Replacing hard disk by SSD?

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.
It has become slow, with a lot of hard disk activity after starting up.
I already tried to find what keeps the hard disk busy, but never found
something useful.
I placed an image back of the system, from a year ago, but it still
feels slow and not snappy. I am seriously considering installing Windows
from fresh.
Would it make sense to replace the hard disk with a SSD one?

Whatever is keeping your hard disk busy will also be keeping the SSD
busy if you make the switch. You're better off saving your money
until you can diagnose and fix the root cause of the problem.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-08 11:54:44 UTC

Post by Stan Brown

Whatever is keeping your hard disk busy will also be keeping the SSD
busy if you make the switch. You're better off saving your money
until you can diagnose and fix the root cause of the problem.

I want to install a fresh copy of Windows anyway, so this problem which
keeps the disk buzy will then be over. I couldn't find another way to
solve it. But then I asked myself, would it make sense to replace the
disk with a ssd, would it speed up the laptop conciderously?

Ken1943

2015-12-08 12:00:13 UTC

Post by Stan Brown

Whatever is keeping your hard disk busy will also be keeping the SSD
busy if you make the switch. You're better off saving your money
until you can diagnose and fix the root cause of the problem.

A BIG YES. Do some searching about if someone else has already done
it. It could not be a plug-an-play thing.

Ken1943

Paul

2015-12-08 18:05:41 UTC

Post by Stan Brown

Whatever is keeping your hard disk busy will also be keeping the SSD
busy if you make the switch. You're better off saving your money
until you can diagnose and fix the root cause of the problem.

You do realize, that even with a clean install of Windows 7,
the Windows Update supersede tree is huge, and the CPU
stays in a loop for 40 minutes or so. You will find a
"clean" Win7 SP1 to be "obnoxious" due to the state
of the Windows Update manifest. As soon as the machine
starts working on it, the machine will be dragged to
its knees. I know, because when I purchased Win7 several
months ago, and tried to install/update it, it was slow as
molasses. If I could hop into a time machine and go back
several years, Windows Update would have fewer updates
waiting, and the bug would not be triggered.

Use your Task Manager, note that a SVCHOST is railed,
isolate wuauserv, and prove it is the one railing the CPU.
Once wuauserv is the only service inside a single (busy)
SVCHOST, you know that service is causing the issue.
This doesn't solve the problem - it just makes it easier
to prove the machine is slow, because of Windows Update.

# In a "Run As Administrator" cmd.exe window, type...

sc config wuauserv type= own

On single core Win7 machines, this will be a real issue,
as there is only one CPU core, and Windows Update basically
takes over the computer.

Try installing one like this, after Win7 SP1 is clean
installed, and see if startup is less stressful. While
Microsoft has much telemetry and GWX type stuff, that's
only dangerous if all the component parts are present.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3112343

You also have the option of using the bootvis-like programs.
Windows Performance Toolkit, and do a startup trace.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=%3Cmtolu2%24cmk%241%40dont-email.me%3E

I wish these tools, had as an objective, to have a "button"
to produce some of the same graphs as BootVis. Something
that an ordinary user could use *immediately* to see
what is wrong. Rather than some generic tool, where
you have to figure out all the interface elements on the
tool, to even get started. It took me quite a while to
find out where some of the graphs were hiding in some
of this stuff.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/analyze-windows-7-performance-with-microsoft-windows-performance-toolkit/

Paul

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-11 08:28:39 UTC

On 08/12/2015 19:05, Paul wrote:

<cut>

Post by Paul
You do realize, that even with a clean install of Windows 7,
the Windows Update supersede tree is huge, and the CPU
stays in a loop for 40 minutes or so.

Yes, I know this is a pain in the ass.

Post by Paul
You will find a
"clean" Win7 SP1 to be "obnoxious" due to the state
of the Windows Update manifest.

Obsolutely

Post by Paul
As soon as the machine
starts working on it, the machine will be dragged to
its knees. I know, because when I purchased Win7 several
months ago, and tried to install/update it, it was slow as
molasses. If I could hop into a time machine and go back
several years, Windows Update would have fewer updates
waiting, and the bug would not be triggered.

