R-T-BQLC is about as cheap as it gets without reliability becoming peanut.

All for TLC pricing, real bargain.

btarunrOEMs Under Pressure from Microsoft to Stop Use of HDDs as Boot Drives from 2023

They need to STFU and keep their business to themselves.

MusselsThey already have, with QLC DRAM-less drives.

Most of those utter garbage.

lemonadesodaOh i see what they are up to… Windows on a chip. On the mainboard. Like firmware. Only bigger. Then they‘ll „lock it“, so you cant install any other OS. Wasnt WindowsCE like this?

Exactly, and since this flash device will be small in capacity (compared to a 500 GB HDD that was considered baseline), users will have to buy OneDrive to store all their stuff.

AusWolfOEMs still use HDDs as boot drives? Holy S! :twitch:

Yup

btarunrExactly, and since this flash device will be small in capacity (compared to a 500 GB HDD that was considered baseline), users will have to buy OneDrive to store all their stuff.

Which I dont trust ms to not screw that up like they do windows with their updates which screw it up constantly

ChaitanyaSure when you can get cheap QLC ssds that are just as slow as hdds so for entry level models overall user experience wont be any different. Majority of mid range laptops already come with excellent SSDs so industry as a whole has moved away from HDDs.

To be fair, QLC as slow as HDD might sucks in consecutive write, but consecutive read, random read/write definitely improve over HDDs, and many normal day to day windows operation is very light on consecutives, heavy on random read/write.

VerpalTo be fair, QLC as slow as HDD might sucks in consecutive write, but consecutive read, random read/write definitely improve over HDDs, and many normal day to day windows operation is very light on consecutives, heavy on random read/write.

That's true. No modern SSD is as slow as a HDD in a boot drive scenario.

AusWolfThat's true. No modern SSD is as slow as a HDD in a boot drive scenario.

While true, the differences are not as pronounced as you might think.

lexluthermiesterThey need to STFU and keep their business to themselves.

But... it is their business?
It literally is their business.
They can limit it to TPM 2.0, modern CPU's and all sort of other things but the moment they request SSD's for the boot drive you think it's too far?

lexluthermiesterWhile true, the differences are not as pronounced as you might think.

Yes it is. There is no such thing as a 2.5" HDD that comes even close to a QLC SSD's performance as an OS drive and power consumption.

Here, have a whole article on it so i can save myself some time:
Storage Game Loading Test: PCIe 4.0 SSD vs. PCIe 3.0 vs. SATA vs. HDD | TechSpot

Taking 30 seconds longer to load windows and games (and no that's not exagerating, that's the correct time difference vs a 2.5" drive) is certainly as pronounced as I think it is.

btarunrExactly, and since this flash device will be small in capacity (compared to a 500 GB HDD that was considered baseline), users will have to buy OneDrive to store all their stuff.

Except that "all their stuff" is a lot less now than when that was the baseline. Most people don't have music or video stored locally, and photos live on phones and whatever cloud solution they like. 256GB is perfectly fine unless you're installing games, for the OS, updates, documents, all kinds of applications.

MusselsBut... it is their business?
It literally is their business.

Hey now, Microsoft has no say over anything related to Windows! What a ludicrous idea :rolleyes:

Let me go one step further: here we are arguing about what OEMs and Microsoft should or should not do while most of us have home-built PCs and honestly couldn't give a damn about OEMs in general. ;)

Another step further (too far?): I think OEMs should not exist in the first place. Most people know at least one person who knows how to build a PC. For those who don't, most computer stores do assembly jobs for a small fee, with miles better results and miles better customer service than what most OEMs provide (looking at you, Dell).

MusselsThey can limit it to TPM 2.0, modern CPU's and all sort of other things but the moment they request SSD's for the boot drive you think it's too far?

You misunderstand me, I think it is all inappropriate.

MusselsYes it is. There is no such thing as a 2.5" HDD that comes even close to a QLC SSD's performance as an OS drive and power consumption.

I didn't say it came close. I said the difference wasn't as pronounced. That means that under normal use a user is not going to be greatly inconvenienced by that performance difference. Once again microsoft flex's it's might in a meaningless, pointless and useless way. They show only that they still want to control everyone.

lexluthermiesterYou misunderstand me, I think it is all inappropriate.

So you generally don't believe a company has the right to set terms for the use of their products? Or does this only apply to MS?

Windows 10, updates with laptop HDD and old CPU wastes my time.

I'm against forcing anything, but OS on mechanical drives shall die long time ago already.
Having said that, it makes me eyewatery how snappy Windows 2000 or pre-service packs XP was. These days are gone forever due to security and need to encrypt, obfuscate, double check every bit in todays systems :(

Hi,
I'll have to start getting some more 2.5" wd blacks 1-2tb
I actually like them, smaller foot print and are quite good for many purposes, not an os but movie/ tv series storage
SSD's are getting cheaper but they also just die one day and frankly I wouldn't waste a penny on QLC.

ValantarSo you generally don't believe a company has the right to set terms for the use of their products?

