# Notebook disk replacement dilemma



## Octopuss (Nov 26, 2015)

My father in law has this piece of shit HP Pavilion notebook (which I chose myself and would like to bitchslap myself everytime I am nearby), which is so painfully slow I started considering buying a replacement disk as a christmas present.
There is a super slow Toshiba HDD (almost exactly this model) inside that's not even crawling. No shit at 5400rpm and 8MB cache.
Originally I just wanted to buy a 250GB Samsung 850 EVO, but the price is not insignificant and I am not entirely in good financial situation, so I got this idea that _*maybe*_ a conventional disk would do.
Do you think it would be waste of money if I buy, say WD Black WD5000LPLX?


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

Does he NEED 250GB?


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 26, 2015)

I can't imagine ANY PC with less storage capacity. You realistically need roughly 100GB just for Windows, to be safe. Add tons of photos (which hardly anyone resizes ), some documents, and you'll run out of space very quickly.
So I'd say 250GB doesn't even work for most people nowadays.
I originally thought I'd buy a 120GB SSD and keep the crappy disk in for data, but that would be waste of money. 120GB SSDs are not _that_ cheaper, but they are noticeably slower than higher capacity ones.


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 26, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> HP Pavilion notebook



Which model? The info might be of relevant.
SSD will make accesses quicker: but, depends on a few factors whether you will be able to get any major increase in transfer rates.
Like, the bios options, bus generation/version, etc.

If it has a replaceable CPU... you might wanna think about that, too.
I replaced my son's CPU and put in a SSD; and, we saw a considerable difference, in his HP laptop.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

LOL on what planet do you need 100GB just for Windows?  A fresh Windows install is roughly 20GB after you install updates and run disk cleanup.  It grows over time due to shadow copies/restore points/update junk, but you can free that back up by running cleanup regularly. I've been running a 120GB OCZ Vertex2 in my laptop for 3 years.  Most of what it has filled up with is crap that can be deleted or moved to a flash drive/file server/NAS/cloud drive.

And capacity has absolutely nothing to do with speed in an SSD, unless you are comparing an older drive that is smaller to a newer drive that is larger.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> And capacity has absolutely nothing to do with speed in an SSD, unless you are comparing an older drive that is smaller to a newer drive that is larger.



A lot of the time the 120GB version of a drive is slightly slower, but not noticeably.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 26, 2015)

95Viper said:


> Which model? The info might be of relevant.
> SSD will make accesses quicker: but, depends on a few factors whether you will be able to get any major increase in transfer rates.
> Like, the bios options, bus generation/version, etc.
> 
> ...


Nah, it's the disk. I know that for a fact. Thing has i7 in it. The only thing I was worried about was the probability of some obscure non-SATA connector, but it turned out fine.
I mean the notebook will be relatively slow with a better disk anyway, but not _that_ much.



taz420nj said:


> LOL on what planet do you need 100GB just for Windows?  A fresh Windows install is roughly 20GB after you install updates and run disk cleanup.  It grows over time due to shadow copies/restore points/update junk, but you can free that back up by running cleanup regularly. I've been running a 120GB OCZ Vertex2 in my laptop for 3 years.  Most of what it has filled up with is crap that can be deleted or moved to a flash drive/file server/NAS/cloud drive.
> 
> And capacity has absolutely nothing to do with speed in an SSD, unless you are comparing an older drive that is smaller to a newer drive that is larger.


You're obviously not the correct person to discuss this with, so don't bother replying further.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> You're obviously not the correct person to discuss this with, so don't bother replying further.



... Says the guy who thinks you need 100GB just for Windows and that a platter drive in a modern laptop could possibly have something other than a SATA connector...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> A lot of the time the 120GB version of a drive is slightly slower, but not noticeably.



I disagree about "noticeably.". Especially on write speeds, but also reads are simetimes perceptibly slower if you compare  120GB with a larger capacity unit of the same model.

As to the amount of space needed, I don't know how anyone could make do with 20GB of space.  It grows and grows with every set of updates, especially considering one of the folders associated with updates you can do nothing with.  

Additionally, even if you move your Libraries off the SSD, there are still the many assorted other programs that many of us feel we need.  It's not long before hou are using 60GB, without Libraries.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> I disagree about "noticeably.". Especially on write speeds, but also reads are simetimes perceptibly slower if you compare 120GB with a larger capacity unit of the same model.



