Finally a good move from them!

I don't really see the point of this push. Sure, I get how MS wants features like DS more widely accessible and they don't want their OS to seem slow (especially compared to competitors) because of a slow HDD, but they could just do a certification program for prebuilt PCs, so people have some idea of what they're getting. In general, I see this as a bad move, since this is yet another instance of companies moving goalposts to compensate for a lack of optimization. I understand DS actually needs fast storage in order to have any value, but it also isn't a necessary feature. Windows is bloated, NTFS (last I checked) is rather sloppy about keeping data contiguous, and the OS is too "swappy". It also doesn't help that Windows doesn't have an effective way of mounting folders to other drives, which can improve the overall performance since data can be read/written in multiple drives simultaneously. So for example, using an SSD for the boot drive and a HDD for the Users folder. At least one thing Windows does do easily is using different drives for paging files and to install programs to.

Good! Hard drives are great for storage but have such painfully low IOPS, clearly demonstrated when booting up any OS not just Windows. I bought my first SSDs in 2010 and 12 years later OEMs are still putting slow spinning rust into new PCs to save on cost - please can we move forwards? Also, with PCIe 5.0 the bandwidth gap between NVMe SSDs and hard drives just got a lot bigger than it already was.

A good move from MS. No reason not to have an SSD as a boot drive.

I use a 250 gig ssd for W10 OS alone and i could never go back to a standard HDD for a OS at this point, and once you use a SSD there is no going back, and even Edison moved on from the wax cylinder at some point. Lol

schmidtbag:

I don't really see the point of this push. Sure, I get how MS wants features like DS more widely accessible and they don't want their OS to seem slow (especially compared to competitors) because of a slow HDD, but they could just do a certification program for prebuilt PCs, so people have some idea of what they're getting. In general, I see this as a bad move, since this is yet another instance of companies moving goalposts to compensate for a lack of optimization. I understand DS actually needs fast storage in order to have any value, but it also isn't a necessary feature. Windows is bloated, NTFS (last I checked) is rather sloppy about keeping data contiguous, and the OS is too "swappy". It also doesn't help that Windows doesn't have an effective way of mounting folders to other drives, which can improve the overall performance since data can be read/written in multiple drives simultaneously. So for example, using an SSD for the boot drive and a HDD for the Users folder. At least one thing Windows does do easily is using different drives for paging files and to install programs to.

Far from a bad move. 256gb SSD should be standard these days. Cheap! My gfs dad is 67 and was ready to yhrow his laptop at a wall. 5400rpm 500gb drive and single channel 8gb. I slapped another 8gb in it, and a 500gb ssd. Little puppy works like a champ now. Even testing with single 8gb it was 10000× times more response and booted so much faster. Mechanical drives as a boot drive shouldn't have existed since 2015 when you could get a 256gb for $65

haste:

MS devs completely forgot how to optimize for HDDs. Their latest VS iterations are painfully slow, almost unusable on HDDs. So this is their solution to the problem I guess. Where are all the devs optimizing every instruction in asm.

In the past. I am sure OS kernel has some portions of code written in ASM. But I would not expect all the code to be implemented that way. No need to optimize for storage operations (beside asynchronous patterns) not because of fast storage but because of dirt cheap RAM (which is still faster than any SSDs). So load everything into RAM and screw the caching. PS When I made a switch to SSDs I had fast 10K rmps rust spinning so the boot of OS was not that faster on new shiny SSD (not tenfold I mean). PPS Instead of pleading for good storage operations optimization I would go for good multithreading optimization.

Ya once you go SSD for OS drive you'lll never go back.......

Definitely all for supporting SSDs in systems but I do see MS just using this to further hide an increasingly bloated OS. My first SSD upgrade was an OCZ Vertex 1 in 2008ish back on Windows 7. I've had probably 50 more SSDs and to this day none have booted from BIOS to desktop as fast as that one did.

Agonist:

Far from a bad move. 256gb SSD should be standard these days. Cheap! My gfs dad is 67 and was ready to yhrow his laptop at a wall. 5400rpm 500gb drive and single channel 8gb. I slapped another 8gb in it, and a 500gb ssd. Little puppy works like a champ now. Even testing with single 8gb it was 10000× times more response and booted so much faster. Mechanical drives as a boot drive shouldn't have existed since 2015 when you could get a 256gb for $65

I agree with much of what you said but HDDs are still cheaper for mass storage. The underlying problem is that OEMs shouldn't be forced to change just because MS poorly optimizes things. There's a lot wrong with HDDs but if someone is willing (or wants) to buy a PC with a HDD, they should have the option and it doesn't have to be such a miserable experience.

Been using an SSD since late 2009, it should be the standard boot drive by now.

schmidtbag:

I agree with much of what you said but HDDs are still cheaper for mass storage. The underlying problem is that OEMs shouldn't be forced to change just because MS poorly optimizes things. There's a lot wrong with HDDs but if someone is willing (or wants) to buy a PC with a HDD, they should have the option and it doesn't have to be such a miserable experience.