No, I don't. Once something is sold(and regardless of what copyright holders what you to believe, it IS a sale), the person making the purchase has the right to do whatever they wish with that something within the bounds of their own personal use. I think companies do not have the right to disregard our rights as citizens.

ValantarOr does this only apply to MS?

They are especially egregious in this area so they tend to get more of my disgust and rage.

Simply put, my money, my property, my pc, my rules. Don't like that? Eat poo, die. (Looking at you microsoft)

lexluthermiesterNo, I don't. Once something is sold(and regardless of what copyright holders what you to believe, it IS a sale), the person making the purchase has the right to do whatever they wish with that something within the bounds of their own personal use. I think companies do not have the right to disregard our rights as citizens.

They are especially egregious in this area so they tend to get more of my disgust and rage.

Simply put, my money, my property, my pc, my rules. Don't like that? Eat poo, die. (Looking at you microsoft)

But... these would most likely be terms of sale. If they don't agree to them, there won't be a sale in the first place. Is MS says "If you use boot HDDs in your laptops, we won't sell you Windows licences for those", then there won't be a sale, so the OEM won't have the software to install on the hardware regardless.

Also, please stop conflating business deals with end-user purchases. The two are not the same.

ValantarBut... these would most likely be terms of sale.

Term of sale that stand in contradiction of basic citizen rights.

ValantarIf they don't agree to them, there won't be a sale in the first place.

That is incorrect. You must from pay for something before you can be presented an EULA to agree with. It's a catch-22.

ValantarIs MS says "If you use boot HDDs in your laptops, we won't sell you Windows licences for those", then there won't be a sale, so the OEM won't have the software to install on the hardware regardless.

And that not should be but happens to actually be unlawful. It's also just plain wrong.

ValantarAlso, please stop conflating business deals with end-user purchases. The two are not the same.

True. However, by forcing OEMs to limit choice, microsoft is indirectly forcing that choice on consumers, which is wrong. So in the context of this situation, there are similitudes to be compared.

I'm currently fixing a laptop that has an HDD as boot drive. It's a huge pain! :cry:

So sorry... I'm on Microsoft's side on this one. Not to mention that a slow machine could present the image that Windows is sh!t, when in fact, it's the slow HDD's fault.

AusWolfSo sorry... I'm on Microsoft's side on this one.

I'm not saying I don't understand the benefit of SSDs, only that it should NOT be forced.

This was awesome!

lexluthermiesterTerm of sale that stand in contradiction of basic citizen rights.

Corporations are not people - and certainly not citizens! - and do not have any such rights. Please at least try keeping these things straight. Consumer sales and business sales are not the same.

lexluthermiesterThat is incorrect. You must from pay for something before you can be presented an EULA to agree with. It's a catch-22.

The EULA and any terms required should be available prior to purchase - and is to any large scale OEM partner. Do you, even for a second, believe HP's or Dell's lawyers aren't intimately familiar with the Windows TOS and EULA as well as any other contractual obligations and limiations in their dealings with MS?

lexluthermiesterAnd that not should be but happens to actually be unlawful. It's also just plain wrong.

Unlawful? On what basis? I mean, this is getting rather ridiculous. Are you actually arguing that anyone selling anything has to sell it to anyone, with zero limitations on use? Because ... well, that runs contrary to quite a few laws. Copyright? No such thing, by this logic. Contractual limitations to the use of a product is commonplace and entirely legal. There can absolutely be problematic contractual limitations, but this does really not seem to be a relevant case of that.

lexluthermiesterTrue. However, by forcing OEMs to limit choice, microsoft is indirectly forcing that choice on consumers, which is wrong. So in the context of this situation, there are similitudes to be compared.

No. That is not how such things work. OEMs can choose other OSes; consumers can buy their own OS licences. You're making an untenable transfer of responsibility here - by this logic, literally every business sale would be a consumer sale at some degree of separation. Which, again, is nonsense. Corporations are not people.

Yeah sorry lex, but you seem to have some really weird views on this one.
Microsoft can set the minimum requirements to whatever they hell they want.

They aren't stopping you from installing a mech drive in your system.

I honestly don't see a good reason to have an HDD as your main drive, even for low budget laptops.
Even a 256GB ssd is much better than a 1TB 4500 rpm HDD that you usually find on these and as the price/capacity of SSDs keeps improving it will keep going in their favor.
HDDs still make sense as mass storage or external drives, but only if you need more than 1TB.

On the other hand, screw windows 11, I will never use that trash.

MusselsYeah sorry lex, but you seem to have some really weird views on this one.
Microsoft can set the minimum requirements to whatever they hell they want.

That would be like microsoft telling me how to run my business and how to built or rebuild the PCs that I sell. They can't do that. And I would never tolerate them trying. I don't know how things run down-under, but here, that nonsense is unlawful and can get you in trouble.

Hi,
Nothing new here ms will also start making drivers come from the ms store only just like newest game ready nvidia drivers so what's the difference ?
None
HDD for an os is not something worth arguing about ssd clearly should be a minimum requirement.
Storage wise is another issue completely.