The computer and electronics super geek thread

[mikeszekely]

I disabled indexing when I built it.

Ok... two other things we can try to wring a little more performance out of the hardware you have.

First, on the folder(s) with the tons of files that are slow to open, right-click on it, Properties, and then Customize. Change the "Optimize this folder for:" to "Documents."

Second option comes with the caveat that it may cause some legacy programs to be unable to find files with longer file names, but you can disable 8.3 file names. Open a command prompt as an administrator then type:

fsutil.exe behavior set disable8dot3 1

Hit enter and you should be good, no reboot required.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Few people like a "big 'ol desktop" PC more than me, but I'm thinking it's time for a laptop. (have tablet, but I find myself needing a mouse+keyboard SO often to do what I want).

But I really don't know who makes good laptops, or even what the standard/good specs for them are. My requirements/usage:

"Portable replacement for desktop PC" for use on kitchen table and in bedroom---not going to be hauled around everywhere, not going to be used for gaming much if at all. For working on files, photoshopping etc. Will of course be used for media/browsing.

Biggest thing that slows down my current PC-----folders with zillions of files inside. It's just how I have things arranged, and I know where everything is. But both the OS itself, and any program where it has to open up a folder to find/open/save a file---when it finds one of those "5,000+ files" folders, it often slows to a crawl for a second or two (or ten). I think the main problem is that they want to tend to READ all those files, and get the date/size/thumbnail etc for all of them, when all it SHOULD be doing is looking at the raw name and displaying nothing else. But anyways----yeah, whatever spec/aspect would help speed that up, is the #1 thing I'd be looking for. Faster CPU? More cores? More RAM? Faster RAM? Faster HDD? (SDD?). What would speed up "opening up folders that have zillions of files inside". Large PDF's (especially multi-layered ones) also tend to be have performance issues---not sure if that's Adobe's fault, or what.

I am of course, very picky when it comes to the monitor (color gradiants!) so having a high-quality screen is of course of paramount importance. Tiny keyboard buttons also irritating. I do not have giant hands as guys go, but I swear some keyboards have "12-year-old-girl" as a finger-size-limit. Like "deep" button-presses. Too many have like 0.25mm between "depressed and not".

mod dave, run through here, you might find something you like:

http://slickdeals.net/f/7706171-dell-off-lease-coupon-45-off-249-refurb-business-laptops-desktops-servers-monitors-more-with-free-shipping-no-minimum-back-again-lower-spend-threshold?v=1

[technoblue]

Biggest thing that slows down my current PC-----folders with zillions of files inside. It's just how I have things arranged, and I know where everything is. But both the OS itself, and any program where it has to open up a folder to find/open/save a file---when it finds one of those "5,000+ files" folders, it often slows to a crawl for a second or two (or ten). I think the main problem is that they want to tend to READ all those files, and get the date/size/thumbnail etc for all of them, when all it SHOULD be doing is looking at the raw name and displaying nothing else.

Which OS are you using? For a large library of files, I would rank operating systems as follows in order of efficiency, reliability, and stability: LINUX > MacOS > Windows. That said, no matter what you use, it's odd that an HDD would slow down because it is storing files, even if it is a large number of files with thumbnails. Is your HDD using a SATA interface or an IDE interface? If you are using SATA, is the SATA interface configured in the BIOS as AHCI or IDE? If the latter, that can also slightly affect performance.

My other concern is the potential for file corruption. Have you checked the drive for errors? You could have some bad blocks or a corrupt thumbnail cache getting in the way. If everything is okay with your current drive, then I would recommend moving to an SSD for the boost in speed and use your current HDD as a backup. You may even want to get an extra HDD to serve as a redundant backup if these files are critical for your needs. In this scenario, you will benefit from the speed and efficiency of an SSD, while having traditional HDDs serving as redundant backups. You would only need to access the backups directly yourself if something ever happened to the SSD.

Thankfully, that is becoming more and more unlikely as SSDs continue to prove themselves in the field.

Edited March 8, 2015 by technoblue

[David Hingtgen]

Currently looking at "gutting" current PC: new mobo/CPU/RAM, and adding in an SSD for the OS. Reuse case, PSU, HDD, etc.

