Sorry to say, (er, I mean "report"), that ship has already sailed. And sorry to mention it but, I'd be willing to bet, the OEMs are loving it.Sorry to say but as outdated as it might seem to you, I don't think Microsoft should get to decided what's a valid boot hard drive it seems like they're reaching far out of their realm.
I know people will just say this is a good thing but I should remind everybody that a software maker, even if they make the OS, should not dictate hardware use for it's users.
In other words I had a suspicion that their stubborn insistence on TPM 2.0 requirement and arbitrary cut off points for CPUs that could support TPM 2.0 with a header for no good reason was an attempt at basically helping out the hardware manufacturer partners Microsoft has but this bit of news? This is all but confirmation that is the case.
If you think about your home computer you might assume "Boot takes too long on mechanical drives" and think there's no downside. However you also gotta think about the millions of systems out there in the enterprise world, specially on small to medium businesses in poor countries that can and will take any cost saving measure they can while purchasing new hardware and this almost screams at me of the big 3 office hardware manufacturers (Lenovo, Dell and HP) wanting to get better sale numbers for SSDs on some of these markets and just submitting a request with a white paper that's probably easy to justify is enough to get Microsoft to scratch their back and plan out this move.
Sorry to say but as outdated as it might seem to you, I don't think Microsoft should get to decided what's a valid boot hard drive it seems like they're reaching far out of their realm.
They already done that. I mean nummerous times actually. The release of Windows XP. You needed newer and faster hardware. The release of Windows 7. You needed newer and faster hardware. The release of Windows 10, well say goodbye to your old hardware at that point. I mean various hardware failed to operate on newer OS'es due to the lack of proper drivers. Microsoft made it just too complex for for example older printers, scanners and such to even work properly.
Their influence in sales of hardware is gigantic. Lots of machines are sold to this day with oversized specs that most of 'm woud'nt even use. Now I can relate to swapping out a platter based storage which is just awefully slow with a SSD. There's still quircks to using a mechanical HDD compared to a SSD.
One of the most important in my book is this:
- That mechanical drive can quit one day out of nowhere. Dataloss.
- That mechanical drive stills needs maintaince such as defragmentation.
- That same mechanical drive is just becoming slow to todays standards.
Even an intel 80GB SSD is faster then a mechical HDD. It wins already on acces time(s. And the quality of storage, like it's life expectency is quite better then a HDD.
Ive had too many HDD's fail from nummerous brands such as Seagate, WD, hitachi or whatever, just out of nowhere broken. Ive ran a HDD datarecovery thing for 2.5 years and above where the most brands with highest faillure rate.
Take into account that HDD's became more and more complex, you coud'nt just swap out the PCB anymore in the case of a PCB faillure. Nope. The ECU, MCU, firmware all that had to be transplanted to a donor PCB in order to fix it.
It's good for long term storage, but to be honest I have all my HDD"s disconnected since they spin for no reason really other then storing my data. When I need it ill hook 'm up. The best HDD's that still work here to this date where samsung's of each 320GB a piece. Now thats build quality.
I was in a PC store last week. They had a shelf with relic hardware. A 2.5inch WD Raptor of over 10k rpm and it's own heatsink. It was considered the fastest consumer HDD you could find that spun at 10k rpm. Today's standards even a cheap SSD blows that right out of the waters.
So do you think OEMs should equip all laptops with dual HDDs in a RAID 0 setup? Or maybe do something actually sensible and shove a SATA 3 SSD in them. I mean it's cute what you have going, however impractical, unorthodox, or overly complex it may be. That said, a single SATA 3 SSD will still kick its a**(On the cheap, no less)A "soft" (I.e. fast startup) reboot into win10 from my HDD equipped laptop (2012 spec - yes it is 10 years old) is about 30 seconds. Admittedly it has a 32GB sata SSD as a cache drive (Intel rapid storage - puts the two drives in a RAID 0 array to act as one drive with a 32GB cache) - but it is still very usable. I think this is another attempt to make older hardware deprecated, this time so MS can abandon "fast startup" from future versions of windows (until it gets so bloated again that even PCIe 5.0 NVMEs can't keep up).
Erm that isn't what I wrote - and the laptop did come with an HDD and small M.2 SATA SSD (think wifi-card 2242 size) to act as a cache drive (Intel rapid storage was often installed to do this). MS are pushing to kill off the option to boot from HDD and I doubt it is to force OEMS to equip laptops with SSDs - as I said above it is probably so they can kill off fast startup (and all its associated problems).So do you think OEMs should equip all laptops with dual HDDs in a RAID 0 setup? Or maybe do something actually sensible and shove a SATA 3 SSD in them. I mean it's cute what you have going, however impractical, unorthodox, or overly complex it may be. That said, a single SATA 3 SSD will still kick its a**(On the cheap, no less)
Well, if I understood the article correctly, M$ us asking that ALL machines be equipped with with SSDs, not simply laptops.MS are pushing to kill off the option to boot from HDD and I doubt it is to force OEMS to equip laptops with SSDs - as I said above it is probably so they can kill off fast startup (and all its associated problems).
