Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 Hard Drive and SSD Performance Analyzed

bigwophh writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of performance. With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of disks perform under Windows 7, both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks. Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD. SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested. Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives. Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance, particularly with regard to solid state drives."

9 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. But... by Shikaku · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is is fast enough to get first post?

    (Sarcasm guys)

    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      you're

      fixed

    2. Re:But... by thousandinone · · Score: 2, Funny

      fixt

      fixt

  2. Re:So? by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?

    Even more importantly, in the particular frame of reference, where XP is moving at a velocity of 38.5% c relative to Windows 7, with a time of passing of 92.3% relative to XP, do these calculations add up?

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  3. Re:So? by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which one is going east?

  4. Re:Failure to compare with XP by mb1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...because the benchmark is still running :)

  5. Re:So? by jabithew · · Score: 4, Funny

    The most likely scenario for seeing its effect would be... starting up a game, exiting, then starting the same game over again.

    Ah, I see you've been playing Empire too!

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  6. Re:So? by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Build 7000 (beta) was notably faster and slimmer than Build 7100 (RC) when we tried it here - 7000 was highly responsive and usable in 512MB, 7100 thrashes and is slow in 1GB. We were horrified. So forget 7000's admirable speed - it appears the RC was compiled with -fsuck-like-a-dyson-on-steroids enabled.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  7. Moving off-topic a little by zmollusc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does windows still abandon file-copying operations when one single file out of a huge directory structure one is trying to copy from one volume to another fails?

    This always annoyed me. I would fantasise about paying for my microsoft products thusly "£200? No problem. Here's the first penny, here's the second penny, here's the third penny, Ooops! I dropped the third penny! Well, that is the transaction completed, goodbye."

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.