That is why disabling the pagefile is the first thing to do.
Did you read what I said? I said SSDs are the
ideal place for Page Files. Sorry, but disabling the page file is almost always an amateur mistake done by those who think they know more about virtual memory management than the professional developers at Microsoft who have exabytes and decades of empirical data and experience to draw from.
Demonstrating my point!
So what if RAM is faster? Windows knows the difference. You apparently are under the
false impression that forcing the OS to
always use RAM instead of spooling out to a PF (even if on SSD, or if you have gobs of RAM) is better. That's just wrong as anyone who has actually studied virtual memory management would know. But it is also for a different discussion.
The bottom line, only a tiny tiny percentage of very unique users performing atypical tasks ever benefit from disabling the page file. Best advice? Stop dinking with Windows settings and leave the defaults alone! Let Windows manage your page file. It knows how to do that very well.
Even in this topic, people talk about avoiding defragmenting SSD, because it lowers its life expectancy, HDD does not have that problem.
That of course is incorrect too. You don't defrag SSDs because of the way data is stored on SSDs, defragging is not needed. This is why Windows will not defrag SSDs. And of course, today's SSDs don't suffer from limited writes issues associated with first generation SSDs.
You will never reach the write limits of today's SSDs. That is one reason why more and more data centers are migrating to SSDs - in spite of their higher initial costs.
I guess you have not seen many good CRTs. If you sit someone in front of CRT and LCD, he will get a headache and itching eyes from LCD within an hour at most
What a bunch of malarky! 100s of millions of people (including those reading this thread) sit in front of their LCD monitors every day for hours on end without getting headaches and itching eyes (3 hours for me just today).
And for the record, I am probably older than most here. But I am not just a computer user, but a real (as in formally educated and certified) electronics technician who has been supporting computer systems since the 70s. So yes, I have seen many good CRTs and many good LCDs too. And many bad of both technologies.
I have not seen a single test proving, that SSD is faster than HDD, like no gain in FPS in games.
I am constantly amazed when I hear positions based on tunnel visioned, single points.
Okay, TairikuOkami - if your entire position on whether SSDs are better than HDs seems to be based on playing games, stick with HDs. Me? I will never go back to HDs.
But please stop spewing the nonsense that hard drives last longer than SSDs. Even when you attempt obfuscate the issue by saying "cheap" SSD, your argument is nonsense. Moving parts, regardless how well made, wear out faster than pure electronics.
As for others who don't trust SSDs because of "articles in the past", come on! "Articles in the
past"? Is it not possible for technologies to improve? Do you realize SSDs technologies have been around for almost 50 years!!!! Do you put the same distrust in your RAM?
Can you find any hard drive maker who has so much confidence in their hard drives, they warranty them for
10 full years? Or are you one of the naysayers who claim years does not matter? Fine. It is also warrantied for 150 TBW. That's 40Gb of read/writes
every day for 10 years! Most hard drives are warrantied for 3 years or less. Very few are for 5 years. Most hard drive fail after just 4 years which means many fail before that!
But don't believe me. Do your own homework. You can start here:
https://lifehacker.com/how-long-will-my-hard-drives-really-last-1700405627