That said---any "cool-looking" cases that are also decently quiet? Most "quiet" cases are very thick, heavy, and bland. (which is what I currently have). I would love to have a "cool, glowy" case, but they tend to have massive open vents everywhere that just spew noise---usually dedicated totally to gaming/cooling, with no thought given towards operating quietly.

Basically---just something with enough of a mesh front etc to allow an LED fan to show nicely, without having "gaping holes eveywhere" and tons of noise-enhancing clear acrylic all over...

If it helps---I think both of these look neat:

http://www.awd-it.co.uk/cit-vantage-purple-gaming-pc-case-no-psu.html

http://www.awd-it.co.uk/zalman-z11-plus-high-performance-mid-tower-gaming-case-with-purple-led-no-psu.html

But the lower one is certainly noisy as heck. The upper one seems to be UK-only, as best I can tell.

[azrael]

Currently looking at "gutting" current PC: new mobo/CPU/RAM, and adding in an SSD for the OS. Reuse case, PSU, HDD, etc.

That said---any "cool-looking" cases that are also decently quiet? Most "quiet" cases are very thick, heavy, and bland. (which is what I currently have). I would love to have a "cool, glowy" case, but they tend to have massive open vents everywhere that just spew noise---usually dedicated totally to gaming/cooling, with no thought given towards operating quietly.

Basically---just something with enough of a mesh front etc to allow an LED fan to show nicely, without having "gaping holes eveywhere" and tons of noise-enhancing clear acrylic all over...

...

Corsair's Carbide or Obsidian series cases?

Fractal cases?

Any case can be made quiet with the right amount of work. I still use my trusty Coolermaster 690 II. Very meshy front and top but fairly quiet with 8 fans running. Probably no louder than when my frig turns on the fan. And most of the fans have LEDs.

Try to look for decent fans that provide good airflow without generating too much noise. I use Cougar fans in my case and they deliver excellent air flow without being too loud. I could have gone with Noctua but their fans are quite expensive.

It's probably best to look for fans that support PWM, which allows the motherboard to control fan speed if you don't have a fan controller. If you want silent, look at fan speed control as well as sound and vibration dampening. That should reduce the noise coming from your case.

[mikeszekely]

Currently looking at "gutting" current PC: new mobo/CPU/RAM, and adding in an SSD for the OS. Reuse case, PSU, HDD, etc.

That said---any "cool-looking" cases that are also decently quiet? Most "quiet" cases are very thick, heavy, and bland. (which is what I currently have). I would love to have a "cool, glowy" case, but they tend to have massive open vents everywhere that just spew noise---usually dedicated totally to gaming/cooling, with no thought given towards operating quietly.

Basically---just something with enough of a mesh front etc to allow an LED fan to show nicely, without having "gaping holes eveywhere" and tons of noise-enhancing clear acrylic all over...

If it helps---I think both of these look neat:

http://www.awd-it.co.uk/cit-vantage-purple-gaming-pc-case-no-psu.html

http://www.awd-it.co.uk/zalman-z11-plus-high-performance-mid-tower-gaming-case-with-purple-led-no-psu.html

But the lower one is certainly noisy as heck. The upper one seems to be UK-only, as best I can tell.

Well, it depends on what you mean by bland, and it depends on what you mean by cool-looking. It also doesn't really help that I don't give a rat's behind about noise, so noise isn't something I pay much attention to (my current case is an NZXT Phantom, and it's got fans out the yin-yang, so I don't think it's for you).

There's a site, if you didn't already know, that's all about building quiet PCs. It's called Silent PC Review, and their case recommendations are here. I noticed the Antec P183 is on their list... I don't know if it speaks to your sensibilities, and it's definitely not a case for LEDs, but I had the P182 on my last PC, and I really enjoyed it.

There's also this Silverstone Raven case, that has some pretty angles, but again, not sure about LEDs.

[David Hingtgen]

Known about SilentPC for years, and have visited often---but their standards are insane.

