Another new computer decision help request

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Wow! Dont know how to use google all of the sudden like?  

http://twit.tv/ww?page=0%2C0%2C2

Bottom right corner.  

I said link to the TEXT not the whole video who has time to start viewing a whole podcast? ROFL!

Actually... Ridley just said that even a 32 bit system can access more memory than 4 GB which proves the original "you dont need 64 bit" remark.

If you want to call me Ridley, I'll call you Chalenged, deal?  You don't seem to know the PAE limitations imposed by MS and current software code. While theoretically a 32-bit system can access more memory in practise it's not possible due to MS drivers being coded for memory spaces below 4gb. Going over 4gb and using these drivers would seriously mess up memory addressing and cause probably an instant bluescreen.

[Skuzzy]

a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path.  64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS.  it just takes advantage of it if you do.  keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.

Uh, 64 bit versus 32 bit is NOT the data path, but the address width.

The data path width is fixed by the hardware bus and varies according to the bus being used.  The PCI bus has a 32 bit data width, the PCI-X bus has a 64 bit data bus, the USB bus has a 1 bit data bus, the PCI Express bus varies based on the number of lanes available, but generally is either 1, 4, or 16 bits wide.

A 64bit OS uses up much more memory than a 32bit OS.  Performance between the two is the same.



zeromajin, I have been beating up hard drives since the original 8MB 8inch Winchester hit the market, which was the predecessor to the 5 1/4" full height 5MB drive.  Just FYI.  I also happen to be a EE.

SSDs are fine for many things, but they should not be considered for use as primary storage, due to the rapid degradation of service life due to the number of writes they would incur in a primary position.  There is a reason why you do not see them being used in data centers as primary devices.

I am not saying SSDs should never be considered at all.  I am simply stating there is a proper place for them and as a primary storage solution there are better alternatives than SSD, today.  Technology is on the way that will render that statement false, but it is not here yet.

If you have the money to throw at it and are willing to do it fairly often, then SSDs might be the thing for you.  I do not call that an impediment to the technology, just a reasonable provision to it.

[zeromajin]

Wow, this thread has certainly overshot the OP, which is partly my fault. But thats ok, discussion has a way of evolving on their own. Ever talk with friends/family and wonder "How the hell did we get from topic A to topic F?"

Honestly, I don't follow the 32vs 64 bit deal. They cost the same,and 32bit has limitations that do not exist in 64bit.  The ONLY possible reason to run with a 32bit system is if you have very specific soft/hardware that is not YET supported by a 64bit OS. But in the end, I agree, if your using = or < 4GB of RAM you'll be hard pressed to know the difference.

Skuzzy I certainly respect your veteran status on this board, it's obvious to me that you've aided countless users over a considerable amount of time, and I am not here to p*** in anyones pool as the new guy.

But understand that I'm a 28 yr old Tech. Engineer, and I've been working w/ and over colleagues that are, on average, 15-20 yrs my senior, my entire adult life.

People can discuss how many more years of experience they possess, work they've done etc. but in the end this is an empty argument from authority/antiquity if the position is not supported by the real and relevant data.

I only deal in fact, and logical premise. Rhetoric and hand-waving criticism, may impress most people,but have very little impact with me.

Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.

I argue that if modern SSDs cost the same as HDDs you'd see them in every new PC on the market, it would be a no brainer.

Things as they are, if you are not willing to pay 6 times the cost for 3-4 times the performance, then fiscally that makes perfect sense.
However, you still have to admit your sacrificing performance to save cost, and down playing the premium option isn't changing that.

e.g.

"I drive a Mustang, and I am not willing/able to invest the money necessary to purchase a Ferrari.
Therefore the Ferrari is an inferior vehicle, possessing many flaws that do not exist in my Mustang."

I know, car/PC analogies are generally terrible , but its the first thing that came to me and I don't have tons of time to think about this post.
BTW, I drive a Mitsubishi, not a Mustang. lol

[MonkGF]

Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.

Subjectively, I have to force a re-get of code every other week, and a forced rebuild about once a week, due to source or build files corrupted on my work SSD.

Also subjectively, that has still cost me less time than I gain by building on an SSD in the first place.

