Is an SSD worth the money for a casual user?

[DanceswithUnix]

If you use Steam for game playing, then I think it makes a huge difference to the startup integrity/update needed checks that Steam seems to do. I used to find that would take ages, and was specially annoying if Steam was marked to autostart as it hurt the machine's boot time whether I wanted to play a Steam game or not. Now that certainly works if you have a big enough SSD to hold your games. An SSD boot drive and the games on spinning brown stuff I have no idea, it might be that OS stuff can load in parallel to Steam hashing all its files.

Of course those people that would rather chew their own leg off than run Steam can point and laugh here

[Phage]

My wife is as non tech as it gets. She doesn't want to wait for her machine to boot or do anything. She now refuses to use only of the HDD machines...

[Spreadie]

My PC cold boots to desktop in ~ 15 seconds, and it's usable straight away. No delays waiting for the PC finish retrieving and loading background services from the HDD.

My first SSD, back in 2009, blew me away - I remember running windows update and a virus scan at the same time and then launching MS Word in a split second - no waiting, no churning and chuntering. Just there, immediately usable. They've gotten a lot faster since then, although I doubt you'd notice the difference in speed between different generations outside of benchmark software results.

Yes, they are worth it. The general increase in speed and responsiveness is very noticeable. However, you do tend to get spoiled by it - I hate waiting for my work pc, and I'm considering coughing up for an SSD and imaging the drive across.

[Bagnaj97]

At first I was the same as you, everything seemed a little quicker but it wasn't earthshattering. Quick question though, have you since tried using a pc with a HDD? That's what really opened my eyes, I couldn't believe how slow everything then seemed without the SSD!

[Spreadie]

At first I was the same as you, everything seemed a little quicker but it wasn't earthshattering. Quick question though, have you since tried using a pc with a HDD? That's what really opened my eyes, I couldn't believe how slow everything then seemed without the SSD!

Yep, my work PC, and every time I repair PC for a friend/friend of a friend. It's hateful.

[Saracen]

At first I was the same as you, everything seemed a little quicker but it wasn't earthshattering. Quick question though, have you since tried using a pc with a HDD? That's what really opened my eyes, I couldn't believe how slow everything then seemed without the SSD!

I have, yes. And for several months, my SSD has been sitting on my desk, because I can't be bothered to muck about transferring the OS onto it, to rebuild the current configuration. Why? Because everything doesn't seem "slow", or not in any way that materially affects my PC usage.

Does it make the machine feel .... brisker? Yup. But does it make any difference to my oroductivity? No. So it's nice, but for me, certainly not essential. It doesn't make any appreciable difference to what I do with the PC, or my productivity in doing it.

It's a bit like owning a Range Rover. If you use it off-road, it's superb and it, or something like it might be essential. But if you use it to commute from your Knightsbridge flat to Harrods, well, it might be nice and comfortable, but essential? Hardly. Other than for the pose value, or as a fashion accessory, of course.

[shaithis]

I couldn't go back to HDD. They are too slow my my needs. I have a lot load on startup and want those things loaded.....with SSD I don't have to get annoyed by them loading, they load pretty much instantly. I also load in and out of a lot of apps and games.......the speed is a godsend.

If your windows install is minimal, then the boot times won't be impacted as much. If you don't launch many apps, again you won't see the benefit as much.

Most people who use/see my machines boot up and load apps/games end up getting an SSD but it isn't really a necessity, although if they get much cheaper you could argue the case!

[Saracen]

I couldn't go back to HDD. They are too slow my my needs. I have a lot load on startup and want those things loaded.....with SSD I don't have to get annoyed by them loading, they load pretty much instantly. I also load in and out of a lot of apps and games.......the speed is a godsend.

If your windows install is minimal, then the boot times won't be impacted as much. If you don't launch many apps, again you won't see the benefit as much.

Most people who use/see my machines boot up and load apps/games end up getting an SSD but it isn't really a necessity, although if they get much cheaper you could argue the case!

That's it exactly.

Too slow for your needs, not too slow for my needs. It's all down to the individual user, and what they do with their PC.

Boot times, for instance. With my SSD, about 16 seconds. Without it, dunno, maybe 90 seconds. But, as I hit the button the go make coffee, or sometimes, go get breakfast, I'm rarely there when it boots. So 16 seconds, 90 seconds, or 5 mins, it's all the same to me, because having pressed the power button, it's running when I get back with my cuppa.

My boot time, therefore, SSD or not, is exactly the same, that being less than or equal too brew time for a cuppa.