It's not RAID0. It's not RAID anything. RAID is different from caching.A "soft" (I.e. fast startup) reboot into win10 from my HDD equipped laptop (2012 spec - yes it is 10 years old) is about 30 seconds. Admittedly it has a 32GB sata SSD as a cache drive (Intel rapid storage - puts the two drives in a RAID 0 array to act as one drive with a 32GB cache) - but it is still very usable.
As a professional developer, I hard shutdown every night and have set the bios to turn on my PC every morning at 6:00 AM so it is ready for me to work when I get in. So why do I do this?? What many might not know is that Windows, whatever version, has been plagued by memory leaks since pre-XP days and likely even longer. The way that I work, these memory leaks will often show up in various ways. Some people might not notice this, but the memory leaks are still there and can show up in various and odd, perhaps totally unexpected, ways.Everyone beefing about how long even Win10 on an HDD takes to boot are full of lint though I agree, it takes too damn long but I only reboot once a month when all the patches come out and that's overnight while I'm asleep. Otherwise, I use Sleep to power the system down as the power consumption isn't any higher then when it's off due to USB 3.0 remaining powered so the longest it takes for my system to be ready to use is how long the monitor takes to finish waking up.
I beg to differ "Intel Rapid Storage Technology, until 2010 called Matrix RAID, is a firmware-based RAID solution built into a wide range of Intel chipsets. As of 2020, it includes a RAID system capable of RAID levels 0, 1, 5, and 10, a block level SSD caching accelerator with support for write-back and write-through modes for speed or data protection of any disk or RAID array".It's not RAID0. It's not RAID anything. RAID is different from caching.
Windows 10 boots in mere second from the press of the power button.That's just it. Non-techies will never know the difference likely because they are unlikely to get a pre-built PC with an SSD as a boot hard drive, nor are they likely to know that they can get an SSD boot hard drive in the pre-built PC.
IMO, what is probably going on is that boot times have gotten slower and slower over the years. I have an old PC with a dual-core operon 1220 running XP that boots faster than my Xeon 1650V2 PC running Windows 10 (both PCs have SATA SSDs). Its likely that MS is aware of issues like this, and just wants it to appear that Windows is loading faster, when the reality, IMO, is that its MS' Windohs bloat and crapware that is the problem.
I also built my wife a PC last year with an Ryzen 7 3800 on an X570 board using a Sabrent 1TB NVME PCI-e 4.0 drive that cold boots Win 10 in about 4-seconds. I bet that no SATA SSD can match this. So the performance difference, IMO, is night and day even with all the MS bloatware and crapware.
Rather than MS giving up their addiction to bloatware and crapware, they decided that its better to push hardware even further than their ridiculous TPM/CPU requirements for Windohs 11.
This may be true but, the issue was more pronounced in XP, as opposed to Windows 7, which can tolerate days more up time, than XP ever could.Windows, whatever version, has been plagued by memory leaks since pre-XP days and likely even longer. The way that I work, these memory leaks will often show up in various ways. Some people might not notice this, but the memory leaks are still there and can show up in various and odd, perhaps totally unexpected, ways.
In my usage, (primarily internet), the browser is more likely to lock up than the OS. And contrary to some belief systems Firefox is a memory hog, as compared to Chrome based browsers. especially in the later multi process later versions.Some of my colleagues never shut down, and when they tell me that they are seeing weird things in Windows, I tell them "Reboot". Then they do and the problems disappear.
To be sure, XP was never offered on machines with a SATA 3 interface, with some being as "primitive" as SATA 1. Vista was the first version of Windows offered with native SATA drivers.You listed two Server chips, with I'm assuming two server boards. Can't really compare XP to 10 when the Posting of the machine between the two are not really the same. I've found 10 to boot just as fast as XP did even on a SSD. My Dell Server's Post time is crazy compared to ESXI booting.
I beg to differ as well. Some Intel chipsets do indeed offer RAID options. In fact, a board as old as my P-45 has them available.It's not RAID0. It's not RAID anything. RAID is different from caching.
I managed to trash my very last XP installation. It was 32 bit and I had a copy of 64 bit 7 Pro laying around, with 8 GB of matched RAM. Si, I said to myself, "screw it, it's time to make the swap. I pulled the C;/ drive and stuffed in another machine. No joy. So I did a live run of Ubuntu, and trashed the Windows folder.(Disclaimer, I run Linux so if Microsoft decides to do whatever it really doesn't affect me.)
"Step up selling" has been a staple of most, if not all consumer goods for decades. In fact , (with perhaps a few exceptions), the only reason for very bottom of the line products to exist, is for the sales staff to sell away from them. Hi-fi vendors were particularly notorious for advertising "loss leader" items. The cheapest piece in a product line was advertised at, or even below cost. Of course it was "out of stock" by the time you got there. They did however , have the one which was, "much better", and "only a hundred dollars more", availableOf course it's quite possible that vendors actually want customers to see the weak specs of the cheapest products and go up to the better model and that such a consideration is a more important factor than the actual difference in cost between SSDs and HDDs.
That's a lot of words to say "I either don't know or willfully ignore the fact that SSDs can and routinely do fail, with even less warning signs that mechanical drives in fact"