SSD is not good for gaming and HDD is far better for gaming
SSD has very good read speeds which is like almost instant, but the write speed for an SSD is very slow, far slower than a HDD write speed
HDD write speeds are just as fast as its read speeds if you buy a 10,000rpm drive, you will have very good read and Write speeds with far better storage and far better costing
if you buy a SSD, it will cost alot for a small amount of storage and its write speed is really bad so only good for OS
@XAnImEzLoVeRX My SSDs have 525 MB/s read and 500 MB/s write, and, expecially, they work properly on Win7, not on the super-obsolete win XP.....-.-
And SSDs are always better than HDD, they're faster in any situation, they're super-resistent, they're totally noiseless, and their life is extimated to be about 7 years while writing 50GB of data every day.
@RiccardoTheBeAst lol, i posted the comment because everyone believes that all SSD's are great and all beat HDDs, which is obviously not true, there are SSD's being sold which has really sad write speeds and there are more now these days with new boosted write speeds, so basically i just said something true about some SSD's out there
but, why buy a SSD, cost is high, storage is low, and their are still really fast HDD's these days for less than half price and has 5 times the storage
there are now HDD's out that run at extreme speeds with very low sound and heat at high storage for less than $300, best thing is, these newer HDD's are far more reliable than the normal drives that everyone believes that are shit, only real reason why people hate HDD's is because there scared of data loss an slow speeds, that has no worry's with HDD's these days
*sigh* I don't think you realize that web browsing speed has nothing to do with the HDD or SSD. It runs all of that through the processor and RAM, not the HDD/SSD. You don't have the internet preloaded on your computer, you run it in via ethernet!
You should have set like 10 programs to open at start up. Then your point between the ssd and hdd would have been better. ssd is best, cause you can start like 50 programs in no time with 2-4 gigs of ram.
How are you trying comparing a linux ssd to an xp hdd (check what you said @ 0:39) and end up booting xp on the ssd anyway? Is the ssd model a dual boot system?
i have SSD version of 1000, and i must say that SSD version is very-very silent, while Hard drive version is a little bit fat and have all that's noisy hard drive
So, it seems that theres actually no point in getting a 1000, as nearly all advantages are on the 1000H. Except one thing maybe ...how would you consider the noiselevel of the 1000H`s hdd @ cbutters? acceptable or near to disturbing ? Thanks for info.
@Molewizard Correct. So buyers will have to work out the fine line between Cost vs Performance and find a balance to suit their requirements. Even the average gamer won't need the performance of a 'SLC' SSD running as a boot or storage drive, it's pretty overkill, but there is always going to be people who want/need the best. ; D
Yes, the moral of this story is; "Some SSDs are worse than an average Hard Drive". Most SSD's blitz all hard drives, finding a economical balance is tricky at the moment. In the future we may end up completely phasing out spinning hard drives ? Keep in mind that there are different models of SSD drives just like there are faster spinning Hard Drives. For example, two models of SSD drives; 'MLC' - multi level cell SSD's are 4 times slower than 'SLC' Single-level-cell SSDs. This seems like a MLC..
@Sharma17 Not that it's alot, but the 1000H is running a 2.66ghz intel atom280 vs the 1000 on the 2.6ghz intel atom270. CPU's make the difference on installations. Internet page loading comparsions....? Maybe i'm not up to scratch when it comes to hard disk/drive performance variables, but I didn't think hard drives had much/any input to the speed that an internet page loads... CPU + RAM runs browser,, network card and firmware/drivers & cabling determines page load speed..? I thought...
@Sharma17 No offense at all, but I find your test a bit pointless.. there are so many variables that means it's not a fair test. Not that it matters, we already know that SSD drives are much faster than Hard Disks, and that high end hard disks can be faster than low end SSDs. Simple.
@BKsMassive Let me be clear... A good SSD IS AN INCREDIBLE IMPROVEMENT over any HDD, however the performance of the ssds that ASUS included in this model of eeepc is horrible, its not a very good SSD.
@Sharma17 You are completely wrong, there is no atom that runs at 2.6 ghz.. Both Netbooks were both atom N270 processors which run at the same FSB (533) and speed (1.6ghz) in fact they were identical other than choice of storage (HDD vs SSD)
Hey cbutters. You're right! After seeing so many videos of people who hadn't done the research first, I thought I'd check. Unfortunately the information I was comparing between the two models (Asus Eee PC 1000 and the Asus Eee PC 1000H), I was getting from a U.S retail site selling what they claimed were these models. Either their information was way off true information or they were completely different models altogether. Thankfully, good old wiki had the right facts: (link in next comment)
@cbutters He does have a point about the web page caching. That stuff is probably loading in memory cache and isn't written to disk right away. There's too many factors to do a side by side comparison like this for loading web pages, you have to do it individually and average times.
The program install is convincing though. I can guess you'd feel the slow write speeds saving images and copying files too.
SSD still has the advantage of being solid state and thus shock proof. I can't decide.
actually. my laptops hdd gets 90 mb/s. ssd can get 90 - 270 mbs.
the real problem with ssds is random read/write is alot slower then a hdd. the reason ssds benchmark so fast and programs open faster is because they are fast at doing sequential read/write
Well, that would be true for THOSE models you've shown. But for readers out there, it's important to know that a lot of SSD's are usually 40% faster than HD's. Also there are SSD's with better write speeds. The SSD I was thinking about getting is about 250% faster than a HD. 250MB/s read/write in Crystal mark. They also have very new ones that will be 4 times as fast as HD's but they are either prototypes or too expensive right now. But for now, there are better SSDs.
Asus' own ssds are 25mb read/write, very slow but its a cheap ssd.I can see why asus would put a slow ssd, to keep the price the same as an hdd notebook.There are ssds with speeds from 100mb to 300mb. I upgraded my old asus ssd to a faster ssd, I no longer have problems with lag or playing videos.
Hard drives should be left on desktops, there is a higher risk of damaging an hdd in a laptop.
