Microsoft have just published a  detailed post about Windows 7 and support for SSD storage technologies.

As a full time SSD owner/user (Laptop/Desktop) i am really pleased Windows 7 has some SSD specific considerations.

Once you go SSD you never want to go back.

The FAQ section covers

Will Windows 7 support Trim?
Will disk defragmentation be disabled by default on SSDs?
Will Superfetch be disabled on SSDs?
Is NTFS Compression of Files and Directories recommended on SSDs?
Does the Windows Search Indexer operate differently on SSDs?
Is Bitlocker’s encryption process optimized to work on SSDs?
Does Media Center do anything special when configured on SSDs?
Does Write Caching make sense on SSDs and does Windows 7 do anything special if an SSD supports write caching?
Do RAID configurations make sense with SSDs?
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
Are there any concerns regarding the Hibernate file and SSDs?
What Windows Experience Index changes were made to address SSD performance characteristics?

Windows 7 Engineering Blog Link:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

My own blogs posts about SSD link: http://www.colindiponio.com/category/ssd-solid-state-drive/

I have spent some research time looking at the benefits of SSD and doing some home made benchmarks.

Today’s Post contains a couple of real world scenarios that an average user can relate to.

1) System boot times.

2) Transferring a 3.5gb Folder from a USB Key to the System.

Test Methodology

I have one Laptop a Dell Latitude E4300 running a Dual Core 2.4 and 2 gig of Ram. I then installed Windows XP Pro Sp3 on each hard disk (an Intel X25-M, a Samsung 128GB SSD and a Toshiba 7200 RPM hard disk).

The question I am asking for people interested in SSD technology  is what am I really getting in practical day to day performance benefits?

Boot Times

The interesting thing with these results is how close both the SSD’s are. Both leave the traditional hard disk standing. However when you compare a "*Performance* SSD to a bog  standard one there is very little in the way of a real world performance benefit.

But the transfer rates make the Intel X25-M look far superior?

That’s correct.

Myth Buster #1: Just because the transfer rate is far superior that doesn’t mean this directly translates to something real world like boot up times.

Transferring Files Test

A decent real world test is copying a large amount of data onto the system.

My 3.5gig test Folder looked like this.

So the test here was to copy from the same USB Key contents onto each hard disk

It old Money that’s 2m50s, 3m36s and 3m54s respectively.

Finally the faster transfer rate of the Intel X25-M kicks in and it managed to complete the test significantly faster than the others. However this benchmark throws up a curve ball. The 7200 RPM hard disk beats out the Samsung SSD.

On the Transfer Rate benchmarks (above) the Samsung SSD had a transfer rate of 76.9mb/sec compared to the 7200’s 47.4mb/sec.

Myth Buster #2 File transfer benchmarks don’t always give  accurate real world equivalents.

Conclusions

I am glad these tests throw up some contradictory data and it has given me a chance to focus the spotlight on real world usage after all we all know what its like waiting on our computers booting up or waiting for files to copy etc.

Overall I would say the low seek times of SSD are the the real reason to move to this technology. This gives a punchy user experience when files are found and accessed instantly.

Is going to SSD worth it?

Absolutely YES but do some research on the drive first.

So is going the Performance SSD route really worth it?

Based on the results of these mundane real world tests (booting and copying) i would say no for the majority of users.  It is however a fantastic piece of kit. To get the full benefit of high performance SSD you need a Desktop PC. Other constraints in laptops keep them from performing to their absolute potential.

Moving to any modern SSD should provide most of the benefits but without the significant cost overhead of say the Intel.

Test Machine: Dell Optiplex 960 with 4gig of Ram and E8400 3.0 Dual Core CPU.

The Intel SSD was an Intel X25-M 80gig on a SATA II connection.

Comparing boot times between different Operating Systems isn’t really a fair comparison due to how each individual Operating System deals with the delayed loading of background services.

But chances are if you’re a windows user you can use these results to gauge relative to your own experience.

Test Methodology

I have a single machine and created 3 bootable partitions (XP, Vista and Windows 7).