Yes, the write speeds tend to suffer a lot more than the reads on the 120GB models.  But even in the worse case, I'd say the difference isn't going to be noticeable to the average user. The reads are what matters most in every day use and what contributes the most to speeding the machine up.  How often are you really writing huge amounts of data to the disk? Most writes are small, and completely in incredibly short times, even on drives with half the write speed of a larger drive.

I'm pretty sure Crucial has the worst difference between their 120GB drives and the higher models.  But a lot of the time the difference is 10s of MB/s, which isn't going to be noticed.



rtwjunkie said:


> As to the amount of space needed, I don't know how anyone could make do with 20GB of space. It grows and grows with every set of updates, especially considering one of the folders associated with updates you can do nothing with.
> 
> Additionally, even if you move your Libraries off the SSD, there are still the many assorted other programs that many of us feel we need. It's not long before hou are using 60GB, without Libraries.



I've got a tablet and a Liva that both have 32GB drives.  Even with office installed and fully updated, there is more than enough space left over.  I'm not saying to put a 32GB drive in the OP's laptop, I'm just saying 120GB is generally enough for most people and you definitely don't need 100GB just for Windows.  That is just inane.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 26, 2015)

100GB is a fail proof capacity. You never know what are people going to install, how much downloaded crap are they going to place on the desktop etc. This is the amount I concluded is safe to use without a possibility of running into problems few months after I install a PC/notebook for someone.

Anyway, I haven't seen a single reply to my question yet.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Anyway, I haven't seen a single reply to my question yet.



Don't waste your money on another mechanical drive.  Heck, the WD Black you are looking at is only a few $ less than a 240GB SSD.  At least in the states.  The WD Black goes for $52, a 240GB OCZ Trion can be had for $55.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 26, 2015)

Put a SSD in it and be happy, my 4 year old Intel laptop (Dell 1764 ) runs like a dream with a old Intel 80GB SATA2 Gen2 SSD and never been happier all so it boots up as fast as either of the systems in my specs.


----------



## lZKoce (Nov 26, 2015)

It doesn't have to be Samsung EVO, man. I am tired of everybody saying Samsung is the only one. I have two Sandisk. one Geil and one Adata SSD that cost way less than Samsung EVO series and honestly, the difference between them and mechanical is unbelievable. You can get a cheaper SSD and I don't think it's worth going for a WD black, which I also own. The money you will shell for a WD black, can may be ( I don't know which shops you have access to ) grant you a 240 GB Geil Zenith A3 .


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 26, 2015)

lZKoce said:


> It doesn't have to be Samsung EVO, man. I am tired of everybody saying Samsung is the only one. I have two Sandisk. one Geil and one Adata SSD that cost way less than Samsung EVO series and honestly, the difference between them and mechanical is unbelievable. You can get a cheaper SSD and I don't think it's worth going for a WD black, which I also own. The money you will shell for a WD black, can may be ( I don't know which shops you have access to ) grant you a 240 GB Geil Zenith A3 .


Well there aren't that many products available in this country compared to say, the U.S. I wouldn't insist on Samsung at all, but where I buy hardware (2 or 3 shops I have positive experiences with) the Samsung is roughly €15 more expensive than the cheapest drives - and I'd rather buy Samsung where I know the product will be reliable, fast and basically flawless rather than some obscure things like Patriot Blast, OCZ Trion or whatever else there might be most people don't even know about _(not OCZ as a brand - a note for the mentally challenged)_.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

LOL @ OCZ being "obscure"..


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> LOL @ OCZ being "obscure"..



And Patriot.

The funny thing is the Samsung drives have suffered from really bad performance slowdown over time.  They are known for this.  So I don't know why so many people recommend them.  I think they are actually overpriced.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> And Patriot.
> 
> The funny thing is the Samsung drives have suffered from really bad performance slowdown over time.  They are known for this.  So I don't know why so many people recommend them.  I think they are actually overpriced.



Had no issue's with my 850, performs the same the 1st day i got it.


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 26, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Had no issue's with my 850, performs the same the 1st day i got it.



I own a 840 Evo 500GB for about a year now, no problems with it, also performs as new.
The people who did had problems had probably a (too)full drive or they used it as external.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> _(not OCZ as a brand - a note for the mentally challenged)_.



Considering some of the ridiculous crap you've spewed in this thread, you've got some balls calling others 'mentally challenged'.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Had no issue's with my 850, performs the same the 1st day i got it.





