|
LittleBob posted:Someone suggested using them for specific folders, so I might just use them for torrents or Steam games unless there's a better use.
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
LittleBob posted:Also crossposting: Set one of them up as a cache to your big mechanical secondary.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:... I have 8GB of RAM and an i5 running at 4.5Ghz, but I still noticed tons of pauses/stuttering/lack of responsiveness to the controls all the time when a game had to hit the HD for some sound file or effect it hadn't preloaded properly. ... Honestly, it sounds like either you're running something off a 4200 RPM laptop drive, or you're basing this off a hard drive with a ton of bad sectors that should have been retired already. Compared to SSDs, hard drives are slow, but they are not THAT slow.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Stolen from Shacknews:sanchez posted:Crucial M4 256GB SSD for $189.99 after $10 coupon. Free shipping.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Well, that sold out fast.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
So I just got a 128gb Crucial m4 SSD because how could I pass up a 52% off deal on it on amazon. Is there anything special I really really need to know about it or can I just hook it up and install windows on it like I did the other hard drive?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:So I just got a 128gb Crucial m4 SSD because how could I pass up a 52% off deal on it on amazon. Is there anything special I really really need to know about it or can I just hook it up and install windows on it like I did the other hard drive? You should enable AHCI in your BIOS before installing Windows, but other than that I don't think there's much unusual you need to do.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:So I just got a 128gb Crucial m4 SSD because how could I pass up a 52% off deal on it on amazon. Is there anything special I really really need to know about it or can I just hook it up and install windows on it like I did the other hard drive? Check the firmware revision (for example with Crystal Disk Info). If you're for some odd reason still on a revision lower than 0009, you will need to upgrade it sooner or later due to the 5000 hour bug (after roughly 5000 hours running, the drive will lock up and blue screen every hour). You should be ok though. Firmware 0009 fixed that and we're now on revision 000F. The firmware update is painless and pretty straightforward, files are available from crucial.com.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:And aside from that there are a lot of lovely C developers out there that make games that don't even know how much RAM your system has, much less utilize it properly, resulting in lots of games that keep freeing memory all over the place at the application level even when you've 6GB still free, and then it needs to go back to disk 30 seconds later. Software doesn't know or care how much RAM you have because it's not supposed to. That's the OS's problem. It will choose what files to cache in memory unless explicitly told not to (which games shouldn't, because that would be retarded, although that's no guarantee).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
My mother is a pretty heavy computer user (lots of browser tabs and word processing) and complains about it being unbearably slow. I've looked at it numerous times and nothing seems particularly out of the ordinary other than having a lot of things open all the time. I built it for her a couple years ago (quad core, 8 gigs ram) so it should be sufficient for her needs. I'm guessing the bottleneck is the 1 TB hard drive. I'm thinking about putting a 240gb Corsair m4 in there to speed things up. The problem is she requires a lot of storage space for docs and stuff. How can I use her old drive to store her "My Documents" folder, and use the SSD for OS / programs. It would be best if this was completely transparent to her. Is there a way to map these folders to another drive? She's running Windows 7. Thanks! Treytor fucked around with this message at 10:32 on May 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
Treytor posted:How can I use her old drive to store her "My Documents" folder, and use the SSD for OS / programs. It would be best if this was completely transparent to her. Is there a way to map these folders to another drive? She's running Windows 7.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
Shoulda known it was so easy. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
Newegg has a sale for the crucial m4 128gb today. I just bought mine on amazon 2 days ago for $124  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290707134441
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Treytor posted:I'm guessing the bottleneck is the 1 TB hard drive.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's a little silly to just throw a $200 SSD in the machine without even checking to see what the problem is. There's no reason a 7200rpm HDD that isn't failing should slow a machine down, so you're likely not addressing the issue. At best there might be a system issue causing excessive I/O load that an SSD could mask, but the system is still not going to perform like one that doesn't have the problem. You have checked her computer for viruses, spyware, maleware, etc., right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
