News Microsoft's Reportedly Trying to Kill HDD Boot Drives for Windows 11 PCs by 2023

[jeremyj_83]

EDIT: So, I just had 2 of my pals on Discord remind me that Intel Optane exists, and was supposed to help with this. Raise your hand if you use Optane!

I use Optane, not on my personal desktop, as write cache drives for our all NVMe VMware vSAN storage array at work. Does that count?

 

[jeremyj_83]

I don't know, I only have 200GB free space left on my 1TB SSD, on a system I bought just this year, and that's after I pushed all less-frequently played games etc. to the data grave HDD xD
I seriously consider getting a second SSD... that would certainly help my storage woes, lol.

Programs nowadays, be it games or otherwise, can get really big. I also use my machine for CAD and GIS frequently both privately and for work, and they eat a lot of space even with data and projects saved to the D-drive.

Still, I think this is the right direction. SSDs are getting ever cheaper, and for most people, 500GB will be enough. Like my dad, who is using that in his laptop and will never get it to full. Most people aren't me is the simple truth here. So yeah, definitely support this.

You don't have a setup like what I am talking about. If you can only have 1 drive in the system then sure most people should have at minimum 500GB but more like 1TB. For my father-in-law I built a computer with a single 1TB SSD. Sure he could have gotten by with 500GB but I did 1TB to be sure. However, whenever possible I like to set things up in multiple drive arrangements. It does add to the cost but in the end you have a better designed system. In your case if you remove ALL games and put them on a different drive you will save A LOT of space. The actual software like AutoCAD is only like a 10GB install. The projects are what need a lot of storage and for that you have a scratch drive and the when not working on them a large storage drive.

 

[jeremyj_83]

You don't have a setup like what I am talking about. If you can only have 1 drive in the system then sure most people should have at minimum 500GB but more like 1TB. For my father-in-law I built a computer with a single 1TB SSD. Sure he could have gotten by with 500GB but I did 1TB to be sure. However, whenever possible I like to set things up in multiple drive arrangements. It does add to the cost but in the end you have a better designed system. In your case if you remove ALL games and put them on a different drive you will save A LOT of space. The actual software like AutoCAD is only like a 10GB install and doesn't move the needle on a 500GB OS/Application drive. The projects are what need a lot of storage and for that you have a scratch drive and the when not working on them a large storage drive.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I tend to agree on the 64GB, however, in the company where I work, until LAST YEAR, we were using laptops with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage. This was the default company laptops.
If IT in a multinational high-tech is so shortsighted to order 256GB laptops in 2022, I don't see why unexperienced, non-technical customers cannot fall for one with 128GB.

What are you installing on a work laptop that needs more than 256GB storage? I do not use my WORK laptop for anything other than work. It has the required VPNs, Office, etc... with a 256GB SSD and total used space is 74GB. Only have 8GB RAM I understand. 16GB RAM should be the minimum on anything right now unless your budget is so slight that you can only afford 8GB.

 

[PiranhaTech]

Wouldn't the true solution for budget-oriented systems be a SSHD, which sadly have been all but abandoned?

That being said a 128GB SATA based SSD isn't exactly expensive these days, Newegg has one on sale for $18, and is plenty fine for a budget system, and having a second hard dive for bulk storage means you've only added, at most, $20 to the cost of a budget machine (the cost of an SSD), not exactly a make or break price for anyone, not even in the developing market and ultra low price market.

Silicon Power Ace A55 2.5" 128GB SATA III 3D TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) SU128GBSS3A55S25AE - Newegg.com

SSHD was really badly implemented, even though it's a great idea. Most people out there only need 256-512 GB of storage and SSD prices have dropped to where SSHD isn't very viable. SSHD capacities haven't caught up.

 

[Kurdain1]

I have all SSDs in my gaming PC now, except for some archive storage but when I bought my first SSD I used it as my gaming drive, mainly Steam folder.
Windows was still on my HDD but once WIN10 I didn't seem to have much of an issue waiting for anything since the vast majority of the game content was being loaded off of an SSD.
So I can see where an HDD and SSD combo could work in todays world but in a laptop I don't think multiple drives are possible.

One thing to note too is I don't load a bunch of crap on my PC's either and clean old programs off regularly.

SSD are still the way to go as they are constantly dropping in price.

 

[Palador]

There still seem to be quite a lot of laptops which have the option for both an M.2 drive and a 2.5" drive. The benefit to getting one that comes with a 2.5" (whether HDD or SSD) is that most laptops don't come with the cable and fixture for the 2.5" drive if they come with a M.2 drive. In that case, it's much easier to just slot in an M.2 drive than installing a 2.5" one (of course just opening the laptop may already void your warranty these days :/ )
In the markets of the developing world, SSD laptops are much rarer than HDD ones. I cannot swear for a fact, but I'm pretty sure most companies here still work with computers running on HDDs. When people look at the specs, all they'll see is that one laptop has 1 TB of storage and the other has 128-256 GB. Easy choice there: Moar storage!
It's a similar story with AMD vs Intel. One can hardly find any AMD processors here because all the "techies" still tell people that they run very hot and will quickly die out on them, etc. (that is if anyone bothers to ask...)

