安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Still, if you can I'd try to spring for a SSD to at least run the OS on for quality of life, it makes a drastic difference and a 256GB is pretty easy to find for around $20. Probably is worth that just to smooth out the install and not see tracers as you move the mouse.
It'll be a bit better off since it has 8 GB instead of something like 4 GB.
I would definitely suggest an SSD these days, Windows 10 or not. If you were already using an HDD for Windows 7 and it wasn't causing you issues and you plan to keep about the same software suite/workflow, then I want to say it might do alright but the two times I've seen Windows 10 on a hard drive, it wasn't fantastic (one only had 4 GB RAM though, and the other might have been an installation/software thing since I reinstalled Windows when moving it to an SSD).
Windows 10 loses support at the end of next year (so just under two years left) and then it's out of support like Windows 7 is. Of course it will probably take another couple or few years beyond that before Windows 10 is in the same sort of spot Windows 7 now is, but still.
You don't need the ssd to have many TBs of space, even 250GB is fine. If the HDD is older then WD Black 1TB then it too is probably quite bad performance wise.
Core2Duo and Core2Quad systems are fine for Win10 even if they only have SATA2 and not SATA3
Win10 support is good til 2028
runnin window on regular hard drive is terribly slow no matter what rig you run.
if your father upgrades you can move the SSD into a new pc, so a good SSD can be a good investment, otherwise the 20$ from kisnton will still be a huge upgrade over any HDD.
With OS housed on SSD, the system is quite fluid. It actually breathes all new life in older systems which you never used an SSD on before, you'll swear it's a newer/faster system overall when you see just how fluid the entire OS can be when on an SSD.
Once that is done, reboot, do those steps again, and repeat a few times. Every time you should notice an increase in the size of layout.ini as you further optimize the startup layout.
Pretty much this.
For OP though, Last I remember playing with even new oses on older hardware using only an HDD specifically, the performance was just totally unacceptable and I gave up on the idea. I would advise the SSD, but something else I'll mention (that I feel most people usually disregard/ignore) is that actual optical drives for some reason make a smooth install possible in my experience. So if you do put an ssd in a system that old (assuming real old motherboard too), then try burning the image onto a disc and using that as the actual source of the setup instead of from a usb drive. A lot of people will argue that (usb stick setup = optical drive setup), but I figure differently and I know most people wouldn't know that because most people quit messing with optical drives a long time ago. I'd just keep that piece of info in mind.
It's not the PC; it's the OS. Yes it NEEDS an SSD.
Now if we were talking about the same PC running certain Linux distros or WinXP; then a HDD would be perfectly fine.
Vista and later OS' however run like utter complete dog crap unless it's on an SSD.
Forget speed for a moment. OS on a HDD means literally you click one little thing and you freaking wait and wait and wait. Then you can click a second thing, then wait and wait and wait. With ANY SSD, this problem is solved. Why is that? Well because a HDD can NOT multi-task, an SSD can juggle 100 things at once without breaking a sweat. Look at Drive IOPS comparisons; that's all that matters most with OS fluidity. This fluidness an SSD brings means the difference between a 5 minute job vs taking you an hour. Yes a HDD can be that slow and if your have an old HDD, it's even slower.
Think of clicking around your OS via HDD as clicking around the Web while on Dial-Up.
SSD is basically that low-ping, lightning quick broadband when you compare the two user experiences.
Forget read and write speeds, forget boot up speeds; this is not about that.
If you are still second guessing this, you must be just completely clueless. IDK what else to say.
Also Consider a better GPU, possibly a GT 710. A GT 1030 can help with some video playback, removing load from the fairly old CPU.
If practical, consider a linux distribution.
There may be issues with drivers with scanning & printing. Oh and Libra Office is usually included.
I suggest just trying and see.
Expect the CPU fan to rev up!
A 256 GB one is mainly the most I'd get for the OS drive. Currently I'm only using 90 GB on my 256 GB OS drive on Win11.
I don't keep any games on the main drive.
So if you only use the SSD for the OS and main programs it should be enough for you.
This is essentially why i asked in the first place, i can wait for the 2 minute boot time but the OS taking an entire minute to open chrome for me is a big no.
I can probably get like a 710 from a friend of mine for that. Youtube does actually struggle to load videos at 1080p
I don't mind, plus it's some sort of deepcool cooler and i think that it's going to be enough.