BlackBox Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Exactly what I did on my home PC. I installed a 256gb SSD with a clean install of Win10. It's like my PC is brand new. You'd laugh - I just upgraded my Early 2008 MacBook (Black, of course ), Samsung EVO SSD, and RAM, after my Dell laptop's NIC crapped out on me. The SATA III SSD is backwards compatible with my MacBook's _old_ SATA I bus, and it's even faster than it used to be! Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 You'd laugh - I just upgraded my Early 2008 MacBook (Black, of course ), Samsung EVO SSD, and RAM, after my Dell laptop's NIC crapped out on me. The SATA III SSD is backwards compatible with my MacBook's _old_ SATA I bus, and it's even faster than it used to be! Haha Nice, did you install Win10 on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 As if we didn't already know; you're a man after my own heart. Very nice... how's the performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Nice, did you install Win10 on it? Being that it's an Early 2008, there are some hiccups with Bootcamp, and I do not have Parallels currently, so I just use Microsoft's Remote App to RDP into my office domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Very nice... how's the performance? Snippet from further down in the above linked thread: >> 2 x 250 GB Samsung EVO SSD in RAID 0 (OS) Are there any benchmarks that show a significant performance improvement for Raid 0 on SSD? Seems that approach would simply double the chances of a catastrophic data loss - since a failure of either SSD means the loss of all the data. Yes... The RAID 5 array [#2] was slower than a single SSD by itself [#1], and the RAID 0 array [#3] was faster than both, hence the configuration: [#1] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 272.269 MB/s Sequential Write : 258.993 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 259.273 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 250.074 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 31.421 MB/s [ 7671.1 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 46.671 MB/s [ 11394.3 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 183.238 MB/s [ 44735.8 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 157.587 MB/s [ 38473.4 IOPS] Test : 100 MB [F: 0.1% (0.1/232.9 GB)] (x5) Date : 2014/11/07 8:42:56 OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64) [#2] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 459.007 MB/s Sequential Write : 252.466 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 280.713 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 240.411 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 26.707 MB/s [ 6520.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 35.198 MB/s [ 8593.3 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 227.423 MB/s [ 55523.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 157.275 MB/s [ 38397.2 IOPS] Test : 100 MB [F: 0.1% (0.1/221.2 GB)] (x5) Date : 2014/11/07 8:59:33 OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64) [#3] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 513.337 MB/s Sequential Write : 483.692 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 524.201 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 446.906 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 28.608 MB/s [ 6984.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 36.863 MB/s [ 8999.8 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 228.869 MB/s [ 55876.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 254.977 MB/s [ 62250.2 IOPS] Test : 100 MB [F: 0.0% (0.1/442.5 GB)] (x5) Date : 2014/11/07 7:34:16 OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Ahhhhh you have the Evo. I have the Pro. My single drive is as fast as your RAID-0 drives. Going off the comparison though, it should double the speeds it looks like, which would make my speeds double that of your performance in RAID-0. Can't wait!!! Now where can I find some money.... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Ahhhhh you have the Evo. I have the Pro. My single drive is as fast as your RAID-0 drives. Going off the comparison though, it should double the speeds it looks like, which would make my speeds double that of your performance in RAID-0. Can't wait!!! Now where can I find some money.... lol I went back and looked at this, and found that Dell had short changed me - specifically, that they set the BIOS at only 64 PCI Buses (which is meant for 32-Bit OS). I'm changing this setting to 256 PCI Buses (over 128 PCI Buses), and will run CrystalDisk again another time (too busy with work right now, and the MOBO is being replaced, which isn't helping Haha). The reason I'm following up here - is that I got a promotional email that you may benefit from - 256 GB SAMSUNG 850 PRO for $120+/-, and 4 GB GeForce GTX 970 for $300+/-. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Keep me posted BlackBox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevsmith Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 You're not as safe as you think you are. You're not as safe as you think. Just remember, in Terminator 2 they hacked the T101! