|
I'd rather pay for more RAM (16GB, if doable) than for solid-state disk (RAM is cheaper than EEPROM).
And IIRC people are not overwhelmed by Visual Studio using multi-threading, so maybe the faster dual-core is the better choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to 2010 or 2008 VS?
Do you know if I will see a big difference in 64bit vs 32?Humble Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
mostly VS2008 (the real VS2010 isn't available yet).
you can't use more than 4GB of RAM without Win64, and RAM is your biggest friend.
by itself, some people have claimed Win64 is faster than Win32 on the same amount of RAM, however I am not convinced I understand how that would be.
FWIW: I would be looking for an Intel Mobile i5 (latest chip technology = most activity for given dissipation budget; and hyperthreading, i.e. each core has two sets of registers, hence can run two threads intertwined).
|
|
|
|
|
Any opinion on the SSD vs regular hard disk...
The things I have read have said there is no real improvement but most of that info is dated at least a year.
I also wonder when they are comparing these hard disk are they comparing a mid range SSD to a velociraptor ?
I cannot get a 15000rpm drive for my laptop as far as I know so would the SSD be better maybe.Humble Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
DRAM memory is faster than most other types of solid-state memory; it sure outpaces EEPROM. The one faster RAM technology is SRAM, but they are "small" (CPU caches are made of them).
On a Win64 system I would never buy and install SSD for speed reasons (maybe for fast boot, reliability, power considerations, ...); I would always opt for lots of DRAM and rely on Windows file caching, and if and when not satisfied by that, install a RAM disk (haven't seen many of those lately).
|
|
|
|
|
| Thank you very much friend. You are very knowledgeable. Humble Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
programmer_vb.net_c++ wrote: Any opinion on the SSD vs regular hard disk...
The things I have read have said there is no real improvement but most of that info is dated at least a year.
I bought an SSD last fall. Windows boot time went from 33s to 14; after logging in the normal period of disk thrashing that left the desktop unusable was gone. I can start Opera with 40-70 saved tabs, outlook with two multi-gigabyte PST files; and all the trash that shows up in the tray at once without anything lagging on startup. It was the most visible performance upgrade I've had since going from a k5-100 (on a 486 mobo) to a k6-350 over a decade ago.  3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, reading a lot of files once will be much faster, so boot speed-up must be impressive. However software development is quite a repetitive job, using the same files over and over, and writing some; hence I'd rather spend some money on more DRAM instead of an SSD, hoping to make all but the first access to each file a lot faster.
|
|
|
|
|
If boot/app startup was the only benefit, you're right an SSD wouldn't add much, but since blocking IO is common in many apps almost everything becomes more responsive. Measuring system responsiveness isn't anywhere as easy as benching boot/app startup; but it's the responsiveness gains that gave me the real wow.
If you have to choose between enough dram to keep all your working data in memory or an SSD obviously the former is more important; but windows vista and later don't report IO operations as complete until they've been flushed from the cache to the disk and dropping the latency from each write from ~10ms to a few microseconds actually is noticeable in normal useage. EDIT: I didn't mention this in my original post because "more ram than I'll actually use" has IMO been implicit in any custom configured PC for the last few years. Only crappy retail configs skimp there any longer.
Unless you're CPU bound however I'd put an SSD as more useful than a faster CPU because it eliminates the most generally apparent performance bottleneck; when random IO trashes a magnetic HD.
About 4 years ago I blew about $6-700 on a hardware raid controller and 5 HDs to try and boost performance; outside of benchmarks I never noticed a difference. The responsiveness gain going from an i7@3.85ghz with a single HD to the same system with an SSD is almost as dramatic as the difference between the same system with an HD and my netbook with an HD.3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: vista and later don't report IO operations as complete until they've been flushed from the cache to the disk
that is new to me. Are tou saying they've changed that since XP? or was XP the same? do you have a link to such info? I'm eager to read more about it.
Dan Neely wrote: I'd put an SSD as more useful than a faster CPU
I agree. I'd never go for the fastest CPU, the CPU typically isn't the bottleneck (except when trying to compute on a netbook of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: that is new to me. Are tou saying they've changed that since XP? or was XP the same? do you have a link to such info? I'm eager to read more about it.
It was a change for vista. Look for MS articles about why reported file copy performance in vista is slower than what XP reported. XP reporting that it was done before the flushing was part of it. The other part was that they optimized the algorithm used for copies on crappy wifi networks with high latencies and packet loss figuring that in the real world large gains in the bad case were worth a small hit in the best case. The world of internet ranting disagreed vocally with that assessment and changes were again made in SP1 to boost the bestcase performance than internet ranters used for their benchmark graphs.  3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I start to recall that now. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
| Has anyone used ram disk software?? What I have been thinking is maybe loading it with ram and using ram disk software to keep everything I am working on in memory. Humble Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that I will have a big improvement with OS... everything I have read supports that but VS is what I want to really perform fast because that is what I use all day long and I have read things that say that there is little improvement and sometimes a decrease in performance because of all of the small files that have to be used in VS. I guess I am wondering does anyone know if solid state handles small files any better than before because much of the info I have read is dated so I want to know has anyone see it greatly improve the performance of VS. Also has anyone ever heard of a spindle hard drive that is faster than 7200 in a laptop.