I know the Windows update process on a fresh copy of W7 is horrible and
takes a hell of a lot of time.
But I have time. I use my laptop only when giving courses or on holiday
to check mail and internet. So - I'm fine if it takes 2 days to update.

Post by Paul
Use your Task Manager, note that a SVCHOST is railed,

What do mean by "SVCHOST is railed"?

Post by Paul
isolate wuauserv, and prove it is the one railing the CPU.
Once wuauserv is the only service inside a single (busy)
SVCHOST, you know that service is causing the issue.
This doesn't solve the problem - it just makes it easier
to prove the machine is slow, because of Windows Update.
# In a "Run As Administrator" cmd.exe window, type...
sc config wuauserv type= own
On single core Win7 machines, this will be a real issue,
as there is only one CPU core, and Windows Update basically
takes over the computer.

I have tried to isolate the culprit.
I have posted the problem of my laptop being so slow in this ng a while
ago, and there were quite a few good hints, under which one of you. I
have used Procmon, and a few other tricks which I can't recall as they
were new to me, but I have never been able to find the cause.
That's whi I decided to install a fresh copy of W7 and take all the
hassle for granted.

Post by Paul
Try installing one like this, after Win7 SP1 is clean
installed, and see if startup is less stressful. While
Microsoft has much telemetry and GWX type stuff, that's
only dangerous if all the component parts are present.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3112343
You also have the option of using the bootvis-like programs.
Windows Performance Toolkit, and do a startup trace.

I have tried this before, but never found something useful.
I think this is what you have recommended to me in my previous post.

Post by Paul
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=%3Cmtolu2%24cmk%241%40dont-email.me%3E

Yes, this was the toolkit I have worked with.
But I was unsuccesful.

Post by Paul
I wish these tools, had as an objective, to have a "button"
to produce some of the same graphs as BootVis. Something
that an ordinary user could use *immediately* to see
what is wrong. Rather than some generic tool, where
you have to figure out all the interface elements on the
tool, to even get started. It took me quite a while to
find out where some of the graphs were hiding in some
of this stuff.
https://www.raymond.cc/blog/analyze-windows-7-performance-with-microsoft-windows-performance-toolkit/

This is interesting. I worked with this SDK before but this was never
successful. Maybe this article should have been usefull then.
I will try this in case I may run into the same problem again.

Fokke

Mayayana

2015-12-08 14:44:14 UTC

I got an SSD recently. It's certainly faster, but it's
mainly noticeable with things that are demanding. XP
boot went from maybe 30 seconds to 15 seconds.
Libre Office loads in a tolerable amount of time. (Though
it's still ridiculous, taking 2-4 seconds with the splash
screen up.)

For normal use it was already pretty much instant.
You can't get faster than that. In other words, using
software that's already open, opening folders, copying
files... most of that is virtually instant. If it was very
disk intensive before it will be quicker now: Moving
large amounts of data or using swap doing something
like editing very large images. Otherwise it won't be
very noticeable.

On the other hand, SSDs are coming down. I think
I paid about $65 for a 260 GB Samsung 850. So
far it seems fine. I would have paid similar for a
normal 1-2 TB hard disk. But I don't need 1-2 TB,
so for me the cost is about the same.

Whether or not you go for the SSD, I'd look into
other details. Win7 is a pig, but it shouldn't have to be
slow. Running processes, Windows Update, unnecessary
services, AV, software checking for updates -- all of
those things can slow down Windows. I'm not sure about
Win7, but in earlier versions IE could also slow things
down. Both add-ons and and a large cache can have an
effect, because IE is tied to Explorer.

More things than ever will load at startup if you
let them. For instance, I have an ATI "Catalyst
Control Center" for display. It works OK, but it's
written in .Net and is amazingly slow. I don't adjust
the display very often, so there was no reason for
that to be loading at startup. But left alone, a lot
of things like that will load, just to make them seem
fast on the occasions when you use them. (Ditto
with MS Office, Libre Office, Firefox, some hardware
UI applets... All bloated software that can be set to
run at startup to make it look snappy.)

