Do I need a large HDD?

jmurray01

Member
I know that "back in the day" it was the case of buying the biggest HDD you could afford, but these days it is more important to have a good processor and a reasonable amount of RAM.

So, with that in mind how big a HDD do I really need? I would be buying a PC with Windows 7 (may upgrade to 10 in the future) and at least 4GB of RAM. I use Onedrive for storage of documents/storage and do not store anything else on the actual hard drive other than maybe 100 photographs maximum.

For example the HP ProBook has a 111GB HDD and of that I have used 26.5GB which includes the OS and two user accounts.

What I want to know is the minimum free space required to run Windows 7 (and in the future 10) smoothly.
 
I wouldn't go anything smaller than 120 GB like you have for daily use. It's probably an SSD at that capacity.

Other than that it depends entirely on usage pattern.
 
You aren't going to find new machines with Windows 7, you may find some with Windows 8.1 still but most will be 10. Hard drive capacity is used for applications as well, but if you've only used 27GB on your current computer than you don't have much to worry about. Personally I wouldn't get anything less than 250GB, but you could get by with 120GB.
 
I was in Fry's Electronics the other day and saw a number of new laptops running Win 7 for sale on their sales floor, their site lists a half dozen new laptops with Win 7 available for order. It's still possible to buy new machines with Win 7 but the selection is dwindling.

I agree with others that you could get by with a 120GB drive. If you can get a new machine with an 120GB ssd, you'll get better performance since the OS will boot faster and programs wull load quicker.
 
Oh no, I'm not buying a NEW computer!! I'm not fond of throwing money down the drain thank you very much.

I actually decided later yesterday on a Dell Optiplex 740 USFF with a 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM and a quad-core processor. It has Windows Vista installed though instead of 7, but I am one of the few who actually liked Vista when it was released so that doesn't bother me. It still has extended Microsoft support until 2017 so I wouldn't think about upgrading until then, and if I then do want to upgrade it is of sufficient specifications to run 7 or 10.
 
Oh no, I'm not buying a NEW computer!! I'm not fond of throwing money down the drain thank you very much.
How is that throwing money away? You can get a $300 used computer that may last 4 years, or a $500 new computer that lasts 8 years.
 
How is that throwing money away? You can get a $300 used computer that may last 4 years, or a $500 new computer that lasts 8 years.
With good maintenance (cleaning it out at least twice a year, reinstalling OS if/when necessary) a used computer can last just as long as a new one.

It is the same as vehicles, some swear by brand new but I could never justify it. As soon as you hand over the money your item has just lost 25% of its value.
 
These two statements contradict each other ;)
Yeah I know, I didn't go looking for a Dell but it was the best spec for the price. Plus I do have an Optiplex 760 USFF in the living room as the "family" PC and it has been going fine for almost a year now.

They aren't BAD systems despite being made by Dell. As they say, a broken clock gets it right twice a day. It looks like the Optiplex was one of the flukes.
 
With good maintenance (cleaning it out at least twice a year, reinstalling OS if/when necessary) a used computer can last just as long as a new one.

That's kind of debatable when the components themselves have a finite lifespan. You also have to consider the 'viability' of the platform as software advances and the hardware can no longer churn out acceptable data rates (whereas something a couple years newer would lend you additional capacity).

It is the same as vehicles, some swear by brand new but I could never justify it. As soon as you hand over the money your item has just lost 25% of its value.

Also, devaluation is debatable. PCs and vehicles have different life spans and valuations. If you look at eBay, sandy i7s and above still have a hefty premium.

For most consumer products you can make the same case, 'if I buy this new I'll unlikely be able to sell it for the same price once it is used'..
 
That's kind of debatable when the components themselves have a finite lifespan. You also have to consider the 'viability' of the platform as software advances and the hardware can no longer churn out acceptable data rates (whereas something a couple years newer would lend you additional capacity).



Also, devaluation is debatable. PCs and vehicles have different life spans and valuations. If you look at eBay, sandy i7s and above still have a hefty premium.

For most consumer products you can make the same case, 'if I buy this new I'll unlikely be able to sell it for the same price once it is used'..
Exactly. I always like to know that should I need to sell the item (whether it is a phone, a computer or a car) shortly after buying it that I could easily recoup 100% of the money spent (if not make a profit). With a new item that would never be possible.

It's probably just my personal preference, there are no rights or wrongs.
 
With good maintenance (cleaning it out at least twice a year, reinstalling OS if/when necessary) a used computer can last just as long as a new one.

It is the same as vehicles, some swear by brand new but I could never justify it. As soon as you hand over the money your item has just lost 25% of its value.
You are proving my point. Components have a limited lifespan, as well as a useful lifespan. Mechanical components such as hard drives and fans last for a certain number of hours, a used computer already has use. The components themselves are also older models, meaning they will become obsolete faster than a new computer.

It's like buying a 2005 Honda Civic vs a 2015 Honda Civic. Sure it's cheaper and will last for years, but a new one will last much longer if given the same care and maintenance.
 
When it comes to hard drives these days you still get the biggest you can afford (generally, there may be some exceptions). And when it's £30 for a 500GB drive and £40 for a 1TB, you'd be daft to buy the 500GB. ;)

Also, CPUs and RAM have always been important. They're just important for the different things.
 
When it comes to hard drives these days you still get the biggest you can afford (generally, there may be some exceptions). And when it's £30 for a 500GB drive and £40 for a 1TB, you'd be daft to buy the 500GB. ;)

Also, CPUs and RAM have always been important. They're just important for the different things.
True, I think they are much more vital now though, as back in the 90s (for example) all you really needed was a processor capable of running Internet Explorer or a word document! There was no YouTube or online gaming back in "the day". Good ol' dial up :D

Now you can barely check your emails without at least 2GB of RAM. Sometimes I wish we could go back to the simple days where you ran Windows 95 with a 56k connection! Yes I know, I'm boring.
 
CPU limitations were much more significant 'back in the day' compared to now. Today an I5 will do almost anything you need and the bottlenecks are much more relevant to storage and memory than CPU.
 
True, I think they are much more vital now though, as back in the 90s (for example) all you really needed was a processor capable of running Internet Explorer or a word document! There was no YouTube or online gaming back in "the day". Good ol' dial up :D ...
In the 80's & 90's, Microsoft Flight Simulator was the benchmark software that was used to determine whether or not your system was up to snuff.
 
In the 80's & 90's, Microsoft Flight Simulator was the benchmark software that was used to determine whether or not your system was up to snuff.
Of course, how could I forget that! Strangely enough, I have never used that simulator. Maybe one day I will.
 
Back
Top