Everything needs to be erased when overwriting, but it's still alot faster than most conventional hard drives. You should defrag both drives for us before you try to convince us that SSD drives aren't as fast. Try installing a benchmark application. Furthermore, you're not just benchmarking hard drives. You're benchmarking mobo, RAM... clearly different models.
You are missing the point, yes there are SSDs that are very fast, much faster than normal hdds, however the one asus includes on the eee 1000 is not one of them. The point is that if you buy an EEEPC 1000H vs a 1000 SSD, the 1000H is going to smoke it on not only capacity, but also in performance in general usage. The mobo and ram specifications dont matter at all in the comparison, we are comparing two similar asus models; which one is faster, and the one with the SSD is not it.
Have you tried using some filesystem designed for flash drives, for example jffs2? Have you tried increasing the cache for the filesystem? When you have 1 or 2 gb ram you should use it. How about mounting the filesystem with noatime for reducing overhead?
Must be hell, working with an OS that doesn't support anything of that.
This sound like someone who doesn't know anything about computers, but pretends to. Now gee, what popular system doesn't use NTFS. Oh wait it must be that ImAmac tard. FYI, the latest PC with the latest SSD will be faster than anything you've seen. This guy is having trouble because of the type of memory used in a 1st gen crappy SSD. They clearly have better ones out there. Nothing to do with file systems...
If you want to compare speeds, why don't you run some benchmarking software that directly tests things like read/write/seek speeds? These tests of yours are highly unscientific.
HDD's in my opinion are better suited for stationary systems. I have yet to repair a laptop that doesn't make loud clicking sounds every time you turn it on, and no matter how hard the manufacturers try to improve an HDD's shock resistance with fancy programs... it is ultimately futile, you cannot predict when such things would occur.
SSD's are also very good as primary OS drives, and hotswapping. HDD's are also good for mass cheap storage.
I installed adobe reader on my 40GB SSD XP Pro 1000 far FAR faster than yours..., I think I even beat your HDD one... I think you are having a hardware issue lol.
I run a 1000 40 gb SSD and have a <30 sec boot time with KIS 09 for netbooks and wifi on for XP. The trick is installing the OS and any startup or commonly run programs on the 8gb primary drive it is the higher speed of the two. 2gb low latency ram helps, but move the VM onto the 32gb secondary drive as its rarely used. When configured properly the SSD is both more reliable and faster than the Sata as the Sata is a microdrive (1.9") and has a massive seek time.
-Clean install...mmmhhh... how do you know they are different? = stupid your assumption too!
-Differently configured OS... isn't that the same as above, i.e. not a clean install?
-Different virtual memory? that can be useful only after a good few apps have been loaded, not just after startup, as this was clearly the case!!!! Virtual memory would not have been used up to now, not with just the browser loaded!!!
-One of those designed for linux??? YOU WHAT?? No, they are the same machine, the only difference being that the one with the H has a HARD disk drive as opposed to the SSD disk (d'oh!!!)
-Web page load time? YES!!!! as they will be displayed after having CACHED the pages TO DISK (and hey, I will be diplomatic enough to apologise for using uppercases, although they were neede to make you understand that the real IDIOT was you)
Not Bad Computers. Altough there are Bios and System Updates on the Eee Asus website Which May make the system faster. And SSD is a new technology and does not have any moving parts. So seek times and Loading times Might be different. In the End If it works For the user thats Great. Other than That I am waiting for the Eee Box B208 With Dual cores and the ATI Hd Looks Like its gonna be nice, Im gonna replace my Full size tower pc I Built with the Eee Box B208. Smaller and less noisy.
I have the 40GB SSD Eee pc. I couldn't imagine using the eee pc as my primary laptop, so I'm willing to trade slower load speeds for the durability of the SSD, especially when taking it out into the backcountry of India where dust and jostling on bumpy roads would quickly take their toll on a normal HD.
you broke the boot booster when you installed your windows xp on the 1000... likely during your reformat from the original linux partition... the little 8meg sector was how the boot booster works.
this is not a fair comparison. 1000 SSD is designed for running Linux that has smaller footprint. 1000 SSD has only 8GB real SSD + 32GB flash memory that is slow especially for Windows file system. This video replaced preinstalled Linux with WinXP in order to compare them on same OS. Windows has much larger footprint, and I suspect it must use 32GB flash memory often, so it slows down for sure.
if you can use Linux and want to take advantage of SSD anti-shock, then 1000 SSD is for you.
u could have cheated..........................................no offense or anything. But why would would camera stop for a sec? But who cares, asus is better at making MB's then ssd
todo va ligeramente mas rapido en el ssd, yo pensaba que no eran mejores en velocidad pero he visto unos cuentos videos comparativos aqui en youtube y empiezo a ver sus ventajas
Since the hdd one has more programs on it, it would be suspected that it is used more... XP has a unique way of making programs used alot (internet explorer) run a little faster... The download speeds clearly show hdd is faster; the number of programs have no effect on that.
Interesting, especially since my 1000 killed the 1000h in the GeekBench scores, and that was my stock eee pc 1000 against an overclocked 1000H! And I haven't even installed the runcore ssd drive yet, and that runs a LOT faster than the stock drive!
I noticed the installs were not identical. They should be if you want a fair test.
The real problem of the SSD is the compress / uncompres process (Winzip, rar, installing compresed packpages etc). Price is also a proplem. SSD is good for use in movemnt.
ssd is a new technology (well, not really), but platter based will always retain its core advantages: price, performance, and capacity. to those who say the safety of not having to worry about moving parts crashing, it's not that big of a deal if you use tertiary storage (burnable discs, sd cards, flash drives). I highly concur with this guy: save yourself the money, and get more space plus proven performance at the same time.
Can you do a test in load times for big applications, like photoshop? You've done a lot of "write" test but not a lot of "read" tests except for the boot sequence.
I have the 901 and the 1000h and i can say that the 901 as a faster read time and slower write, the 1000h is the other way around. Programs install much faster onthe 1000h but are slower to boot and such.
there are many varibles, the wireless signal and others, web pages are cached in ram when first loaded, no doubt the eee pc ssds write speed sucks, so hdd is over 100% faster write.