The boot times above are taken from when I select the chosen Operating System from the Windows Boot loader screen and does not include the time spend in the Bios (which was about 13 seconds).  The stopwatch stopped once the Windows Sound started to play in each OS signifying the operating system was loaded (not 100% scientific but you get the idea).

Each test was run 3 times and the boot times are the average of the 3.

Thoughts on the Boot Speeds

I was actually quite surprised at the results i though the lean and mean Windows XP would be the clear winner. However 2.37 seconds isn’t too far behind. As Windows 7 is still beta and not final code its inclusion here is only as a guide. Hopefully the final shipping Windows 7 will be more optimised and at least equal Windows Vista.

Boot Speed is only a part of the Performance Story

The short version of this analysis is Windows XP is about 5% faster when it comes to looking at the average transfer rate of data on the file system. Both Vista and 7 are neck and neck.

Once again I would have thought there would have been a larger difference.

Is 5% really that noticeable in day to day operation?

Operating Systems

Windows XP: Overall this is still the fastest in day to day use but this is a hollow victory. Due to its age its bound to run well on the latest technology however the margins between XP and Vista/7 are in reality pretty small.

Windows Vista: This performed much better than I had expected but knowing that Windows Vista 2.0 (aka Windows 7) is in the wings it’s difficult to get excited by Windows Vista at this point in history.

Windows 7: As a day to day user of Windows 7 it just feels like a better version of Windows Vista. The performance of Build 7000 is on par with the mature Windows Vista SP1 and in theory should get better in the final stages of optimisation.

Note to Microsoft: Would some kind microsoftie put my name down for the future Windows 7 RC1. I am not sure of the Public beta status of the RC1 but if there is a list please put me on it (colindiponio@gmail.com).

So this Intel X25-M thing is fast then?

Yes, impressively so. I am now moving on to using the X25-M in my main desktop machine running in a Dual Boot XP/7 Partition so in a week or so I can compare all the benchmark data with real world usage.

To read my other posts on SSD see: View all posts in SSD Solid State Drive

Will SSD go mainstream in 2009? Well yes and no.

The yes answer is you will see SSD storage technology is low cost devices like netbooks. However at the performance end of the market there is still the huge issue of the high cost.

Even though Intel doesn’t have any serious competition at the performance end of the market they have decided to drop the prices of their high performance mainstream offerings.

For your typical consumer looking for a FAST storage technology you are looking at the Intel X25-M.

The X25-M has a transfer rate in excess of 200+MB/sec and would breath new life into any PC or Laptop that with a SATA II connection. Forget about Core i7 or the latest DDR memory. The plain old spinning hard disk is by far the biggest bottleneck in any computer and has been for years.

The smart move is to go SSD for your operating system and a larger traditional hard disk for media storage. This gets round the relatively low capacities of  80GB and 160GB SSD.

The only barrier to entry for performance SSD is the cost. In the UK you are looking at a cost per GB of between £4 to £4.50 which in relative terms today is very, very expensive especially compared to traditional hard disk technology. The cost alone will keep SSD on the fringe for another 12 to 24 months.

My job however is to be on the bleeding edge so I managed to find an X25-M in stock at the new price point. So expect a triple boot review (XP, Vista and 7) in the next few days.

Link About Latest Price Reductions: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340525,00.asp

My other posts about SSD here: View all posts in SSD Solid State Drive

This particular Drive was a Samsung 128gb SSD RBX Series 1 and is not the fasted drive around but the purpose of this post is to highlight the difference Between Laptop and Desktop on the same drive and then benchmark XP vs Vista.

Laptop Vs PC

Laptop: Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running XP SP3

Desktop:Dell Optiplex 960, 4gig Ram. E8400 3.0 Ghz Dual Core, running XP SP3

As you can see you can there is a small but welcome increase in performance from the same drive but connected to a desktop PC.

Windows XP VS Vista (Same Laptop different operating system).

The question here is what difference does the operating system make?

Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running Windows Vista Business SP1

Dell Latitude E4300, 4gig Ram and 2.4Ghz running XP SP3

As you can see the same SSD in Windows XP has significantly better performance.

So if you have access to an SSD and want the best possible performance the combination of a Desktop PC running Windows XP is the way to go.

Understanding the difference between these two SSD options is something Dell hasn’t  been overly forthcoming with. They told us the Ultra Performance was fast on the Direct2Dell blog but its still not really clear for a consumer which option is best.

Well if Dell won’t tell you then I will.

First Performance:

The Dell Ultra Performance wins hands down. The average transfer rate is far superior.

Screen1: The Dell Mobility MLC Version

Screen2: The Dell Ultra Performance SLC Version

MLC/SLC

MLC= Multi Level Cell (See Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell)

MLC is generally seen as a slower SSD technology and one potentially prone to reliability issues and shorter lifespan.

SLC = Single Level Cell (See Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-level_cell)

SLC is the faster and more robust of the SSD technologies.

Notes:

So there are two things to consider when choosing that Dell SSD option

1) Performance

The performance of the Cheaper MLC based SSD is still excellent compared to traditional laptop hard disks. For example the MLC SSD has faster performance than my own Desktop PC’s hard disk. So its slow compared to the Ultra Performance SLC but it still delivers on the performance front.

Its a bit like comparing a BMW to a Porsche both are nice but the SLC has the performance edge.

The Samsungs in these tests are both "*slow* compared to latest Intel’s X-25M technology that is about to hit in Europe. So performance should be seen in relative terms. It’s great but there is always something faster around the corner.

Q) MLC/SLC Can you feel the difference in everyday use.

A) Not as much as you would think.

2) Reliability

Q) Should you be worried if you have a MLC based SSD?

A) No, the MLC’s lifespan will far outlive the machine it came in.

Conclusion

Basically the Ultra Performance (SLC) wins on both Performance and Reliability but comes at that increased cost which is currently £317+VAT for the same 64gb capacity.

I personally would not let all this MLC/SLC stuff worry you too much. If MLC technology was so bad it would not be commercially available in machines with 3 year warranties.

Test Bed

I used two identical but separate Dell Latitude E4200’s with Clean installs of Windows XP Pro SP3. The only difference in the machines were the SSD’s being tested.

Important: The names “Dell Mobility” and “Dell Flash Ultra Performance” allow Dell to use any SSD from any manufacturer and call them that.

In my case Dell supplied 2 Samsung models as time goes on Dell could very well change the brand of SSD being used. So don’t assume its always going to be Samsung.

—

I have also written about SSD here

I have now been using the Dell Latitude E4200 for a week and it’s generally been a very positive experience.

The Good

Performance: This continues to impress. The fast transfer rate and access time of the SSD keep the system very responsive and perky, even after bogging down the system with Windows Updates and Anti-Virus etc.

Battery Life: In a 24 hour period which contained 12 hours in suspend/sleep mode the laptop was operational for 5h:40m on battery. I am not using any of the Dell power management software so even better results may be possible. Note: During the 12 hours of sleep the battery lost 10% of its power.

The Not so good

I experienced one blue screen, this was when the laptop was coming out suspend mode. It’s probably been in and out of this mode more than 100 times. So this appears to be  an isolated incident.

It sometimes fails to re establish a remote desktop connection to another computer. A reboot on the laptop end fixes it. This happened a couple of times earlier in the week but not subsequently.

The Intel Wireless sometimes drops and then immediately re-connects not often but I have seen it happen when it shouldn’t. I think this is a power management setting I need to change on the Intel side.

iTunes would not authorise until it was rebooted and then I had to power it off manually as it would not shutdown after the iTunes 8.01 was installed.

Other

I haven’t figured out how to keep the lid clean it’s collecting various finger prints.

I’ve given a few product demo’s to clients and they are all impressed by the size and speed of the laptop.

Picture: Dell Latitude E4200 running Samsung’s 64gb 2nd Generation Ultra Performance SSD

There is lots of information out there with SSD benchmarks but I was more interested in looking at how this latest SSD compares with the other equipment I use to help put the speed benefits into some practical perspective.

