Will you upgrade? That is the question...

[crawfish]

In fairness and the scientific principle of seeking facts, today I spoke to the professor who is head of the Dept of Eelctronics and Computer Science at Curtin University, West Australia. I asked if defragging SSDs is good, bad or indiferent. This is his answer:

No you definitely should not defrag SSDs for two reasons.

1. SSDs have a finite number of writes & reads, so defrags reduce the life span of the SSD.

2. The memory is differently oragnized so there is no need for it.

Defragging per se would have no detrimental effects, and in some cases could marginally increase the performance, but it is so small a gain it is not justified in respect of reason #1 above.

So he told you what I told you and what others told you and what I said others would tell you.

While I acknowledge his superior academic background, I am still not totally convinced, because his premise is primarily based on conserving the write/read life of an SSD. And this is definitely an open area of investigation, as shown by this typical blog by Max Schireson entitled: "Debunking SSD lifespan and random write performance concerns." It is found via this link HERE. In part he says:

Durability: The short answer is I wouldn’t worry about it.

For applications which are heavy on random writes, you’re OK (meaning a life span of over 5 years) up to about 25 million writes per day per drive, which is nearly double the IO capacity of the fastest hard disk drives.

For sequential write heavy applications (which benefit far less from SSDs), you’re OK (same 5 year life cycle) assuming the application re-writes each block on average no more than once per half hour; the smallest size of the latest fast HDD’s can barely manage this (take a Seagate Cheetah 15k.7 at 300GB for example, which has a claimed sustained write throughput of 171 MBps), and it gets harder as disks get larger.

And so it goes on. Note the reference to sequential writing and relate that to ability of hardware logical flip-flop IC chips to read binary codes once the data is collated.

In summary:

• I am of the opinion that durability is not an issue.

• I strongly suspect there are certain environemnts in which defrag would help ... especially if the right type of defrag application is used. And this warrants further investigation.

I guess you didn't read the comments where someone said:

Assuming a lifespan of 100,000 write cycles per block..
LOL, all the new 25nm ssd drives are rated at 3000 write cycles per block, down from 5000 for the 34nm. Where did you pull the 100k from, SLC memory??

And the author of the article replied:

Yes, I was referring to SLC memory as used in higher end SSDs like the X25E. Completely different story with lower end consumer MLC drives, I’d be very careful about lifespan there.

I guess you're also unaware of Intel whitepapers for drives like my X25-M which talk about over-provisioning the drive to extend the lifespan. They use the 160 GB model as an example and give 29 TB for the expected endurance OOTB, increasing to 68 TB with 16 GB overprovisioning and so on. Most people will just format to maximum capacity, which means that things like hibernation and hybrid sleep can use up the majority of their writes all by themselves. Though pointless, I would guess defragging is less of a concern WRT lifespan because it's done much less frequently than sleeping, and once defragged, files stay defragged. So it would be expected that an initial defragmentation would move a lot of data around, but subsequent ones would move less.

I always recommend disabling hybrid sleep on SSDs unless you really need it, and if you're on a laptop, you don't thanks to the battery, and on a desktop equipped with a decent UPS like my APC XS-1500 running Powerchute, you don't, because the UPS will wake it from regular sleep to hibernate in the event of a prolonged power outage. This saves me 10s of GBs of completely pointless writes per day.

All that said, I'm sure you'll continue to believe whatever you find fun to believe, seize upon speculation and repeatedly present it as facts that support your mistaken beliefs, and hurl some more insults at people who are trying to help you.

 

[pparks1]

The benefits for defragging a mechanical hard drive are due to the fact that it takes the drives on average 12-40ms to access a file depending upon it's location. So, if a file is fragmented and in 3 different chunks, the time to fully access can lead to slower performance.

On an SSD, with access times of 0.1ms for all files regardless of position, you would have to have MASSIVE amounts of fragmentation before the access time would slow to that of a regular hard drive in a perfect state.

Since the benefit is so tiny, and the write cycles are finite, the general consensus is that there is no benefit to the defrag. I have never defragged mine and they still run absolutely great.

 

[Ex_Brit]

I shall stay with my current OS's until the reach their expiry dates then I will think about strategy. Maybe by then Windows 9 will be out and Microsoft may then have listened to the critics.

 

[Phone Man]

I hesitate to continue this off-topic subject, but no one seems to care.

PDF file from Diskeeper on SSD defrag.

http://storage.condusiv.com/28117/pdf/Optimizing-Solid-State-Storage-with-HyperFast-Technology.pdf

From what I have read at other sites a normal HDD defrag utility should not be used on a SSD. Diskeeper has developed a special defrag for SSD's called HyperFast while some SSD vendors have developed a similar system they refer to as Garbage Collection. If your SSD has the proper Garbage Collection algorithm them no "defrag" is needed.