I would say in general the SSD version is great for running linux but Windows XP is designed for HDDs therefore if you're planning to use that OS go for the HDD.
I dont know about the rest of you guys, but sacrificing a few seconds in writing speed to gain the loss of information advantages of SSD memory is well worth it in my book. Not to mention, that it appears that the person in the video is most likely running XP Home on both the 1000H and the 1000. While both machines are capable of running the OS (sorry Vista lovers), the 1000 was engineered specifically for Linux (and in my opinion functions slightly better on Ubuntu Eee
The right Shift key is awkwardly placed after the up arrow key, making it pretty much useless for touch-typists. Adding insult to injury, there is wasted, blank space between the up arrow button and the question mark key, where the Shift key should have been.
Ha ha ha, SSD machine looks like it has a MLC type SSD which are slower and less reliable than the SLC type but its cheaper, also you would never get a SSD SLC type with 40 gig or 80 gig, its follows the same pattern as Ram does because its pure chips so you'd find them with 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 gigs
Firstly, I *did* watch the video. It wasnt clear visually whether it was Linux or Windows on the 1000, and as you mentioned Linux at the beginning, I assumed this was the installed OS.
Secondly, I never stated that the comparison wasnt useful, just that drawing conclusions was pointless as (I thought at the time) you were comparing the performance of two different OS implementations, rather than the machines themselves.
I *was* trying to be constructive, perhaps that didnt come across well...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dude, how did you miss the fact that both were running windows? how can you be constructive if you miss something as obvious as that? are you kidding me?
please go to the psychiatrist and get a diagnosis for being a freak. Or at least admit that you are stupid. thanks!
You know it is possible to skin Linux to look *very* similar to Windows. And looking via a low quality (YouTube, not the posters fault) video taken at a distance, you could be forgiven for such a mistake. And as the poster mentioned it was Linux, I simply assumed this was the case.
Oh, and....
Yes, I'm a freak. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I, am enlightened.
Comparing OS startup times and browser load times between two machines with different OS's is an interesting exercise, but dont expect to be able to compare the results in any meaningful way.
Linux bears no resemblence to Windows, under the hood, and its nigh on impossible to accurately determine why one task is faster on one Os than on the other.
Still, an interesting (if somewhat pointless) comparison nonetheless.
If you would have actually watched the video, you would know that both machines are running the exact same version of windows. Yes the 1000 ships with linux as default, but my comparison is not flawed due to differing Operating Systems.
You need to learn what a review means. Your "review" was bias to being with. Everything was write time based, no load times, nor reviewing the battery life between SSD and HD. Just saying to be a good review you need to review all aspects of the laptops not just the ones you feel are important.
Did you miss the load time test at the beginning of the video?
I never claimed this was a full review, it was a practical performance comparison. The SSD is remarkably slower in almost every task except booting. If you want to get an eee pc with the very poorly performing SSD, be my guest. I am just trying to inform people that not all SSDs are quick, especially the ones that come with these asus laptops.
You can, but it is easier to buy the 1000H for cheaper and upgrade the SSD, the 1000H accepts any sata 2.5 inch SSD or HDD. The 1000 doesn't have space for a 2.5 inch HDD, and you would need some sort of custom built SSD.
I didnt realize it was bigger till I got it either, but it is 'thicker' to make room for the hard disk drive. the asus 1000 uses an ssd which is fairly small and doesnt take up the same space as a HDD.
Seems like your biased towards the 1000H. And not that good at judging loading times. Anyway, who'd want to ruin their 1000 SSD with Microsoft crap? Do the same test with the two factory models, and use them as intended, or compare running windows on each machine, not the drives.
I wasn't biased toward the 1000H, I bought the 1000 SSD first. But it was very slow on any sort of write. Watch the entire video, it speaks for itself.
Also, If the 1000 factory model runs linux, and the 1000H factory model runs Windows XP, how do you want me to do the same test with two factory models? let alone run an adobe installation program on a linux platform.
My test used the same platform, the same configuration, and the same files.
[sarcasm]Yeah windows sucks... I hate being able to do anything on my computer. I wish I was more limited and was not able to run 90% of the programs out there. Also I hate being able to play games and have almost all my drivers installed automatically. I wish I could spend 12 hours writing the driver file myself, and having very limited support from device and software manufactuers. *sigh*
Why not compare the two with Linux--you would see a dramatic speed difference with the Xandros operating system, with bootload times, etc. Plus installing software is radically different(and I feel easier)with a Linux system. 1000/w Linux=fast! ;)
I used the Samsung PM810 2.5" 256GB SSD and the difference between my old 500GB Seagate Momentus 7200.4 and this is new SSD is huge.
My old HDD takes >2 Minutes to shut down and restart while the SSD takes under 30 seconds!!.
All Installations are quick on the SSD and Battery life is up by 10-15%.
My HP Laptop is also lighter to carry with the SSD.
Browsing speed is up 50%.
HDD are the past and SSD is the future.
no2nonsense 5 months ago
My Samsung 256GB SSD takes less than 30 seconds to Shut Down & restart!!.
Just upgraded from a 500GB HDD to a 256GB SSD.
I used Windows Easy transfer and transferred all settings on a next HDD.
I installed the SSD with the HP recovery disk to bring the system to Factory settings.
I then pulled in the Easy Transfer file into the new SSD through Windows Easy Transfer module.
I still had to reinstall the drivers for my printers etc.
