Thinkpads Forum

I've had this new/unused Intel 520 120GB SSD a while, gotta install it in my T60, which is currently running XP on the original 60G HD. I bought the laptop in Nov. 2006 and I believe it has the original XP install. I figure it doesn't make sense to try to keep the same install and that things will be better/snappier if I make a fresh install of Windows. I have made recovery CD's. Can I use those to install XP on the SSD? Will I have the recovery partition?

I realize that many people advise running Win7 instead, but I have a couple of apps that won't run on Win7, so I prefer XP, although I understand that XP doesn't play nicely with SSDs without help. I am NOT versed in the issues, but one reason I bought the Intel drive (instead of another) was that the Intel toolbox is/was said to do the trim thing. I have never seen the toolbox, don't know how to use it or how/when to do the trim. I presume I just have to run the trim function once (?). I do that just after format or after installing XP?

Do I just mount the SSD in a caddy and put it in, put an XP install disk in the optical drive and format? What's the procedure I want to use?

Do I want to install the same Thinkpad utilities that I did when running on the HD or are there differences?

Any tips/links, etc. appreciated.

The distinctive characteristic of an SSD, as opposed to a conventional disk, is that the fundamental storage blocks on the SSD are larger than the OS logical blocks. When a write occurs replacing less than the whole contents of a block, the entire block is duplicated, leaving the old block behind. Unfortunately, nobody tells the poor SSD that the old block is no longer needed because it has been duplicated. The SSD has a background garbage collection routine, and when it collects that block, it consolidates by rewriting, all the data in that block except that in the first write. This is called write amplification, where one write triggers a cascade of writes. With only 3000 write cycles/cell in modern MLC drives, this is why I don't like them.

Trim is something you do whenever you feel like it, after the machine is up and running. It is a no-cost procedure that actually saves the SSD some write amplification. But never do a defragmentation; that costs heavily in drive lifetime.

Yes, you just mount the drive normally, and install from a disk normally.
The same utilities are used.
Tip: Create only one partition. There is no advantage to multiple partitions with an SSD.

In my menagerie of machines, I have just two with SSDs, chosen for light usage on trips and nothing else. Windows 8 really is the best choice for SSDs, because the amount of writing for hibernate is much less than earlier OSes, saving the life of the drive. And Windows 8 won't let you perform a damaging operation like defragmentation on an SSD; it knows just what to do.

Neither the recovery discs nor a Windows XP will properly align the partition for best performance. To achieve proper alignment you'll need to make the installation partition with either a Windows Vista or 7 installation disc, then install XP with an installation disc, not the recovery discs.

ZaZ wrote:Neither the recovery discs nor a Windows XP will properly align the partition for best performance. To achieve proper alignment you'll need to make the installation partition with either a Windows Vista or 7 installation disc, then install XP with an installation disc, not the recovery discs.

I have a Windows7 ultimate installation disk. I also have a Windows XP installation disk, but I used it to install XP on my desktop. Can I activate the XP installation on the T60? Of course I have the CoA for the T60.

So, installing this way will, I presume, align the partition OK. But I won't have the recovery partition. No big deal, maybe.

precip9 wrote:The distinctive characteristic of an SSD, as opposed to a conventional disk, is that the fundamental storage blocks on the SSD are larger than the OS logical blocks. When a write occurs replacing less than the whole contents of a block, the entire block is duplicated, leaving the old block behind. Unfortunately, nobody tells the poor SSD that the old block is no longer needed because it has been duplicated. The SSD has a background garbage collection routine, and when it collects that block, it consolidates by rewriting, all the data in that block except that in the first write. This is called write amplification, where one write triggers a cascade of writes. With only 3000 write cycles/cell in modern MLC drives, this is why I don't like them.

Trim is something you do whenever you feel like it, after the machine is up and running. It is a no-cost procedure that actually saves the SSD some write amplification. But never do a defragmentation; that costs heavily in drive lifetime.

Yes, you just mount the drive normally, and install from a disk normally.
The same utilities are used.
Tip: Create only one partition. There is no advantage to multiple partitions with an SSD.

In my menagerie of machines, I have just two with SSDs, chosen for light usage on trips and nothing else. Windows 8 really is the best choice for SSDs, because the amount of writing for hibernate is much less than earlier OSes, saving the life of the drive. And Windows 8 won't let you perform a damaging operation like defragmentation on an SSD; it knows just what to do.

I'm trying to wrap my head around these ideas. I have read so many posts from people saying the best upgrade you can possibly make to your machine (T60's included, I think) is an SSD. Now I'm confused. Can someone help me with this? You're basically saying the SSD will wear out in normal usage?

There is *very little* to be gained on T60 if you're sticking with XP.

I run a lot of old *proprietary* software and all of it can be made to work in W7, but not W8 for whatever reason.

Without knowing what software exactly you have to use XP for, I can't really say much more, apart from expressing (for the umpteenth time) my opinion that installing XP on a SSD is a waste of disk space.

ajkula66 wrote:There is *very little* to be gained on T60 if you're sticking with XP.

I run a lot of old *proprietary* software and all of it can be made to work in W7, but not W8 for whatever reason.

Without knowing what software exactly you have to use XP for, I can't really say much more, apart from expressing (for the umpteenth time) my opinion that installing XP on a SSD is a waste of disk space.

OK, so is W7 on an SSD on a T60 well worth the upgrade?

