Faster hard drive for boot/startup?

vbimport

#1

I’m getting tired waiting 2+ minutes whenever I boot my PC. With high utilities bill these days I have to turn off my pc whenever not in use. Everytime I press the power button, there goes 2 minutes again. Eventhough I did Windows XP clean install and reinstall all my softwares from scratch (plus all updates) I still get 120 seconds startup time. I did notice when clean install XP alone, without any software, it takes 10-15 seconds to boot but after installing all softwares (40+ softwares and tools) it takes 120+ seconds to boot. Unfortunately I need those 40+ softwares installed for my work.

I’m using Seagate SataII 500GB for OS (C: drive) and I’m sure that the jumper is set to SATAII and my mobo supports SATAII. Is there a way to speed up the OS startup? I use CCleaner to cleanup some unused startup registries.

I know there are Raptor and Velociraptor but I would like members opinions first before I pull the trigger with these expensive harddrives, if indeed can speed up startup (and software loading) much better than my Seagate 500GB SATAII. If the only solution is getting a faster harddrive, what do you recommend?


#2

I say either remove the startup services for all the software you installed and just open them as you need them or leave it how it is and turn it on and go get a cup of coffee or something while you wait, raptors are faster than regular drives, but not by a huge margin and not enough to justify the cost IMO.

a defrag may help a little, also instead of turning it off you could hibernate it (or sleep if you don’t plan on being gone long)


#3

Use hibernation instead of shutdown. :iagree:

You may have to enable hibernation first in your control panel power options.


#4

Time for SSD?


#5

I tried standby for some time. I like it except that my usb devices (mouse and keyboard) hang during the “wake up”. But not all the time. The only thing I don’t like, many times the computer wakesup by itself??? I remember once I accidentally touched the mouse and it turns on from standby. Many times I go out for few hours and when I’m back found that the computers are “on”?? USB are sensitive? :smiley:

SSD, new for me. Searched and is more expensive than raptors. I don’t mind the price if the performance is good or better. No one recommends raptor here?


#6

[quote=helsenvan;2121322]I tried standby for some time. […] Many times I go out for few hours and when I’m back found that the computers are “on”?? [/quote] Hibernate is different from standby - the computer is actually turned off with the contents of memory stored in a file on the harddrive which is then restored to memory again when the computer is turned back on.

A computer will not wake itself up accidentally from hibernate.


#7

I tried hibernation but the processing time is more than startup+shutdown. :confused: :smiley: (± 4 mins)

Oh in my pc once hibernate when I click mouse it woke up! :confused:


#8

Try a Western Digital Raptor, either the standard Raptor’s or VelicoRaptor’s. Only difference is capacity that I know of.

Sounds like it was in Sleep mode, not hibernation.


#9

Prolonged startups caould be attributed to many possibilites.

Among the most common are too many startup items and insufficent memory.

The only truly necessary startup application on most systems is antivirus or similar protection.

I’ve seen too many systems with insufficent memory which causes the Operating system to load files to the hard drive during startup instead of to the memory. This results in excessive wait before the Desktop is functional on boot up.

Another possibility could be incomplete Windows installation. Please ensure that all hardware and motherboard related drivers are properly installed.


#10

Compared to 7200RPM harddrives, your windows startup/shutdown time will be faster in a 10,000RPM Raptor or Velociraptor due to low seek times.

My experience, you will get even faster windows startup/shutdown and application loading time with a high end SSD Single Level Cell (SLC). :wink:


#11

[quote=zevia;2121482]Compared to 7200RPM harddrives, your windows startup/shutdown time will be faster in a 10,000RPM Raptor or Velociraptor due to low seek times.

My experience, you will get even faster windows startup/shutdown and application loading time with a high end SSD Single Level Cell (SLC). ;)[/quote]Raptor faster than normal hard drives, got it.

But SSD? Link, prove? Reading two reviews, one from anandtech: the 150GB Raptor is faster than the 16GB SSD on windows startup by a wide margin (24 secs vs 49 secs). Another review at geeks.com the guy said his Samsung 64gb SSD cuts windows startup time in half compare to his 100GB Hitachi 7200RPM “laptop harddisk”.


#12

Bump and Sorry I didn’t mean to push you… :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=helsenvan;2121495]But SSD? Link, prove? Reading two reviews, one from anandtech: the 150GB Raptor is faster than the 16GB SSD on windows startup by a wide margin (24 secs vs 49 secs). [/quote]There will be performance differences between SLC and MLC’s SSD. The Multi-Level Cell (MLC) is design toward consumer grade and high end Single Level Cell (SLC) for industrial/enterprise grade so performance and pricewise they are different. I think the one in anandtech is MLC.


#14

Nah that’s okay. I’m finalizing a review for a single-level cell (SLC) SSD from Ridata (here). It’s going to be published soon but here are some “sneak peek” for you addressing windows startup and application loading, compared to a 7200RPM Seagate and a Raptor.