So... Avoid using IE at all. Uninstall any junk like iTunes
or printer updaters that might have snuck in. Make
sure any shell extensions are things that you really
want. Use Autoruns to make sure nothing is running that
doesn't need to. Disable all unnecessary services. Run
Filemon or Procmon (and maybe also ProcExplorer) to
see what's going on at boot. If you feel you must have
AV then look at the settings to see if you can't cut out
some redundant scanning. (If you have one or more malware
hunters scanning every file you open then you can't
avoid at least some slowdown.)

You probably know all that, but it's worth listing for
anyone who doesn't.

Art Todesco

2015-12-08 16:52:32 UTC

Post by Mayayana
I got an SSD recently. It's certainly faster, but it's
mainly noticeable with things that are demanding. XP
boot went from maybe 30 seconds to 15 seconds.
Libre Office loads in a tolerable amount of time. (Though
it's still ridiculous, taking 2-4 seconds with the splash
screen up.)
For normal use it was already pretty much instant.
You can't get faster than that. In other words, using
software that's already open, opening folders, copying
files... most of that is virtually instant. If it was very
disk intensive before it will be quicker now: Moving
large amounts of data or using swap doing something
like editing very large images. Otherwise it won't be
very noticeable.
On the other hand, SSDs are coming down. I think
I paid about $65 for a 260 GB Samsung 850. So
far it seems fine. I would have paid similar for a
normal 1-2 TB hard disk. But I don't need 1-2 TB,
so for me the cost is about the same.
Whether or not you go for the SSD, I'd look into
other details. Win7 is a pig, but it shouldn't have to be
slow. Running processes, Windows Update, unnecessary
services, AV, software checking for updates -- all of
those things can slow down Windows. I'm not sure about
Win7, but in earlier versions IE could also slow things
down. Both add-ons and and a large cache can have an
effect, because IE is tied to Explorer.
More things than ever will load at startup if you
let them. For instance, I have an ATI "Catalyst
Control Center" for display. It works OK, but it's
written in .Net and is amazingly slow. I don't adjust
the display very often, so there was no reason for
that to be loading at startup. But left alone, a lot
of things like that will load, just to make them seem
fast on the occasions when you use them. (Ditto
with MS Office, Libre Office, Firefox, some hardware
UI applets... All bloated software that can be set to
run at startup to make it look snappy.)
So... Avoid using IE at all. Uninstall any junk like iTunes
or printer updaters that might have snuck in. Make
sure any shell extensions are things that you really
want. Use Autoruns to make sure nothing is running that
doesn't need to. Disable all unnecessary services. Run
Filemon or Procmon (and maybe also ProcExplorer) to
see what's going on at boot. If you feel you must have
AV then look at the settings to see if you can't cut out
some redundant scanning. (If you have one or more malware
hunters scanning every file you open then you can't
avoid at least some slowdown.)
You probably know all that, but it's worth listing for
anyone who doesn't.

+1
I put an SSD into my main computer and it now boots in 30 seconds;
previously well over a minute. I also recommend the reinstall. That, IMO
usually helps even without the SSD. I should put an SSD into my Dell,
I'll call it, mini-laptop. It's only got a 300G spinning HD and is more
than adequate for the use I give it. When I see an SSD about that size,
and cheap, I'll jump on it.

2015-12-08 18:57:11 UTC

Read my past Old Guy post on SSD.

Speed improvement totally depends on the current PC chipset.
Worst case you get some power saving and some speed improvement.
Best case you get wow performance.

SSD from Samsung come in two flavors.
The best one has a 10 year warrantee; that alone was significant enough
for me to change out most of my PCs.

Mike Tomlinson

2015-12-09 00:04:01 UTC

Post by OG
The best one has a 10 year warrantee; that alone was significant enough
for me to change out most of my PCs.

Stupid reasoning, because you won't keep them for anything like 10
years.

--
(\_/) Tyson Fury: #homophobe #bigot #throwback #missinglink
(='.'=) #neanderthal #misogynist #allroundnastycunt
(")_(")

2015-12-09 19:24:53 UTC

My two favorite laptops where I installed SSD are nearly 10 years old
and are running like champs.