The old software that I'm concerned about is:

FoxPro 2.6 for Windows. I use it occasionally, I do have an XP desktop I could use instead but I enjoy being able to use either machine. My data is on the network and I like to work on it from various machines

Pagemaker 6.5 (I guess it's 16 bit, I use it pretty frequently, don't know if there's a version that will work with W7. I have a lot of documents in *.p65 format, and I'm quite familiar with this handy DTP program)

Nero 6 (I guess I could buy a newer version to work with W7)

Muse wrote:OK, so is W7 on an SSD on a T60 well worth the upgrade?

Absolutely.

The old software that I'm concerned about is:

FoxPro 2.6 for Windows. I use it occasionally, I do have an XP desktop I could use instead but I enjoy being able to use either machine. My data is on the network and I like to work on it from various machines

Pagemaker 6.5 (I guess it's 16 bit, I use it pretty frequently, don't know if there's a version that will work with W7. I have a lot of documents in *.p65 format, and I'm quite familiar with this handy DTP program)

Nero 6 (I guess I could buy a newer version to work with W7)

You *should* be able to install all of this in compatibility mode. If you have a spare hard drive, install W7 and check whether the software in question works to your satisfaction.

Nero 6 doesn't work in compatibility mode with Windows 7, unless one of the many compatibility patches has made this possible since I tried it.

Muse wrote:Now I'm confused. Can someone help me with this? You're basically saying the SSD will wear out in normal usage?

I don't want to say that it will, mainly because of all the flames that will result I just prefer a rotating drive because it's not a factor. SSDs do tend to fail more inconveniently. Often, with rotating media, you get a kind of warning. You can usually get something off it before it quits completely. There are more experiences of SSDs going all at once.

As for which is more reliable, studies have shown that SSDs are not MORE reliable. There are incredible complications in the design of an SSD that are even more challenging than rotating media.

I think SSDs are fine for consumer use. I don't like them for content creation, because, to last, the drive has to be as durable as claimed. And sad to say, claims of reliability tend to be exaggerated.

From the ACM, http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2385276
here's an example of a data loss mode the makers would rather not talk about:

"Burnout is the most misunderstood attribute of NAND flash. Manufacturers often specify the number of recommended program and erase cycles per cell for warranty purposes but do not specify the amount of time that a cell will retain data. Even without excessive use, stored electrons will eventually dissipate from the cell, and the data will be lost. The number of program and erase cycles simply accelerates the time before the data fades. Data can be retained for years in lightly cycled cells, while heavily cycled cells may retain data for only a few months. Long exposure to high temperatures also accelerates the decay of data. Numerous reads of the same NAND block can cause electrons to escape, changing the value stored within the cell, which leads to a failure mechanism called read disturbance."

precip9 wrote:I just prefer a rotating drive because it's not a factor.

My wife's the same way...

SSDs do tend to fail more inconveniently. Often, with rotating media, you get a kind of warning. You can usually get something off it before it quits completely. There are more experiences of SSDs going all at once.

True.

As for which is more reliable, studies have shown that SSDs are not MORE reliable. There are incredible complications in the design of an SSD that are even more challenging than rotating media.

Debatable.

I think SSDs are fine for consumer use. I don't like them for content creation, because, to last, the drive has to be as durable as claimed. And sad to say, claims of reliability tend to be exaggerated.

Two things here:

a) Not all SSDs were created equal.

b) Backups are a must, whether one uses a spinner or a SSD. All of my *really* important data exists at five different spots at least at any moment in time.

Obviously, YMMV.

I've been out of the loop in regards to SSD's, but I agree with the guys that installing a fast OS like XP, may not really be the best use of an SSD.
I use a momentus XT hybrid drive which is part HDD and part SSD (SSD part is used for cache). As mine is no longer made, Seagate has released a new version of these hybrid drives which are bigger and faster than the one I have currently installed:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/15 ... s-xt-brand

So something like this might suit you for your XP needs as well as having somey SSD benefits.

Hmm..., thanks for the replies and thoughts on SSD's vs HDD's, and in particular in relation to XP.

I have a T61 running Win7 Ultimate 64 bit, and have tried to get those apps running on it. No luck on the Nero, the Pagemaker will run in a compatibility mode, actually it's Windows XP Mode and Windows Virtual PC. FoxPro 2.6 for Windows also runs in there, but it's kind of a PITA to run these apps that way, and haven't particularly bothered to since I have a couple of other machines (running XP only) that do it so much easier.

Maybe (I'm thinking) there's a way to install XP on an SSD on the T60 in such a way as to minimize (to some degree) the likelihood of a hardware failure. As I said, my data is for the most part on my network (accessed wirelessly from this T60, and my T61), so read/writes to/from data shouldn't impact the SSD, unless some local caching is going on. There's also the possibility of having a HD installed in the optical drive bay (I have the caddy). Occasionally I might want to have a DVD/CD writer in the bay. If I want to do that I guess I'd have to not have anything critical to running the OS on the HD, it being removable. If I opt to not ever remove the HD, I guess I could have my swap file on it, also possibly the data that Windows stores for the user (Documents and Settings), I presume that there's not a lot I can do to minimize those cycles (but I might be wrong). I'm thinking that maybe a USB connected optical drive might work around these issues, I've never even seen one, but it seems it might be a way to go in this scenario.

Looks like I'm going to have to do some more research before moving forward with this. I bought the SSD drive almost a year ago! Maybe I should buy another copy of Windows 7. I'm unsure where to go from here.

Muse wrote: I'm unsure where to go from here.

Well, in 6 months from now XP reaches its end of support.

If you have *any* intention of accessing the web with the aforementioned T60 at that point in the game, it's time to move to a different OS. Now.

I don't know what you're using Nero for, but there are alternatives...

Good luck.