P4-630 said:


> I own a 840 Evo 500GB for about a year now, no problems with it, also performs as new.
> The people who did had problems had probably a (too)full drive or they used it as external.



It is a well known problem with the NAND Cell Charge decay and their TLC flash. They put out a firmware fix that helped, but since the problem is related to decaying NAND flash, the firmware upgrade only serves to slow the problem down.  W1z has even talked about it in the past, and is why he stopped recommending Samsung drives.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...a-reliable-brand-for-ssd.217724/#post-3375141


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a well known problem with the NAND Cell Charge decay and their TLC flash. They put out a firmware fix that helped, but since the problem is related to decaying NAND flash, the firmware upgrade only serves to slow the problem down.  W1z has even talked about it in the past, and is why he stopped recommending Samsung drives.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...a-reliable-brand-for-ssd.217724/#post-3375141



The 850's use different NAND and don't have that problem


----------



## Frick (Nov 26, 2015)

I'm just gonna ask the obvious here: Have you formated/reinstalled the machine? HP consumer grade stuff has (or at least had) SHITloads of crapware on them, and you pretty much has to format and do a fresh install with a clean Windows copy to get rid of it.

Other than that, go SSD fo sho. The Crucal BX100 is the cheapest 200GB drive here (€80), money well spent.



taz420nj said:


> Considering some of the ridiculous crap you've spewed in this thread, you've got some balls calling others 'mentally challenged'.



The OP does have a way with words, doesn't he? (with that I mean if you look at his post history he has a tendency to be an ass)


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> The 850's use different NAND and don't have that problem



That isn't the point. The point is people recommend Samsung like they are God's gift to SSDs, and the only brand you should consider, and for some reason their drives come at a premium because of this. When in reality Samsung isn't perfect. When the problem with their drives was found, they issued a firmware fix that fixed it temporarily, and promised another fix that never came. They also won't RMA drives affected by the problem, claiming slowdown is a side effect of using SSDs, and they still even sell the problem drives.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> That isn't the point. The point is people recommend Samsung like they are God's gift to SSDs, and the only brand you should consider, and for some reason their drives come at a premium because of this. When in reality Samsung isn't perfect. When the problem with their drives was found, they issued a firmware fix that fixed it temporarily, and promised another fix that never came. They also won't RMA drives affected by the problem, claiming slowdown is a side effect of using SSDs, and they still even sell the problem drives.



Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD.  Nothing outperforms it to date.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 26, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD.  Nothing outperforms it to date.


Not according to W1zzard.  That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> It is a well known problem with the NAND Cell Charge decay and their TLC flash. They put out a firmware fix that helped, but since the problem is related to decaying NAND flash, the firmware upgrade only serves to slow the problem down.  W1z has even talked about it in the past, and is why he stopped recommending Samsung drives.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...a-reliable-brand-for-ssd.217724/#post-3375141



Known issue or not still don't have it lol. I remember the 840's having some issue's but never seen it on my 850.



rtwjunkie said:


> Not according to W1zzard.  That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.



Very misleading as he has not done a review on the Samsung 850.

Not as you would probably notice any difference in the real world anyways.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 26, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Very misleading as he has not done a review on the Samsung 850.



True enough, but as it stands now, his statement is true.  He didn't say anything like "fastest drive ever."

But in reality, as you said, no one will notice the milliseconds of differences between them.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not according to W1zzard.  That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.



Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.



Read his review. 'Nuff said.

And then take your learned argument to him, and not me.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

I'm not arguing, I was just saying.  How can someone claim a particular drive is the fastest when they refuse to test the actual fastest drive on the market due to brand scorn?  that's like saying a McLaren F1 is the fastest production car because they don't like Bugatti.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.



I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.



taz420nj said:


> Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD.  Nothing outperforms it to date.



Except its not.  Most of the SATA SSDs on the market are hitting the SATA limit.  So in real world use the 850's aren't noticeably better than the competition.

Plus, if the company isn't willing to stand behind the product when there is a problem with it, then the product is no good in my eyes.  Samsung is worse than the old OCZ(at least OCZ RMA'd and replaced the drives that failed).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 27, 2015)

I am not him, so I can only surmise that he hasn't gotten to it yet. 

In any case, his statement is completely factual, because it is based on what he has tested to that point.

Look at it this way, since you want to use cars.  Maybe you test a mclaren out, and declare it the fastest car you've driven.  There is nothing wrong with that statement.

