SSDs have been quite the
hot topic of late, with
conflicting power usage
reports and free-falling (almost)
prices being the two angles most commonly yapped about. Now, however, we have a completely different reason to mention 'em in passing, as SanDisk's dutiful CEO let loose some questionable comments during its Q2 2008 earnings call. Noting that Windows Vista would present unique challenges for SSD manufacturers, he stated that "as soon as you get into Vista applications, you start running into very demanding applications because Vista is not optimized for flash memory solid state disk." Furthermore, he proclaimed that the "next generation controllers need to basically compensate for Vista shortfalls," and finished things up by asserting that "SSD performance in the Vista environment falls short of what the market really needs." It seems all those statements were just used to deflect blame for it being behind schedule, but we're a bit curious about how it intends on defending said statements with real-world numbers. Hmm?
posted Jul 22nd 2008 8:59AM
What an assclown. Iv never heard any complaints from consumers that Vista isnt optimized for SSD.
STFU and let you engineering dept handle the development.
I agree. Yet another hardware manufacturer trying to blame their shortcomings on Vista.
Vista isn't optimised for HDDs either! LOL...
Vista is optimized for two things, the latest in DRM and case studies in how to change an interface to take more clicks to do less.
No, Vista just isn't optimized for anything.
LOL @ London!!!
Wow, what a load of crap comments below and above.
Using the same logic as Apple afficionado's:
Why should Microsoft optimise its OS for the HDD that make up a TINY (Nanoscule) proportion of the market. Microsoft, unlike the protectionistic policy of Apple does not go as far as Apple in dictating exactly what hardware its software should run on.
Does Sandisk say that Apple is optimised for SSD's ? I think frickin' not. But lets wait until Tom tests these claims out (which they will). BE CAREFUL Apple afficionado's, you girls are gonna have to stick with your statements, coz if Tom comes back with the conclusion that OSX isn't optimised for SSD's, since Apple ACTUALLY prescribes and makes the hardware OSX is to be run on, then you girls will look really stupid, coz that conclusion will show that Apple screwed up.
Microsoft just makes the tires for the vehicle. You decide which vehivcles to put the tires on.
You girls are on shakey ground.
@ kccboy
Tom's Hardware has an excellent reptutation around the internet. But am I the only one who finds it ironic, that you based your whole argument about SDD's on Tom's when their last SDD test was debunked as false.
Yes, because we all know you are the expert.
He may be talking about the very old, outdated way the Windows uses to work with a swap file. It writes all over the drive (if you look at the sector mapping) which causes activity in many of the flash cells. This is quite slow for SSDs and causes premature cell wear.
It may not make sense to write all over the drive in an SSD, but for an HDD, it makes perfect sense. Why waste all that time waiting for the platter to swing around again just to add another bit of data on the same area. Instead, just put the data wherever the head is on the platter at that given point in time.
You can't blame Microsoft. for the 4 (more?) years they were working on Vista, SSDs seemed far off and in the future. Windows 7 maybe will be able to detect whether or not it's on an SSD and format accordingly.
get lots of ram and turn off the pagefile!
That's not how SSDs and flash memory work. Both ensure that writes are balanced throughout the entire memory space. You can't write to what you think is the same spot of memory over and over and think it will wear it out.
@peterf you can't turn off the page file, it totally kills performance. I read an explanation somewhere too but it's rather technical and involved so the details escape me. It's not as simple as "this is just like RAM only on the hard drive", as one would think. There's a lot more to it.
As an aside, I found it very annoying that Vista constantly rattled away on my HD. On a notebook, that can't be good for battery life. I got rid of it now, back to XP - at least I know what it's doing most of the time.
"You can't blame Microsoft"
The hell I can't. If they didn't design an OS that handled the VERY likely scenario that SSDs could be popular during Vistas lifetime, they are a bunch of incompetent fools.
Of course.. this will all probably be debunked a few posts down right?
His statements seem to be notably short on details. How exactly does he mean by "Vista is not optimized for flash memory solid state disk". And what are the "Vista shortfalls" with regard to flash memory?
As far as I know SSDs can handle big amounts of data better when it comes in one chunk and not in small pieces. So if your OS is constantly writing small changes to the disk you probably won't take advantage of the SSDs speed. (Just afaik).
I would like to know which OS is optimized for flash memory. OS X obviously isn't either if you look at the speed "advantage" of an SSD over the normal HDD in the MBA.
Vista is crap. No need to defend anything.
(yes, im an apple fan boy. and proud of it)
I am too an Apple Fan, but your comment has been...
VOTED DOWN
admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery
now you need to believe in a higher power
He may be talking about the very old, outdated way the Windows uses to work with a swap file. It writes all over the drive (if you look at the sector mapping) which causes activity in many of the flash cells. This is quite slow for SSDs and causes premature cell wear.