That is a common thread at work.

However, those are recoverable errors. No way I'm putting something not easily recoverable on one. At least on a non-enterprise-class SSD.

[Skuzzy]

Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.

Where did I say they were unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans?  Rapid degradation in the life span due to constant writes is not guessing.  It is the nature of the technology and in the context of being compared to an HD, the term "rapid" is perfectly acceptable.

If you take something out of context, the basis for the discussion becomes moot.  Is it your contention that an SSD can suffer as many writes as an HD, without any detrimental side effects?  If so, what do you base that on?  Is it your general contention that there is no negative aspects of using SSD over HD?  If so, what do you base that on.

In terms of mechanical reliability the SSD is absolutely a better choice than any HD.  However, as to data reliability, again, it is going to be strictly based on the environment.  An HD can write, without consequence millions of times on the same spot, an SSD cannot.  While that is an extreme example, I am using it just to make a clear point.  If you think that is in error, then please elaborate as to why.

When I was talking about the additional costs being a provision, I was referring to having to replace the SSD more often due to potential data reliability issues.  You do not wait until the data starts to fail before acting on the problem.  Failure, after so many writes, is going to happen.  It is designed into the media itself, making it easy to know when you should replace the unit, before failure occurs.  Or is it your contention that an SSD can be written, ad infinitum, without any long term issues?

[zeromajin]

Subjectively, I have to force a re-get of code every other week, and a forced rebuild about once a week, due to source or build files corrupted on my work SSD.

As in many alleged software/hardware/virus circumstances a generalized anecdotal experience doesn't offer much. And such anomalies tend to be more user/application/overall build related (in that order).

I, as well as many people I work/game with, have used SSDs for nearly 2 years, and never experienced such persistent issues. (Ok ONCE my icon cache got corrupted and I had to manually force a rebuild)

I've already addressed the differences between low-end SSDs and high-end ones in a previous post, but you wouldn't purchase a low-end HDD from an unreputable manufacturer to store important data either.
Purchasing a "cheap" SSD is no more or less reliable then buying "cheap" anything. Especially in the PC market where, if you buy new, you usually get what you pay for.

It's like people purchasing an Eclipse,(an economy Japanese sports car), and assuming it will perform on par with an Evo X. They're both Japanese tuner/sports, made by the same company even, but perform on vastly different scales. So the Eclipse owners proclaims Japanese built tuners are all poo-poo based on his experience.

(OMG again with the pc/car analogies what is wrong with me today?)        

[skribetm]

HDD more reliable than SSD?  
heck i lost a lot of data on a POS seagate.

the only reliability you'll get is if you do regular back-up.

[Skuzzy]

As in many alleged software/hardware/virus circumstances a generalized anecdotal experience doesn't offer much. And such anomalies tend to be more user/application/overall build related (in that order).

I, as well as many people I work/game with, have used SSDs for nearly 2 years, and never experienced such persistent issues. (Ok ONCE my icon cache got corrupted and I had to manually force a rebuild)

Why does his "anecdotal experience" weigh in less than yours?

[zeromajin]

Skuzzy I am starting to believe you don't really read my post since all your questions were addressed in my previous post.

I never said SSDs would last forever, I said NOTHING will. And given the known lifespan of modern high-end SSDs you'll almost certainly be replacing your PC entirely before having catastrophic failures.

Is it your general contention that there is no negative aspects of using SSD over HD?  If so, what do you base that on.

The only negative aspect of using SSD over HD is cost per GB. (on avg. about 6 times more). So yes, for mass storage HDDs are definitely better since you'll see no real gain from stored data, only data that being manipulated (current project). Again I stated as much in a previous post.


  

[zeromajin]

Why does his "anecdotal experience" weigh in less than yours?

It doesn't, no single, uncontrolled, data point is reliable.

[Skuzzy]

Skuzzy I am starting to believe you don't really read my post since all your questions were addressed in my previous post.

I never said SSDs would last forever, I said NOTHING will. And given the known lifespan of modern high-end SSDs you'll almost certainly be replacing your PC entirely before having catastrophic failures.

