wjnjr Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 My computer has two hard drives - a SSD (C:/) for the OS and programs (including ImgBrn) and a conventional 7200 rpm hard drive (D:/) for data storage. Which one would be best to use as the source for DVD and CD burns? Which one should ImgBrn be on? Or does it really matter?? Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbminter Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I say it matters. The file size of ImgBurn created files might make a difference on an SSD. That would be more frequent writes to the SSD, reducing its finite number of possible writes. An RPM drive lasts longer than an SSD. While using the SSD would be considerably faster, I would, just on my knowledge of the types of drives, use the RPM as the target drive. However, I've never actually had an SSD drive in a PC. So, I can't speak from experience. Just going with my gut and what admittedly little I know about SSD's versus RPM drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjnjr Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 Thanks for the reply, interesting points. Actually, I'm wondering which drive would be better to use as the source for burning disks? The SSD because it's faster? (That's why I use it for the OS and all programs) Or the regular HDD because it is not involved in running Windows or ImgBrn and would only be sending data to the DVD burner with maybe less chance for errors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Yeah, you shouldn't really be saving large ISO files to an ssd - or at least not doing it frequently. It doesn't matter where you install ImgBurn. Once it's been loaded and is in memory, that's it. It won't get faster by being on an ssd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjnjr Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) OK, so which drive is better to use as the source - defined as the location of the file(s) to be burned to the blank disk - in the burning operation? In this case the SSD is a Samsung PM830 m SATA SSD, attached to the motherboard and used as the (C:) drive running Windows 7 pro 64bit and all applications. It's plenty big, 220Gb, and performs constant read/write operations quickly and reliably. It is not a plug in USB drive. Maybe I didn't make that clear. Edited September 19, 2014 by wjnjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbminter Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Well, it should still be a non-issue. You shouldn't use the SSD as a source drive because that means you'd have to copy an ISO to it or create the ISO file from ImgBurn to the SSD. Large files shouldn't be written to SSD's so it shouldn't be an issue as a source drive because you shouldn't write an ISO to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjnjr Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 Thanks for the replies, but we still haven't quite addressed the original question. Perhaps it wasn't clear, so let me rephrase it: Strictly in terms of performance, with no concern for possible ill effects to the longevity of the hardware involved, Is there better speed, accuracy, reliability, and/or repeatability in the burning process if a SSD drive is used as the source instead of a conventional hard drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbminter Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 You will get a speed boost in terms of how fast the data is read from the SDD into ImgBurn. BUT, the speed of the burning drive is effectively locked in at a much lower rate. So, it probably is a moot point in that you won't perceive any speed difference in the read time. The human eye probably can't measure it. As for repeatability, the SSD will wear out sooner than the RPM drive. While you probably won't need to keep an ISO for an extended period of time, if you do, then that is a consideration. As for accuracy and reliability, there should be no perceived difference. However, an SSD has no moving parts. So, it's not prone to mechanical errors like an RPM drive is. Still, the likelihood of an RPM dying before you need to replace it for another reason or get another computer is very low. Still, there's always the possibility with moving parts of an error. Hope that helps a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjnjr Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) You will get a speed boost in terms of how fast the data is read from the SDD into ImgBurn. BUT, the speed of the burning drive is effectively locked in at a much lower rate... As for accuracy and reliability, there should be no perceived difference... Hope that helps a bit more. Yes it does. Thanks! Edited September 19, 2014 by wjnjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbminter Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 You know, there's going to be an issue with creating ISO's in the future on SSD's, the way I see it. Eventually, SSD's will replace mechanical HD's so you will ONLY have an SSD to write ISO's to. And there's the large file issue in general. You shouldn't be writing large files to SSD's. Yet, Windows writes tremendously large files to the SSD in the form of the swapfile and the hiberfil.sys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peru Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Eventually, SSD's will replace mechanical HD's so you will ONLY have an SSD When that time comes, we won't have DVDs any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbminter Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Yeah, everyone keeps predicting the death of the DVD. However, the DVD was the fastest adopted home technology in history. DVD's aren't going away any time soon. People bought too many DVD players and Blu-Ray came out too soon after DVD to warrant people replacing their collections. The fact is DVD does the job that most people want. Despite what Hollywood wanted, Blu-Ray did not become the got to have replacement for DVD, even when it tried to entice people by no longer putting the extras on the DVD version and instead only on the Blu-Ray version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts