Upgrade two Toshiba laptops

EveryWhere

poppellerant wrote: »

Isn't ignorance bliss when it suits you most? That is as much effort as your post deserves from me.

You needn't have bothered. That's how useful your post is to everyone here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6zxoh3oK4

Now let's see if you are man enough to concede when you are wrong or whether you resort to bluff and bluster(Trumpism).

poppellerant

EveryWhere wrote: »

You needn't have bothered. That's how useful your post is to everyone here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6zxoh3oK4

Now let's see if you are man enough to concede when you are wrong or whether you resort to bluff and bluster(Trumpism).

So that shows two laptop with harddrives, one with 2GB of RAM booting ~19s slower than the 8GB of RAM machine. A marginal boost of ~2s is shown with the SSD machines. What is your point? That more memory makes no difference? If so, you just failed very miserably.

Congratulations.

EveryWhere

poppellerant wrote: »

So that shows two laptop with harddrives, one with 2GB of RAM booting ~19s slower than the 8GB of RAM machine. A marginal boost of ~2s is shown with the SSD machines. What is your point? That more memory makes no difference? If so, you just failed very miserably.

Congratulations.

??

Do you have problems with your perception or are you assuming that other people here are too stupid to notice your falsehoods?

Remember your argument was that RAM was more important than SSD in the first instance.
I told you that SSD would make it faster than adding more RAM. Remember?
So why you are quoting 2 GB with SSD against 8 GB with SSD is known only to you.

Put your glasses on mate! :rotfl:

There are four variations.

The device with 2 GB of RAM and a Samsung EVO 840 SSD, boots 20 seconds faster than with 8 GB of RAM and a 250 GB HDD.



In the Photoshop start-up test, the device with 2 GB of RAM and a Samsung EVO 840 SSD starts 10 seconds faster than with 8 GB of RAM and a 250 GB HDD.



In the opening of a 1GB PhotoShop file test, the device with 2 GB of RAM and a Samsung EVO 840 SSD opens the file twelve seconds faster than with 8 GB of RAM and a 250 GB HDD.



That shows, comprehensively, that SSD makes more of a difference than more RAM.

If you are still confused, look at the times all in one place;

We are comparing the two in the middle of the table.


The 8 GB RAM with HDD is behind the 2 GB RAM with SSD in every test. A long way behind.

I'm guessing that instead of conceding like a gentleman, you will resort to a childish response. Surprise me.

EveryWhere

poppellerant wrote: »

Try putting your own glasses on - see the video I quoted at 0:13. The left hand laptops clearly have 2GB of RAM and the right hand laptops have 8GB of RAM. If you are genuinely having problems seeing this, let me know and I will gladly show and highlight the part of the video that shows this.

RAM is more important than an SSD. Overbearing an SSD, regardless of it's TBW, is wasteful. The video shows at the beginning the benefits of starting up with more RAM. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless when your own facts state otherwise.

At 1:28 the times for the bottom row of laptops are 00:32:36 and 00:30:19 (sic). The left hand laptop has 2GB of RAM and the right hand laptop has 8GB of RAM. The right hand laptop clearly boots up ~2 seconds faster than the left hand laptop, which has less RAM.

Having more RAM is always going to be more beneficial than substituting the RAM with an SSD drive. Regardless of how fast SSD drives are these days or how long they last, the principle is simply wrong and shouldn't be practised.

I haven't watched any more of your videos and I don't intend to.

Your demeanour on these forums is appalling. Calling me "mate" and asking me if I am "man enough" is not what I call acceptable behaviour and I have reported you for doing so. I will not be addressing you any more in this thread, so feel free to spout what you want - but I for one won't be listening or replying to you.

Neither I nor anyone else perusing this thread will have any idea of what you are going on about.
There is only one video and after each device loads, the clock is stopped. At the end of all four devices finishing the test, the results are frozen
So I have posted screenshots of each final result.
In addition the full results are posted at the end of the video.

There are no 2 second differences other than the boot up time between 2 GB with SSD and 8 GB with SSD.

But that is not the comparison. The comparison is between less RAM with SSD and more RAM with HDD, in order to see if more RAM gives a better performance than fitting an SSD.

You've got it wrong and just appear to be confusing yourself.

The test show comprehensively that SSD makes more of a difference than adding more RAM.

Of course, this is a simple test and if multitasking, one should have more than 2 GB of RAM in the first instance.
But it clearly illustrates that you were wrong in your assertion that more RAM would make more of a difference to performance than fitting an SSD.

That is wrong,

A child should be able understand my clear illustrations. Yet somehow it appears to be beyond your understanding. I really don't understand why. I'm not joking.

A laptop with 2 GB of RAM and an SSD is much faster than the the same device fitted with 8 GB of RAM and an HDD.



That is all there is to it.

Clearly if is it too complicated to for you understand, then you shouldn't be trying to give technical advice on this board.
I don't need you to listen nor reply to me. My advice is for the benefit of all. If you choose to try to obfuscate, that is your prerogative.
We disagreed on a technical issue and I put forward the evidence that you were quite wrong.
So it is for others who may be upgrading to decide from the evidence before them.

shaun_from_Africa

EveryWhere wrote: »

We disagreed on a technical issue and I put forward the evidence that you were quite wrong.

You did put forward a very compelling argument with factual evidence to back up your claim but then again, so did poppellerant:

poppellerant wrote: »

Isn't ignorance bliss when it suits you most? That is as much effort as your post deserves from me.

EveryWhere

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

You did put forward a very compelling argument with factual evidence to back up your claim but then again, so did poppellerant:

Perhaps you can elaborate? The only explanation I have for these kind of posts is that it's Saturday night and perhaps some have been out drinking.

He didn't want to expend effort but them made more posts in argument anyway??
Ignorance bliss? Have you any evidence of posts I have made that were off the mark technically?
Seems not making sense is all the rage tonight.

shaun_from_Africa

EveryWhere wrote: »

Perhaps you can elaborate? .

I should have added a "sarcastic emoji" to my post (and I would have done so if I knew how.)
What I meant, and I realise that it didn't come over too well is that proppellerant's rebuttal of your post was sadly lacking in any substance whatsoever.

EveryWhere

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I should have added a "sarcastic emoji" to my post (and I would have done so if I knew how.)
What I meant, and I realise that it didn't come over too well is that proppellerant's rebuttal of your post was sadly lacking in any substance whatsoever.

I don't know why people take these things so personally. It's no different from any lively discussion between friends.
But here, when their arguments are failing, they resort to trying to report you for calling them "mate". So sad.

It's not about them, but getting the right information out there.

If I got it wrong, I would happily concede, as it is about imparting the best advice. If someone knows the answer and I don't, I don't take it personally. I learn from it.