Update I am looking at a Dell m6500 with 16GB of ram i7 quad 2.0ghz.
I currently have a Dell Vostro 1700 4GB ram intel core 2 duo 2.4ghz I know my bottle neck right now is my hard drive it is only 5400rpm which I did not know when it was ordered.
This computer is not bad I just want faster compile times and I also am fixing to start doing all dev in VMWare.Humble Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Random IO is where SSDs have the biggest lead over magnetic drives. In sequential IO the gain for an SSD is only about 2x that of a magnetic HD. The fastest SSD controllers on the market are upto ~150x faster in random writes.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3747&p=10[^]3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I've used dual socket workstation with 4-8 cores since 2005. The main benefit is greater stability and less noticeable interference from anti-virus. If your code has very few page faults and anti-virus isn't sucking up your cpu, you may actually have better performance with the fastest dual core Xeon or Core i7 cpu's unless you do a serious amount of computation. With VMWare, you definitely want to have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. If you can install two hard drives, then you can use two identical hard drives with RAID 0 striping, or a small SSD for programs and 500+ GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive for your data.
modified on Monday, April 5, 2010 2:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Can only talk for myself now, but getting an SSD is one of the best things I ever done.
If it was my choice I'd get an SSD, a dual core processor and as much RAM as your budget allows possible."When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
Whether it's busy doing something or not, it just powers off (read: no graceful shutdown) right then and there. Can a bad HDD cause this, or would it be something on the mobo (e.g., fan)? The machine is at least four years old, but probably older.
- DC"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
modified on Monday, March 8, 2010 11:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
It can be bad memory (RAM, cache, HDD, Graphic card).
A bad solder, can happen basically anywhere. This is usually but not always temperature dependent. The power supply is extra sensitive due to higher temperature differences.
A bad fan, is at least easy to check.
Oxidized contacts on cables. Also usually temperature dependent.
But from the description I'd put my money on the PSU, you do say that the machine POWERS OFF, not that it crashes."When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: ...you do say that the machine POWERS OFF, not that it crashes.
Correct."One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: Whether it's busy doing something or not, it just powers off (read: no graceful shutdown) right then and there. Can a bad HDD cause this, or would it be something on the mobo (e.g., fan)?
I'd go with over heating. I go into the BIOS and look at the CPU and Case temperatures and see if they are on the high side. If they are from just runningn in the BIOS, when Windows is up it will be hotter. If your lucky the BIOS will have a setting to shutdown the machine when it gets to a certain temperature, if not it will just shutdown when the CPU can't cope.
If it is heat, poull off the heatsink, use mineral turpentine to reemove the old thermal paste from the heatsink and CPU, then Methylated Spirits to remove the Mineral Turpentine (using a cloth of course, don't pour it in. Let it dry, add new thermal paste, replace heatsink, fire it up and see if it hasn't improved.
I would also clean out the dirt and dust from the heatsink, case and fans as this can clog up and heat up a system. I use an air compressor though many advise not too.Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
My computer BSOD'd with UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME. Nothing that I've read on the Internet has worked in getting access to the HDD. If I try and boot from a CD, the machine acts as if no CD is present in the drive. If I hook the HDD up to a SATA/USB adapter, the host computer freezes. I'm at a loss as to what to try.
I've never tried anything like it before, but can the HDD be mounted on a Linux/Ubuntu system somehow?
Thanks.
- DC
[edit]
After installing the latest version of Ubuntu (9.x) and enabling NTFS writing on external devices, it's working. It should finish copying to the backup drive in roughly 62 hours from now (just about the time I get to work on Monday)!
[/edit]"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
modified on Monday, March 8, 2010 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: If I try and boot from a CD, the machine acts as if no CD is present in the drive
Maybe a stupid question, but have you set the bootorder in the BIOS to boot from the CD first?
DavidCrow wrote: I've never tried anything like it before, but can the HDD be mounted on a Linux/Ubuntu system somehow?
It's certainly worth trying, but my guess is that your HDD is fried"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but have you set the bootorder in the BIOS to boot from the CD first?
Yes.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: It's certainly worth trying, but my guess is that your HDD is fried
I've got it mounted on a Ubuntu system, and it's reading fine. I now have to figure out how to back up the data (roughly 97GB) to an external USB HDD. Are these external HDDs preformatted? If so (e.g., FAT32), does that mean files written by Ubuntu can be read by Windows?"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
| I've never seen one that wasn't preformatted although IIRC alot are defaulting to NTFS now. That said current linux distros can read/write NTFS so that shouldn't be a problem. 3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