I bought the SSD on Ebay for <330 US$ and it is worth it.
no2nonsense 5 months ago
SSD is not good for gaming and HDD is far better for gaming
SSD has very good read speeds which is like almost instant, but the write speed for an SSD is very slow, far slower than a HDD write speed
HDD write speeds are just as fast as its read speeds if you buy a 10,000rpm drive, you will have very good read and Write speeds with far better storage and far better costing
if you buy a SSD, it will cost alot for a small amount of storage and its write speed is really bad so only good for OS
XAnImEzLoVeRX 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XAnImEzLoVeRX lol. You dont know what you are talking about ;)
1hdsquad 6 months ago
@XAnImEzLoVeRX My SSDs have 525 MB/s read and 500 MB/s write, and, expecially, they work properly on Win7, not on the super-obsolete win XP.....-.-
And SSDs are always better than HDD, they're faster in any situation, they're super-resistent, they're totally noiseless, and their life is extimated to be about 7 years while writing 50GB of data every day.
RiccardoTheBeAst 6 months ago
@RiccardoTheBeAst lol, i posted the comment because everyone believes that all SSD's are great and all beat HDDs, which is obviously not true, there are SSD's being sold which has really sad write speeds and there are more now these days with new boosted write speeds, so basically i just said something true about some SSD's out there
but, why buy a SSD, cost is high, storage is low, and their are still really fast HDD's these days for less than half price and has 5 times the storage
XAnImEzLoVeRX 6 months ago
@RiccardoTheBeAst also,
there are now HDD's out that run at extreme speeds with very low sound and heat at high storage for less than $300, best thing is, these newer HDD's are far more reliable than the normal drives that everyone believes that are shit, only real reason why people hate HDD's is because there scared of data loss an slow speeds, that has no worry's with HDD's these days
here's one WD VELOCIRAPTOR 600GB 10000/32MB/SATA3
XAnImEzLoVeRX 6 months ago
*sigh* I don't think you realize that web browsing speed has nothing to do with the HDD or SSD. It runs all of that through the processor and RAM, not the HDD/SSD. You don't have the internet preloaded on your computer, you run it in via ethernet!
people287 7 months ago
SSD is bad because you lose programs like with a memory stick after a while
Erivida 9 months ago
You should have set like 10 programs to open at start up. Then your point between the ssd and hdd would have been better. ssd is best, cause you can start like 50 programs in no time with 2-4 gigs of ram.
ShrapmaElite 10 months ago
wtf?
sewerim 1 year ago
Forget the haters. Great vid and thanks for taking the time to post it.
sini8080 1 year ago
How are you trying comparing a linux ssd to an xp hdd (check what you said @ 0:39) and end up booting xp on the ssd anyway? Is the ssd model a dual boot system?
JezzaFan 1 year ago
i have SSD version of 1000, and i must say that SSD version is very-very silent, while Hard drive version is a little bit fat and have all that's noisy hard drive
RangerDK21 1 year ago
Nice, well done comparsion, thx for that.
So, it seems that theres actually no point in getting a 1000, as nearly all advantages are on the 1000H. Except one thing maybe ...how would you consider the noiselevel of the 1000H`s hdd @ cbutters? acceptable or near to disturbing ? Thanks for info.
GoShizmn 1 year ago
I am eeepc user very nice pc
shibuyageisha 1 year ago
Webpages are in the RAM until the RAM is full.
This video doesn't make much sense in many points...
ineti 1 year ago
get the 1000h, drop out the disk drive and put in a sata SSD.
problem solved!
zerocks88 1 year ago
@Molewizard Correct. So buyers will have to work out the fine line between Cost vs Performance and find a balance to suit their requirements. Even the average gamer won't need the performance of a 'SLC' SSD running as a boot or storage drive, it's pretty overkill, but there is always going to be people who want/need the best. ; D
Sharma17 1 year ago
Yes, the moral of this story is; "Some SSDs are worse than an average Hard Drive". Most SSD's blitz all hard drives, finding a economical balance is tricky at the moment. In the future we may end up completely phasing out spinning hard drives ? Keep in mind that there are different models of SSD drives just like there are faster spinning Hard Drives. For example, two models of SSD drives; 'MLC' - multi level cell SSD's are 4 times slower than 'SLC' Single-level-cell SSDs. This seems like a MLC..
Sharma17 2 years ago
@Sharma17 Not that it's alot, but the 1000H is running a 2.66ghz intel atom280 vs the 1000 on the 2.6ghz intel atom270. CPU's make the difference on installations. Internet page loading comparsions....? Maybe i'm not up to scratch when it comes to hard disk/drive performance variables, but I didn't think hard drives had much/any input to the speed that an internet page loads... CPU + RAM runs browser,, network card and firmware/drivers & cabling determines page load speed..? I thought...
Sharma17 2 years ago
@Sharma17 No offense at all, but I find your test a bit pointless.. there are so many variables that means it's not a fair test. Not that it matters, we already know that SSD drives are much faster than Hard Disks, and that high end hard disks can be faster than low end SSDs. Simple.
Sharma17 2 years ago 3
@Sharma17 I agree with your statement that ssd drives can be faster than hdd and that hdd can be faster than low end SSDs. Great statement.
cbutters 2 years ago
@cbutters
you say SSD's make no difference?
Watch this.
/watch?v=mKcSxd_ynsM
BKsMassive 1 year ago
@BKsMassive Let me be clear... A good SSD IS AN INCREDIBLE IMPROVEMENT over any HDD, however the performance of the ssds that ASUS included in this model of eeepc is horrible, its not a very good SSD.
cbutters 1 year ago
@Sharma17 You are completely wrong, there is no atom that runs at 2.6 ghz.. Both Netbooks were both atom N270 processors which run at the same FSB (533) and speed (1.6ghz) in fact they were identical other than choice of storage (HDD vs SSD)
cbutters 2 years ago
Hey cbutters. You're right! After seeing so many videos of people who hadn't done the research first, I thought I'd check. Unfortunately the information I was comparing between the two models (Asus Eee PC 1000 and the Asus Eee PC 1000H), I was getting from a U.S retail site selling what they claimed were these models. Either their information was way off true information or they were completely different models altogether. Thankfully, good old wiki had the right facts: (link in next comment)
Sharma17 2 years ago
@cbutters He does have a point about the web page caching. That stuff is probably loading in memory cache and isn't written to disk right away. There's too many factors to do a side by side comparison like this for loading web pages, you have to do it individually and average times.