As you can see the Samsung SSD is streets ahead of any of the more traditional hard disk technologies I use.

Even better news is I know there is even more performance to come from the likes of the Intel’s X-25M with it’s blistering 234mb/sec transfer rate. So I guess I am saying it looks like SSD is coming of age.

So how does the Samsung 2nd Gen SSD compare to a typical desktop PC

Picture: 500gb 7200rpm Samsung.

This PC has a relatively modern Samsung HD501LJ 500gb Sata 300 drive and would be fairly typical of a hard disk in a desktop PC of today.

As you can see the average transfer rate and access times don’t  compare favourably with the SSD.

One thing I would love to see is fast SSD drives being an option on Desktop PC’s. It just makes sense to me to have a fast boot drive then a large capacity 2nd drive for the data. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Next up 5400rpm Laptop Hard Disk

In this performance comparison the more traditional 320gb 5400 rpm drive was annihilated by the ultra performance SSD. That said the high capacity 320gb is something that’s just simply not possible with the limited storage capacity of today’s available SSD’s.

So for a media laptop with high storage capacity (256gb+) and performance SSD = nirvana.

Thoughts

I think ultra performance SSD is going to be  a game changer and for the first time in a very long time in technology I get a glimpse of what computer’s will be capable of just a few years down the road. In a world post Windows Vista, post hard disks that have to rotate and spin.

Sometimes I find something in technology that’s just so impressive I say to myself “I’m never buying one of these without that again”. Examples from the past would be:-

Laptops with a DVD drive

Laptops with a Wireless Network Card.

And now a Laptop with Performance SSD joins that list.

I’m glad I waited out the first generation SSD and have jumped into the water at the right time just as the performance took a great forward and the SSD’s of tomorrow look even better.

After what appears to be a troubled European launch I managed to get my hands on a Dell Latitude E4200. Dell’s lightest business laptop.

The unit came with the following specification:-

Intel Dual Core 1.4 Ghz CPU (SU9400 800Mhz FSB and 3mb Cache)
2 Gig of Ram (800Mhz DDR3 Dual Channel)
64gb Ultra High Performance Solid State Drive SSD
External DVD+RW
6 Cell Battery
Windows Vista Business SP1 to XP Pro SP3 Downgrade

Innovations: Storage

I avoided the first generation of SSD hard disk technology due to the cost and performance issues. However you can order the E4200 with Samsung’s latest ultra performance 2nd generation technology.

SSD technology is about to take off in a big way now it can deliver high performance and low power consumption. It would appear Intel is about to steal the march on Samsung and have some amazing SSD technology in the intel X25-M SSD’s.

However the 64gb Ultra High Performance Solid State Drive SSD from Samsung is no slouch.

Innovations: Power

I cannot tell you how impressed I am  with Dell for finally re-designing their power bricks.

It’s small, light and doesn’t get too hot. One word excellent.

Innovation: Form Factor

If you have ever used a Latitude D400, D410, D420 or D430 the compact form factor should come as no surprise. I’ve used everyone of those models over the years and yet the E4200 takes it one stage further. Its ultra compact, light and has performance to die for.

Pictured above is a E4200 sitting on a Dell XPS M1530 hopefully this demonstrates just how small the E4200 is.

Optical Drives

The E4200 can be ordered with an External DVD+RW drive. These have been re-designed to make them smaller and lighter than before. I for one hardly ever use an optical drive anymore I either download what I need or copy files  over a network or some other form of storage.

However having the eSata driven optical drive does come in handy for installing operating systems etc. Although it initially appears awkward having a separate optical drive this is overall the best solution to keep the weight of the laptop down. The unit is powered off the laptop.

Battery

One compromise you sometimes have to make with ultra compact laptops is battery life. I could have ordered a 4 cell battery that would fit flush to the back of the design however when it comes to mobility power capacity is more important that aesthetics.