[Top_gun]

My boot time, therefore, SSD or not, is exactly the same, that being less than or equal too brew time for a cuppa.

Lets say it takes 2 minutes and 30 seconds to make a cup of tea which is equivalent to your boot time. Now factor in the boot and shut down times for morning, lunch and evenings. This works out to losing 10 minutes a day or nearly 42 hours over a 50 week period.

Now making a cup of tea means you're not being productive. So to say, Saracen, that you experienced no loss of productivity is simply isn't true.

[Saracen]

Lets say it takes 2 minutes and 30 seconds to make a cup of tea which is equivalent to your boot time. Now factor in the boot and shut down times for morning, lunch and evenings. This works out to losing 10 minutes a day or nearly 42 hours over a 50 week period.

Now making a cup of tea means you're not being productive. So to say, Saracen, that you experienced no loss of productivity is simply isn't true.

I turn my machine on in the morning, turn it off when I'm done. I don't care how long shutdown takes, and it certainly isn't costing me productivity.

I'm going to make a drink several times a day regardless of whether the machine is booting or not, so it's NOT costing me any time if the machine is booting while I'm doing it, because if the machine boots in 1 nanosecond, I'm still not there, 'cos I'm making my cuppa.

Whether making a cuppa is loss of productivity or not is beside the point. It's not, by the way, because I know I work better if I take small, regular breaks. And being self-employed, I don't have a boss to answer to, and I don't have a clock to punch. But either way, I take the same breaks whether there's an SSD or not, so the machine either starting up or shutting down makes no difference at all. But even if making a cuppa was a loss of productivity, it's due to cuppa making, not the presence or absence of an SSD.

Don't you think telling me how I work when I'm here and you're not is just a tad presumptuous?

Even on your figures, what on earth makes you think I work 50 weeks a year? I doubt I've ever done that in my life, and I certainly don't these days.

For the last time, it DOES NOT make any difference to my productivity.

[Top_gun]

Don't you think telling me how I work when I'm here and you're not is just a tad presumptuous?

Actually no. I simply chose the number 50 because it was a more rounded number but also to illustrate how much time is lost, and it's a lot, over the course of a year.

It seems you're operating under your own rules and measure of productivity. So when you say "it does not make any difference to my productivity" then I can simply disregard it as non-factual evidence.

[Saracen]

Actually no. I simply chose the number 50 because it was a more rounded number but also to illustrate how much time is lost, and it's a lot, over the course of a year.

It seems you're operating under your own rules and measure of productivity. So when you say "it does not make any difference to my productivity" then I can simply disregard it as non-factual evidence.

I'm saying it doesn't affect my productivity because it doesn't.

As for "non-factual evidence", you are simply assuming what my working patterns are, and then, without any basis at all, telling me it is "simply not true" that it's not costing me productivity. In fact, because you are talking about MY work life, you are talking from, in the literal definition of the word, utter ignorance.

As for operating under my "-own rules and meas6re of productivity", what utter hogwash.

Before SSDs existed, I'd turn my PC on, make a cuppa, do one or two other general bits, and go to my PC, which was waiting for me, ready for use. With an SSD, I do EXACTLY the same thing. No loss of productivity from boot time. None. Zero. Nothing at all.

Some days, I don't even use the PC. So my day starts with making a cuppa, doing a few other general bits, and then doing whatever I'm doing that day. I do exactly the same routine, PC or not, and the difference between SSD and HD in my PC, to productvity over boot times, is zero.

I'm not, for instance, making that cuppa to let the PC boot. I'm making the cuppa because I want the cuppa, regardless of whether I'm even using the PC. In terms of productivity, over boot time, the impact is zero, because whatever time the PC takes, it's there, instantly, when I go back to it, post-boot.

In fact, my technique is actually more productive that booting with an SSD and waiting for it. Why? Because I still want the cuppa, and the "other bits" still have to be done.

So, either I turn the PC on and sit and admire tne 15 second boot, then go make the cuppa, in which case I've wasted that 15 seconds. Or, I turn the PC on and go make the cuppa, in which case, the impact on my time is identical, absolutely identical, because it's ready when I want it.

As for other "general bits", it varies day to day. First, water some plants in my office, if they need it. Second, deal with yesterday's post. I never deal with it when it arrives, because when that is varies, sometimes mid-morning, sometimes early afternoon, sometimes as late as about 4pm. Either way, I don't want my concentration interrupted at inopportune moments by dealing with post, so it's part of my pre-(productive) work session. Then, phone calls. Some of the people I deal with are best caught in the office first thing, begore the day gets started. So, rather than play phone tag, I deal with those first. It might take an hour, it might take no time, because there aren't any that day. The same goes for post. Sometimes there's none, sometimes it generates phone work, sometimes it needs email or a reply letter, in which case, it's task one when I go to the PC.