[frothymug]

I am just like you, David. I use an Antec Sonata Elite because its so quiet, you can't hear it running when the fans are turned to low. However, I recently built a system for my gf and I was trying to find a case that had some compromise. She wanted blue LEDs and a window on the side. It's hard to find a case like that that's also designed to be quiet. We finally settled on the Zalman ZM-Z9 U3 black case. So far, it's kept quiet and cool. If it's applicable, I was able to install the CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Plus Evo cooler with *just enough* space left to get the case on without having to bend it in any way.

Those purple LEDs look really awesome. I like the Zalman case you linked, so I thought my story might be relevant.

[David Hingtgen]

frothymug----much appreciated. I'm looking for "quiet" but not "so quiet that it looks like a solid black cube". I'd like to have SOME "fun" in my PC's appearance. I believe I sacrificed too much in the pursuit of silence last time---it's pretty darn quiet---but heavy, expensive, and boring.

I honestly believe its weight and blandness are part of the reason it's the least-upgraded PC I've ever owned. There's just little fun in dealing with such a big black block, so I rarely open it up.

I'm thinking stock cooling at the moment---though intel coolers have sucked since like, post-Pentium, so I may have to get aftermarket anyways, just to have "screws".

[azrael]

I'm thinking stock cooling at the moment---though intel coolers have sucked since like, post-Pentium, so I may have to get aftermarket anyways, just to have "screws".

I would probably avoid Intel stock coolers as they can get noisy at higher speeds. frothymug mentioned the Coolermaster Hyper 212 cooler. I highly recommend it as I used it on the last version of my computer and even bought a new one for my current revision before I decided to go with an AiO liquid cooling solution. It is the best bang-for-buck cooler on the market. And you can replace the included fan with any better fan that you want. Only downside is the big heatsink.

[David Hingtgen]

I currently have a Scythe Ninja Plus. Most any heatsink is smaller than that. (would like to re-use it, but it seems only the Ninja 2 and later can be adapted for modern CPU sockets) I can probably at least re-use its fan for something.

Anything smaller/cheaper than the 212 that's recommended? It currently seems so popular, that it's sold out most places and the price keeps going up!

Hmmn, liquid cooling's always an option...

[Nekko Basara]

Anything smaller/cheaper than the 212 that's recommended? It currently seems so popular, that it's sold out most places and the price keeps going up!

The Hyper212 series are sort of archetypical 120mm tower coolers. They are excellent, but plenty of other companies make similarly-designer coolers that will offer comparable performance if you want alternatives. I've personally had good luck with Xigmateks, although they also seem to have grown pricey/scarce. I just did a targeted search at Newegg, and it seems like some good options start in the $25-$30 range.

You'll need about 160mm of clearance above the mobo for most of these coolers. That's not a problem for most standard cases, but I'm just mentioning it in case you go with an unusual design (or have side-mounted case fans that overlap the socket area).

[technoblue]

Close loop liquid cooling set ups are a viable option if you are looking for a change in that regard. I put a system together for a friend that used the Corsair Hydro series H80 last year, and it has worked well for him. The radiator is only half size which makes that cooler a little more flexible. I wouldn't recommend this model for cpus that have a high thermal discharge or for overclocking. The noise is negligable as far as I can tell.

My personal systems are built around air cooling. My HTPC uses the lower profile Scythe Big Shuriken, but I haven't seen that in stock for a couple of years now. My desktop uses the Noctua NH-U12S. It's taller at 158mm, so Nekko Basara's clearance guidelines apply to it as well.

[azrael]

I currently have a Scythe Ninja Plus. Most any heatsink is smaller than that. (would like to re-use it, but it seems only the Ninja 2 and later can be adapted for modern CPU sockets) I can probably at least re-use its fan for something.

Anything smaller/cheaper than the 212 that's recommended? It currently seems so popular, that it's sold out most places and the price keeps going up!

Hmmn, liquid cooling's always an option...

I currently use a Corsair H80 in my main box and H60 in my little ITX-build. As technoblue mentioned, the H80 isn't that great when it comes to cooling OC-rigs. Not to say it can't because I did OC and my H80 is holding temps just fine. The H100/110 is the best for OCing though. My H60 in my ITX build keeps quiet enough that it sounds like everyday background noise that you could sleep to.

