slow dont expect this to be any good

Yes, slow with it's original 5400rpm hdd-therefore I'd advise stick any ssd-be a budget one and you have handsome HTPC .

SSD deals posted here on weekly basis. 30quid plus depending on size. If you can get a few quid for the 1TB-even better.
The same HP goes on amazon for 250:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/HP-300-030na-Pavilion-Desktop-Windows/dp/B00SBB8VK6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454838137&sr=8-1&keywords=HP+Pavilion+Mini+Desktop+300-030na

It's about the price, or even a bit cheaper than on an intel Nuc i3 that and this comes with memory , hard drive and licenced copy of Windows so looks great value.... it'll need an SSD drive and an nice clean install of Windows and it should be pretty quick.

Would this be better for a few quid more on HP? £50 discount code at top of page. More modern GPU and CPU.

http://store.hp.com/UKStore/Merch/Product.aspx?id=N8W69EA&opt=ABU&sel=DTP&jumpID=ps_xeuz482n9f/sf:_sku:N8W69EA&k_clickid=EMEA%7C_kenshoo_clickid_&kpid=N8W69EA&gclid=Cj0KEQiA89u1BRDz8enExq7rvN0BEiQAaFCHm0a2C0zxFQqt8yz84mLiVC3ZefIC-12uulAyhS59kUoaAvYB8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CLikx-iw5coCFeV22wod0fACzw

It's Sunday. Assume you have time to google things up. You don't like it vote cold.as easy as that. Not gonna convince you to like it. You can get ok-ish ssd for below 40. So that's 239.97-ish. You may need a screw driver to open the case to replace it. I'd say you can ask neighbor to lend one(0 pounds) if you don't have one or can't find it. Nice day to you.

These have a free M.2 slot inside so a good option could be buy an M.2 SSD and then then you can keep the 1TB HDD for storage, also it has two RAM slots, of which only one should be filled so buy a 2nd 4GB stick for 8GB of RAM, and this is a very very nice little machine!

Internals: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/cheap-functional-upgradeable-hps-stream-and-pavilion-mini-desktops-reviewed/2/

Any good as a small ESXi / Xen server?

Hot! Thank you!

Oh yeah, I dropped a £100 somewhere?!

£200 is perhaps about right price for this one, I think. Though it is two generations of CPU/intigrated Intel HD grpahics behind the current Skylake CPU/integrated graphics in the new NUC and Brix models, at least, at least it comes with memory and storage fitted and at least it isn't a somewhat lesser performing Pentium/Celeron. Not sure about the vendor(?) but have some more heat, can't find it cheaper.

It's frustrating that Intel haven't yet released an iris Pro graphics version Skylake CPU, though I don't doubt that when they do, there will be a considerable price premium. I was helping someone buy an i5 Skylake NUC, but then they mentioned they wanted to play games on it, I went onto Partpicker and showed them how they could built a M-ITX format gaming PC with a non-K blck overclocked i3 6300 with a GTX 750TI. Albeit, that completely and utterly misses the point of these units, that they sit in the palm of your hand, rather than on your lap!

I'm tempted to use this as a main pc instead of a laptop

Since when do people "need" an SSD.. Mechanicals are plenty fast enough, even 5400rpms can chew through 100+mbps sequential. Just not as fast as alternatives. I think people get stuck on looking at things from their personal perspective/use-case, rather than what the public at large might use something for.

Just too expensive: it's not a laptop or a netbook! Much cheaper things can be had from the likes of Gearbest etc

iv got one of these, cracking piece of kit and fast enough for a everyday pc.

Higher sequential read/write speeds are good for when you are transferring large files, but for day to day use random read/write performance is more important and this is where HDDs suck badly.

After using SSD-based PCs for the last five years there's no way I would go ever back to using a HDD for the OS and applications.

I have also upgraded 350+ PCs at work with SSDs and people do definitely notice the difference. Everything is much snappier.

Before we swapped the HDDs for SSDs, our laptops used to get quite a lot of bad sectors due to users moving them about while they are on. With SSDs we don't have to worry. :smiley:

I really want one of these little PC's just to mess about with Linux Mint, I've got my hopes on getting something with i3, 8GB Ram and 120GB SSD for sub £200 what's my chances?

Just some clarifications/comments to the replies.

1. I own several SSDs.
2. I am fully aware of all the performance characteristics of both technologies. Save your patronising comments.
3. Yes random read/write is a lot better on SSDs, but once a programme is loaded into RAM, that's irrelevant.
4. The main benefit of SSDs is load time. SSDs means it takes 2 seconds to load up an app instead of 10. Not what I would personally classify as a "need".
5. Many modern mechanicals are very good, some incorporating large caches for SSD like performance under certain workloads. The technology is also still improving, by increasing platter density and removing the need for higher RPMs. You can't dismiss them out of hand by comparing to what they were years ago when you switched to SSD.
6. Also omitting the fact a 1tb SSD would cost more than this entire machine.