Don't defrag an SSD - Optimize it.

Jim

 

[poppa bear]

I shall stay with my current OS's until the reach their expiry dates then I will think about strategy. Maybe by then Windows 9 will be out and Microsoft may then have listened to the critics.

My attitude exactly! :thumb:

And watch OS X start selling multiple editions. At the same prices of Seven.

If Mac OS X is as good as '714' says it is, I would seriously consider moving over. The thing that would kill me would be not being able to build my own machine and having to buy a Mac ready assembled. That's the option I'm faced with in Perth, West Aussie. Is there another way with Mac?

 

[poppa bear]

I'm sure you'll continue to believe whatever you find fun ...

Good god man, are you still there! You're like an annoying minnion nipping at my ankles!

What gives me the greatest fun is the control I have over you in being able to troll the lure, see you rise to it, hook yourself, and then reel you in! No wonder you called yourself 'crawfish'!

Sorry to spoil the fun, but I've run out of bait, so let me give you some free advice: Chill out, get over it, and move on! But knowing you I'm sure you'll rise to this bait too!

Are we having fun yet?

 

[AC]

And watch OS X start selling multiple editions. At the same prices of Seven.

If Mac OS X is as good as '714' says it is, I would seriously consider moving over. The thing that would kill me would be not being able to build my own machine and having to buy a Mac ready assembled. That's the option I'm faced with in Perth, West Aussie. Is there another way with Mac?

Well, if you want it legally, then you'd have to buy it assembled, but if you don't mind breaking the EULA, you can install it with the retail disc. Never do it with a hacked version, ex. Snow Hazard. But I definitely perfer OS X over Windows. And, I can still run Windows easily, so OS X is big win win for me.

 

[poppa bear]

Well, if you want it legally, then you'd have to buy it assembled, but if you don't mind breaking the EULA, you can install it with the retail disc. Never do it with a hacked version, ex. Snow Hazard. But I definitely perfer OS X over Windows. And, I can still run Windows easily, so OS X is big win win for me.

That's very interesting. I presume the retail disc is an OEM one that comes with the assembled unit?

I was friends with a PC techo a few years ago, and he only did Mac, and for businesses. Might try to catch up with him and see what he can offer. Thanks for the input '714'.

 

[TerryE]

No way no how. Metro drives me nuts so I just go to the desktop, and let's see:

- No Start Menu (unless you count Metro, which I don't)
- Gotta find the magic corners
- It took me 2-3 weeks of casual use to figure out just how to shut down the computer and I'm an IT pro
- I have yet to figure out how to simply logoff in lieu of shutting down
- I like Aero and I don't want to give it up for the ugly Windows 8 "theme" they've chosen to give us

That said, could I maybe somehow get used to it? Yeah, if I had to. The nice thing is I don't have to!

 

[Mystere]

- Gotta find the magic corners
- It took me 2-3 weeks of casual use to figure out just how to shut down the computer and I'm an IT pro
- I have yet to figure out how to simply logoff in lieu of shutting down
- I like Aero and I don't want to give it up for the ugly Windows 8 "theme" they've chosen to give us

Really? It took you 2-3 weeks to figure out where the power button was? Shut down your computer by pressing the physical power button on your computer, that's all it takes. Alternatively, ctrl-alt-del and click the button that looks like a power button in the lower right corner. The long way is to go to the charms menu, settings, then click on the power button.

Log off instead of shutting down? Ctrl-alt-del, then Sign Out. How difficult is that? This is exactly the same as it worked in Windows 7 and XP before that.

As for Aero, i'm sure the likes of WindowBlinds and what not will bring it back if you want it.

 

[crawfish]

- Gotta find the magic corners
- It took me 2-3 weeks of casual use to figure out just how to shut down the computer and I'm an IT pro
- I have yet to figure out how to simply logoff in lieu of shutting down
- I like Aero and I don't want to give it up for the ugly Windows 8 "theme" they've chosen to give us

Really? It took you 2-3 weeks to figure out where the power button was? Shut down your computer by pressing the physical power button on your computer, that's all it takes.

It should be easy to find in the UI, don't you think? I don't even know if the power button does an orderly shutdown on any of my computers. The last time I checked it was a few years ago, and a momentary press did nothing, while a 4-second press did a hard restart. It would be fine with me if it still worked like that, because I never, ever use it to power down.

Alternatively, ctrl-alt-del and click the button that looks like a power button in the lower right corner.

Fundamental features should be easily discoverable. Expecting people to know Ctrl+Alt+Delete to use the latest version of Windows represents major fail.

The long way is to go to the charms menu, settings, then click on the power button.

Having used computers for so long, it would never occur to me that the "Power" button in a "Settings" menu controls the power as opposed to actual "settings" related to power. I wouldn't even look in "Settings" when searching for the power button. So many of these design choices are completely inexplicable.