How is Vista's VM outdated in terms of disk I/O? Swap file vs swap partition? Every major OS today uses some sort of disk-backed VM, so the CEO's comment should apply to everyone. I wouldn't be surprised to see tuning parameters appear to cluster or limit write I/O when an SSD is detected. There's probably already something like that in the Linux kernel.
I'm eagerly anticipating the Core OCZ or new Ridata SSD's to show up at the local computer shops so I can see how well my "non-optimized" Vista laptop will perform with one.
Sounds like bullshit to me, what with OCZ's Core SSD performing nearly at the level of 10,000 RPM hard-disk drives.
Vista is not optimized for shit.
(no I am _not_ an apple fanboy)
Why would you optimize anything for "shit", other than a toilet?
Hahaha funny. However, this should be under the CEO Oh No category.
You do not optimize hardware to work on software. You build the hardware to optimize tasks and then the software should be optimized to run on the hardware. It's not up to the hardware makers to fix Microsoft's faults. Microsoft released a software product that was substandard and wrought with problems. Surprise, Surprise. It took 7 years for XP to get as stable as it is now, and that's not a compliment.
CEO's need to start to STFU and get back to work. Not about to have Moores law broken because some CEO decided to talk out his ass more than actually getting frigging work done.
Vista has great power management for laptop users. Balanced power management for CPU is pretty impressive.
How do SSDs run in linux distros like ubuntu?
Very nicely, the file systems are more advanced. I want to try reiser on them, but have not got the chance yet.
You need to watch out with the Reiser FS. It has some strangling bottlenecks and likes to bury data.
Depends on what you are doing and the FS, since SSDs seem to work better with larger chunks of data than smal, coupled tih a FS that handles large amounts of data well, could be pretty fast.
He probably means that Vista thrashes the disk too hard, and the poor SSD's can't handle it...
thrashing a hard drive is worse than thrashing an ssd. mechanical wear.
Vista is not optimized for anything much less functioning as an OS...It is Windows ME all over again.
that joke wasn't even funny the first time.
Yes, it WAS funny the first time. Predictable, but funny.
Was it really? okay then i guess i was wrong.
Mobile ME is the new target.
AFAIK, Vista (or -any- OS) just talks to the SATA controller. It really doesn't care if there's platters, SSD's, punchcards or a monkey and a roll of papyrus behind that controller. It's up to the controller to deal with the attached hardware.
That, and the lack of actual numbers, substituted by wild claims, makes me call BS.
No, there is a lot more to the picture that you can't see.
One example is the file system. Why is it that Windows based file systems need to be defragged, yet other more advanced file systems (ext2, ext3, resier, xfs, etc...) do not. The way the data is stored on the drive can be a very big factor on performance.
Ahh the good ole days of Monkey/Papyrus disk arrays.
@Zargon: since we're dealing with SSD here (where data can be read instantly no matter where on the drive it is), there is no need to defrag, regardless of the filesystem. So I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
If you would actually read what you post, you mention that OS's just talks to the controller, you didn't specifically mention anything about SSD other than it being one device it can be talked to. The point is that there is a lot more than your narrow explaination of the OS just talking to the controller, one example is file systems. It is just not the controller to deal with the drive, it is in fact also the OS.
"It is just not the controller to deal with the drive, it is in fact also the OS."
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. The OS doesn't deal with the drive. It deals with the controller. The file system determines how the OS writes the files to the disk... -through the controller-.
"The point is that there is a lot more than your narrow explaination of the OS just talking to the controller, one example is file systems."
No, file systems are not that one example. The fact that NTFS fragments is irrelevant because fragmentation doesn't have negative consequences on SSD. So what are the other many examples? List a few.
@Zargon. What you describe is only relevant to platter based media.
For every disk read, the magnetic head must move to the right spot on the platter.
Optimally the the data to be read is all close together which is why defragging is useful. Different filesystems organize data differently some better some worse, all with trade-offs depending on file sizes, how often read/write etc.
This does not apply to solid state memory. The cost to read one memory location is the same to read another. There is no machinery that needs repositioning.
In fact, none of the mainstream OS's are "optimized for SSD's"... it isn't just Vista. Most SSD's tend to perform well only with larger block sizes for writes, for instance. You might also want to consolidate your write I/O's to an SSD, something that was never an issue with traditional hard drives.
@Balam: I would argue that OS X is similarly ill-suited for an SSD. You know how OS X and HFS+ automatically defrags files? Wait, you're a fanboy, so you don't concern yourself with technical details like that. Anyway, there is a lot of writing going on in the background under OS X, to keep files defragged. That's a great way to run down the limited number of write cycles your SSD memory cells can handle before failing.