The reason I pointed out the mechanical may not be such a huge weakpoint is the fact most people will not be stressing their machines like you people probably do. Most people will browse the web, watch some movies, play music, and use MS Office. You don't "need" an SSD to do that. If you're going to play games, boost an otherwise weak spec PC, or clone from a relatives heavily encrusted windows with a hundred startup apps, then it becomes a serious contender. I personally use an SSD (on both laptop and desktop), and love the performance boost, because I do a lot of coding and work with many small files. But that's MY use case.

Hard to recommend this when you can get a 8GB 1TB laptop with a better processor in a LAPTOP for this money brand new!

Also, I'd avoid having $GB RAM - I'd always opt for a numerical amount. :wink:

Want to plu it in to the back of my TV and already have a BT mouse and Keyboard. Don't even want an OS!

Been watching NUCS on the bay but apart from the underpowered bay trial ones they go for silly money :disappointed:

Don't worry, wasn't you being patronising :wink:. That's fair enough. I'm just entering my opinion too based on my own experiences. SSDs do own mechanicals, and it is very nice having windows load up in 30 seconds, I just wonder if the average Joe would benefit more from the extra space.

This or a 2nd hand mac mini ( for approx same price -2014 version)

in 10 to 15 years time we'll look back fondly at those slow old SSD's and chuckle at the spinning drives too when we're all using some organic goo storage that plugs into the unused part of our brains. :smile:

Would the average Joe need to access all that data at the sort of speed that requires it to be stored internally?

Most people don't NEED an SSD; the vast majority of computers on the planet are still using HDDs and they all seem to work fine. That doesn't mean the performance improvements aren't beneficial but it's up to the end user to decide whether that's worth the cost.

That's just stupid.

Anyway, while an SSD has much faster random reads and can boot quicker, it doesn't make a massive difference in real usage - the average user will load up word, their email, and maybe photos/music. None of that will give you a significant benefit.

A fresh installation on an SSD will always be much faster than a old installation on an old fragmented HDD - but if you compare like for like in normal usage, there is very little difference.

Of course I own an SSD. But because it benefits me, doesn't mean it's essential for everyone else. Yes your games will be loading in 20 seconds instead of 3 minutes, but that doesn't mean the same performance boost will be seen across all possible use cases. Sometimes SSDs matter, sometimes they just don't. I can go into the details of why, as I'm a software engineer who has worked on high performance applications, but tbh I have better things to do with my life. Bottom life, performance is highly subjective. Sometimes the CPU is the bottleneck, sometimes the RAM, sometimes the hard drive. There is no way you can say which will be someones without a very specific use case. It's like me saying "you NEED 8gb" or "you NEED a quad core".

What a load of rubbish!! it loads everything shedload faster, its makes a massive real world difference.



Its the single most important upgrade to a laptop or PC, the only time you would want a mechanical drive over SSD is storage capacity and that is being closed, Samsung to release 8TB 3D NAND this year.. mechanical drives are losing importance..

Id prefer all cheap laptops to use a 256gb ssd than a 2TB 5400rpm, i was speaking to a freind yesterday and he said he doesnt care whats in his laptop he just wants it to be fast and instant.

The important distinction is that the commentary of most benefit to the public is where the objective view of the needs of the majority/public is taken into account. You and your friend might not have the same criteria for computer performance as the vast majority of everyone else. Many people will want to store lots of films and music, which will quickly fill up a smaller SSD. I would say I "need" my 8 core, 8gb, and SSD, for my uses. But I wouldn't suggest that because I need it, everyone else needs it too.

Keep living in your dreamworld.

It takes less than a second for my 7yr old laptop to load Excel on a old rubbish fragmented 5400rpm slow mechanical drive. An SSD will NOT make much difference, despite your delusions.


And those drives will cost over £1,000.

SSDs are the future, but until then mechanical drives are a much better buy for the money.

How long does it take to boot up into windows, and then allow you to move your mouse to click excel for that 1 second? SSD is teh future, anyone defending 5400rpm drives over SSD clearly have a screw loose.

Just ignore the muppet. He seems to believe that you can add an SSD to a Spectrum ZX and it will make it more powerful than Skynet.

I specifically said SSDs BOOT QUICKER so stop twisting my words to suit your delusions. Go back and read what I said.

You clearly don't have a single screw tight!

EDIT: I also said "SSDs are the future" to which you argue "SSD is teh future" - WTF???? LMFAO

It's a Commodore 64 we have, would it be worth upgrading to this and would it run Pitfall.

If it's not worth an upgrade and anyone recommend an SSD for the C64. Must accept cassettes

But i originally said SSD is the future to which you replied SSD is the future to my reply of SSD is the future as well as ending on SSD is the future, WTFLMAOLOLBLAH!

Many people are in the habit of storing lots of films and music on their internal drive.