[David Hingtgen]

Did some more research/reviews (at home sick all day, so not much else to do).

Cooler: Scythe Kotetsu (I like Scythe, and the Kotetsu seems like a no-brainer--very good, very quiet, cheap as a 212 Evo, just hard to find--but found for 41 shipped)

Case: Zalman Z9 U3. Found it for $53 shipped at Walmart, so well worth "trying out" at that price. Cases seem to not make THAT much difference, noise-wise. It's the fans/equipment, not what they're housed in. (which mirrors my experience). Many "silent" cases tested louder than "normal" cases at several sites. And most all Zalman stuff is fairly quiet, "quiet CPU coolers" are their #1 thing AFAIK.

While it'd be fairly pointless to put the new cooler on my old CPU, I can at least transfer everything to the new case mostly as-is and try it out for a while, before I acquire new MOBO etc and truly re-build the thing.

[azrael]

Did some more research/reviews (at home sick all day, so not much else to do).

Cooler: Scythe Kotetsu (I like Scythe, and the Kotetsu seems like a no-brainer--very good, very quiet, cheap as a 212 Evo, just hard to find--but found for 41 shipped)

Case: Zalman Z9 U3. Found it for $53 shipped at Walmart, so well worth "trying out" at that price. Cases seem to not make THAT much difference, noise-wise. It's the fans/equipment, not what they're housed in. (which mirrors my experience). Many "silent" cases tested louder than "normal" cases at several sites. And most all Zalman stuff is fairly quiet, "quiet CPU coolers" are their #1 thing AFAIK.

Scythe is a good option. I used their fans for quite a while.

As I mentioned, you are better off looking for good fans that can provide good airflow but not sound like a wind tunnel along with sound and vibration dampening.

[David Hingtgen]

I plan to re-use most of my existing case and CPU fans. (all are quiet, and in good shape). Considering some of Corsair's "quiet series" too, if I need a size I don't have spares of. I rubber-insulate everything. (my HDD is currently mid-air suspended, but the new case seems to have a good, heavily-insulated drive tray)

CPU---most likely a 4460. Also considering 4370 for its raw speed and price. (people said go to multi-core years ago, and it hasn't panned out IMHO----considering how few programs I own that seem to take advantage of it, 2 faster cores may very well be the better choice, than 4 slower ones, for everyday use for me)

My previous build was "high-end stuff". Not bleeding edge, but not cheap either. This time around----"best bang for the buck". Very fond of Tom's for this, as they rate price/performance in several different ways. I spent so much on the build last time, that despite getting many years out of it---the high price spent on the initial components made me reluctant to spend even more on it, to upgrade. So this time---cheaper, with the intent of upgrading sooner. If I get sick of the case in a year---it was only 50 bucks. CPU slow in 18 months? It was 100-150, not 250-300, etc.

(and high-end RAM really seems pointless, straight "most common middle-of-the-road" this time) Also, I game so little on my PC nowadays, that I'm reusing my graphics card. Will upgrade it when I actually buy a new bleeding-edge PC game, which I see none on the horizon for me. (Mass Effect 4?)

[technoblue]

I plan to re-use most of my existing case and CPU fans. (all are quiet, and in good shape). Considering some of Corsair's "quiet series" too, if I need a size I don't have spares of. I rubber-insulate everything. (my HDD is currently mid-air suspended, but the new case seems to have a good, heavy-insulated drive tray)

That seems fair enough to me. As azrael noted, isolation/vibration dampening is important for lower acoustics. I like to use the silicon fan mounts that come in various sizes and colors for case mounting fans. Drive cages have been hit or miss for me, though. It seems like you have access to a good set up with HDD suspension---and that's a valuable thing when using mechanical drives, IMO. Sweet.

CPU---most likely a 4460. Also considering 4370 for its raw speed and price. (people said go to multi-core years ago, and it hasn't panned out IMHO----considering how few programs I own that seem to take advantage of it, 2 faster cores may very well be the better choice, than 4 slower ones, for everyday use for me)

My previous build was "high-end stuff". Not bleeding edge, but not cheap either. This time around----"best bang for the buck". Very fond of Tom's for this, as they rate price/performance in several different ways.

