Important: Windows XP support ends April 2014

In ,
philo typed:
On 03/03/2014 07:37 AM, BillW50 wrote:

Win 7 cannot be that bloated if it will work OK on a machine built
more than ten years ago.

I take it you never installed Windows 7 on a EeePC with a 16GB SSD?
Yeah I bought the 16GB SSD just so I can install 7. It was really
horrible. If you just boot up and do nothing for 20 minutes to let
it settle down, the CPU use never dropped less than 50%. And this is
just the OS running. Just try and open up a browser or something,
its click and wait, click and wait. XP on the same machine flies.
Opening up a browser and it is instant. And Windows 2000 on the same
machine is grease lightning!

I am not familiar with that machine but wonder if it uses one of those
"mini" ssd's?

Yes indeed. The 701 (soldered in SSD) and 702 (8GB on card) models used
the faster and increased wear leveling SLC SSD. The 701SD (8GB on card)
used MLC SSD.

I have a Dell Mini that someone gave me...the SSD was bad so I
replaced it and installed XP. The machine has 2 gigs of RAM and ran
horribly slow. I suspect those mini SSD's are not so hot.

On the SLC SSD, XP bots in 90 seconds and Windows 2000 boots in 30
seconds. So that isn't too bad. Those MLC SSD are much slower. Also
these including the Dell are PATA SSD. Later EeePC used SATA SSD which I
am sure improved speeds.

Even though it's said SSD's do not need to be (nor should they be)
defragged, I tried it anyway and it helped quote a bit...but I am not
going to bother with those mini SSD's again.

I never tried that before and that is interesting. I don't know why, but
defragging my hard drives once every 2 years or so only shortens boot
times by about 2 seconds. I guess my hard drives don't fragment that
much.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:10:31 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
philo typed:

[snip]

Even though it's said SSD's do not need to be (nor should they be)
defragged, I tried it anyway and it helped quote a bit...but I am not
going to bother with those mini SSD's again.

I never tried that before and that is interesting. I don't know why, but
defragging my hard drives once every 2 years or so only shortens boot
times by about 2 seconds. I guess my hard drives don't fragment that
much.

Or fragmentation is not nearly the bugaboo that it is presented
as.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

In ,
Gene Wirchenko typed:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:10:31 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
philo typed:

[snip]

Even though it's said SSD's do not need to be (nor should they be)
defragged, I tried it anyway and it helped quote a bit...but I am
not going to bother with those mini SSD's again.

I never tried that before and that is interesting. I don't know why,
but defragging my hard drives once every 2 years or so only shortens
boot times by about 2 seconds. I guess my hard drives don't fragment
that much.

Or fragmentation is not nearly the bugaboo that it is presented
as.

Back in the old MFM days, the difference I got from defragging was about
double the speed. Since IDE drives, never noticed much of a difference.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 702 ('08 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Celeron 900MHz - 8GB SSD - 2GB - Windows XP Home SP2