 

[dan_L]

Microsoft's Reportedly Trying to Kill HDD Boot Drives for Windows 11 PCs by 2023 : Read more

Given the way manufacturers like Acer and Dell rip off consumers with terribly slow HDDs that make their Windows 10 and Windows 11 computers incredibly slow, I think Microsoft's decision is prudent and consumer-friendly. I have a friend/client who bought an Acer Aspire TC-885 recently (on his own, relying solely on the salespeople at Best Buy - a big mistake) and it was so painfully slow that he wanted to junk it and buy another computer (I'm not claiming the guy was rational). Sequential writes were 163 MB/s and reads 151 -- which explained why the computer was so sluggish. I replaced the HDD with a 250 GB Samsung NVMe PCIe 3.0 SSD and the speed soared more than 20-fold: Sequential writes of 3674 MB/s and reads of 2683. I made the HDD into a "D" where his data is stored.

The manufacturer should have been ashamed of itself taking advantage of the typical computer buyer -- somebody who really knows nothing about computers (in contrast to the folk here who know an awful lot about them). The slightly higher price of including an SSD instead of HDD would not discourage sales -- as long as manufacturers advertise the much higher speeds the SSD provides.

So I applaud Microsoft's reported decision to require booting from an SSD. This will help protect consumers who are naive about computers from exploitation.

 

[Endre]

I think that going with an SSD instead of a HDD as the boot drive is a good move.

 

[Colif]

Given the way manufacturers like Acer and Dell rip off consumers with terribly slow HDDs that make their Windows 10 and Windows 11 computers incredibly slow, I think Microsoft's decision is prudent and consumer-friendly.

i agree there. Mums Dell has a hdd. start PC, walk away for at least 3 minutes to let it load. Compared to 20 seconds on an nvme, its not even close. everything slow on a hdd. I do intend to update it one day, but life keeps getting in the way.

Selling people things they don't need is how most businesses work.

Dell and HP have storage warehouses full of slow drives and old cases they need to dump on people before they can even approach ssd, and new case designs that don't require custom motherboards to use, even then they probably cheap out. They won't be amused if they have to use ssd, though I bet they only be 128gb ones. Surprised they never used one as a cache drive, its not like Intel don't have that tech lying around. can still use the old hdd then. They used this idea in laptops, wonder why not desktops.

 

[GregL65]

Drive manufacturers should bring back hybrid drives, but with much higher SSD capacity than they had before. That way your boot SSD and your high-capacity spinner are both in the same 2.5" drive.

8GB was typical for the SSD capacity of hybrid drives; now it should be more like 100GB, maybe 200GB. With a 2TB spinner.

 

[Eximo]

Drive manufacturers should bring back hybrid drives, but with much higher SSD capacity than they had before. That way your boot SSD and your high-capacity spinner are both in the same 2.5" drive.

8GB was typical for the SSD capacity of hybrid drives; now it should be more like 100GB, maybe 200GB. With a 2TB spinner.

SSHD were not very cost effective. Optane was a better idea, in general, that served the same purpose.

As has been mentioned, generally people don't need that much storage. 1TB and 2TB is common because those are some of the smaller drives still manufactured and larger numbers sell.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Drive manufacturers should bring back hybrid drives, but with much higher SSD capacity than they had before. That way your boot SSD and your high-capacity spinner are both in the same 2.5" drive.

8GB was typical for the SSD capacity of hybrid drives; now it should be more like 100GB, maybe 200GB. With a 2TB spinner.

There were other ones like WD Black2 Dual Drive that had a 120GB SSD & 1TB HDD. Apple also has their fusion drive which is like the WD drive. Problem is those drives would try to act like a tiering system and waste SSD writes.

 

[USAFRet]

Drive manufacturers should bring back hybrid drives, but with much higher SSD capacity than they had before. That way your boot SSD and your high-capacity spinner are both in the same 2.5" drive.

8GB was typical for the SSD capacity of hybrid drives; now it should be more like 100GB, maybe 200GB. With a 2TB spinner.

Not needed.
A 250GB SSD is just fine for a lot of people. My spouse, for instance.
No need for the extra "2TB".

 

[hotaru.hino]

If I get my butt around to it, I'll throw Windows 11 on a hard drive on my main PC and see just how bad it is.