The program install is convincing though. I can guess you'd feel the slow write speeds saving images and copying files too.
SSD still has the advantage of being solid state and thus shock proof. I can't decide.
prfit 1 year ago
But MLC will give you much more storage space per pound
molewizard 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sharma17 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sharma17 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sharma17 2 years ago
actually. my laptops hdd gets 90 mb/s. ssd can get 90 - 270 mbs.
the real problem with ssds is random read/write is alot slower then a hdd. the reason ssds benchmark so fast and programs open faster is because they are fast at doing sequential read/write
lordofthespoons123 2 years ago
Browsing test = hard drive performance test? Odd
kieranmullen 2 years ago 3
Is SATA II (3gb/s) faster than SSD???
lighangel 2 years ago
no..
nutzy73 2 years ago
SATA is an interface, not a type of HD
/facepalm
BurningOrchid 2 years ago
Depending on read write rate
abrakis1 2 years ago
SSD's use SATA...
Fratens 2 years ago
es la misma chingadera, no voy a pagar mas por la misma chingadera y con menos espacio...
yairz 2 years ago
Well, that would be true for THOSE models you've shown. But for readers out there, it's important to know that a lot of SSD's are usually 40% faster than HD's. Also there are SSD's with better write speeds. The SSD I was thinking about getting is about 250% faster than a HD. 250MB/s read/write in Crystal mark. They also have very new ones that will be 4 times as fast as HD's but they are either prototypes or too expensive right now. But for now, there are better SSDs.
test957 2 years ago 6
And you do mention it in comments, but maybe you could put a quick note in your annotations that there are certainly better SSD's out there.
test957 2 years ago 4
thanks for samsung for making ssd~ AWESOME
ljsphilobe 2 years ago
Asus' own ssds are 25mb read/write, very slow but its a cheap ssd.I can see why asus would put a slow ssd, to keep the price the same as an hdd notebook.There are ssds with speeds from 100mb to 300mb. I upgraded my old asus ssd to a faster ssd, I no longer have problems with lag or playing videos.
Hard drives should be left on desktops, there is a higher risk of damaging an hdd in a laptop.
cognizant 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
klydal 2 years ago
"It's not quite as quick at writing" - wrong.
"It's not quite as quick at erasing" - correct.
Everything needs to be erased when overwriting, but it's still alot faster than most conventional hard drives. You should defrag both drives for us before you try to convince us that SSD drives aren't as fast. Try installing a benchmark application. Furthermore, you're not just benchmarking hard drives. You're benchmarking mobo, RAM... clearly different models.
p00pindas00p 2 years ago 3
You are missing the point, yes there are SSDs that are very fast, much faster than normal hdds, however the one asus includes on the eee 1000 is not one of them. The point is that if you buy an EEEPC 1000H vs a 1000 SSD, the 1000H is going to smoke it on not only capacity, but also in performance in general usage. The mobo and ram specifications dont matter at all in the comparison, we are comparing two similar asus models; which one is faster, and the one with the SSD is not it.
cbutters 2 years ago
cool, so basically they are nearly even in performance, unless the 80gb SSD is muych better?
rcszigeti 2 years ago
i have a 16 gig SSD on my dell mini 10v and loading and writing times are fast
jagjagin 2 years ago
hmm same
liteboy2004 2 years ago
I can't get my computer to login directly to the Windows. I always need to click on my account picture to loging to Windows. What shall i doo???
gottn211 2 years ago
run windows update...
TheCrazyhawkIsHere 2 years ago
well, do you have a password?
pumpbreaks 2 years ago
I fixed the problem
gottn211 2 years ago
No, I got 2 users and i deleted one.
gottn211 2 years ago
To properly test this you need to use two identical computers save for the different drives.
This is cool but not legit.
thefuckingshark 2 years ago
The 8gig SSD is fast... the 32gig sucks... I just found that out on my 1000. Im looking to install a Runcore SSD, that should speed it up!
PingJocky69 2 years ago
8 gigs? you can barely install xp or vista (dont install vista!!!) and have any room left.
johnchang7 2 years ago
they both have the same processer right?
majorjip 2 years ago
Flawed test two different OS
mrsmarted 2 years ago
wat
AlterNateHeaDacHe 2 years ago
exactly
ryanbycraft 2 years ago
not flawed it's just not that good.
hercules71185 2 years ago
sitckers are cool
GreenVirus76 2 years ago
You know that the pad as tap, right? You don't have to use the stubborn buttons to click.
Airbusa319thehornet 2 years ago
stickers make all computers go faster lol
carchibald 2 years ago 2
Poor test...
idid8787 2 years ago
Maybe it's because of the crappy NTFS.
Have you tried using some filesystem designed for flash drives, for example jffs2? Have you tried increasing the cache for the filesystem? When you have 1 or 2 gb ram you should use it. How about mounting the filesystem with noatime for reducing overhead?
Must be hell, working with an OS that doesn't support anything of that.
chrisxy123 2 years ago
thats why if i decide to get an ssd model i'll put windows 7 on there. am i doin it right?
LoryLandskipper 2 years ago 4
no...
chrisxy123 2 years ago
WRRRRROOOOOONG
LoryLandskipper 2 years ago
what
chrisxy123 2 years ago
i got nothin
LoryLandskipper 2 years ago
This sound like someone who doesn't know anything about computers, but pretends to. Now gee, what popular system doesn't use NTFS. Oh wait it must be that ImAmac tard. FYI, the latest PC with the latest SSD will be faster than anything you've seen. This guy is having trouble because of the type of memory used in a 1st gen crappy SSD. They clearly have better ones out there. Nothing to do with file systems...
test957 2 years ago 18
and yes I realize it could be almost any OS. But the OS isn't the point again. IT's the SSD that's to blame here.
test957 2 years ago
What Operation System does not use NTFS. That's easy: Every - except for Windows.