Just a note: Software tends to use multithreading to reduce latency and improve multitasking in multi-core environments. The benefits of multi-core processors are applied at the system level. In other words, you can take advantage of a multi-core system even if the software you run doesn't see all the available cores. On windows, you can disable things like core parking, for instance, to gain an added optimization and use more resources at hand.

Something to keep in mind while you are thinking about your CPU. I find the added cores are helpful, myself.

And as an aside, here's a good primer on multithread vs multi-core from the EE Times (warning: it is heavy on electrical engineering jargon):

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1271568

Edited March 10, 2015 by technoblue

[David Hingtgen]

Suspended drives aren't a good long-term solution IMHO though. I have to swap around locations every once in a while, as the "bungee bands" do stretch out over time, even when the system isn't moved/disturbed at all. So I move the HDD from "old" bands to more taut, newer bands. I've got enough spares I'll see if I can rig something up in the new one. (at the rate of "band decay"----1TB SSD's should be affordable by the time I run out)

[David Hingtgen]

RAM question: Current PC has Win7 and 6GB RAM. Just watching the last two days, "normal web browsing" (and nothing else) is using 60-70% of physical memory. (I usually have about a dozen tabs at a time open, and often 2-3 browser windows). Most every site and forum says 8GB is the most nearly anyone needs----but I'm thinking---if I'm using most of a 6GB allotment *now*, then shouldn't I go for significantly more than 8GB for the upgrade?

(have already ordered new CPU and an SSD, but still picking parts for the rest) Or will having Windows and all the browser programs on the SSD help with multi-tab browsing?

[mikeszekely]

RAM question: Current PC has Win7 and 6GB RAM. Just watching the last two days, "normal web browsing" (and nothing else) is using 60-70% of physical memory. (I usually have about a dozen tabs at a time open, and often 2-3 browser windows). Most every site and forum says 8GB is the most nearly anyone needs----but I'm thinking---if I'm using most of a 6GB allotment *now*, then shouldn't I go for significantly more than 8GB for the upgrade?

(have already ordered new CPU and an SSD, but still picking parts for the rest) Or will having Windows and all the browser programs on the SSD help with multi-tab browsing?

Well, how often do you do excessive non-normal web browsing? If we go with the high side of normal, 70% is around 4.2GB, and since that 70% also includes Windows and any other background processes you're currently running, we'll ballpark it and say that you could double the number of browser windows/tabs you have open before hitting an 8GB ceiling. This is why most people are going to tell you that you don't really need 8GB. Unless you're actually going to hit 100% of 8GB you're not going to to see an appreciable difference between 8GB and 16GB.

Which brings me to your second question, and you're going to get basically the same answer. Windows isn't really able to work off of the hard drive directly; it takes what it needs from the hard drive and loads it into the RAM, then works with it there. When you start your browser, it will load faster because an SSD is faster than the ol' spinning magnetic platter, but once the browser is loaded into the RAM there basically isn't a difference. The hard drive would only come into play again if you hit 100% of your physical memory, at which point Windows would would create virtual memory space on the hard drive. That would allow Windows to take files in the RAM that it thinks it might need, but not write now, and temporarily offload them onto the hard drive. An SSD would again be faster at it than the regular drive in that case, but again, it's only going to matter if you actually hit 100% of your physical memory. If you're not doing that now with 6GB, I very much doubt that you'll do it with 8GB.

All that being said, far be it from me to discourage you from getting more RAM. Get whatever you feel comfortable with and can afford. My box currently has 16GB, and I was careful to make sure that's two slots of 8GB and two empties in case I want to upgrade to 32GB (which, like three years later, I haven't felt a need to do). It is entirely possible you'll find a browser extension you love but eats up memory, or other programs you'll want running in background, or just regular browser updates cause it to eat more memory. Just be aware that going above 8GB is future-proofing, not an immediate performance booster.

[azrael]

RAM question: Current PC has Win7 and 6GB RAM. Just watching the last two days, "normal web browsing" (and nothing else) is using 60-70% of physical memory. (I usually have about a dozen tabs at a time open, and often 2-3 browser windows). Most every site and forum says 8GB is the most nearly anyone needs----but I'm thinking---if I'm using most of a 6GB allotment *now*, then shouldn't I go for significantly more than 8GB for the upgrade?