And if I decide to replace the laptop I can take the SSD and put in a
new laptop.

You are the one who is stupid.

Mike Tomlinson

2015-12-09 00:02:21 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.

Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

--
(\_/) Tyson Fury: #homophobe #bigot #throwback #missinglink
(='.'=) #neanderthal #misogynist #allroundnastycunt
(")_(")

Mayayana

2015-12-09 02:37:00 UTC

| >We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.
|
| How much memory? "64b" is not correct.
|

It refers to 64-bit, not 64 units of RAM.

| >Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?
|
| Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.

That could affect general speed with things
like image editing -- anything that might use
the swap file. But it has nothing to do with
speed of disk access.

| If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
| because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
| SSD.
|

Actually, it'd probably help more in that case,
because the SSD will do it faster. But there's
no reason to think he's low on RAM. He knows
enough to deal with that.

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-11 08:40:18 UTC

Post by Mayayana
| >We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.
|
| How much memory? "64b" is not correct.
|
It refers to 64-bit, not 64 units of RAM.
| >Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?
|
| Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
That could affect general speed with things
like image editing -- anything that might use
the swap file. But it has nothing to do with
speed of disk access.
| If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
| because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
| SSD.
|
Actually, it'd probably help more in that case,
because the SSD will do it faster. But there's
no reason to think he's low on RAM. He knows
enough to deal with that.

Yes, he does.
There's 4 GB of RAM. It's not much but enough for this laptop.

Fokke

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-11 08:38:59 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

64b stands for 64 bits.
It has 4 GB of memory.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.
Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.

But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.

Fokke

Mike Tomlinson

2015-12-11 09:01:12 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
64b stands for 64 bits.

No shit. :)

Post by Fokke Nauta
It has 4 GB of memory.

That's plenty.

Post by Fokke Nauta
"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.

We used to buy them for our department - a couple of dozen a year.
Hateful machines. Kept failing, Sony warranty service was crap and out
of warranty spare parts either not available, or hideously expensive and
when they eventually showed up were obviously used.

Never again.

You know Sony got out of the PC/laptop market a couple years ago? They
were losing money hand over fist.

Post by Fokke Nauta
But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.

As I said earlier, putting the money towards a replacement laptop will
be a better idea. You can get a lot of machine for very little money
these days.

Your Sony is also 7 years old. Its design life will have been 3 years,
so you've had more than your money's worth out of it.

--
(\_/) Tyson Fury: #homophobe #bigot #throwback #missinglink
(='.'=) #neanderthal #misogynist #redneck #dickhead
(")_(")

Paul

2015-12-11 09:22:44 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

64b stands for 64 bits.
It has 4 GB of memory.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.
Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.
But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.
Fokke

Even if the SATA interface was SATA II, you'd get 220MB/sec or so,
which would still be worthwhile.

What kind of CPU does it have ?

Paul

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-11 15:24:27 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

64b stands for 64 bits.
It has 4 GB of memory.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.
Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.
But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.
Fokke

Even if the SATA interface was SATA II, you'd get 220MB/sec or so,
which would still be worthwhile.
What kind of CPU does it have ?

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile P7450 2133 MHz
CPU Clock: 2127.5 MHz (6.0 x 354.6 MHz QDR)

Fokke

Paul

2015-12-11 21:16:50 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

64b stands for 64 bits.
It has 4 GB of memory.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.
Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.
But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.
Fokke

Even if the SATA interface was SATA II, you'd get 220MB/sec or so,
which would still be worthwhile.
What kind of CPU does it have ?

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile P7450 2133 MHz
CPU Clock: 2127.5 MHz (6.0 x 354.6 MHz QDR)
Fokke

So it's worth keeping.

If it had only a single core, I'd dispose of it :-)

Paul

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-13 08:50:39 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.

How much memory? "64b" is not correct.

64b stands for 64 bits.
It has 4 GB of memory.

Post by Fokke Nauta
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?

