• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Moving to a SSD how to transfer windows

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I/O vs Overlapped 10:
 

Attachments

  • Original_IO.png
    Original_IO.png
    45.1 KB · Views: 48
  • Original_Overlapped10.png
    Original_Overlapped10.png
    38.3 KB · Views: 48
Definitely better numbers there, C.
Still not at the manufacturer's specs though.
 
You convinced me. Fresh install of Windows 7 from scratch and:
 

Attachments

  • new-io.png
    new-io.png
    20 KB · Views: 43
  • new-qt4.png
    new-qt4.png
    19.8 KB · Views: 44
  • new-qt10.png
    new-qt10.png
    20.1 KB · Views: 43
So there is nothing I can do to get the results above on my old Windows installation?

Nuking my C drive is the only solution?



All right, so what happens if I do a fresh install on this SATA II SSD and I image it and and use the image to move to one of the newest latest SATA III drives out now? Am I still looking at performance differences or does performance drop only apply when you move from a mechanical drive to SSD?
 
So there is nothing I can do to get the results above on my old Windows installation?

Nuking my C drive is the only solution?



All right, so what happens if I do a fresh install on this SATA II SSD and I image it and and use the image to move to one of the newest latest SATA III drives out now? Am I still looking at performance differences or does performance drop only apply when you move from a mechanical drive to SSD?

Those numbers are leaps and bounds better, I bet your boot time dropped, didn't it?

The performance drop *should* only apply for HDD to SSD, but the SATA II to SATA III difference could be kind of ehh.
I only have experience going from HDD to SSD, all SATA III.
 
I have a dual boot, when I boot into Windows XP and run this on C drive I get better results:

OCZ Agility 60GB SSD - Win7 from WinXP.png



Can't really accurately measure boot time since fresh install does not have any drivers or applications installed. I just nuked C drive to do the test, I plan on imaging it back to its earlier state.
 
Last edited:
I have no clue why one OS would do better than the other off of the same clone, but that's interesting to know.

Make the jump to SATAIII and make new images? ;)
 
Actually the both tests were of the same Windows 7 C Drive partition.

Notice how much better it was when I ran it *from* Windows XP on D Drive. Both tests were of the same Windows 7 C Drive partition.
 
Actually the both tests were of the same Windows 7 C Drive partition.

Notice how much better it was when I ran it *from* Windows XP on D Drive. Both tests were of the same Windows 7 C Drive partition.

Ohhhh! Makes sense because its the fresh install, and 7 handles SSDs better than XP too.
 
Let me clarify.

Running ATTO from Windows XP but still testing Windows 7 image on C Drive moved from mechanical drive:

OCZ Agility 60GB SSD - Win7 from WinXP.png

Gave me similar results to fresh install of Windows 7:

new-io.png




The only problem was running ATTO from Windows 7 mechanical drive image on itself [running a test on C drive from C drive]:
 

Attachments

  • OCZ Agility 60GB SSD.png
    OCZ Agility 60GB SSD.png
    23.2 KB · Views: 45
C6, 1 difference I noticed between your runs and his that you didn't correct to his settings: you have total length set to 256 MB and he is using 2 GB on that setting. Reset and rerun ATTO and see if that makes any difference.
 
I have redone the tests as you suggested.

C Drive: Windows 7 image moved from Mechanical drive to SSD
D: Drive: Windows XP


Testing C drive shows similar results regardless of where it was tested from, either Windows 7 or Windows XP:
 

Attachments

  • FromWin7.png
    FromWin7.png
    46.4 KB · Views: 45
  • FromXP.png
    FromXP.png
    25.2 KB · Views: 44
Slower than on freshly installed Windows 7 on C Drive:
 

Attachments

  • new-io.png
    new-io.png
    20 KB · Views: 44
My question is: would the speed also increase on freshly installed Windows XP - or only on freshly installed Windows 7/Vista?
 
My question is: would the speed also increase on freshly installed Windows XP - or only on freshly installed Windows 7/Vista?

That's not a question that I can answer. Never messed with XP and an SSD.
 
I thought I would test it. Windows XP shows no real difference b/w fresh install and image transferred from Mechanical HD to SSD.
 

Attachments

  • ForceTrim.zip
    232.4 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
...but there is one thing you can do for Windows XP and SSD:


You cannot do this if you only have Windows XP but you can do it if you have Windows XP AND Windows 7 or Vista dual boot.

So then, you boot into Windows 7 or Vista and run ForceTrim FROM there. So you run ForceTrim FROM Win7 ON your Windows XP partition:

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...Here-s-a-tool-to-force-TRIM-your-entire-drive

Yeah, because SSDs (as we know them) are newer than XP, it doesn't have that built in already.
 
Back