Log off instead of shutting down? Ctrl-alt-del, then Sign Out. How difficult is that? This is exactly the same as it worked in Windows 7 and XP before that.

Oh, come on. That was one of the things the Start Menu was actually useful for. Most people don't use Ctrl+Alt+Delete.

As for Aero, i'm sure the likes of WindowBlinds and what not will bring it back if you want it.

I would never install software like that on any of my computers, as they are typically bad for stability and create issues in other software.

 

[Coke Robot]

I sometimes wonder that some angst against Windows 8 from power/IT users comes from the shear frustration that simple things aren't simply where they USED to be and claim the UI isn't intuitive.

It took me two, three days in the Developer Preview to realize that the power settings where in the Settings charm....now I felt stupid! I was logging off, sliding the lock screen, and shutting down. But afterwards, I learned that, moved forward. A new UI doesn't mean it's going to be simple at all. It takes learning and exploring with a good attitude.

It's like how people used to say why they have to click on Start to shut down in Windows 95...

 

[adamus]

I was logging off, sliding the lock screen, and shutting down. But afterwards, I learned that, moved forward. A new UI doesn't mean it's going to be simple at all. It takes learning and exploring with a good attitude.

Agree!!

 

[XFactor]

I find it easy to click on the icons in the Metro screen, but I find the rest very confusing.

 

[windude99]

I find it easy to click on the icons in the Metro screen, but I find the rest very confusing.

It gets easier to navigate over time

 

[AC]

Well, if you want it legally, then you'd have to buy it assembled, but if you don't mind breaking the EULA, you can install it with the retail disc. Never do it with a hacked version, ex. Snow Hazard. But I definitely perfer OS X over Windows. And, I can still run Windows easily, so OS X is big win win for me.

That's very interesting. I presume the retail disc is an OEM one that comes with the assembled unit?

I was friends with a PC techo a few years ago, and he only did Mac, and for businesses. Might try to catch up with him and see what he can offer. Thanks for the input '714'.

My Macbook Pro didn't come with the disc. I bought it separately. (Came with Snow Leopard, upgraded to Lion) All discs are the same from what I understand though. Don't quote me though, haven't paid attention to Mac's since my Macbook was stolen.

 

[pparks1]

I sometimes wonder that some angst against Windows 8 from power/IT users comes from the shear frustration that simple things aren't simply where they USED to be and claim the UI isn't intuitive.

Absolutely, without a doubt. Its a real pain where you work in an environment that uses XP, Vista, 7 and potentially 8 in the future trying to remember which system did which task and where. The same holds true for versions of office and things have moved around from 2007/2010. Plus, any documentation that you may have written and published has to then updated and rewritten for the new version.

The overwhelming reason that IT pros are really down on Windows 8 is that it's hard for us to imagine any use of Metro in the business workplace that would make users more productive and efficient. Employees work at a desktop/laptop with a keyboard and a mouse, not on a tablet. And MS has made it in a way that you cannot disable or remote without 3rd party tools, so Metro just seems like a nuisance.

It's not a compelling upgrade to me in any fashion, and it's certainly not something where i have found reasons to deploy it at work. Typical office workers don't want this much change to their environment. Going from XP, to Vista and then Vista to 7 was hard for many people. This seems much harder to me. I'd bet that you will see corporate desktops on Windows 8 about as likely as Windows ME. Companies will either be staying on XP, or staying on 7.

 

[Mystere]

It should be easy to find in the UI, don't you think? I don't even know if the power button does an orderly shutdown on any of my computers. The last time I checked it was a few years ago, and a momentary press did nothing, while a 4-second press did a hard restart. It would be fine with me if it still worked like that, because I never, ever use it to power down.

Unless you've changed the behavior in the power settings, Windows has shut down the computer by pressing the power button momentarily since XP. This does, in fact work, and always has.. Back in the early XP days, there were some problems with some drivers, but that hasn't been a problem in over a decade.

The reason for this is that Windows 8 is targeted at tablets and phones, and those are primarily shutdown via hardware buttons.

Fundamental features should be easily discoverable. Expecting people to know Ctrl+Alt+Delete to use the latest version of Windows represents major fail.

Ctrl-alt-del has been the single place to do all these things, including lock the screen, bring up task manager, etc... for a decade. If you don't know about it after 10+ years, i'd suggest you don't know much about Windows. Still, there are many ways to do the same thing in Windows, just because the way you always used has changed doesn't mean all the ways have changed.

Having used computers for so long, it would never occur to me that the "Power" button in a "Settings" menu controls the power as opposed to actual "settings" related to power. I wouldn't even look in "Settings" when searching for the power button. So many of these design choices are completely inexplicable.

This is by design. They don't want people accidentally fat fingering a shutdown when using tablets and phones. It's intentionally made more difficult through the UI so that accidental touches don't do destructive things.