It has nothing todo with optimization of the code. The underlying problem is, that the average Joe doesn't know any better, MS wants to ensure that the end user gets a smooth experience when using Windows, so like others here I see it as a move into the right direction. OEM's usually don't care, nor does the sales person in your average hardware store, so they try to sell any crap to those who don't know better, someone has to say enough is enough and think it should have been a requirement from MS from day 1.

schmidtbag:

I agree with much of what you said but HDDs are still cheaper for mass storage. The underlying problem is that OEMs shouldn't be forced to change just because MS poorly optimizes things. There's a lot wrong with HDDs but if someone is willing (or wants) to buy a PC with a HDD, they should have the option and it doesn't have to be such a miserable experience.

You can't drag an old horse along forever. Let it enjoy its last days in peace. Apple will find it easier and easier to beat the competition if nothing is ever left behind. In 2023 it will be 100% reasonable to optimise only for SSD. 20 years ago people were singing praise in choirs, regardless of their singing voice, when Microsoft finally abandoned the built-on-top-of-DOS home windows engine and brought everybody on board of the NT line with Windows XP. Maybe someone back then also said people should have the right to run Windows on top of DOS if they want to, and nobody should force them otherwise. I'm going ignore here the technology demonstration 2000 and the one unmentionable Windows version.

I support this immensely. HDDs should only be used for storage purposes, not the OS. The amount of new PCs i fix simply by installing an SSD and the people thinking i just performed black magic is astonishing. Plus the fact that most prebuilts come with 1TB HDDs and people see thats larger then an SSD typically and "therefor is better", when they arnt even, often, using more then 100gb, OS included, it's just bad practice for HDDs to still be any kind of default in prebuilts. There'd be a lot less waste from end users feeling their newish PCs are slow and getting a new one all because they arn't running on an SSD.

Mineria:

It has nothing todo with optimization of the code. The underlying problem is, that the average Joe doesn't know any better, MS wants to ensure that the end user gets a smooth experience when using Windows, so like others here I see it as a move into the right direction. OEM's usually don't care, nor does the sales person in your average hardware store, so they try to sell any crap to those who don't know better, someone has to say enough is enough and think it should have been a requirement from MS from day 1.

You can't blame the seller because someone is to lazy to use whatever search engine to know what they are buying for the price. Heck nonmatter what it is I buy for anything I go best reviews and price and I'm not the smartest guy around.

Mineria:

It has nothing todo with optimization of the code. The underlying problem is, that the average Joe doesn't know any better, MS wants to ensure that the end user gets a smooth experience when using Windows, so like others here I see it as a move into the right direction.

But... that has everything to do with optimization. The average Joe might not know better and it's a shame OEMs don't make their products better understood, but for those who do end up with a HDD, they could be getter a smoother experience. Nobody here disagrees that HDDs are slow and that OEMs are too sneaky, but the underlying problem is that SSDs are a rug and MS is trying to sweep optimizations under it. Its a bad mentality to just use faster hardware as an excuse to not improve things.

Kaarme:

In 2023 it will be 100% reasonable to optimise only for SSD.

I have no faith that MS will do this. As drives get faster and larger, there is less incentive to improve. That's why, as I see it, MS wants to eliminate their last remaining motivator to reduce bloat, unnecessary I/O overhead, filesystem logic, redundant data, and so on. Even on an SSD, I'm bothered by how slow windows is to run updates, shut down, or even open the start menu at times. [Quote]20 years ago people were singing praise in choirs, regardless of their singing voice, when Microsoft finally abandoned the built-on-top-of-DOS home windows engine and brought everybody on board of the NT line with Windows XP. Maybe someone back then also said people should have the right to run Windows on top of DOS if they want to, and nobody should force them otherwise. I'm going ignore here the technology demonstration 2000 and the one unmentionable Windows version. Not really a good example. For one thing, Apple could get away with it because they were willing to break compatibility for the sake of better performance. Macs are a relatively niche platform and their demographic is willing to adapt, whereas one of the only selling points of Windows is wide compatibility for both software and hardware. Windows strongly caters to people who hate change. Just look at how much flak W7 got over the most petty differences. Every year, Windows has been slowly losing relevance to Mac, Chrome OS, Android, iOS, and even Linux. This is because more applications are becoming web based, while these other devices are so much more optimized that you can cheap out and still geta smooth and user friendly experience. Even the cheapest of tablets and chrome books get SSDs, because they only need about 16GB to function, and because the software is basic enough, you don't need any high performance drives.

@schmidtbag Why do you think there are any optimizations regarding the internal storage details? Why do you think SATA interfaced HDD and SSD need different optimization?

Does this mean SSD's will be priced like Hard Drives?

mbk1969:

@schmidtbag Why do you think there are any optimizations regarding the internal storage details? Why do you think SATA interfaced HDD and SSD need different optimization?

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say. Much of the things I spoke about aren't device-specific.

I like windows...it's the best operating system that is the most compatible with most/all software. PS: (just my opinion)