AA1 HDD vs SSD, question on pc utilisation

Hi there,

My question is pretty simple , how the pc respond with these two different storage system.

Are HDD base is noisier ?
Are HDD base generate more heat ?
Do the fan run more often on HDD model (or at higher speed) making then annoying ?
Are HDD base is really harder on battery usage time ? how much
Somebody had failure on SSD (I saw both display model with SSD at FutureShop with "error 25" read error if i not mistaken)
Did i forgot something else....

I plan to go with the linux one SSd or HDD (more space is never bad thing) your answer will tell !

 

Without wishing to offend, perhaps you could buy one of each, and both Linux and Windows version of them, so that you can let us all know how well they compare with each other?

 

I ask those question because i read on some tread that some people exchange SSD for HDD ,or the other way around, after purchase.
I was curious about there experience, they had both machine in there hand at some point or maybe some people know people with AA1 with different configuration than ours and can make some comment.

I was leading to learn from other comment and experience. But if nobody can help, at some point i will find some other way to get my answer. But probably not buying one of each, this technique could put me in trouble the next time i will hesitate between some model for my next new car :lol:

 

Well, when I buy a new car, I start by reading all the trade reviews and a selection of owner reports for the class of car I'm interested in (e.g. MPV). I make up a shortlist of suitable models (e.g. Toyota Verso, Honda CRV) and find where they're available in my area, so that I can arrange to test-drive them. Once I've decided which model I'm interested in, I ring around to find the best deal that is available. I used the same technique for choosing an ultra-mobile. Obviously, if a model that you're interested in isn't available to test drive, you're going to have to rely on other peoples' recommendations, in which case I find that trade reviews that compare a variety of models are generally more reliable than owner reports which can be rather subjective. I hope this helps.

For what it's worth, most of the posters that I've read who have swapped the built-in SSD for something else, have tried to improve upon the specification of the off-the-shelf AAO with HDD. So they're not really comparing like with like. There's a reason why Acer supply the Windows AAO with a HDD. Windows needs plenty space and swap capacity. In this respect the MS Wind/Advent may be more suitable than the AAO, according to trade reports, anyway. If you're not interested in either Windows or saving lots of data on your ultra-portable, then a SSD model is less power hungry and more robust.

 

Acer aspire ONe with windows xp, 120GB hdd and 6 cell battery last over 7 hours of MS word typing with Wifi on. Compared to other people's result with the 3cell, ssd, XP, they get around 3hours of battery life.

So there's not a lot of difference in battery usage between the hdd and the ssd.

The HDD is very quiet compared to the fan, but you can turn the fan off safely.

 

Whoa there, pilgrim! Define what you mean by "safely," please? Afterall, Acer modified the fan tables in the most recent BIOS version seemingly to increase cooling, most likely to reduce the number of returning fried "Oners" they're going to receive.

Also, I agree that battery performance is not the most significant ssd versus hdd consideration. The reason Acer (and most other UMPC manufacturers) install hdd's into their Windows models, is because Windows needs room to breathe, which is going to be expensive if you use ssd's. Additionally, XP and, in particular, Vista tend to literally thrash ssd's to death. So if you're going to use ssd's you'd better not install an operating system that requires loads of disk activity in order to provide performance.

Battery performance is only going to be significant to buyers who are going to spend long periods away from civilisation. Whether or not a device is useable and reliable is the real question.

 

Safely as in not exceeding the maximum operating temperature of Atom processor. Atom is rated to run at I believe 90 degrees Celsius. The fan is usually constantly on which consumes ~0.5W every hour. If you set the fan on trigger temperature to something around 75 degrees Celsius. It won't fry the CPU and you get a fanless system. It's a win-win situation.

BTW... by the time Vista/XP is done using 50% of the SSD's right cycle, you'll have moved on to a new computer. Research proven that it takes about 5 years to wear down an 8GB SSD if you write data 24/7/365.25 at 30MB/s. That's pretty much impossible for anybody thus in real world, the SSD should last beyond 10 - 15years. By then, your 8GB SSD will be useless much like the floppy disks.

 

With apologies to Mr Babbage, I am not able rightly to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a response. Pure gigo.

 

It might have just been to make it a bit cooler to the touch. Even if you switch the fan off through the software hack, it will kick in again if it gets too hot, to stop it overheating. I unintentionally tested this last night when I was playing around with compiz and watching a flash video with the fan off while the One was on my bed, and that just managed to push the temps high enough to trigger the fan back on again for a few minutes, I don't think the One is likely to get damaged from the heat with this failsafe in place, though I suspect it did get into the territory of possible mild burns should I have been resting it on my lap or something for an extended period.

 

With linux limpus , are the boot time are similar SDD vs HDD ??? Or better with one on particular !

 

So the fan consumes 0.5W (which is 0.5 joules/second) per hour.......which would make it 0.5j/s/h? sorry mate, doesn't make sense...

Additionally, as your atom chip gets warmer it will become less energy efficient - as will your other components - meaning the laptop will become more battery hungry (how much this is, I cannot say).

 

Well, if we're being pedantic -

The chap did say 'every hour', not 'per hour'. The former meaning that the power consumption is consistent, hour after hour.

Out of interest, do chips get less efficient at higher temperatures?
I'd have thought they got more efficient if anything: higher temperature would make the resistance's within circuits higher, given a constant supply voltage the currents therefore fall. As power dissipation goes as i^2*R the falling current would have more effect than the rising resistance (assuming that overall a linear model like Ohm's law holds - which it might not considering the number of semi-conductor devices were talking about).
That total power draw increases in general could be explained by the need for more cooling; in this case, however, we're talking about the effect of turning off the cooling.