$500ea!!! :eek: $200 more and you could get the E version
Printable View
$500ea!!! :eek: $200 more and you could get the E version
500? what site are you on? I paid 220 each. I don't really consider that a lot. The first WD raptor 10K rpm drives were only 74GB and I think I paid like $250 for it.
That was on the site you posted. Maybe prices have gone up but they should go down as technology improves/changes
SSDSA2MH160G2C1 = $489
found a SSDSA2MH160G201 at an Aussie retailer for 979 AUD which is about 880 USD. Not sure where the disparity comes from.
Looks like SSDs have an enormous retail markup here -- one distributor is selling 192GB Transcend drives for for 617 AUD wholesale or 1133 AUD retail. The retail/wholesale ratio is at least 3:2 throughout the range.
Yeah, that is the 160GB drive. I got the 80GB drive and put them in RAID 0 so it is the same capacity as a single 160GB, but less money. Although the prices have gone up which is likely due to a surge in demand for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I tried another install of Windows 7 from scratch and it completed in under 40 minutes. That's more like it. Here's my Windows Vista Experience Index scores(on bottom) and my Windows 7 Experience Index scores on the same computer which is set up for triple boot now(XP is other OS). As you can see three of the scores are higher in Windows 7 and 2 are the same.
I paid $5K for a 30M once. But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
dont feel bad. I paid $200 for 4 megabytes of ram. That's not a typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by AsmIscool
How about $80 for a 6116. Thats 2K people. When you are working a paper round at that age $80 is a lot of money.
You mean you werent actually joking about leaving the first install for over 24 hours?Quote:
I tried another install of Windows 7 from scratch and it completed in under 40 minutes.
So same system but different os install gave you a higher processor (probably others too just noticed cpu first) index rating, hmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
Yeah I thought that was odd. I mean I could understand it if you got the highest score possible in Vista and then it was higher in 7 because obviously the ratings go higher, but with just a normal score I would have thought they should be identical on both OS's...
Although having said that, considering some software says it will work on a specific Windows Experience Index level (I've never seen any but apparently some do..) and taking into account the fact that Windows 7 is supposed to be a bit less resource hungry than Vista, maybe they had to do some jiggering around (yes thats a word) with the numbers to make the scale work out. If that makes sense.
Yea who knows if/how the index was adjusted so the scale takes into account the better os resource usage under 7.
I was serious. I remember how long it took to install Visual Studio 2008 in Vista and I didn't know how long it was supposed to take to install Windows 7. I actually waited until it had sat at Expanding Windows files(0%) for 48 hours and then said finally that's enough. I don't like running my computer 24 hours around the clock like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by chris128
If I see no progress change at all on an operation after maybe 10 or 20 minutes for something like an install, I assume the worst and start over.
Matt is a pessimist! :D
lol I usually leave it like 30 mins or something. I would certainly never leave something running for more than an hour if it was still showing 0% at that point. I'm wondering how long it took EntityX to install Visual Studio now :D
The expanding files portion of the Win7 install (and vista) was by far the longest. The 0% to 1% swing is generally the longest part of that as well. Usually once it starts going, the speed of the % increase seems to go much faster.
Progress bars and indicators are almost always a joke in software.
There are too many variables to take into consideration to provide any accurate progression display. Hardware varies between system to system. All a progressbar can do it tell you how far along it is in installing, time is irrelevant.
it's partitioning the hard drive before expanding. That's the delay. Win7 uses a different type of partitioning table and has it in it's own partition (about 200mb on my system)
i know this isn't exactly relevant, but i just benchmarked one of the new imacs in vista. Pretty respectable scores for a all-in-one screen.
Thats it! You're Banned for using an iMac :lol: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Surely it doesn't take that long to create a GPT. fdisk will do it in an instant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I noticed that Windows 7 boots up much faster than Vista. Maybe 5 times faster or more on my computer. I compared times on running some screens from the graphics application I've been working on. I have it installed in Vista and Windows 7 now and for the 3 screens that I tested the application running in Windows 7 ran them from 15 to 20 % faster.
Why is everyone else's computer so much faster with Windows 7 on than mine! :( Mine is either pretty much exactly the same as when I had Vista on it or its slower!
Well here is my updated index now that I have my SSD drive - the Primary Hard Disk has gone from 5.9 to 7.2 :)
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...in7withSSD.png
just need a better graphics card now... :D
Just for fun I ran an application that uses a Do loop and adds 0.001 until a variable reaches 100000. I wanted to see if it would run faster from Windows 7 than in Vista. Very little difference. I don't have Visual Studio installed in Windows 7 yet so I installed the application in both operating systems. Here's the code .
I ran it 5 times from each OS. The average time in Vista was 13.62 seconds and the average time in Windows 7 was just slightly faster at 13.37 seconds so hardly any difference. It's less than a 2% difference though as I said a few posts back I had some screens in a graphics application run from 15 to 20% faster in Windows 7 over Vista. There may be certain kinds of operations that run considerably faster in Windows 7 over Vista but addition doesn't seem to be one of them.Code:Public Class Form1
Private Sub Form1_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load
Dim StartTime As DateTime = Now
Dim TimeAfterStart As DateTime
Dim ad As Decimal
Do Until ad = 100000
ad += 0.001
Loop
TimeAfterStart = DateTime.Now
Label1.Text = "Seconds to run loop = " & TimeAfterStart.Subtract(StartTime).TotalMilliseconds / 1000
End Sub
End Class
I had the same experience with this. My processor score went up but my graphics score dropped. I ended up with the exact same numbers but swapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I noticed that the code I posted 2 posts back I didn't have Option Strict On. It didn't make a difference turning it on but what made an enormous difference in speed was declaring ad as a double instead of a decimal. If I use this code :
It only takes 0.3432 seconds running from Visual Studio in Vista and 0.1401 seconds installed. So using double gives a 97 fold increase in speed. The reason I used a Decimal the first time is that when I first declared ad a double it never completed the loop because the code was Do Until ad = 100000. In the above code I adjusted it to Do Until ad >= 100000. Using double ad passed 100000 without exactly hitting 100000 so it kept on going when I used = but not when I used >=.Code:Option Strict On
Public Class Form1
Private Sub Form1_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load
Dim StartTime As DateTime = Now
Dim TimeAfterStart As DateTime
Dim ad As Double
Do Until ad >= 100000
ad += 0.001
Loop
TimeAfterStart = DateTime.Now
Label1.Text = "Seconds to run loop = " & TimeAfterStart.Subtract(StartTime).TotalMilliseconds / 1000
End Sub
End Class