Too bad the CEO also did not concern himself with any actual technical details. Are we talking about performance problems, or wear levelling issues? I suspect he is just throwing out a red herring to draw the spotlight away from deficiencies in SanDisk's SSD products.
its trendy to blame Vista these days... get with the program man!
for instance:
"the app could have been done by now if it weren't for Vista!"
"our graphics card would be *really* fast if it weren't for Vista!"
"my comments would be a lot funnier if it weren't for Vista!"
and so on....
This really isn't rocket science. The guy is right, Vista isn't optimized for SSDs and isn't likely to be in the near future, because NTFS was written with normal drives in mind. Things like journaling and a huge emphasis on locality of reference make geat sense on a traditional drive, but are just terrible ideas when your number of writes is very limited. Most Linux distros offer you options like ext2, which is not a journaling FS, and setting the noatime option, which reduces the number of writes by not writing file modification times. Both of these help to extend the life expectency of SSDs, but the thing these makers are really waiting for is for a FS that distributes writes as evenly as possible across the disk, and locality of reference be damned.
everyone's an expert.
+1. That's exactly what I was thinking.
Does anyone here even know what the fuck they're talking about? The challenge against Vista is a technical one (perhaps from a credible source), and we need to know the technical details in order to come down on one side or the other.
Broad allegations like, 'well, all OSes aren't optimized for SSDs,' or 'it doesn't matter to the OS--it's the job of the SATA controller,' are absolutely worthless without proof. This is not another thread where hearsay can pass for valid argument.
@both of you
Did you guys just stumble in here by accident or what?
This is a tech forum. A lot of people here ARE experts: we work in the IT field with this sort of hardware/software interaction every day.
And since you are so worried about solid facts instead of 'hearsay', where is Mr. CEO's facts? He didn't provide any specifics, just throwing out vague allegations. Like others have said here, this smacks more of a red herring attempt to divert attention from his company's problematic products than any real, educated assessment of OS/hardware interaction backed by real evidence.
Amen, JoshL.
A lot of people are experts in the field, or (like me) wish to become one in the near future. It is very interesting to see which people are right and which are wrong in this sort of situation, because when someone is wrong, they will be debunked by someone who knows his stuff so fast that their keyboard will fry.
This kind of knowledge you can't learn from a classroom, as you are gleaning other people's experience as well as knowledge.
Vista: not optimized for use by human use
Gallery: Apple fanboy
@Galley
How would you know? You're a bloody snake.
@ mark
snake?! snaaaaake?!?! snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!!!!!!!
WOW this post filled up with VISTA HATERS real fast.. Nice to see some UNBIASED opinions.lol
There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion.
@retro77: That's just your opinion.
your use of CAPS show that you're real DEFENSIVE over some arbitrary corporate product
"Hey. the shoes you produce don't fit well."
"Your feet are shaped wrong."
EXACTLY!!!!
You are all a little thick. SSD's have FAST reads and semi fast writes, but they also have a limited number of both.
VISTA is built for a regular mechanical drive, so it does things to compensate like caching pif files and buffering things in the pagefile (on the HD), all of this wastes time and performance since the SSD can read fast regardless of where the data is on the drive. The compensation which is great for old drives consumes a LOT of time for no gain on SSDs.
C-E-Oh no he didn't!
There is an interesting post in the Notebookreview.com forums today regarding defragmentation of SSD that is relevant to this topic:
See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=3643453#post3643453
Not if the speed tests are anything to go by.
It seems nothing is optimised for SSD.
Yet again, another set of Apple fanboys invade the thread, sorry, all threads Vista related, piss off and do it somewhere else, nobody likes it, it was funny back when it was first released, but not now.
Just because we do not like Vista doesn't mean we are Apple Fanboys.
I don't like Vista because they put eye candy before functionality. New kernel, new FS, new command scripting, etc... All put on hold or canceled altogether. All to release a product that was wrought with bugs so severe as to render it useless and then force use to use it.
Sure it might be "better" now. Still not up to snuff. Maybe they should take a lesson from Apple and do a "housecleaning" release. If Microsoft would deliver a "workstation" OS, no crap, no stupid widgets, no aero. Plain jane work OS. I would be the first one to be a M$ fanboy. Right now, FreeBSD and Windows XP are the workhorses.
Someone uses Windows Server 2008 as "Workstation" 2008. It works pretty well for him, other than a few program incompatibilities.
http://www.osnews.com/story/19431/Windows_Workstation_2008:_Vista_Done_Right_
@Mad Mike
Eye candy before functionality?
*Looks at OSX 10.5 before releases .1 to .4*
My word!
Not everyone love Vista, because it has problems. It's not a green OS. It's a marketing edition (ME) of Windows XP.
It thrashes hard disks constantly. You don't need numbers for that, chump.
I'll let you 12-year olds have Engadget. Perhaps you like the ignorance here, but it's tiresome for us 20-somethings.