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski_Me Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I have not had a good experience with W10 and AutoCAD. Upgraded to W10 on my home box, then installed 2016. Program will load just fine but once I try to navigate it crashes. I have 2013 right now but it was already on my system before the upgrade and works fine. I have googled this issue and it seems autodesk is in a wait and see mode over this. Maybe they think Microsoft will come up with a fix for them. If you check Autodesk website they say that 2016 and other versions will run on W10 but they are not supported as of yet. I feel sorry for the customers that upgraded their machines only to find out the their program won't run and Autodesk is going to sit on that money they paid for their seats and tell them too bad you just have to wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Keep me posted BlackBox. Thought you might be interested - 256 GB Samsung 850 Pro for $125 (expires 2015-09-26) As for an update; made time (read, interrupted my workload) to get that MOBO swapped out finally! I discovered that Dell mistakenly shipped my Precision with BIOS configured for 32-Bit OS (i.e., 64 PCI Buses in lieu of 256, etc.)... As soon as I got that corrected, and made some adjustments in NVIDIA Control Panel (running 3GB Quadro K4000 on 3 x 24" Dell Ultrasharps)... My system is substantially faster (even using the stock SSD that came with the workstation). I am regretfully having issues with the two Samsung 840 EVOs though - Windows recognizes them, I can read/write, but am unable to update the firmware through Device Manager, or Samsung's Magician app. So I'm contacting manufacturer to RMA for replacements. Grrr Thought about getting some 850 Pros myself, but think I may hold out for Samsung's new 950 Pro. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 ... it seems autodesk is in a wait and see mode over this. Maybe they think Microsoft will come up with a fix for them. If you check Autodesk website they say that 2016 and other versions will run on W10 but they are not supported as of yet. Due to NDA, the only thing I can say, is that they're actually not... To learn more, sign up here. I feel sorry for the customers that upgraded their machines only to find out the their program won't run and Autodesk is going to sit on that money they paid for their seats and tell them too bad you just have to wait. I don't - not one bit - they intentionally chose to install software in an unsupported environment, and are now suffering the benefit of their decision. To do so is one thing, but to do so without having first extensively tested the functionality before rolling it out for production is always a bad idea, IMO. ... Good thing everyone backed up their machines *before* the upgrade, huh? Now, just restore that image, and you're productive again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski_Me Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 So pretty much gave up trying to install 2016 on my home computer for awhile but then I did some checking. Turns out that the installer requires .NET4.5 and W10 has .NET4.6. Well windows wont let you install an older version of the .NET framework and AutoCAD installer wont run without it and you cant just turn it off either. So the only thing you can do is to remove the prerequisite from the setup.ini file. I made a back up of the original setup file and then edited it by removing all the lines that contained the string DOTNET. Started the installer and about 10 minutes later I had 2016 on my computer. So for I haven't had any issues and the program seems to run just fine. Of course I would not recommend this to anyone to try on their systems at work. This issue reared it's ugly head once before with the 2012 version that uses .NET 4.0 but when windows 8 came along we got .NET4.5 that's how I found this hack. If you do have this issue on your home computer hack at your own risk is all I can say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I was able to install 2010, 2012, 2014-2016 in Win10x64 Enterprise first try without any issues... The installers simply prompted me to download and install the applicable .NET Frameworks, and to that end Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate and 2015 Enterprise both installed flawlessly which inherently include 'legacy' .NET Frameworks as well. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski_Me Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I'm running Win 10 Pro so clearly there is a difference between your version and mine. Obviously if you have the more expensive OS your going to have more features and operational capabilities than the lower tier ones. I'm glad you didn't have any issues with your installs but it seems your more interested in proving your point than offering a solution which is fine. Some of us have to finds ways to make the tools we have work no matter what because getting the job done without excuses is what the client pays for. If I ran my own company I would expect my employees would work to find a solution rather than give me excuses and that's what I do for the person that signs my paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I'm truly sorry you're having issues, but they are issues you (or another at your company) have caused; please refer to the second half of post #32 of this thread. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handiman Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Here is a Beast for speed. Intel 400GB 750 Series. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167300 I might just have to try this one. 4X faster than the Samsung Pro on reads, close to 2X on write and 4X more on IPOS on Reading. Its $360 for the 400GB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.