General > Off Topic
Thunderbird Mail 102.01?
vint:
Very interesting indeed,
I've read some of those comparisons you mention in the past and comparing bicycles and mustangs is stupid, but at the time I needed a drive for the laptop and SSD's were still fairly expensive and I couldn't afford one at the time. I did purchase a Samsung EVO for my wife's laptop in early 2022 and the cost had dropped by almost half, When I booted hers up I was shocked at how fast it was and had regrets immediately. If I decide to keep my Compaq Presario into the next year I will consider a c/o from hdd to ssd.
Best regards,
Şerban S.:
--- Quote from: vint on October 06, 2022, 01:15:52 AM ---[...] I should have installed an SSD last year instead of HDD and it would be even faster.
--- End quote ---
Hello, Vint! :)
I have about 22 months of practice using SSD drives. Now, I know merchants love their commercials and boost performance in words to make the products "eye-catching". Putting all this BS aside, I checked the performance individually, on each machine I used and the speed boost a SSD can offer, largely depends on the technical specifications of the given machine.
On this machine (Dell Precision T1700), the measurements show a speed boost of about 500% (five times faster than HDD). Previously, I had two types of HDD: Western Digital and Seagate. I never had the money to buy the server-type (10,000 rpm) so I bought the 7,200 rpm versions, even 5,400 rpm. So this was the comparison term: HDD 500 GB, 5,400 rpm.
While the articles on this subject say the speed of a 5,400 is 100 MB/sec and for 7,200 rpm is 120 MB/sec (never ever got that!!), the measured speed for a SSD, is around 350... 400 MB/sec.
See the image below. Obviously, the test was conducted on Linux Lite 6.0:
I know now that we need a comparison with another media benchmark. So, here it is! An old Seagate laptop HDD, 120 GB:
Theoretically, it is 10 times faster. When you copy files though, the transfer window shows a different story!
Anyway, a SSD IS at least, 5 times faster than any HDD.
Here is another benchmark, for an external Seagate Elements, 4 TB, USB 3:
Why are the values so different?
I used different partitioning systems over time. I noticed that the MSDOS partition table type, leads to slow reading/writing speeds, while GPT partitioning, leads to a way faster read/write speed.
The read value at about 35 MB/sec, is given by a MSDOS partitioning table of a HDD, with an ext2 file system.
The read values of 179 MB/sec and respectively 385 MB/sec, are given ba GPT partitions of a HDD, ext2 file systems.
Comparing the speed values of the same type of drive AND partitioning type, makes sense. Otherwise, it's BS. It's black-hat marketing. Period!
The problem with those GPT partitions is that are difficult to use on a BIOS firmware machine. They are incompatible and using them, might damage the drives.
Getting at this point, leaves us with the above said speed for a SSD:
On an GPT partition, AND a UEFI firmware, you get a 5 times speed boost;
On an MSDOS partition, AND a BIOS firmware, you get a 5 times speed boost;
The 10 times boost, results from comparing dogs with elephants:
That is, when you benchmark a HDD with MSDOS partitioning and a SSD with a GPT partitioning, and you put the values side by side, without specifying the drive type AND partitioning type! Which is BS.
It would be the same as to say a bycicle is the same with the latest BMW car, or a Hummer, just because the two kinds of transport, have wheels... :D :D :D :D
Cheers! :D
Have a wonderful day! :D
vint:
Howdy Serban,
That is weird indeed, again thanks for all of the help and I am loving Linux Lite on my old laptop, it runs smooth like Windows 10 never happened. Linux Lite uses so little resources and doesn't max out my cpu and ram like W7 does, I should have installed an SSD last year instead of HDD and it would be even faster.
Best regards,
Şerban S.:
--- Quote from: vint on October 05, 2022, 02:00:34 PM ---FYI,
Thunderbird mail successfully updated this morning to 102.3.1 from the codes given by Serban, I am running Linux Lite 5.8 on a Compaq Presario CQ 56 2 gigahertz processor and 4 GB ram dual boot with Windows 7 home premium on a 320 GB HDD. I haven't had any errors or problems with the updates of both Thunderbird mail and Mozilla Firefox browser. Thanks to Serban and Jerry for the help.
--- End quote ---
Hi, Vint! :)
I searched the machine and looks very much like my old Lenovo T400. On this machine, I did even video & audio editing, using OpenShot and Audacity so, I guess you're very much entitled to "ask for more": this "baby", is nowhere near to the Recycle Bin! :)
Thunderbird 102.3.1
I got the update also, yesterday. It's weird, because I installed it manually. I checked the PPA list again, but there is nothing like a "PPA: mozilla..."
Here is the list:
Regards,
Șerban. :)
vint:
FYI,
Thunderbird mail successfully updated this morning to 102.3.1 from the codes given by Serban, I am running Linux Lite 5.8 on a Compaq Presario CQ 56 2 gigahertz processor and 4 GB ram dual boot with Windows 7 home premium on a 320 GB HDD. I haven't had any errors or problems with the updates of both Thunderbird mail and Mozilla Firefox browser. Thanks to Serban and Jerry for the help.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version