Well aren't most (all) file-systems optimized for sequential reads? It's not just fragmenting or block size. The whole idea of having a page size for indexing files is there because it is faster to do sequential reads on a disk. SSDs change that, and it makes sense that modern software isn't yet designed with SSDs in mind.
Not everyone love Vista, because it has problems. It's not a green
OS. It's a marketing edition (ME) of Windows XP.
It thrashes hard disks constantly. You don't need numbers for that,
chump.
I'll let you 12-year olds have Engadget. Perhaps you like the
ignorance here, but it's tiresome for us 20-somethings.
The real question is:
Should we take notice of someone who is too stupid to realise there is occasionally a delay in posts registering and who therefore generates duplicate pots, especially when these posts are also factually incorrect?
I vote 'no',
The only thing Vista is optimized for is to annoy the hell out of you.
(I'm a Windows XP Pro user)
Vista is optimized for teh sucking
Can I get an amen
http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/PressRoom/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?ID=3785
Sandisk said:
"The results indicate that the new Windows Vista operating system will run optimally when installed on the SanDisk SSD"
Optimizing hardware for Windows... It happens all the time the last decade...
The guy just complains that it happens again now, since everybody starts benchmarking SSDs and get "questionable" results. Or probably M$ as usually refused to include any SSD-targeted optimizations into Vista, forcing vendors to redo all the hardware.
But again, that was said from the beginning: SSDs differ too much from conventional rotating HDDs, essentially requiring new file system to be any efficient.
I suspect that ZFS will make the next version of OSX, Linux distros using it and Sun OS optimized for such drives. I doubt WinFS is going to make a comeback. So Windows antiquated way of writing virtual memory could very well be the reason. Or not? Not optimized is not the same as "acts like a beached whale." Where are the hard numbers that prove Vista is a significant problem here?
The fact that OS X only writes to larger blocks of space and doesn't drop file fragments all over the place as a matter of course might actually make it more optimized for SSDs. Though you probably couldn't say Apple made the decision because they were thinking of SSDs. At best it would be a happy coincidence.
While I agree with many technical comments here I think peple are missing the main point. The CEO was talking about SanDisk financial results and not about technical merits of different OSes. He singled out Vista not because it is less optimized for SSDs than other OSes but because it is the only OS that counts for SanDisk's bottom line. With 99% of all sold notebooks using Vista, who cares if Linux or OSX is optimized (they are not) for SSD?
Actually no Windows is 'optimized' for solid state disks. You can easily verify this by running a problem like Regmon and Filemon. Windows Vista is constantly accessing files and the registry - even where is absolutely no user activity and no obvious need. This has also been true for Windows XP and for Windows 2000 to a lesser extend. But Vista's frequency of HD reads and writes is outstanding, even for Microsofts non-standards.
Considering that Vista hit the market before SSDs came down to a price that the average person could afford. I can see why Microsoft did not write Vista to take advantage of the SSD architecture.
But that doesn't explain why other SSDs manufacturers are blowing SanDisk offerings out of the water in Vista -- oh wait it does. SanDisk's SSD suck!
I wonder how many people who trash Vista have used it for more than 30 minutes.
you could also remove "for more than 30 minutes." and there would still be a significant number that haven't.
Simple said: If you use Vista, don't use SSD Scandisk.
I guess I got to look at other brand ssd HD to replace my laptop's HD.
Uh, did you not read this thread? No current OSes are "optimized" for SSDs. All SSDs are basically the same, so it wouldn't make a difference.
Do you think SSDs will overtake the HDD market? Here's an article talking about when is it better to use HDD, flash or even both! http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=648&doc_id=155950&f_src=flffour
I suspect he's ignorantly confusing the page architecture of the x86 CPUs with what Windows is doing.
Well, SSDs aren't optmized for my wallet, so I really don't care at this point what he wants to blame on Vista. There will be no SSDs in my PCs until they are much cheaper and about 10x bigger.
in the scope of Vista's user base, SSD's make up a fraction of a percentage. SSD's are far from mainstream. SSD's may somewhat take off as an enterprise solution for corporate environments, and for server applications, Vista wouldn't even be the OS of choice anyways; see Unix, Linux, Solaris, etc.
gcc,
NTFS Journalling is not just saving a bunch of dates, the actual data changes are logged (in case your file system crashs), then those changes are applied to the files, this allows NTFS to self-repair itself after a crash, because it has a log of it's earlier actions.
Tom's second SSD test proved that the OCZ SSD is still much better than the SanDisk one, so this SanDisk muppet is just sore that OCZ are better at making SSD's than SanDisk, tough!
I find this SSD discussion quite pointless, because SSD are not affordable to most people yet and will always be much more expensive than hard disks, also better solid state technologies (without wear) are in development, and could easily replace RAM working memory, so make this discussion moot.