Maybe you know you will be testing a bugatti  in 6 months, but just because it reportedly is faster doesn't make it so in your book until it is tested by you, to your standards which you apply exactingly to every car.  It has to prove it's faster to change your statement which is based on firsthand experience and testing. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not according to W1zzard.  That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.





newtekie1 said:


> I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




HA! yeah mine went poof just after they went bust fat lot of good that warranty did for me.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2015)

just jumping in to say... why not an SSHD? you can get them a lot cheaper than a pure SSD, and they're a lot faster than traditional drives.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.



http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2385vs3196


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2385vs3196



Interesting, still not noticeable differences though.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

But they're measurable, and 25% is not an insignificant number.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 27, 2015)

That's the pro version

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Evo-250GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2977vs3196


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 27, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Interesting, still not noticeable differences though.



Ahhh, user benches, all with different systems and no controlled environment testing.  This is why we have controlled setting reviews always done on the same components to set standards.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Ahhh, user benches, all with different systwms and no controlled environment testing.  This is why we have controlled setting reviews always done on the same components to set standards.



...Which in no way gives you a real-world picture, just like your car never gets the EPA mileage on the sticker because that is computed based on completely unrealistic driving conditions in a lab.. An aggregate score from thousands of users on their actual computers gives you a much better picture of what to expect in real life.


----------



## xvi (Nov 27, 2015)

Don't forget latency. Access times for SSDs do vary between models and it's that latency that greatly assists with general "snappiness".

As far as "fastest ever", I believe the Samsung 950 Pro holds that crown now (at least for mass produced in M.2 or 2.5" form factor, aka things that are likely to fit in a laptop). If you're using a SATA port though, current generation SSDs are going to start pushing the limits of what those can do. I'd just find something well reviewed for a decent price.

If you need storage on the cheap, I'd consider this popular deal on a Crucial BX100 500GB drive at Amazon for $120.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> ...Which in no way gives you a real-world picture, just like your car never gets the EPA mileage on the sticker because that is computed based on completely unrealistic driving conditions in a lab.. An aggregate score from thousands of users on their actual computers gives you a much better picture of what to expect in real life.



Whew! I can rest easier now and make sure I ignore all the reviews that are done on SSD's, motherboards, GPU's and coolers here on TPU.  At last I will not feel stressed to try and read them because they mean nothing.

Thank you.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Whew! I can rest easier now and make sure I ignore all the reviews that are done on SSD's, motherboards, GPU's and coolers here on TPU.  At last I will not feel stressed to try and read them because they mean nothing.
> 
> Thank you.


Wow.  Okay..  So how about this not so flattering review of the MX200 by anandtech  that basically mirrors the user benches? Pay particular attention to their graphs of how it stacks up (or more accurately DOESN'T stack up) to the 850.  And get a load of the results when the 250GB unit gets full and the SLC "accelerator" cache bogs down - you can't miss them on the graphs.....


----------



## RCoon (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> Does he NEED 250GB


I tend not to recommend anything less for domestic users


Octopuss said:


> 100GB just for Windows


My Steam streamer has Windows 64bit plus basic software and all updates and comes in just under 50GB. That said, I personally recommend 250GB minimum.


taz420nj said:


> And capacity has absolutely nothing to do with speed in an SSD


Kinda does mate. On 120GB drives the IOPS are always worse, and they're arguably the most important measure.







lZKoce said:


> I am tired of everybody saying Samsung is the only one.


+1. There are dozens of exceptionally capable ranges of SSDs available


taz420nj said:


> The 850's use different NAND and don't have that problem


Yet


taz420nj said:


> 25% slower across the board


And by across the board you mean overall against a single other SSD? That's not across the board.


taz420nj said:


> But they're measurable, and 25% is not an insignificant number.


You're comparing a PRO drive, significantly more expensive than the suggested drive, in a thread where OP says he's not financially free to splash cash.


Octopuss said:


> for the mentally challenged


Not a wise choice of words, might I add.


taz420nj said:


> Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD.  Nothing outperforms it to date.


Except NVMe drives, if we're going to start comparing totally different classes of products to one another both financially and technologically. Why not go full frontal and start comparing apples to papayas.


Mussels said:


> why not an SSHD?


I think this is the only post that actually responds to the OP's question and needs.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

RCoon said:


> I tend not to recommend anything less for domestic users
> 
> My Steam streamer has Windows 64bit plus basic software and all updates and comes in just under 50GB. That said, I personally recommend 250GB minimum.



For someone's web and email machine, 120GB is plenty.  And you have 30GB worth of "basic software"?



