I am getting ready to buy a custom desktop from Cyberpower (great prices). I currently have a 5 year old Windows XP Pentium 4, 3.2 Ghz with upgraded RAM & video + 2 WD raptors in RAID 0. It has treated me very well, but I feel the time has come to get with the new technology.

I do mainly digital art with shareware program & Corel Paint Shop Pro; Occasional gaming (not online); Internet.

Regarding which HD's to use for OS & storage:

1. From reading reviews on the Internet, I'm thinking of an Intel 80 GB
(sufficient for Windows 7 + programs, etc) X25-M SSD (with latest
TRIM for Windows 7) either alone or in RAID 0. I read that the RAID
0 blows away the single SSD. However, might this not be overkill?
Or could SSD RAID 0 lead to problems?

2. The other obvious option is 2 WD velociraptors in RAID 0.

Is number 1 above a slam-dunk if money is not an issue?

Given that I back up to an external HD, which HD should I use for "storage" (I plan to move the "My Documents" folder to the "storage HD - Is that a good idea?). I do not need a large capacity HD for storage. On my current system, an image of the entire system is less than 50 GB. So, if I also want speed for this drive, should I go for some mechanical RAID 0 arrangement or a single 80 GB Intel SSD? Or something else?

Will I be disappointed with Windows 7 given that I am very happy with XP?

I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

Personally I would opt for the SSDs. Not only are they twice as fast as a WD Velociraptor in terms of sustained transfer rate, as, unlike hard disks, they have no reading heads that need to be repositioned when accessing different data (i.e.; random access speed has NO comparison).

This said, although putting two SSD drives in RAID 0 doubles the transfer rate *and* adds both drive's storage space, I would not opt for RAID 0 unless I had a good automated backup system in place as well (think along the lines of one or more external hard drives and Acronis True Image for automatic scheduled backups).

With RAID 0 you double the chances of one SSD drive going bad and taking all your data with it.

Hey Jorge:

I really appreciate your advice. My current RAID 0 (2 WD raptors) has 5 years without any problem. Lucky or not? If I go with 1 SSD, would that not then be the equivalent (in terms of speed) to the raptor RAID 0?? I want more speed than what I currently have. Of course I will also have double the RAM (6 GB) & faster chip (core i7-920). Also, it's not a big deal for me if 1 SSD in RAID 0 craps out, since I have very little to back up OVER TIME. Currently, I do an image backup every couple of months using Acronis True Image.

What about the "storage" drive (see original post)? What would you suggest for that (to maintain the speed factor)? Again, I don't need a drive with a ton of space (see original post).

Finally, should I go with Windows 7? Do you have Windows 7?

Thanks Jorge.

The question about a two drive RAID 0 setup is that instead of one drive that can go wrong you now have two - in other words, you halve your MTBF and double your chances of a catastrophic single hard drive failure wipping up all your data. Then again, as you've noticed with your 5 year old RAID 0 setup, probabilities are just that - the fact that it can happen doesn't mean it will.

A single SSD has a MAJOR advantage over your two drive WD Raptor RAID 0 setup: random access time. This is especially noticeable when multi-tasking or during Windows startup after hardware initialization, e.g.; when you or the system are loading several applications at the same time. On a hard disk, because of multi-tasking and because the files are stored at different locations, the drive heads end up having to move all over the platters, fetching a sector here, another sector there, then back to the sector after the first one, and so on... This takes a long time (relativelly speaking, of course).

With SSDs there are no heads to move, so file location is irrelevant.

As for Windows 7, I'm still running under Vista, although I can dual boot to the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows 7 whenever necessary. I think you'll like Windows 7 a lot, and I plan to migrate to it soon too.

Keep in mind, however, that the Intel drivers don't *currently* support the TRIM command for SSDs in RAID 0.

As for your storage drive, any modern hard drive should do.

Thanks Jorge. I guess everyone is waiting for the resolution to the Intel problem:

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+X25M+G2+ ... e16638.htm

How about NVIDIA GTX 285 1 GB VERSUS

ATI Radeon HD 5870 1 GB

The NVIDIA is $130 cheaper, but that is not a factor, necessarily.

go with the ati 5870. unlike nvidia who tends to repackage old cards and call the new ati does not. nvidia's 300 series coming out is nothing more than the 200 series repackaged. i think with ati's current cards it will be a long, long time before nvidia catches back up. you could always look at ati's 5970.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3679

ATI: that is the direction I was heading. The 5970 is $359 more expensive than the 5870. WOW!

QUESTION: I'm assuming I don't need 2 video cards (assuming the one I use is a top-end model like the 5870) since I am not a "true gamer" so to speak & do not do video editing. Correct?

I sent Intel a Pre-Sales query asking for any info. on the TRIM firmware update. I'm not about to order anything until that issue has been resolved.
Does OCZ have a vertex SSD which can compare to the Intel & works with Windows 7 TRIM? Just curious?

Thanks again.

BTW, do you have any projected date for the new NextStart GUI?
The Winshelf GUI really rocks. Great job. I am about to renew my subscription.

i was kidding about buying the 5970.

forgot to mention that if you go for the 5870 you should grab the asus version. i was interested in the gigabyte version because the mobo for my next upgrade is gigabyte, until i found out how easy it is to overclock the asus 5870.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/10/25/asus_eah5870_video_card_review/

I just read the following in PC World:



I'm confused! Photo editing is carried out by an app. Is there not a contradiction here?

I have a digital art (painting) program (app.) & Corel Paint Shop Pro. These are medium-duty programs. Where should they be installed, assuming I have an SSD for apps. & OS and a non-SSD drive for storage?

He meant the actual images, NOT the image editing applications themselves. According to him, the applications should be in the SSD and the image files in a regular hard drive.

Even this is open for debate, his reason is write speed (which is not that different if you get an Intel SSD, and a mute point if you get more than one SSD and RAID 0 them), my reason would be size of the image files and how often they are accessed. If you get too picky all you're going to do is drive yourself up a wall.

Look, stop confuging yourself, and get the SSD(s) already, hehe.

I've already decided to get 2 Intel SSD's in RAID 0. I was simply confused by what I read. Under these conditions, I presume what you are saying is that it would not make much difference where I put the image files. I would certainly plan to put them in the regular hard drive.

For instance.

In my case, I've moved the 'My Pictures' folder from the SSD system drive to my 500 GB Western Digital hard drive. The reasoning has nothing to do with access speed, but rather with storage space: I have lots of huge pictures I took with my digital camera in that folder, consuming a total of 49 GB storage space. Why 'eat' 49 GB of premium SSD storage space when I really don't care (or even notice) if it takes 10 ms more to open each picture?