In any event, at a minimum, it takes about 5 minutes after starting the PC before I need it, during which time, SSD or the slowest HD I've got, it's booted. Loss of productivity over booting, in any normal work day, none.

If you boot several times a day and it's saving you 42 hours a year by having an SSD, fine. That's what it's doing.

But please, don't pretend you have the first notion of any impact on my productivity, or tell me it's "simply not true", because when it comes to any impact on my productivity, you quite literally have no idea what you're talking about. How could you? You aren't here.

Do a lit of people benefit from SSDs? Very possibly. Do a lot of people, especially techy-types, like them? Oh, yeah. As for the majority of users, if you include millions of general office workers, with genetal office tasks .... doubtful. For instance, in my wife's office, one of the tasks of the first one through the door is fo start the PCs. Then put the coffee on. By the time the rest get there, typically, the PCs are all booted. They certainly are by the time voats are removed, the 'good mornings' dealt with, and people are getting started.

But regardless of office workers, MY routine is such that boot time between SSD and HD boot has absolutely no effect whatever on my daily work routine, at all.

Where there is an impact is I'm I'm building an OS and software installation from scratch. That might involve a few reboots, each one taking a minute, minute and a half, extra. It's not daily routine, though, I can used the SSD if I wish, and it happens, on average, once a year or less.

The machine that does get 'rebuilt' most, by far, is a test system. And unless that involves hardware that requires a clean install, which for me is very rare these days, that "build" involves reloading one of several stored images, and again, SSD or HD doesn't matter, because I'm not waiting for it to complete. I'm doing other things.

[micre23]

Yes for the simple reason lower power draw: there's no platters to spin up, cooler operating temperatures: again no moving parts to generate all that heat, as a result, usually longer operating life before failure. Which I'd say is a must even for a casual user.

[mikerr]

Boot times are irrelevant to my usage (why do people always bring that up?),
yet I will put an SSD in any PC or laptop ahead of any other upgrade,
it makes a bigger day to day difference than a step up in CPU or RAM for many average usage.

A windows PC is hitting the disk for many actions, and and SSD "just" speeds up responsiveness,
I say "just", but that is really the difference between the PC being liked and loathed when it holds you back.

I note the effect is less marked when using Ubuntu for instance though.

[Top_gun]

Thanks Saracen, your last response merely confirmed my previous point about measures of productivity being subjective and in your case very questionable. Not sure why you're still continuing with points though. It's like a watching an Hamster running around in circles.

More importantly, most people on this thread have recognised how slow HDDs are compared to SDDs and would not want to go back to HDDs after experiencing SDDs. I share the same view too.

Of course you're entitled to your views, but once you factored in the questionable nature of your productivity measure then you're not really making any point at all. Perhaps there is scope to explore further flaws in your thinking!!! But please carry on at your own risk.

[Zak33]

I love my SSD boot drive

Here's what happens all too often.

Boot up, work, (also use work laptop on vpn same time)

Work until last poss moment before leaving.. hit power button on work laptop to power it down...keep working on this pc

Lappy in bag, hit power button on this pc and get up to leave.. half way down stairs to car.. phone rings.. someone wants something....

gotta go

but gotta do it...

pc back on, 30 seconds later.. done..

and here's the crux... sometimes it had downloaded win update to.... and the boot up.. could have taken .. minutes..,. sometimes multiple minutes.. cant spare it.

gotta go... pc off

done

This is what life throws at me. I have a quick car if I can to get that part of my job done. I have 2 phones. I have 2 screens on this PC and a lappy.

and what I would KILL FOR .. is an SSD in my work laptop. With all the work installed crap and security /lockdown features it has.. I'd pay for it myself.. but they won't allow it.

If I had an SSD in my work laptop I would be more productive. I could take call on bluetooth, pull over at a service station, boot the laptop up, tether to my phone, download the article/list etc and do what needs doing. But as it is, even in hybernation mode, it can take 3 minutes before it's useable.

Do I live in a work environment where 3 minutes makes a difference? Yes I do, and to not be "live" that fast costs me deals, so for me I have an SSD at home where I LIKE one but don't need it.. but in my work Lappy, I'd LOVE ONE and cant have it

seems it's not essential .. or they'd let me have one.

but that's the joy of large corporations.