You don't want to use 64-bit versions of Firefox, they're a lot slower than 32-bit builds because the JavaScript engine can only generate optimized native code in the 32-bit version. You shouldn't be getting anywhere near the limits of the amount of memory the browser can address unless you have a truly incredible number of tabs open. The Nightly (Minefield) and Aurora builds are faster and more responsive than the release builds, but that's only because they're newer and incorporate more recent features that haven't filtered down to the release builds yet. The current release build is Firefox 12, and it's pretty far along.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
I generally run with anywhere from one to three dozen tabs open at a given time for various reasons. Switching from the standard x32 to the x64 version of FF substantially improved its abilities to handle numerous large pages at once. The JS engine is a bit slower, yes, but in actual use that seems to have a pretty ignorable impact.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
I run a goddamned assload of tabs (we're talking hundreds here) in Firefox and I still don't get anywehre near the 32-bit memory addressing limit. If you run lots of tabs, the main thing you need to do with Firefox is set 'browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs' in about:config to 0. This will make Firefox load a tab into memory only when you click on it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Kairos posted:I run a goddamned assload of tabs (we're talking hundreds here) in Firefox Dare I ask why?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Alereon posted:You don't want to use 64-bit versions of Firefox, they're a lot slower than 32-bit builds because the JavaScript engine can only generate optimized native code in the 32-bit version. You shouldn't be getting anywhere near the limits of the amount of memory the browser can address unless you have a truly incredible number of tabs open. The Nightly (Minefield) and Aurora builds are faster and more responsive than the release builds, but that's only because they're newer and incorporate more recent features that haven't filtered down to the release builds yet. The current release build is Firefox 12, and it's pretty far along. I've been using Waterfox for the last couple months and I've had way less issues with it than with 32-bit. Then again, I usually do have a truly incredible number of tabs open.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Kairos posted:I run a goddamned assload of tabs (we're talking hundreds here) in Firefox and I still don't get anywehre near the 32-bit memory addressing limit. If you run lots of tabs, the main thing you need to do with Firefox is set 'browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs' in about :config to 0. This will make Firefox load a tab into memory only when you click on it. Firefox 14alpha (Nightly) now does this by default, loading only active tabs on restore or on focus, and it works fine. Also, I run Nightly with 11 windows and over 600 tabs, and event though it doesn't usually get over 1.4GB of memory consumed, the 64-bit version is markedly faster than the 32-bit. Anecdotal, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Kairos posted:I run a goddamned assload of tabs (we're talking hundreds here) in Firefox and I still don't get anywehre near the 32-bit memory addressing limit. If you run lots of tabs, the main thing you need to do with Firefox is set 'browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs' in about :config to 0. This will make Firefox load a tab into memory only when you click on it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
One funny problem with 64-bit Firefox is that when (not if) you get a memory leak, it can balloon out of control. At one point, Firefox was using 9 gigs of memory.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
The gently caress are you guys doing with a couple hundred tabs open?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
fookolt posted:One funny problem with 64-bit Firefox is that when (not if) you get a memory leak, it can balloon out of control. 14 helps there, closing a tab now kills the DOM for that tab, regardless of any open handles. Breaks some extensions, but stops most memory leaks dead. Extension authors can fix their stuff to deal with it, I'm fine with this change. Bob Morales posted:The gently caress are you guys doing with a couple hundred tabs open? Laziness and a bunch of server/site monitoring pages. I don't care about 'my rams' so I'm fine with firefox using it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:The gently caress are you guys doing with a couple hundred tabs open? I am also wondering this exact question and what monitor can handle showing that many in rows while still seeing the tab title?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
foundtomorrow posted:I am also wondering this exact question and what monitor can handle showing that many in rows while still seeing the tab title? 30" and 20" monitors + tab groups + quick tab search + 24GB of memory + weeks of uptime + laziness is how I end up in this position. I basically never close programs these days unless they monopolize a specific resource (digital audio/video workstations or gaming).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
