SSD performing worse than HDD!?!?

Being an enthusiast of SSDs I had this awkward and disappointing experience yesterday...

My wife has an old Core Duo Celeron laptop with barely 2.5GB of RAM and a small 80GB HDD. Unless by the left shift key that stopped to work ages ago and a tired battery it is still in good health. Since it worth near to nothing at Craigs list and my wife uses it mostly for watch videos and browse web I choose to keep it around as much as it survives.

Anyway, a couple weeks ago I made a clean install of Windows XP and got a decent boot time of 36 seconds. My wife was very happy with it.

Yesterday I was bored in home and happened to find a nearly to new spare Kingston 60GB SSD around so I thought "why not?". Then I removed the HDD, dropped the SSD inside and installed Windows 7 and for a big coincidence I got the very same boot time of 36 seconds.

Since I had gotten 36 seconds either for WXP/HDD and W7/SSD I supposed that things should get still better with WXP/SSD. Kind of logic, right? However after to install WXP in the SSD I got a disappointing boot time of 50 seconds! Also all programs took more time to load than in the old 80GB HDD.

Now it doesn't make any sense for me. Anyone have had similar experience?


I ended dropping the HDD with XP back to the laptop; but if someone has some kind of magical tweak the SSD is still with the WXP intact so I can just drop it inside and try.


Not a big deal anyway, just puzzling...
Thanks Elizabeth. After some quick reading I kind of noticed that XP doesn't like SSDs (or vice-versa).


I dunno, I installed an ssd in my really old toshiba (a 16?) (with 4-3 screen) 10 + years old & XP home. I didnt install the XP, I cloned the old hdd (60 gig) to the new (ide-120 g) ssd. It works just fine, , , rocket fast compared to old hdd.

I dunno, I installed an ssd in my really old toshiba (a 16?) (with 4-3 screen) 10 + years old & XP home. I didnt install the XP, I cloned the old hdd (60 gig) to the new (ide-120 g) ssd. It works just fine, , , rocket fast compared to old hdd.


Lucky you! Seems that the problem is that XP is a pre-SSD OS so it is not optimized to use correctly the features of this new technology. As far as I read a bad performance is just part of the problem. Seems that it doesn't manage correctly the writes. It ends stressing the SSD and therefore reducing its life early. Get some reading online...

Anyway, here I noticed that the only way to have a decent performance with the SSD would be installing W7. However since in my case the SSD-W7 gave to me the same benchmark as HDD-WXP I concluded that it wouldn't worth to waste a SSD in this machine.

In all ways I will admonish anyone that ask me about use an SSD with WXP. I am not saying that it's not feasible -- I am sure that it may have some hacks and tricks out there to make it happen -- I just think that it doesn't worth the effort. See I earn money as a PC technician so I need quick and simple solutions that always work. That's why I cannot recommend to my WXP customers that they buy an SSD!

I googled

xp on an ssd

Got this:

" About 14,200,000 results (0.84 seconds) "

Some are positive some are negative, , , , ,

Like Liz says: "Search engines are your friend"
I've never really bought into the SSD hype. All my HDD's are the mechanical spinning type, even the spare ones I had bought for future replacements!

Any who, the tablet I'm typing this on comes with a very fast eMMC drive (cheaper cousin of SSD). For a $100 cheapie tablet, this drive's incredibly fast... haven't done any benchmarks, but read/write speed appears similar to my laptop mechanical drive...

XP definitely won't do SSD. It can't even handle AF (Advanced Format) mechanical HDDs (must partition & align it first with Win7 and above), so definitely should not play nicely with SSD since they're newer tech than the AF format that mech. drive manuf. started adhering to a while ago...
Last edited:
My dual boot XP 32-64 with an I7-2600 4 core 8 threads with an SSD very fast.
Don't expect a slow dog of a computer to be anything else just because you installed an SSD.
If you don't know how to make XP run fast don't blame the hardware or the software. Blame the user.
I'm no SSD expert. Here is what I have.
Compaq 8200 Elite CMT
PNY CS1311 120GB SSD XP 64 I7-2600 8gb ram

CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo

* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 464.314 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 395.921 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 32.187 MB/s [ 7858.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 70.961 MB/s [ 17324.5 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 405.384 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 381.699 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 30.107 MB/s [ 7350.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 60.131 MB/s [ 14680.4 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 37.2% (9.9/26.6 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/05/05 20:49:48
OS : Windows XP Professional SP2 [5.2 Build 3790] (x64)

Video encoding is 4 times faster than my old computer with a Intel Core 2 E8400 3ghz 7200 rpm hard drive.
Boot time is almost like it was in hibernation. Boot time is unbelievably fast. There is no waiting.
4 cores 8 threads vs 2 cores 2 threads seems to me to be a major factor.