(have already ordered new CPU and an SSD, but still picking parts for the rest) Or will having Windows and all the browser programs on the SSD help with multi-tab browsing?

The new sweet spot for RAM seems to be 8GB these days. As mike mentioned, you will not use up that much (as of posting, I'm barely hitting 2.5 out of 16GB).

An SSD will help when loading programs. But as mentioned, once the app is loaded, the physical memory/RAM will take over. Whether it be a SSD or HDD, the app gets loaded into memory and it does the rest from there.

[technoblue]

It looks like mike and azrael covered most of it already.

But instead of a conservative recommendation, based on your numbers, I would recommend getting 16GB if it is within your price range. If the price jump from 8GB to 16GB for your memory type is too steep, then I think that may be a good reason to move to 8GB now and wait and see if you really need 16GB later.

The thing is that no one can predict how your use will change when your new system is together and on-line. And at 70 percent (max) at 6GB, you do seem to have above average requirements now. Anyway, it's something to think about.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Suspended drives aren't a good long-term solution IMHO though. I have to swap around locations every once in a while, as the "bungee bands" do stretch out over time, even when the system isn't moved/disturbed at all. So I move the HDD from "old" bands to more taut, newer bands. I've got enough spares I'll see if I can rig something up in the new one. (at the rate of "band decay"----1TB SSD's should be affordable by the time I run out)

ram is dirt cheap just get 32gb and be done. even though you prob don't ever need it.

[mikeszekely]

So the power goes out, right? I go to reboot my computer and I get a "no boot device" message. Weird, right? It's happened before, though... I don't know if the power outage trips a jumper or something, but in the past occasionally the UEFI BIOS will reset the hard drive priority. I just go into the UEFI, change the priority back to the SSD, and I'm good to go... except this time, the SSD isn't showing up as an option. I check the SATA settings, and it's reporting that there is no device in the SATA port where that drive is. Bad port? I switch it with another hard drive. The other drive still shows up, and the SSD still doesn't. SATA III trouble? I try it in a SATA II port... still nothing. Bad cables? I remove the SSD and connect a hard drive I had in an enclosure, and the UEFI sees that fine.

At this point, I'm thinking maybe my SSD died. I figure I'll put it in the enclosure and see if a different computer can read it. While I'm downstairs looking for my screwdrivers to take the SSD out of the drive cage/3.5" adapter, I burn an Ubuntu disc, thinking it might be easier to boot from a live CD and see if Ubuntu can see the drive, or maybe check for a firmware update.

On a whim, I change the SATA settings from AHCI to IDE before doing anything with Linux. Magically, the UEFI totally sees the SSD now. I try booting, and Windows starts to load but blue screens. The computer reboots too fast to catch any error codes. I go back into the UEFI, switch back to AHCI, and thankfully it still sees all the drives. Reboot again, and everything's back up and running like normal.

So... what the heck? Why would a computer that's worked fine since fall of 2012 suddenly decide that it couldn't see my SSD? Why'd changing from ACHI to IDE get the mobo to see the SSD again, and if the problem originally occurred in AHCI mode, why'd was it cool switching back?

I guess I'm not really looking for an answer. I mean, if one of you guys has one, super, but I'm venting more than anything else.

Oh, and I did find a newer firmware. After the update, the UEFI still sees the SSD, but changed the hard drive priority. I changed it to the SSD, and I'm still good. I'm kind of hoping my issue was a bug in the UEFI firmware and that it was fixed between the version I had and the version I updated to, but I suspect it's a mystery that I won't solve before replacing the entire thing.

[azrael]

So the power goes out, right? I go to reboot my computer and I get a "no boot device" message. Weird, right? ...

Motherboard manufacturer?

[mikeszekely]

Motherboard manufacturer?

Asus. P8Z77-V.

[azrael]

I know Asus UEFI updates have an annoying habit of resetting everything (I have to recall from memory every time I update the UEFI for my Asus Z97 Deluxe).

Perhaps the outage caused a fault or a reset like when a overclocking fails.

