran it with ubuntu predominantly, now have win 7 pro and ubuntu dual boot on the SSD, still use ubuntu for everything but gaming
Yeah, it's a combination of your priorities and budget. Unfortunately gaming PCs demand you to spend a large chunk of your budget on the graphics card, (25% in my case), so what's left must be spent on the CPU, OS, PSU and skimp on everything else really. You've put in a better way than I could, I was surprised at the defensiveness on the subject. I genuinely picked that up from my friends, it's literally all they ever mention about their SSDs. I understand there's much more to it than that, thanks for showing me