Of course the SSD is to blame - but on real operating systems you can work around the issue.
chrisxy123 2 years ago
When I buy my EeePC I'm just going to put in a $320 Gb 7200 rpm drive. 4x the space and faster performance for $79.
pioneer7777777 2 years ago
If you want to compare speeds, why don't you run some benchmarking software that directly tests things like read/write/seek speeds? These tests of yours are highly unscientific.
cstubing 2 years ago
It's called "practical performance" for a reason. Practical meaning things you can see and feel in your daily use. Rather than benchmarks.
pioneer7777777 2 years ago
HDD's in my opinion are better suited for stationary systems. I have yet to repair a laptop that doesn't make loud clicking sounds every time you turn it on, and no matter how hard the manufacturers try to improve an HDD's shock resistance with fancy programs... it is ultimately futile, you cannot predict when such things would occur.
SSD's are also very good as primary OS drives, and hotswapping. HDD's are also good for mass cheap storage.
SSD's are overpriced intentionally.
mewimi 2 years ago
I installed adobe reader on my 40GB SSD XP Pro 1000 far FAR faster than yours..., I think I even beat your HDD one... I think you are having a hardware issue lol.
mewimi 2 years ago
SSD runs porn faster
atangvideo 2 years ago 29
rofl
skaman125 2 years ago
jajajajajajajaja
LuisRo29 2 years ago
I run a 1000 40 gb SSD and have a <30 sec boot time with KIS 09 for netbooks and wifi on for XP. The trick is installing the OS and any startup or commonly run programs on the 8gb primary drive it is the higher speed of the two. 2gb low latency ram helps, but move the VM onto the 32gb secondary drive as its rarely used. When configured properly the SSD is both more reliable and faster than the Sata as the Sata is a microdrive (1.9") and has a massive seek time.
Whalerguy 2 years ago
Hey, gowan*k*boy:
-Clean install...mmmhhh... how do you know they are different? = stupid your assumption too!
-Differently configured OS... isn't that the same as above, i.e. not a clean install?
-Different virtual memory? that can be useful only after a good few apps have been loaded, not just after startup, as this was clearly the case!!!! Virtual memory would not have been used up to now, not with just the browser loaded!!!
mrandybee66 2 years ago
clean install? no
differently configured OS? not specified
using virtual memory? not specified?
isn't one of these designed to run linux?
web page load time? you're an idiot
gokartboy3 2 years ago
(continued)
-One of those designed for linux??? YOU WHAT?? No, they are the same machine, the only difference being that the one with the H has a HARD disk drive as opposed to the SSD disk (d'oh!!!)
-Web page load time? YES!!!! as they will be displayed after having CACHED the pages TO DISK (and hey, I will be diplomatic enough to apologise for using uppercases, although they were neede to make you understand that the real IDIOT was you)
mrandybee66 2 years ago
Why is he an idiot?
Im sure with what he had to work with he did the best test he could.
Im sure you have never performed a test between 2 of anything. So fuck off and let him experiment!
HUrbieta 2 years ago
Not Bad Computers. Altough there are Bios and System Updates on the Eee Asus website Which May make the system faster. And SSD is a new technology and does not have any moving parts. So seek times and Loading times Might be different. In the End If it works For the user thats Great. Other than That I am waiting for the Eee Box B208 With Dual cores and the ATI Hd Looks Like its gonna be nice, Im gonna replace my Full size tower pc I Built with the Eee Box B208. Smaller and less noisy.
SAndrews24 2 years ago
I have the 40GB SSD Eee pc. I couldn't imagine using the eee pc as my primary laptop, so I'm willing to trade slower load speeds for the durability of the SSD, especially when taking it out into the backcountry of India where dust and jostling on bumpy roads would quickly take their toll on a normal HD.
stevenvose 2 years ago 2
you are not trading speed with durability if you are running linux on it. Only Windows will run slow on it.
xumca 2 years ago
I mean because of the slower write speeds of the SSD, not the OS--my comment above was unclear.
stevenvose 2 years ago
Are these yours or are you just borrowing for this test?
Kin632 2 years ago
you have slow SSD also you need compare program acess not internet speed
volny 2 years ago 2
thats right
abadiqaisy123 2 years ago
you broke the boot booster when you installed your windows xp on the 1000... likely during your reformat from the original linux partition... the little 8meg sector was how the boot booster works.
Ultimape 2 years ago
There more things to watch like...
Do they both have a clean install of Xp?
Are they both completely defragmented with the same defragger?
Are the registers of the laptops cleaned with the same prog.?
Are the internet connections exacly the same?
nice vid after all
jeroeniskoning 2 years ago
Actually defragmenting a filesystem on a ssd would not really increase the speed.
Oh and you'd rather use a filesystem that does not need defragmentation at all.
chrisxy123 2 years ago
this is not a fair comparison. 1000 SSD is designed for running Linux that has smaller footprint. 1000 SSD has only 8GB real SSD + 32GB flash memory that is slow especially for Windows file system. This video replaced preinstalled Linux with WinXP in order to compare them on same OS. Windows has much larger footprint, and I suspect it must use 32GB flash memory often, so it slows down for sure.
if you can use Linux and want to take advantage of SSD anti-shock, then 1000 SSD is for you.
MichaeIX 2 years ago 3
u could have cheated..........................................no offense or anything. But why would would camera stop for a sec? But who cares, asus is better at making MB's then ssd
rahmanroni 2 years ago
i hate those eee pc ssd. I bought my ssd from crucial. Their ones are alot better then the asus crap.
rahmanroni 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
does 1000h have hard drive disk
Martiel09 2 years ago
Did you not notice the annotation that ran the entire length of the video?
TerranRepublic 2 years ago
i saw steam!!!!!!!!!!!!
eatrice6 2 years ago
I thought ssd was faster!!!
sarokas12 3 years ago
thats it, im getting a SSD.
logontomyface 3 years ago
well obviously linux runs faster...
DatNarutoBoy 3 years ago
shouldn't websites just load into ram? I would think the harddrive wouldn't factor in...
interesting point on the slow write times.
