To those who wish for an SSD for speed only ...

[PeterSt]

... maybe don't.

The reason may be somewhat unexpected, but is related to expressions on this forum in the past, about (implied) better speed for the Coverart.
Btw, I myself never exactly said *that*, but you may have gotten that message from me anyway. Well, it is not true ...

The collection of your albums from a large Gallery (say, over 10,000 albums) is faster indeed. That by itself I expressed a few times, as "twice as fast". This is true *at least*, and it merely comes down to 10 times as fast. However, this is about obtaining the album data, and it is not related to the Coverart. And it is this latter where other things are/were going on ...

Today I invested some time (ok, the whole day) in getting that better, and I can tell you, it is fast as light speed now (those here, knowing about the first versions supporting Coverart in the Library Area may recall the speed of that). So ...

So quite some things could be improved, and it really is about the cpu needed to get it all done. IOW, totally unrelated to the disk speed.
Btw, some may not have seen response problem to this regard at all, but things really could go bad with larger scans (what about 10MB picture size), and in fact the selection for the one and only main cover. Some "intelligence" was in there, and maybe it wasn't that intelligent at all. Anyway it consumed far too much time.

Concluded : don't buy an expensive SSD to oversome these kind of response problems; it won't help. Wait for the next version (0.9y) instead, and you will be the most happy about the speed of the Libreray Area functions.
Otoh, do buy an SSD if you think it maybe worth it for SQ. I still think it is (could be subjective, but so far I don't know of anyone who explicitly disagrees).

Thanks,
Peter

[SeVeReD]

EDIOT
hmm I stand corrected.  I was just checking scrolling speed differences between scrolling through the galleries on the SSD and scrolling through large folders with WAV files on my external HDDs and they both seem to scroll at the same speed.  I thought for sure I'd found a difference before?  Something change? or did I just get a wrong idea in my head? anyway...

[[[Old (and in the way)]]]
What am I missing here?  When I look through my gallery (on the SSD) under the library tab, I can scroll through this faster than when I look through the actual files on my external HDD under the library tab.

[[[this is still true]]]
Anyway, ya, SQ, when I last checked, was better with the SSD as my C:/ drive.

My biggest wait time is after I double click an album in my gallery, I have to wait awhile for my external drive to wake up ... which I see as a good thing since I want my external HDDs (with the actual wav files) to go to sleep quickly and stay that way until I select another album.  No spinning up with the SSD so, it's always instant access.

[AUDIODIDAKT]

So back again after some crashes and blue screens
Decided to throw out all other Windows versions
A friend of mine wrote me a decent BIOS and all my troubles are gone.
Installed Vista again on SSD, tweaked it, installed XX
Can a better BIOS sound better, I think so
Absolutly no glitches between songs.
Its al sounds and works so right know.

On Topic:

Indeed there is no real difference in the gallerie speed.
Always thought it could be better.
But now it will, I guess. thnx for that, Peter.

I must also admit that the SSD does sound better than a Spinning HDD
With W7 or Vista both sound better on SSD.
But W7 sounds slightly better, but we have to wait for better drivers and more overall stablility.
The difference is heard best in the mid-high areas.
One sidenote: Using SSD for a while know and think there is some kind
of distortion in the normal HDD that I liked
(like with a turntable, the feedback you get from it can make (or give you the feeling) it sounds better)
Its just a little thing compare to the overall detail there is now.

And It just heaven to work on, the acces-time is really great!! - just plain fast

Just MHO

Roy