Boosting SSD Performance with the Right OS

[gxsolace]

Which version of Windows will help push your SSDs to maximum speeds? Nothing you’d be able to find in the stores right now!

Boosting SSD Performance with the Right OS : Read more

 

[Tindytim]

So was this just Windows? IF they tested 2000 I'm guessing they tested older Windows OSes. Did they do any Linux distros?

 

[soulman76]

Vista is tweaked for traditional spindle hard drives, not SSDs. Different latencies and transfer speeds. This is becuase SSD disks weren't considered mainstream enough when Vista shipped to tinker with perfomance optimizations for them.
The fact that SSDs on Win2k perform any faster is anecdotal at best.
Wait to try Win7 on an SSD.

 

[enewmen]

Good News stury. I found lots of SLC driver issues as well. I feel there will me many woes before the problems are ironed out. From what little I know, most of the software problems should be fixed and SSD speed will get uncorked by Win7. What about UNIX/Linux?
my 2 cents worth..

 

[cruiseoveride]

Linux FTW

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]So was this just Windows? IF they tested 2000 I'm guessing they tested older Windows OSes. Did they do any Linux distros?[/citation]

[citation][nom]The linked article[/nom]That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory.
...
According to Far, Mac OS X runs "a little faster than Vista" with an SSD drive, but Linux is "always faster" than Vista or Mac OS X -- to the tune of 1% to 2% -- because like Windows 2000, "it never runs anything in the background."
...
XP does not align the data in the most efficient way for an SSD -- in 4KB blocks -- while Vista and Mac OS X do, according to Justin Sykes, director of marketing for SSD products at Micron. (Linux, which wasn't tested, also aligns data in 4K blocks.)[/citation]
So whether it's because of processes (doubtful) or block organization (more likely), Linux is better than either OS X or Vista with SSDs, but not by much.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]soulman76[/nom]Wait to try Win7 on an SSD.[/citation]
SSDs fly on Win 7.

 

[physx7]

I'll wait until they iron some bugs out first

 

[thomasxstewart]

Vista & SSD=Reliably Faster with Most Advanced Systems.

SignedHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART von DRASHEK M.D.

 

[Guest]

Linux and elevator=noop to kernel command line. There you go.

 

[Guest]

its really obvious, win2000 has the best kernel performance i've ever noticed in my life, you can even feel the stability by just looking at it without doing anything, it just works. It's one of the best OS's ever released, not just by MS. And its the only OS from MS where you can totally remove IE without having and bug, which speeds up the system even more. Ive used it till 2007 to be honest, i had to migrate in XP just because of the damn software that i needed didnt support Win2000 anymore.

 

[tmc]

Where are the ultra high capacity SSD's? Screw 64gb.. I want 1.5TB drives released... $450 (about where 750's were for a while)..

 

[KITH]

toshiba is supposed to be coming out with a 512GB drive

 

[firemage]

I couldn't help but laugh, as i read this while using my window 2000 booting desktop, but alias it doesn't use an SSD but it's WD Raptor still works rather nicely.

Win 2k still works nicely for me as far as common use, and honestly if i still could i'd sell it to my non-gamer clients, any day.

-G

 

[Shadow703793]

@ Editors:

Read this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tomshardwareus.inc&cat=31&post=258117&page=2&p=1&sondage=0&owntopic=3&trash=0&trash_post=0&print=0&numreponse=0&quote_only=0&new=0&nojs=0
Look at the OCZ links that roadrunner linked to.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]SSDs fly on Win 7.[/citation]
What build number?

Would be nice to at least have seen a mention of 7 in this article.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]What build number?Would be nice to at least have seen a mention of 7 in this article.[/citation]
Build 6801 was the one that was used by the person who was talking about the performance.

 

[enewmen]

Randomizer has been around THG a long time. I assume he knows what he's talking about.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]enewmen[/nom]Randomizer has been around THG a long time. I assume he knows what he's talking about.[/citation]
Never assume anything Just FYI, I am talking purely subjective "flying", no hard numbers. Unfortunately I can no longer find the thread on XS where it was mentioned.

 

[Blessedman]

2000 is by the best OS they have ever built (next gen NT I guess). I would put any build of linux up against win2k.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]2000 is by the best OS they have ever built (next gen NT I guess). I would put any build of linux up against win2k.[/citation]
...everything after 2k is NT based, with 2k being NT 5.0 and XP being NT 5.1 (Vista is 6.0, and 7 will be 6.1 ironically).

The fact that 2k wasn't made for personal computers also lends to it's stability. But stacking NT up against a modern Linux Distro would be rather silly, while it may have a slight performance edge, the real question would be usability.