 

[USAFRet]

If I get my butt around to it, I'll throw Windows 11 on a hard drive on my main PC and see just how bad it is.

What do you expect to be "bad"?

No better or worse than Win 10.
Or 8.1.
Or 7.
Better than 8.

Just a little different.

Personally, I use applications. Not the OS.

 

[hotaru.hino]

What do you expect to be "bad"?

Well that's what I want to find out. People keep throwing around "don't install Windows on a hard drive." Sometimes they claim it'll be slow to the point where it sounds like I could go and make a cup of pour-over coffee with time to spare. I mean sure I'll expect it to be slower, but is it going to be that bad?

Same thing like how people think Windows Vista is somehow a piece of crap even though I daily drove the thing while it was still relevant with almost no issues. And while I can't say the same with Windows Me, LGR did a video on that and it seems like Me wasn't that bad.

Obviously if I don't have a "bad time" I'm not going to advocate putting an OS on the HDD, but I'm not going to say how terrible of a time it'll be if you do it.

 

[kerberos_20]

And while I can't say the same with Windows Me, LGR did a video on that and it seems like Me wasn't that bad.

i preffered win 98 with some apps from Me, like defragmentation app was blazing fast compared to 95/98 version

 

[KyaraM]

Well that's what I want to find out. People keep throwing around "don't install Windows on a hard drive." Sometimes they claim it'll be slow to the point where it sounds like I could go and make a cup of pour-over coffee with time to spare. I mean sure I'll expect it to be slower, but is it going to be that bad?

Same thing like how people think Windows Vista is somehow a piece of crap even though I daily drove the thing while it was still relevant with almost no issues. And while I can't say the same with Windows Me, LGR did a video on that and it seems like Me wasn't that bad.

Obviously if I don't have a "bad time" I'm not going to advocate putting an OS on the HDD, but I'm not going to say how terrible of a time it'll be if you do it.

My workstation in the office takes 15 minutes to boot up and the OS was dumbly installed on the HDD instead of the SSD. Sure, not 100% comparable to a home PC since it has to go through several security checks etc, but then again it might be because I'm talking about the time between unlocking the drives via bitlocker and being able to type in my pin, and even just getting to bitlocker takes 3-5 minutes. None of the SSD laptops in the office take nearly that long even with the same security bs, so I'm fairly sure it's the HDD at fault here. As a result, this PC is almost never turned off... well, that, and workplace policy.

 

[nbartolo7]

I've strongly advocated against buying anything without an SSD for at least seven years, and at this point 512GB SSDs are cheap enough that no one should use a hard drive as their primary boot device. Power users will want 1TB or even 2TB, but I have a lot of less technically savvy friends and family who have 500GB or 1TB storage devices that only have 100GB or so of data on them. Even a 256GB SSD would be sufficient in such cases, though again I would much rather have 1TB.

Death to the HDD! Long live the SSD!

Choice will always be better than imposing decisions, no matter how well-intentioned and "good" those impositions may be. It always comes back to the old libertarian society vs authoritarian. Just like you can't and shouldn't be able to force someone to eat healthy.

 

[USAFRet]

Choice will always be better than imposing decisions, no matter how well-intentioned and "good" those impositions may be. It always comes back to the old libertarian society vs authoritarian. Just like you can't and shouldn't be able to force someone to eat healthy.

Just like requiring more than 2GB RAM
Or larger than 32GB drive space
Or some sort of TPM functionality
Or requiring some sort of internet connection to facilitate license activation
Or or or or....

Recommending/requiring an SSD could very easily be just a nod to performance.
If installed on an HDD, performance suffers. Resulting in users blaming Microsoft for crappy performance. When in reality, it is their hardware.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

Builds of Windows 10 after Version 1809 are extremely bloated and poor performing.

The advent of massive quantities of cheap memory has made for very lazy programmers over the years. It's lead to the attitude of "Code's a little bloated? No need to spend any more time optimizing it, just toss another gig of RAM in it and it'll be fine."

 

[kerberos_20]

The advent of massive quantities of cheap memory has made for very lazy programmers over the years. It's lead to the attitude of "Code's a little bloated? No need to spend any more time optimizing it, just toss another gig of RAM in it and it'll be fine."

i stll never got close to 32gig ram usage...theyre are free to bloat it even more

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Choice will always be better than imposing decisions, no matter how well-intentioned and "good" those impositions may be. It always comes back to the old libertarian society vs authoritarian. Just like you can't and shouldn't be able to force someone to eat healthy.

Sir, put down the cheeseburger and step away from the counter!

 

[Colif]

i stll never got close to 32gig ram usage...theyre are free to bloat it even more

i will just send the people who think using 3.6gb of ram when they have 64gb is too much, to you then

ssd at least moves the blame of why is it slow away from Microsoft a little bit.