Oh, come on. That was one of the things the Start Menu was actually useful for. Most people don't use Ctrl+Alt+Delete.

But that doesn't work in a touch environment.

I would never install software like that on any of my computers, as they are typically bad for stability and create issues in other software.

WindowBlinds uses the Theming API built into windows to change the themes. MS and Stardock worked together to build that API back in the XP days. WindowBlinds should be no less stable than MS's own built-in themes.

 

[crawfish]

I sometimes wonder that some angst against Windows 8 from power/IT users comes from the shear frustration that simple things aren't simply where they USED to be and claim the UI isn't intuitive.

It took me two, three days in the Developer Preview to realize that the power settings where in the Settings charm....now I felt stupid! I was logging off, sliding the lock screen, and shutting down. But afterwards, I learned that, moved forward. A new UI doesn't mean it's going to be simple at all. It takes learning and exploring with a good attitude.

People don't complain about these things because they approached them with a "bad attitude". They complain about them because these things are bad.

It's like how people used to say why they have to click on Start to shut down in Windows 95...

Not at all. To the extent anyone complained about that in a serious way, they were demonstrating a different type of ignorance concerning design. Others merely joked about the irony of it. The Start Button was the entry point to the entire computer, and it made perfect sense to put the power button in the Start Menu. It couldn't have been more easily discoverable or accessible without putting a huge power button in the middle of the desktop or on the taskbar (which of course would have been another type of fail). Now look at Windows 8. It buries the power button under a "Settings" button in a goofily-named "charms" thing that is accessed by a tiny hidden hotspot. To find it, you have to rely first on luck to discover the hotspot, and then you have to mindlessly enumerate all the "charms", because no one would expect to find a power button under a "Settings" label. Like I said, it's inexplicable. Sure, it can be learned, but why would anyone want to, and why would any company want to make them? (Rhetorical questions.) While a relatively minor thing, it does sort of represent many of the sorts of mistakes Microsoft made in Metro. FWIW, I didn't know where it was because I hadn't looked for it; I shut Windows 8 down by using the VMWare "suspend" command, which I found easily in VMWare Player's "Virtual Machine" menu. I expect a VM is as close to Windows 8 as I will ever get.

 

[crawfish]

It should be easy to find in the UI, don't you think? I don't even know if the power button does an orderly shutdown on any of my computers. The last time I checked it was a few years ago, and a momentary press did nothing, while a 4-second press did a hard restart. It would be fine with me if it still worked like that, because I never, ever use it to power down.

Unless you've changed the behavior in the power settings, Windows has shut down the computer by pressing the power button momentarily since XP. This does, in fact work, and always has.. Back in the early XP days, there were some problems with some drivers, but that hasn't been a problem in over a decade.

I'll take your word for it, though my recollection is correct, and it was certainly XP or later in which I observed what I wrote about. I still won't use the physical power button to power down the computer, and I wouldn't use it to power it up if I liked configuring the keyboard to start it up.

The reason for this is that Windows 8 is targeted at tablets and phones, and those are primarily shutdown via hardware buttons.

But this a forum where we talk about Windows 8 on the desktop. I'm not conceding anything to humor Microsoft's desperation at losing the mobile market.

Fundamental features should be easily discoverable. Expecting people to know Ctrl+Alt+Delete to use the latest version of Windows represents major fail.

Ctrl-alt-del has been the single place to do all these things, including lock the screen, bring up task manager, etc... for a decade. If you don't know about it after 10+ years, i'd suggest you don't know much about Windows. Still, there are many ways to do the same thing in Windows, just because the way you always used has changed doesn't mean all the ways have changed.

Based on what I've observed, I think it a quite rare person who uses Ctrl+Alt+Delete on a regular basis in Windows. Discoverability remains a primary good design principle.

This is by design. They don't want people accidentally fat fingering a shutdown when using tablets and phones. It's intentionally made more difficult through the UI so that accidental touches don't do destructive things.

There's that foolish consistency again. That's why I nicknamed it Windows HE.

Oh, come on. That was one of the things the Start Menu was actually useful for. Most people don't use Ctrl+Alt+Delete.

But that doesn't work in a touch environment.

This makes the third time you've invoked the touch rationale. It's not getting any more persuasive.

I would never install software like that on any of my computers, as they are typically bad for stability and create issues in other software.

WindowBlinds uses the Theming API built into windows to change the themes. MS and Stardock worked together to build that API back in the XP days. WindowBlinds should be no less stable than MS's own built-in themes.

That's always the promise, but what you end up with are the other company's bugs on top of Microsoft's bugs, and that's something I like to avoid, especially when it comes to software that can potentially affect every other piece of software I use, software that isn't tested with WindowBlinds, whose developers care only about how their software works in plain old Windows. You couldn't pay me to use something like WindowBlinds.