Thinkpads Forum

I bought a used thinkpad X220 with a 160GB SSD hard drive. I realize I need double the space.

I'm looking for the least expensive solution, THOUGH I wouldn't want to go back to having the system on a non-SSD hard disk (love the speed of the SSD) and my data is important to me (don't want a cheap HD if it's unreliable).

I'd love help on understanding my options (BTW I'm new to thinkpads)!

I think my options are -

1. changing the SSD HD to a larger SSD HD
2. leave the SSD and just add a 160GB mSata and put system and programs on it (Do I need any special hardware to transfer data to the mSata drive? Is a refurbished mSata a reliable option? I'm leaning towards this option because it seems the least expensive and I won't end up with the original 160GB SSD just lying around).
3. add a smaller (than 160 GB) mSata and put the system on it (how large does it need to be to have Windows 7 on it?) and put a large non-SSD HD instead of the one I have now (is that going to slow the computer? How does a mixed HD system fare?).

Did I miss anything? Which option is recommended? Would love product recommendations!

Welcome to the forum!

I'd go with one of the following options:

a) Install an mSATA SSD and use it as a storage drive, leaving your current 2.5" SSD as the boot drive.

b) Reverse the roles.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with *any* SSD smaller than 240GB nowadays, but it's your machine and your money.

The refurbished Samsung drive that you've linked is a piece of junk. Mine was defective out of the box, and I'm not the only one who had that problem. Not that you'd see it in reviews. What reviews? Exactly.

Spend a few bucks more and do it right.

Happy upgrading.

ajkula66 wrote:Welcome to the forum!

I'd go with one of the following options:

a) Install an mSATA SSD and use it as a storage drive, leaving your current 2.5" SSD as the boot drive.

b) Reverse the roles.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with *any* SSD smaller than 240GB nowadays, but it's your machine and your money.

The refurbished Samsung drive that you've linked is a piece of junk. Mine was defective out of the box, and I'm not the only one who had that problem. Not that you'd see it in reviews. What reviews? Exactly.

Spend a few bucks more and do it right.

Happy upgrading.

George, I got a couple of those Samsung SSD's listed above. They work well with read speeds of 250mb and write 230mb. That other Samsung 64GB (SATA II) is a piece of junk but works well as a test drive.

Now the OCZ Trion 120GB drive I got for $50. Awful reviews but works very well in an SATA II (280mb read and 170mb write)system as a value drive option. They were comparing it to the Samsung EVO drives and the Micron SSD drives which is like comparing a Honda to a Ferrari.

I got the Samsung mSata drive listed by the OP for $35 several months ago.

The X220 should have a SATA III port so depending on if the OP wants to use the Wlan for an mSATA (SATA II) drive or the main drive bay for a Sata III. The argument for a 240/256GB drive would be valid on a SATA III port considering those size drives perform better than the 120/128GB SSD drives.

I would go with the Samsung Msata $40 and keep your SSD in the main drive bay as a auxiliary storage drive.

Hans Gruber wrote:
George, I got a couple of those Samsung SSD's listed above. They work well with read speeds of 250mb and write 230mb. That other Samsung 64GB (SATA II) is a piece of junk but works well as a test drive.

Oh they work fine *if* you get one that doesn't throw CRC errors right out of the box. I've returned - on my dime, thank you NewEgg - 5 out of 6. Whoever the supplier for these drives is, their QC is clearly lacking.

Now the OCZ Trion 120GB drive I got for $50. Awful reviews but works very well in an SATA II (280mb read and 170mb write)system as a value drive option. They were comparing it to the Samsung EVO drives and the Micron SSD drives which is like comparing a Honda to a Ferrari.

Personally, I wouldn't take any SSD with a TLC NAND - be it Samsung EVO, OCZ or one of the cheap SanDisk offerings - for free, but to each their own.

The argument for a 240/256GB drive would be valid on a SATA III port considering those size drives perform better than the 120/128GB SSD drives.

It's a valid argument regardless of how one goes about it. With that said, if an mSATA is used for storage the SATA II aspect is really not a limiting factor whatsoever.

ajkula66 wrote: Personally, I wouldn't take any SSD with a TLC NAND - be it Samsung EVO, OCZ or one of the cheap SanDisk offerings - for free, but to each their own.

what is a "TLC NAND"?

(thanks all! would have been earlier, but for some reason I'm not getting alerts on replies)

Admin edit: Removed extra layer of quoting in order to clarify who said what.

mirileh wrote: what is a "TLC NAND"?

Seriously? Your favourite search engine is your friend. Once you've sorted that one out, check the info regarding slowdowns on (TLC-based) Samsung 840 and 840EVO drives.

(thanks all! would have been earlier, but for some reason I'm not getting alerts on replies)

There's a setting that you have to enable in order to get emails once the thread has been replied to.

I'm running a Samsung 850 EVO 250GB 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD (MZ-75E250B/AM) and a Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB mSATA 2-Inch SSD (MZ-M5E250BW), and they cost about $85 each. In comparison to the Pro model (I have the Pro 840 msata & sata, plus a Pro 850 sata), I'm satisfied with the cost to reliability factor of these drives and the extant of the hardware limits of the x220. If I could perceive some noticeable advantage with some other drives, then I'd go that way.

mirileh wrote:I bought a used thinkpad X220 with a 160GB SSD hard drive. I realize I need double the space.

...

I think my options are -

The cheapest option is to use the hardware you have.

Here are Microsoft engineers talking about disk space usage on Windows 7
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2008 ... space.aspx

The fact that we make it tricky for you to know how much space is actually consumed in a directory is definitely a fair point! ... For instance in the WinSxS there might be a file called advapi32.dll that takes up >700K however what’s being reported is a hard link to the actual file that lives in the Windows\System32, and it will be counted twice (or more) when simply looking at the individual directories from Windows Explorer.

I have a 2TB hard drive in my X220, besides the boot mSATA. It's 9.5mm and should not theoretically fit, but google around, there is a way to do it.