> Yet



With the amount of time the 850 has been on the market, IF a problem exists it is not on any scale comparable with the 840.



> And by across the board you mean overall against a single other SSD? That's not across the board.



No, I meant in every category head to head against that other drive.



> You're comparing a PRO drive, significantly more expensive than the suggested drive, in a thread where OP says he's not financially free to splash cash.



I was not addressing the OP.  The OP in all his glorious ignorance dismissed my opinions because I called out his BS.  I was addressing someone else. 



> Not a wise choice of words, might I add.



LOL.



> Except NVMe drives, if we're going to start comparing totally different classes of products to one another both financially and technologically. Why not go full frontal and start comparing apples to papayas.



LOL again.



> I think this is the only post that actually responds to the OP's question and needs.



The OP doesn't need help, he seems to know everything already.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 27, 2015)

taz420nj said:


> The OP doesn't need help, he seems to know everything already.



Then perhaps you have no reason to be in this thread.


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

LOL perhaps I am conversing with others.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 27, 2015)

This thread is fast turning into a chat room, discussions about SSD comparisons can either be conducted in review threads or in PM, please stay on topic or don't stay at all..... thank you.


----------



## silentbogo (Nov 27, 2015)

Here we go again, an advice thread turned holywar for no reason.

I'll come back to the main topic, since everyone is too busy banging heads:

1) Any decent mechanical HDD in a 250-500GB range will cost you around $40-50
2) A mediocre SSD in 240-256GB range costs about $10 more. 
3) 250GB 850 EVO is almost $80

I am not sure if your dad will notice a significant change in performance between EVO and, let's say SanDisk SSD Plus or ADATA Premier, so why bother with the best performance if an affordable choice is right there.
I own an older SanDisk Extreme II, which has almost identical specs to a much cheaper SSD Plus and even though my write speeds are way below spec, I am still quite happy with its performance and reliability.
Originally I bought this SSD for my ASUS R500V laptop and it was enough for work/games and other stuff. Even had a 40GB partition for OpenSuse.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 27, 2015)

Maybe we should recommend what drives are really a bad choice. At this moment Any Sandforce, due to bugs with more later chipsets. 840EVO yes... I had one too...

The only brand I really tend to not trust is Kingston lately... due to their cheating with IC's. Otherwise... Take any of them... for a simple laptop it won't matter really.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 27, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> 1) Any decent mechanical HDD in a 250-500GB range will cost you around $40-50
> 2) A mediocre SSD in 240-256GB range costs about $10 more.
> 3) 250GB 850 EVO is almost $80


Man, I wish it was that simple. I wouldn't have even thought about starting this thread. Unfortunately, prices are completely different over here. The mechanical disk I mentioned is $61. The 250GB 850 EVO is $92. The cheapest 250GB SSD I can find (typically Patriot Blast and ADATA Premier SP550) is $86 (and all these prices are roughly the lowest I can find in the country, meaning it's more in reputable shops).



RCoon said:


> Not a wise choice of words, might I add.


You are right, but I got sick of the guy's bullshit. I might type in a rough way, but I don't troll and pollute threads I don't even want to participate in.


----------



## alucasa (Nov 27, 2015)

Mussels said:


> just jumping in to say... why not an SSHD? you can get them a lot cheaper than a pure SSD, and they're a lot faster than traditional drives.



I second this. In a laptop with a single drive, I do not tend to use a SSD unless I know exactly how much storage I am going to use. SSHD is a good compromise.


----------



## silentbogo (Nov 27, 2015)

By the way, you may want to check if that laptop is equipped with mSATA slot. I know HP always suck in that regard, but just in case...
Alternatively you can get a smaller 60-120GB SSD and an ODD caddy to relocate the old HDD as a low-speed storage.
Who uses DVDs anyways?


----------



## taz420nj (Nov 27, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> By the way, you may want to check if that laptop is equipped with mSATA slot. I know HP always suck in that regard, but just in case...
> Alternatively you can get a smaller 60-120GB SSD and an ODD caddy to relocate the old HDD as a low-speed storage.
> Who uses DVDs anyways?



Lots of newer HP's are using the 9.5mm ODDs, so a non-slim drive might not fit into the caddy for those.


----------



## alucasa (Nov 27, 2015)

I have several of 9.5mm and 12.7mm universal ODD caddies and 9.5mm one can fit 1 TB laptop hdd fine. Not sure about 2TB ones though.


----------