Possibly, but we need to know exactly how much memory you have first.
If you are low on memory, as another poster mentioned, an SSD won't help
because you're just transferring the disk thrashing from hard drive to
SSD.
Also bear in mind it's a 7 year old laptop of not a very reliable make.
You may be better off putting your money towards a replacement.

"not a very reliable make" you wrote? I thought this is quite a good
make. We had never any problem with it. Hardware wize.
But it seems that this laptop won't match the speed of a SSD. Its SATA
port is too slow. So it doesn't balance the price of a 500 GB SSD.
Fokke

Even if the SATA interface was SATA II, you'd get 220MB/sec or so,
which would still be worthwhile.
What kind of CPU does it have ?

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile P7450 2133 MHz
CPU Clock: 2127.5 MHz (6.0 x 354.6 MHz QDR)
Fokke

So it's worth keeping.
If it had only a single core, I'd dispose of it :-)
Paul

It's not the fastest laptop around but it works for me!

The process of updating took 2 days.
Didn't bother me, I left the machine powered on and let it do its thing.

Fokke

Ashton Crusher

2015-12-09 00:56:00 UTC

Post by Fokke Nauta
Hi all,
We have a laptop, VAIO, bought in 2009. Running W7, 64b.
It has become slow, with a lot of hard disk activity after starting up.
I already tried to find what keeps the hard disk busy, but never found
something useful.
I placed an image back of the system, from a year ago, but it still
feels slow and not snappy. I am seriously considering installing Windows
from fresh.
Would it make sense to replace the hard disk with a SSD one?
I ran a benchmark with HDTune on the current hard disk. You can see the
result on http://www.solfon.nl/temp/HDTune.jpg
The current hard disk seems 100% healthy, according to Hard disk
Sentinal. But perhaps a SSD is much faster. What do you think?
Fokke

I would expect you would see a significant improvement in speed with
an SSD. Most likely your laptop's current HD is designed more for low
power consumption then blazing performance. Many people say putting
an SSD in their laptop was like getting a new faster machine. That
was my experience.

AIOE

2015-12-09 19:26:54 UTC

Unless you are a chipset expert you will not know how the SSD will
perform until installed.

Ashton Crusher

2015-12-09 22:33:28 UTC

Post by AIOE
Unless you are a chipset expert you will not know how the SSD will
perform until installed.

Why go halfway - take it all the way....- whether you are a chipset
expert or not you will not know how the SSD will perform until
installed. So lets distill it down to it's essence - you will not know
how an SSD will perform until it's installed. Therefore, when someone
asks what they might expect the only proper answer is "you will not
know how an SSD will perform until it's installed". I'm sure that's
the kind of incisive and helpful advice people come here looking for.

Paul

2015-12-10 04:02:42 UTC

Post by Ashton Crusher

Post by AIOE
Unless you are a chipset expert you will not know how the SSD will
perform until installed.

The existing drive has 19ms seek. The SSD
on SATA, will be 0.02ms to 0.1ms seek. Even if
for some reason, the design was compromised on
sequential transfer, the SATA drive is still going
to feel damn fast. In fact, in many cases, the
file system code is a bottleneck, and limits
the benefits of SSDs. So when I see fanbois
drooling over NVMe connected designs, it's really
all for nothing, as Windows cannot scan a file
system faster than a certain event rate.
(There are caps somewhere, that need tuning.)

And the sequential performance, can be all over
the place, due to the way flash drives are designed.
I was quite disappointed with the behavior I saw
in mine, and returned it for a refund the next day.
Not all of them are winners. I was able to construct
a test case, to get the full 500MB/sec+ performance
level (so the advertising material did not tell a lie).
But on "real" usage case situations (even with
64K cluster setting for the NTFS file system), I was
only getting 130MB/sec. And I can get that from
a hard drive thanks. So I returned that SSD for
some other customer to "enjoy". I didn't set out
to benchmark the device, but when it disappointed
me immediately when I installed it, I was forced
to benchmark and characterize it. I made a nice
color printout for the computer store staff, so
they could see what I was talking about.

Paul

Fokke Nauta

2015-12-11 09:00:09 UTC