HateNeverCeasesHate 3 years ago
they are also written into the browser cache, and a SSD causes the system to hang while writing. normally you don't notice it except in this case.
markii63 2 years ago
todo va ligeramente mas rapido en el ssd, yo pensaba que no eran mejores en velocidad pero he visto unos cuentos videos comparativos aqui en youtube y empiezo a ver sus ventajas
logindeprueba 3 years ago
it's not fair, the left Pc Has More Stuff on it's Hdd,.. so way not fair..
moonmic4 3 years ago
than it would be alot faster!
moonmic4 3 years ago
Since the hdd one has more programs on it, it would be suspected that it is used more... XP has a unique way of making programs used alot (internet explorer) run a little faster... The download speeds clearly show hdd is faster; the number of programs have no effect on that.
tigmon 2 years ago
And it still won, so there's no problem.
bluplr 2 years ago
Interesting, especially since my 1000 killed the 1000h in the GeekBench scores, and that was my stock eee pc 1000 against an overclocked 1000H! And I haven't even installed the runcore ssd drive yet, and that runs a LOT faster than the stock drive!
I noticed the installs were not identical. They should be if you want a fair test.
Try em both in Linux next.
stanjam 3 years ago
sorry i posted the last one before you showed that the 1000 had xp in stead of linux.
This test clearly shows that ssd drives are not all fast. Run core ssd drives are sooo much faster, as well as alot others.
sprintrjm 3 years ago
The boot time test is kind of silly.
A real comparison would have been to have linux or xp on both.
sprintrjm 3 years ago
they both do have xp
MBProdz 3 years ago
The real problem of the SSD is the compress / uncompres process (Winzip, rar, installing compresed packpages etc). Price is also a proplem. SSD is good for use in movemnt.
ivanoespa 3 years ago 2
ssd is a new technology (well, not really), but platter based will always retain its core advantages: price, performance, and capacity. to those who say the safety of not having to worry about moving parts crashing, it's not that big of a deal if you use tertiary storage (burnable discs, sd cards, flash drives). I highly concur with this guy: save yourself the money, and get more space plus proven performance at the same time.
ApocalyPS3Edge 3 years ago
Coglione devono essere uguali..non uno con 10 programmi e uno con zero...
detronio82 3 years ago
Can you do a test in load times for big applications, like photoshop? You've done a lot of "write" test but not a lot of "read" tests except for the boot sequence.
napshock 3 years ago
damn you damn you damn you! eagerly awaiting my ssd version and i find this vid :P
is installation time of programs the only thing on the downside off the ssd? how about saving documents and moving files etc?
jackhopemusic 3 years ago
I have the 901 and the 1000h and i can say that the 901 as a faster read time and slower write, the 1000h is the other way around. Programs install much faster onthe 1000h but are slower to boot and such.
Joaozeco 3 years ago
1000 is faster then.. if it has the boot booster thingy.
megamanxu 3 years ago
there are many varibles, the wireless signal and others, web pages are cached in ram when first loaded, no doubt the eee pc ssds write speed sucks, so hdd is over 100% faster write.
mouseboyx 3 years ago
Great Review. Has really helped me make I up my mind between the two.
Thanks
matt2284 3 years ago
I would say in general the SSD version is great for running linux but Windows XP is designed for HDDs therefore if you're planning to use that OS go for the HDD.
earthling10 3 years ago
yep yep you are 100% correct :)
read about that a while ago, said that the OS created by Windows are not very compatible with the SSD's (YET!)
Just give them some time and the SSD will be waaaaaaay better than HDD, hopefully...
gutaga 3 years ago
I installed XP on my EEE PC and it could barely run it. Almost crashed just clicking start!
Michaelstutzer 3 years ago
I dont know about the rest of you guys, but sacrificing a few seconds in writing speed to gain the loss of information advantages of SSD memory is well worth it in my book. Not to mention, that it appears that the person in the video is most likely running XP Home on both the 1000H and the 1000. While both machines are capable of running the OS (sorry Vista lovers), the 1000 was engineered specifically for Linux (and in my opinion functions slightly better on Ubuntu Eee
BArcherC 3 years ago
very nice and neatly done review :)
Ixidor182 3 years ago
The right Shift key is awkwardly placed after the up arrow key, making it pretty much useless for touch-typists. Adding insult to injury, there is wasted, blank space between the up arrow button and the question mark key, where the Shift key should have been.
a1mint 3 years ago
are u able to watch videos with it?
Fuchsmitx 3 years ago
wow i thought writing to SD Cards is slow, but not writing to SSD. I was hoping it would be a lot faster but guess not =(
Thanks for the review. I might get the 160gb version rather than the 40gb now.
SeikoPsycho 3 years ago
Thanks a lot for this video!!
cpetch10 3 years ago
Can u eat it? does it make tea?
Struckgold 3 years ago
Yes =O. itis tasty ^^. The SSD taste like cake :D . The HDD is more like.....Chicken.^^
But it does not make eggs :(
chjens5 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes =O. itis tasty ^^. The SSD taste like cake :D . The HDD is more like.....Chicken.^^
But it does not make eggs :(
chjens5 3 years ago
would you take a 1000h over the 901 if memory wasnt an option?
bigcountry4life5 3 years ago
Ha ha ha, SSD machine looks like it has a MLC type SSD which are slower and less reliable than the SLC type but its cheaper, also you would never get a SSD SLC type with 40 gig or 80 gig, its follows the same pattern as Ram does because its pure chips so you'd find them with 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 gigs
Kitohru 3 years ago
Firstly, I *did* watch the video. It wasnt clear visually whether it was Linux or Windows on the 1000, and as you mentioned Linux at the beginning, I assumed this was the installed OS.
Secondly, I never stated that the comparison wasnt useful, just that drawing conclusions was pointless as (I thought at the time) you were comparing the performance of two different OS implementations, rather than the machines themselves.