So I chose the 6 Cell battery that would appear to be capable of keeping me working online for 4+ hours. It does stick out the back about 1” but the additional battery life is worth the trade off.

I did a quick test and played back a test mpeg 2 video file (DVD Quality) stored locally and it played back for 3h25m before the battery died. This is a good stress test as it involved lots of SSD activity as well as video and sound.

Operating Systems

Although mine shipped with a pre-installed Windows XP SP3 I decided to install Vista Business SP1 and Then XP again so If deploy any E4200’s in the field there are no surprises in Operating System deployment.

Now with the relatively small capacity of 64GB the size of the Operating System footprint is worth looking at.

Windows XP Pro SP3 took up 6.81gb Leaving 52.6gb

Windows Vista Business SP1 took up 14.9gb Leaving 44.5GB Free

Average Boot Times

Windows XP Pro SP3: 44 Seconds for a fully loaded desktop connected to a wireless network.

Windows Vista Business SP1: 53 Seconds for a fully loaded desktop connected to a wireless network.

Windows Vista Performance Index Dell Latitude E4200 3.2

As you can see outside of graphics the E4200 does perform well.

I do plan to use Windows XP as my main operating system but I have to say the Windows Vista user experience was really rather nice. and I was impressed at the boot time and overall performance.

Installing a Clean OS

It was easier to re-install Vista than XP due to some unrecognised hardware in XP that took some detective to sort out. See here.

Build Quality and Observations

This looks pretty good, the USB sockets are a bit tight to begin with but over time will be fine.

The screen has a matt finish i.e. not glossy the viewing angles take a bit of getting used to but for the user sitting in front of it, it’s fine.

The Keyboard is excellent but the track pad mouse buttons feel plasticy.

Fan: This does kick in from time to time and is neither too noisy or obtrusive.

Heat: Compared to other small form factor laptops from Dell in the past I was pleasantly surprised by the E4200 not once did it become uncomfortable.

SSD: First of all you do notice an immediate speed improvement and the lack of traditional hard disk noise is welcome. So my first impression of Ultra High Performance Solid State is very positive.

Performance: Even from the couple of days of use I can tell the E4200 is going to be very capable on the performance front. I was initially concerned that the low speed of the Dual 1.4Ghz cpu’s would be an issue however the rapid speed of the SSD’s  keep the system responsive at all times.

Cost

The Dell Latitude E4200 was launched in the UK in September 2008 with a base price of £899+VAT. In early November the entry level base price rose by £130 to £1029. The main difference was Dell now no longer offer 32GB SSD hard disk so the consumer has to pay the difference for the higher capacity 64GB SSD the entry level Dell Mobility version.

At the time of writing Dell only offer the E4200 with SSD technology.

As you can see there is a steep, steep price increase if you want to go the performance SSD route.

One interesting question to answer is how much of a difference is there between the:-

64gb Dell Mobility and the 64gb Dell Ultra Performance SSD’s and now that both are out in the wild in the same machine I am sure this will come to light.

Value for Money?

The costs of a non tablet Dell business laptop ranges between £409 and £1029.

So this puts the Latitude E4200 at the top of the range. Unlike the previous D4.x range from Dell the E4200 has been priced in a class of its own with a base price in excess of £1000+VAT and the performance model coming it at £1436+VAT The E4200 is unlikely to become the mainstream choice. For that you’re looking at the 14.1” Latitude E6400.

E4200 Pro’s / Con’s

Pro’s

Small and Light
High Performance
Excellent 6 Cell Battery Life
Redesigned Power Brick
Ultra Performance SSD is impressive

Con’s

Only 2 USB sockets
Expensive

Conclusion

The E4200 lives up to my expectations of a compact yet powerful laptop. It’s a tad expensive but what you get especially with the performance version at least is something quite special.

Links: Official Dell Product Page / Dell Latitude E4200 Spec Sheet PDF

Bookmark the link below for future E4200 coverage:

http://www.colindiponio.com/category/dell-latitude-e4200/

If you have any questions about the Dell Latitude E4200 then please use the comments or e-mail me directly.