[B]PCMark05 XP Startup[/B]:

[B]PCMark05 Application Loading[/B]:

Now this is a benchmark of Windows XP SP3 startup time. The “full” means that it’s more than a clean install XP but with 60+ applications installed in the system and 70+ desktop icon. Note that a regular 7200RPM Seagate takes almost 1 min 44 sec to boot up, similar to OP situation.

Let me know if you want to see more (or just wait for the review). :wink:




#15

Wow, I always knew XP was a slug, I have win2000 installs (that have had 100’s of app installs) that are 3+ years old that start in 28~30 seconds, and defrag page and registry while doing so !

The installs I have on raptors do start faster, but its just a few seconds over 7200 IDE, everything I have read about SSD says its a waste to run the OS from them, yep quicker start times nothing else,
…so once a month I save a few seconds ? call it a minute over my 8 main setups, for how much £5000. I have a pair 15,000 74 GB scsi’s and could get another 48 for that price plus £300 for the backplane and SAS.

…and using them for page files kills SLC in months for no real human viable difference, but bench numbers do ‘look’ better.
SLC is the lessor of MLC, not as fast and dont last as long.

Give it 3+ years and the home user might get something that they can feel is faster without having to keep checking bench numbers to remind them, but will get them 25x the space in HDD for what 10% the price ?


#16

[quote=Lenny_Nero;2123174]SLC is the lessor of MLC, not as fast and dont last as long.[/quote] It’s the other way around: SLC is faster, lasts longer (more write cycles) and is more expensive than MLC.


#17

Do you understand the acronym ?
Single Level has one ‘surface’ or 1 bit that has to do all of the read write
Multi Level has …multi levels that work for the same surface/2 bits.

MLC has less such cycles per physical block, but many more blocks, so the 10,000 to 100,00 values often equate because MLC can do more work/spread the load, but as a 1 to 1 cell, yes SLC is the greater.

Then you get into NOR vs NAND. NOR faster at lower density, but NAND is starting to catch up …but as I will keep saying for a few years yet, unless you have money to burn I see no point at all.


#18

Lenny_Nero, you’re arguing on a very subjective user preference. It is true that Raptor or SSD boots OS only few seconds faster than 7200RPM drive (in my case more than a minute faster) and thus some will argue that it’s not worth the $200 difference for Raptor or $700 difference for SSD.

This is also true for other subjects as well. The popular one in this site is DVD vs Blu-ray for instance. People are perfectly fine with their $60 DVD upconverter but there are people who is willing to spend few thousands more to get hidef although both will view the same action, same dialog and happy ending. :wink: I can say more example but I hope you get the idea that you can’t just ignore some small percentage of techie enthusiast.

As for your technical arguments that MLC is faster and last longer than SLC, it contradicts my understanding reading from some articles. If you check Ridata website, “their” MLC products (click here) are rated MTBF up to 1,000,000 and P/E (program/erase or write/erase) up to 1,000,000 times, meanwhile “their” SLC products (click here) are rated with MTBF up to 4,000,000 hrs and P/E up to 2,000,000 times.

Another document that I read (click here: Samsung_SLC_NAND_Flash_Advantage.pdf) stated the advantage of SLC over MLC:

[B]SLC NAND Flash Uses Less Energy[/B]
With only two states and one bit of data stored, SLC NAND Flash’s Control Logic is able to conserve energy when managing the electrical charge during operations. [B]This is why during the program operation SLC NAND Flash is faster than MLC NAND Flash[/B]. Since MLC NAND Flash has four states, and two bits of data stored, it must expend more energy to manage the electrical charge during operations. Applying higher voltage to program MLC NAND Flash degrades its memory cell characteristics. And with smaller margins, the chances of an incorrect reading are higher. Plus, due to leakage and other effects, the logic level of the cell may change. MLC NAND Flash must compensate with enhanced EDC (Error Detection and correction).

[B]The SLC NAND Flash Performance Advantage[/B]
The Write Data Rate of SLC is three to six times faster that of MLC, as shown [please look at the table/chart in the doc]


#19

As for your technical arguments that MLC is faster and last longer than SLC

Seems I had got it the wrong way round :o as this was based on my dads company getting SSD for database use quite some time back (in the SSD/tech world time scale, 12~18 months) and the use of custom built units that had a much greater amount of MLC surfaces if I understand them correctly.
Having done some reading up on them in the last few days, not having done so before as I saw no real reason for their use for me, but, that said, I have been shocked at the drop in price, and step up in speed.

The OCZ Core Series units (Samsung) with 32 GB for just £130’ish (slower speed V1) but the V2 seems to be the things I could be interested in but, I still dont think that SSD is ready for the desktop just yet, laptops I could understand, that said, it seems that the lower power usage, longer battery life that has been touted at almost every turn might not such the big deal with real world numbers within 1~2% of HDD’s.