Windows 7 Support

[Vasudev]

Why not add 240GB kingston a200 ssd? Should be enough for xp and 7.

From what I've been reading, it's not a good idea to use and SSD on Windows XP. The reason is XP doesn't support trim. You'd have to trim the drive manually using 3rd party software. This is, of course, assuming someone even writes it. Windows 7 and higher trim SSD's automatically (or so I think), which is why nobody bothers to write trim software. If my facts are wrong, please let me know.

Yeah you're right. w7 and above actually implements TRIM. For normal user, I reckon most of them don't run TRIM anyways and the ssd will last more than 5-10 years w/o any issue on XP.

[humbert]

Yeah you're right. w7 and above actually implements TRIM. For normal user, I reckon most of them don't run TRIM anyways and the ssd will last more than 5-10 years w/o any issue on XP.

Trimming isn't exactly mandatory, but SSD's that are trimmed usually last longer. That's because when trimming the OS tells the SSD what data is no longer valid. Then it performs "garbage collection" i.e., it copies any good data to another block and erases the block with bad (and good) data. That way it can even out the wear. When there is no trimming it it'll erase a block and write data to that same block. All this is explained in Wiki. W7 and W10 pretty much do this automatically. XP doesn't due to the simple fact that there were no SSD's when XP was written.

[Vasudev]

Yeah you're right. w7 and above actually implements TRIM. For normal user, I reckon most of them don't run TRIM anyways and the ssd will last more than 5-10 years w/o any issue on XP.

Trimming isn't exactly mandatory, but SSD's that are trimmed usually last longer. That's because when trimming the OS tells the SSD what data is no longer valid. Then it performs "garbage collection" i.e., it copies any good data to another block and erases the block with bad (and good) data. That way it can even out the wear. When there is no trimming it it'll erase a block and write data to that same block. All this is explained in Wiki. W7 and W10 pretty much do this automatically. XP doesn't due to the simple fact that there were no SSD's when XP was written.

Indeed I do it every week. My sister never runs it, even after 200 days Win 10 auto defrag never runs.

[humbert]

Indeed I do it every week. My sister never runs it, even after 200 days Win 10 auto defrag never runs.

I believe Windows 10 automatically defrags magnetic drives and trims SSD's. I tried checking but the results I'm finding are confusing.

[Shadow.97]

Indeed I do it every week. My sister never runs it, even after 200 days Win 10 auto defrag never runs.

I believe Windows 10 automatically defrags magnetic drives and trims SSD's. I tried checking but the results I'm finding are confusing.

Trim is a setting that is not user run, it is enabled by default unless you have migrated your OS from a HDD to an SSD. Or if you migrated a non trim SSD to a TRIM enabled SSD.

Defrag is on by default, unless migrated from an SSD to a HDD. But who on earth would do that?

And even then, i think it enables with windows update. Not sure.

[humbert]

Trim is a setting that is not user run, it is enabled by default unless you have migrated your OS from a HDD to an SSD. Or if you migrated a non trim SSD to a TRIM enabled SSD.
Defrag is on by default, unless migrated from an SSD to a HDD. But who on earth would do that?
And even then, i think it enables with windows update. Not sure.

Your best bet on Windows 10 is to go Winkey-R for Run and type "dfrgui" (sans quotes). Highlight your drive, click Change Settings and set optimize schedule to run daily. There is no such thing as over-trimming or over-optimizing, so this is clearly the best way. The SSD should perform garbage collection and even out the wear. SSD's are overprovisioned exactly for this reason. And of course the less full it is, the better. This is even more important if you have a newer, cheaper SSD. In all probability it's TLC or (worse) QLC. Their cells pack 3 and 4 bits per cell respectively which is what makes them cheaper. The problem is that this reduces the number of read-write cycles they can do, and not just by a small amount.