foundtomorrow posted:I am also wondering this exact question and what monitor can handle showing that many in rows while still seeing the tab title? Personally, I don't get to hundreds, but I have 20-30 open at any point in time. A bunch are for different email/other accounts, a few for forums, a bunch for network and machine monitoring, and then a few for whatever else I'm loving around with right at the moment. FF x64 and 8GB of RAM makes it pretty much a non-issue keeping that many open. Three monitors also help, since I can just dedicate one entirely to FF and not feel bad about it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:The gently caress are you guys doing with a couple hundred tabs open? I have 132 open all the time, because I'm too lazy to close them and use open tabs as reminders for me to do stuff. It works pretty well on a portrait monitor, actually (4 rows of tabs). 16GB of RAM, only 4GB free with an average amount of work open at any given time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
movax posted:I have 132 open all the time, because I'm too lazy to close them and use open tabs as reminders for me to do stuff. It works pretty well on a portrait monitor, actually (4 rows of tabs). RAM is a lot like hard drive space: it won't stay unused for long. But unlike hard drive space, that's actually a good thing!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vertical-tabs/ The tab addict's godsend. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Tree style tabs is the gateway drug.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
The OP mentions that a SSD doesn't affect video encoding - what about recording (e.g. recording gameplay footage with fraps)? The recording itself would be dependent on the CPU, but it still has to write it to disk. Or is it a non-issue?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Dreggon posted:The OP mentions that a SSD doesn't affect video encoding - what about recording (e.g. recording gameplay footage with fraps)? The recording itself would be dependent on the CPU, but it still has to write it to disk. Or is it a non-issue? It's normally not going to make a huge effect on operations where you're not limited by the disk, but instead by the CPU. It might be a tad faster with a faster disk but that's it. But, you could see a gain if you were doing other disk-intensive stuff in the background - platter drives turn to molasses when you have more than one program using the disk at one time
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
fookolt posted:RAM is a lot like hard drive space: it won't stay unused for long. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Dreggon posted:The OP mentions that a SSD doesn't affect video encoding - what about recording (e.g. recording gameplay footage with fraps)? The recording itself would be dependent on the CPU, but it still has to write it to disk. Or is it a non-issue? It seems like it would help if you are using something like Dxtory. Also,  at that CDM screenshot above.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
I just bought a Crucial M4 128GB yesterday and was wondering what is the best way to transfer everything that is on my current HD to this? Would cloning my HD and then putting it on the SSD be my best bet? Or should I really reinstall everything on the SSD? Are there any good begginer walk throughs for the SSD? I noticed people mentioned enabling AHCI in the bios before installing windows, what if I'm going to have a regular HD in it as well? And should I enable that before I move the cloned version of windows over?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
fyallm posted:I just bought a Crucial M4 128GB yesterday and was wondering what is the best way to transfer everything that is on my current HD to this? Would cloning my HD and then putting it on the SSD be my best bet? Or should I really reinstall everything on the SSD? Are there any good begginer walk throughs for the SSD? I noticed people mentioned enabling AHCI in the bios before installing windows, what if I'm going to have a regular HD in it as well? And should I enable that before I move the cloned version of windows over? If you really have less than 120GB of stuff on your C: drive, I salute your dedication to partitioning and keeping stuff on other drives. You could certainly use a disk cloning tool like Acronis (paid) or Clonezilla (free) to do a complete transfer of stuff to the drive. You should have your SATA controller put to AHCI no matter what, as it enables some hard drive features. You should be able to enable AHCI whenever the heck you feel like, as I'm pretty sure Windows 7 deals with it well. AHCI isn't an SSD thing, but rather a SATA hard drive thing. The only reason it's not always enabled is some legacy OS or hardware support. I think the vast majority of people moving to an SSD main drive are stuck doing a reinstall, as my C: drive is a mostly full 2TB disk. Windows 7 has TRIM support and should natively know not to defrag the SSD, so just treat it like a normal hard drive.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
DrDork posted:You have checked her computer for viruses, spyware, maleware, etc., right? She uses Chrome. Yes I have checked for viruses and all that, and she is just fine. She's going out of town this weekend and is leaving it with me so I will investigate further as to what the real problem might be. She never turns it off and leaves things open all the time. It behaves like there is a memory leak somewhere, but I was never able to find specifically what it was that was causing the slowdown. I think I do remember a lot of thrashing though which is what made me think of an SSD in the first place. Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
fyallm posted:Would cloning my HD and then putting it on the SSD be my best bet? I would go with a nice clean Windows 7 installation, getting a new hard drive is the perfect time to start fresh.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 17:11
|
|