The only negative aspect of using SSD over HD is cost per GB. (on avg. about 6 times more). So yes, for mass storage HDDs are definitely better since you'll see no real gain from stored data, only data that being manipulated (current project). Again I stated as much in a previous post.

I never stated you said "SSDs would last forever".  I have read all our posts.  They contain a lot of general statements and vague conclusions.  You also tend to put words where there are none to begin with when stating what others have said.

What is the known lifepsan on a modern high-end SSD and what tests were used to make that conclusion?  Claiming the PC would die before the SSD would is pretty subjective as there is no way to guarantee how the PC is being used.  

One off example is a video editor.  Millions and millons of writes, per project over many gigabytes of space.  Do that 20 or 30 times a month and is it your contention the SSD would outlive that PC?

The question is rhetorical.  I already know the answer.

As a technology I am not against SSD at all.  I have been waiting for it to mature for a very long time.  It is far better than it used to be and there is promise in the near future the final limitations are going to go away.

I maintain SSD has its place.  I also maintain you cannot blindly drop in an SSD without understanding the potential limitations of the technology and how it may impact your own deployment of the technology.  Generally speaking, i think we are in agreement.  We just view the deployment of the technology from different perspectives.

[zeromajin]

Or is it your contention that an SSD can be written, ad infinitum, without any long term issues?

I never stated you said "SSDs would last forever".

Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the Latin phrase ad infinitum?

I have read all our posts.  They contain a lot of general statements and vague conclusions.

Particularly my bulky (if not long winded) post on page 2, I did my very best to site very specific points of information for everyones benefit. Going well beyond "SSD bad!" "NO SSD good!" "NO HDD good....SSD very bad!"

You also tend to put words where there are none to begin with when stating what others have said.

   
If this is true, it is due to my neglect and not my intention. I tend to insert quotes to avoid this very mistake.

Generally speaking, i think we are in agreement.  We just view the deployment of the technology from different perspectives.

Well spoken, it's very easy to get caught up in semantical arguments, and minute differences of opinion. Esp. on boards where sentiment can be easily lost in cold text.

[zeromajin]

One off example is a video editor.  Millions and millons of writes, per project over many gigabytes of space.  Do that 20 or 30 times a month and is it your contention the SSD would outlive that PC?

A PC built for that caliber of video editing is simply special pleading. A workstation meant for that type of workload would need to be specifically designed and assembled from the ground up to that purpose.

Its certainly not comparable to a gaming/at home general workstation that an SSD would be well used in.

[Skuzzy]

A PC built for that caliber of video editing is simply special pleading. A workstation meant for that type of workload would need to be specifically designed and assembled from the ground up to that purpose.

Its certainly not comparable to a gaming/at home general workstation that an SSD would be well used in.

That description was of my own home workload.  It is my PC.  I do a lot of video editing as a hobby and to create all the videos from the cameras used in my family.  After the holidays, it will be rendering projects for about 3 months.  For final pass renderings of large movies, I have a cluster of 4 PC's to do that, which also includes my own.  It is not uncommon for a rendering to take 3 or 4 days.

I also use it to create software utilities/programs, design various 3D projects I make on my mill and vacuum mold (another write intensive application as they have to be rendered), and so on.  I am always engineering something.  I do not play games anymore.  I used to be a big gamer, but then games got to be more trouble than they were worth and I grew tired of that frustration so I quit.

My point was you cannot make a blanket statement about how long any SSD would last, for any given PC, due to the very many ways any PC can be used.  An SSD in my computer would die relatively quickly, compared to an HD.  There is also very little performance to be gained if your computer is spending a great deal of time writting data to the storage device.  I think it is fair to say SSDs shine on reads, but not so much on writes.

In the forums I hang about, there are hundreds of people that use thier PCs just as I do.

[zeromajin]

Even so, having an SSD as a boot drive in your PC would not prohibit that type of usage.

Since you can perform such task on your HDD, sparing your SDD the load.

For reason previously stated having an HDD (or an array) in you PC is still essential for storage, and even redundancy. ( I doubt that anyone will purchase 2 SSDs to place in a mirror config, I wouldn't even do it for stripe since Raid configs disable all but a few Intel SSDs, TRIM features)