I *was* trying to be constructive, perhaps that didnt come across well...
jamesbray 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude, how did you miss the fact that both were running windows? how can you be constructive if you miss something as obvious as that? are you kidding me?
please go to the psychiatrist and get a diagnosis for being a freak. Or at least admit that you are stupid. thanks!
SeikoPsycho 3 years ago
Dude....
You know it is possible to skin Linux to look *very* similar to Windows. And looking via a low quality (YouTube, not the posters fault) video taken at a distance, you could be forgiven for such a mistake. And as the poster mentioned it was Linux, I simply assumed this was the case.
Oh, and....
Yes, I'm a freak. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I, am enlightened.
jamesbray 3 years ago
Comparing OS startup times and browser load times between two machines with different OS's is an interesting exercise, but dont expect to be able to compare the results in any meaningful way.
Linux bears no resemblence to Windows, under the hood, and its nigh on impossible to accurately determine why one task is faster on one Os than on the other.
Still, an interesting (if somewhat pointless) comparison nonetheless.
jamesbray 3 years ago
If you would have actually watched the video, you would know that both machines are running the exact same version of windows. Yes the 1000 ships with linux as default, but my comparison is not flawed due to differing Operating Systems.
cbutters 3 years ago
You need to learn what a review means. Your "review" was bias to being with. Everything was write time based, no load times, nor reviewing the battery life between SSD and HD. Just saying to be a good review you need to review all aspects of the laptops not just the ones you feel are important.
xsnomad 3 years ago
Did you miss the load time test at the beginning of the video?
I never claimed this was a full review, it was a practical performance comparison. The SSD is remarkably slower in almost every task except booting. If you want to get an eee pc with the very poorly performing SSD, be my guest. I am just trying to inform people that not all SSDs are quick, especially the ones that come with these asus laptops.
cbutters 3 years ago
Thanks dude... what you did was good enough for a lot of us.... It was "exactly" what I was looking for .... cheers :)
milindmadan 3 years ago
not a review, its a performance comparison
bigcountry4life5 3 years ago
a performance of a pc with ssd, depends so much, of what kind of ssd you have got in it.
C9H13NO3Adrenaline 3 years ago
you can buy the EEE PC 1000 and upgrade the ssd ...
Snurre86 3 years ago
You can, but it is easier to buy the 1000H for cheaper and upgrade the SSD, the 1000H accepts any sata 2.5 inch SSD or HDD. The 1000 doesn't have space for a 2.5 inch HDD, and you would need some sort of custom built SSD.
cbutters 3 years ago
my 901 boots up in 27,5sek. with the standard-SSDs. thanks to nlite.
mongobaer 3 years ago
did you nlite xp home or pro?
yodarc 3 years ago
What about battery life? The SSD version boasts 6 hours, does the 1000H match that?
bubbacoline 3 years ago
Thanks for the review.
I thought that Apple was releasing a "sub-$800" laptop today, but guess not (damn rumors).
I'm definitely getting the 1000H.
flipknoc 3 years ago
There are good and bad SSD drives. New intel ones are apparent one of the fastest but cost about as much as an eee 1000...
audiophiliac 3 years ago
Thanks for the great review! Im trying to decide between these two....
Is there a difference in heat generated and fan noise between the SSD and HDD versions ?
sharkeyd 3 years ago
Is the SSD of the eee pc 1000 removable? I mean can i replace it? or is it welded to the motherboard? Thx in advance!
viksusername 3 years ago
eee doesn't come with true SSD. It is more like a large and fancy SD card.
vd853 3 years ago
Everyone thinks SSD drives are fast. SSD drive SUCK and you have done a great review proving this. Write speeds cripple SSD drive performance.
soldersucker 3 years ago
Why is the 1000H bigger?
oYoYebutu 3 years ago
I didnt realize it was bigger till I got it either, but it is 'thicker' to make room for the hard disk drive. the asus 1000 uses an ssd which is fairly small and doesnt take up the same space as a HDD.
cbutters 3 years ago
40 GB SSD??
oYoYebutu 3 years ago
Seems like your biased towards the 1000H. And not that good at judging loading times. Anyway, who'd want to ruin their 1000 SSD with Microsoft crap? Do the same test with the two factory models, and use them as intended, or compare running windows on each machine, not the drives.
SgtScourge 3 years ago
I wasn't biased toward the 1000H, I bought the 1000 SSD first. But it was very slow on any sort of write. Watch the entire video, it speaks for itself.
Also, If the 1000 factory model runs linux, and the 1000H factory model runs Windows XP, how do you want me to do the same test with two factory models? let alone run an adobe installation program on a linux platform.
My test used the same platform, the same configuration, and the same files.
cbutters 3 years ago
Also, how exactly do you propose I compare running windows on each machine and not the drives? That makes absolutely no sense.
cbutters 3 years ago
dude you don't know what your talking about...nice review cbutters..
vico100 3 years ago
Too bad Windows sucks. Didn't you say the SSD was the Linux one?
RobLoach 3 years ago
[sarcasm]Yeah windows sucks... I hate being able to do anything on my computer. I wish I was more limited and was not able to run 90% of the programs out there. Also I hate being able to play games and have almost all my drivers installed automatically. I wish I could spend 12 hours writing the driver file myself, and having very limited support from device and software manufactuers. *sigh*
cbutters 3 years ago
there is a major reason why the solid state is slow is there is 32GB of SSD which is slow and 8GB of fast SSD drive
dur21010 3 years ago
Hey,
Why not compare the two with Linux--you would see a dramatic speed difference with the Xandros operating system, with bootload times, etc. Plus installing software is radically different(and I feel easier)with a Linux system. 1000/w Linux=fast! ;)
smallbuttfirm 3 years ago
thanks for the vid
Famenix 3 years ago
Thanks for the comparison. I was stuck with this question as well. Now I know which one to get. :)
And I never knew it doesn't come with a dvd/cd drive.. damn. How do most people get their stuff on the computer? With an external cd/dvd drive?
Rikana 3 years ago
W/LAN, bluetooth...
oYoYebutu 3 years ago
The 1000H has the better display!
ItachiGT 3 years ago