W7 x64 SP1 booting from 2,5" 80GB HDD

[BertD]

I am not sure what did bring the biggest improvement but W7 x64 SP1 does do a whole lot of good things I am hearing but I also moved from my Vertex 2 SSD to a slooooowww 2,5" 80GB HDD I had laying around at the same time.

At Peter's place I heard the improvement in dynamical terms, full bodyness and clarity (Vista x86 vs W7 x64 SP1) which changes I also hear at my place but I have it somehow sweeter without lacking information or making things dull. Coming from W7 x86 SP1 on the Vertex 120GB disk which (from memory) made the sound more "flat (hoarse)", "empty (no body)" and "compressed (almost digitised)"...

I am not sure if it is only going from 32 bits to 64 bits makes this major difference, perhaps the slooooow booting drive has more to do with this? The NOS1 is also burning in slowly and I am fiddeling with all the settings...

Within a few weeks (when the NOS1 is properly burned-in) I will make an image of the internal disk and copy that to the Vertex and compare again. This way ALL will be the same except for the drive where the OS is booting from. Once change I am sure I will notice and that is a ultra quick boot (still missing that!!) compared to that little drive.

Bert

[Marcin_gps]

Hi Bert,

Thanks for sharing. Anyone else made that kind of comparison - hdd vs sdd with W7 sp1?

Regards,
Marcin

[listening]

Hi Marcin,

a year ago or so I posted some information about my NOS harddisk - years old, 142 Mbytes of capacity and really, really slow. It's running since then in my computer   

Georg

[Windows X]

What BertD stated seems to be true from what I tested between 2.5 and SSD comparison with other parts are still the same. However, that's from conventional PSU experiments (I mean very normal ones like $10-30). When used with dedicated ultra low-noise toroidal PSU, what lacks in SSD are solved and improvements outshine 2.5 hdd.

I won't say ssd is better but in my configuration, it sounds better and not enough to my satisfaction.

[Telstar]

Each install is not comparable, unless you use the same image to clone both disks.
Windows is so unpredictable that one installation may be DIFFERENT from the other, and therefore sound different.
x64 *should* be better. But SSD vs HDD should be the other way around, I think.

If somebody can clone its install on a SSD it would be very nice to compare thereafter (easybcd is then needed to give you boot access to both).

[PeterSt]

(easybcd is then needed to give you boot access to both).

Hey Telstar ... But why would that be ?
(not my experience, although with an image copy that would be between two SSDs ...)

[Telstar]

(easybcd is then needed to give you boot access to both).

Hey Telstar ... But why would that be ?
(not my experience, although with an image copy that would be between two SSDs ...)

If you keep BOTH discs connected, it will boot only the first (in the bios sequence). I would do this way for a quicker A/B comparison.

[BertD]

If somebody can clone its install on a SSD it would be very nice to compare thereafter (easybcd is then needed to give you boot access to both).

I am going to do that anyhow but not now... (see original post).

Easybcd is downloaded, thanks for the hint. Seems VERY useable for multi-booting people... 

Bert

[PeterSt]

(easybcd is then needed to give you boot access to both).

Hey Telstar ... But why would that be ?
(not my experience, although with an image copy that would be between two SSDs ...)

If you keep BOTH discs connected, it will boot only the first (in the bios sequence). I would do this way for a quicker A/B comparison.

Maybe -without noticing it- I do something strange then, but by now my OSes are all over the place (disks), as are my choices where to boot from. But, of course it is so that when you add a "boot" my means of just stuffing in an image copy, this is not another "dual boot" so to say, so indeed that requires a sequence change in the BIOS. But what is difficult about that ? Okay, I know one : when your physical disks (the brand/type) are the same, you won't know which one is which because you have to choose them by physical disk name.

There is one other culprit (but this also counts without image copies) : before you know it, you end up with a boot on "not drive C:". And, once so, it can't be changed. So, this needs the software you use to anticipate on that, and although generally you will manage, it can be a hussle.

I guess you are right then. But personally I find EasyBCD a kind of "dangerous"; It is already difficult to find the version which suits your OS (for others : Google will lead you to XP versions, but even W7 versions exist !) and within EasyBCD itself all is as unclear. There are no confirmations of what you tried to apply, and half does NOT work - again without "confirmations" (error messages). Next, because all what you do is meant to be applied outside of your current environment - meaning that you will only notice the changes at a next boot, I wonder how many people will *destroy* their system, instead of tweaking it for the better.

[Telstar]

If you keep BOTH discs connected, it will boot only the first (in the bios sequence). I would do this way for a quicker A/B comparison.

Maybe -without noticing it- I do something strange then, but by now my OSes are all over the place (disks), as are my choices where to boot from. But, of course it is so that when you add a "boot" my means of just stuffing in an image copy, this is not another "dual boot" so to say, so indeed that requires a sequence change in the BIOS. But what is difficult about that ? Okay, I know one : when your physical disks (the brand/type) are the same, you won't know which one is which because you have to choose them by physical disk name.

That and not having to go into bios every time, you can name w7 SSD and w7 HDD in the bootloader and that's it. It's more reliable and quicker to do a/b.

But personally I find EasyBCD a kind of "dangerous"; It is already difficult to find the version which suits your OS (for others : Google will lead you to XP versions, but even W7 versions exist !) and within EasyBCD itself all is as unclear.

the latest version always worked for me since vista times (and saved my bottom more than once). It never corrupted anything (but if that should happen to you, the vista/w7 recovery from the DVD is as good as it gets -without scsi discs*-).


[*to find again MY w7 install i had to install first 2008 r2 and THEN use easyBCD from there - crazy uh?]