And switching from AHCI to IDE is likely to bluescreen so that issues should be fine. I would keep an eye on that SSD, but I think the motherboard went into fault-mode because of the power loss.

[mikeszekely]

I know Asus UEFI updates have an annoying habit of resetting everything (I have to recall from memory every time I update the UEFI for my Asus Z97 Deluxe).

Perhaps the outage caused a fault or a reset like when a overclocking fails.

And switching from AHCI to IDE is likely to bluescreen so that issues should be fine. I would keep an eye on that SSD, but I think the motherboard went into fault-mode because of the power loss.

Yeah, that's why I tend to not do UEFI updates unless I have a problem that might be corrected with one (like last night).

And I figured the outage did something like that, but I also figured that changing the hard drive priority would be enough. It's really weird that the UEFI refused to see the SSD at all, through several reboots, until I changed SATA modes.

In any case, the SSD is a 128GB drive that's got under 20GB free now (it was under 5, until I realized that NVIDIA keeps copies of old drivers when it updates), so I was figuring on shopping for a new one soon anyway. I'm also getting a little leery of Asus motherboards. My previous motherboard was an Asus, and it took forever to POST. It seems like they always have some quirk that diminishes my enjoyment of them.

[azrael]

I'm also getting a little leery of Asus motherboards. My previous motherboard was an Asus, and it took forever to POST. It seems like they always have some quirk that diminishes my enjoyment of them.

Tell me about it. I originally had a Asus Z87 Deluxe that had stability issues, voltage issues that drained the watch battery (even when I had it plugged directly to the wall jack to get constant power, the damn battery still drained) and then the audio chip that ceased functioning. Nearly threw that thing through the window.

[frothymug]

Was your computer shut down or running when you had the outage? I hear that not shutting down the OS can sometimes cause your hard drive to go kablooey.

True story, when I worked at a print shop a few years ago, I did basic IT support for the PCs and we had a Mac guy. Well, our art department uses Macs and they NEVER turn their computers off. We had battery backups installed at all stations, but we had a big storm that knocked out the power for a few hours. We came in the next morning to find that all the systems were off and one of the Macs would not boot. It said it couldn't find the hard drive. I suspected that the hard drive was irreparably damaged due to the OS not being shut down when the power outage happened. We installed a new hard drive and ghosted the archived files onto the new one. Everything worked fine after that.

I have the same motherboard as you, Mike. No issues as of yet.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, my SSD arrived today. 250Gb, for OS, a couple games, and oft-used programs. Will be paired with 1 TB HDD for general storage and other programs.

My first SSD, and have been reading about setting them up etc. Based on the above, should I create a partition in it, or create some sort of dedicated cache/pagefile location within it for Windows? Or just have all 250 in a single simple volume?

[azrael]

My first SSD, and have been reading about setting them up etc. Based on the above, should I create a partition in it, or create some sort of dedicated cache/pagefile location within it for Windows? Or just have all 250 in a single simple volume?

Since you have the second drive, I would recommend,

SSD

1 partition (technically, after Vista, Windows actually creates a 100MB System Reserved partition but ignore that). OS, common/productivity and the regular day-to-day apps on the SSD.

HDD

Games, pagefile, temp directories, personal data. Partition it how you like. I'd probably go with 250-300GB for games, pagefile, temp folders, then the rest for your data. The Games partition could vary depending on how large the games are, which these days can be ridiculous.

[technoblue]

I limit my Windows page file to 1024MB and have no issues on a desktop that uses 8GB of memory. My setup is similar to yours. The OS drive is a smaller SSD (128GB) with a single partition and my storage drive is 1TB. The only optimization that I did after installing Windows 7 was to move my user directories from drive C: to drive D:. My user profile directories (My Documents, My Pictures, Downloads, and so on) contain 60GB worth of data. I keep a backup of this data on external media.

If I had a larger SSD, I might have organized this a little differently.

[David Hingtgen]

My user profile directories (My Documents, My Pictures, Downloads, and so on) contain 60GB worth of data.

I do not use those directories unless forced to by the program. All my stuff is organized by subject, not type. About the only things you'll find in "my documents" are game save-states.