I wouldn't get too involved tbh. The computer experiences of most people on HUKD extends about as far as Call of Duty, and it would take all day to explain why they're wrong.

are these fanless? didnt see a fan from the open pics that someone posted earlier

I kind of feel these should be a bit cheaper. It's got the spec of a £200 laptop, only without a screen, speakers, keyboard, mousepad and battery.

Cut to the chase here, there's some really dumb comments regarding SSDs here. Let me make this simple. What's been the last bottleneck in a computer system for years, the hard drive. SSD is not about solely boot time and about application loading, it's about addressing a very real bottleneck in computing, one that limits the overall user experience. Now you might get on alright for a while with that HDD, but then you'll notice things slowing down.

I'll give you an excellent example. Yesterday a customer brought in a laptop, running dog slow, it had 6GB RAM, it was an AMD triple core, nothing great, but you'd expect it to perform so much better. They'd bought a system 18 months ago which had an SSD on the motherboard a Vizio laptop. So they said can we put an SSD in this old laptop BUT keep our old system, so I said yes you can.

Now this system absolutely ran like crap, it was also full of nuisance ware, popups/toolbars, browser redirects, but not really trojans or viruses. I said we can clone your existing Windows 7 system to the SSD. This system would take minutes to respond to apps. So we cloned this system to an SSD, now what do you think happened to the system once it was cloned to the SSD? This was a Windows 7 install that hadn't seen a reinstall for quite some time and ran terribly. Well the answer is that cloning it to the SSD transformed the speed of the overall system, it was still nowhere near as fast as a fresh install but it became usable.

This is a real world example of a how a magnitude of delay introduced by a bottleneck becomes and order of magnitude more noticeable in comparison to an SSD which removed the bottleneck.

Do you need an SSD? Yes you do, because you will hit the bottleneck far quicker with far stronger detriment than on an SSD. I've seen it over and over and over again.

Boot your conventional HDD system, then open your web browser. Observe how long it takes to load the web browser. Now close the web browser and open it again, what do you notice, it loaded the web browser quicker, because the system intelligently caches the data. Now if that's all you do on your computer what you'll notice is that this just happens a lot lot quicker with an SSD. Now as your Windows installation ages, the data fragments, your Windows installation will automatically take care of this. What an SSD does is improve the overall experience of using the computer and as the installation ages, the tolerance factor in terms of loss of performance becomes evermore evidence on a HDD based system.

Or just defrag your hard drive every 1-3 months? And not install bloatware on your windows install? I think the use case you've identified is for people who don't have a clue about computers and will inevitably trash their windows install. I think the solution is not to keep increasing the power of their computer to outpace the detriment of the spyware/bloatware/adware, but rather teach them to not click yes to every popup.

ps. Opening a browser a second time won't load quicker on an SSD. It will already be cached in memory and won't touch the hard drive.

Nobody's saying an SSD doesn't improve performance because they obviously do. I also fully agree that they significantly reduce that 'performance decay' factor that you get as an OS install gets older. I've had an SSD since mid-2012 and the performance benefits have been significant. I'd never personally go back to having a PC without an SSD and if I could justify the cost I'd change my two storage HDDs for SSDs just for the sake of it.

I still disagree with the notion of 'needing' an SSD however. The benefits are there and they're significant, but the PC will still work just fine with an HDD just as the vast majority of PCs with HDDs do. For a budget-concious user an SSD probably isn't going to be a priority if there's already storage in place.

Conventional hard disks, particularly at 5,400rpm, are rubbish for running an OS and its applications on.

Budget or not, SSDs are cheap these days.

I wouldn't bother with this in any case, mainly because of the HP logo. They should put it on the bottom so no one sees it.

If you could pop in the c64 cassettes and it improved load times I would buy

As Nitros said: the program will be 100% in Windows' disk cache. It will load exactly the same speed with SSD or HDD the second time. In general, browsers do use a lot of disk to cache websites and images and benefit from an SSD.

Yes, SSD's make some things faster, but they are not absolutely necessary.

But I don't accept that old computers benefit in particular! For example, I've got a Sony Vaio from 2008 that would not benefit much from an SSD - because it is often CPU bound. The SSD would take some pressure of the limited main memory (3GB), but that's it. Even my main PC (G550) often hits 100% CPU with todays flash and other crud running on websites..

Sometimes HDD performance is ruined by stupid coders: I've seen file loading code crawl at 5MB/s on a HDD. A quick 1-2h treatment and it's now running at 100MB/s - because I added buffers and removed unnecessary random seeks. In that case, SSDs are more forgiving of stupidity.

:smile: - now I understand why we are on one page...
I'd say that you pretty much NEED an SSD for coding java in a larger project if you recompile frequently. Not sure if the same applies to C++ anymore. I still remember these build farms that ran nightly builds on these magnificent Pentium Pro's.

SSD can help, with parts of the process like pre-compile build systems. Eg SCons will trawl files, doing MD5 hashes looking for changes. But actual C++ compilation doesn't benefit much. The speed at which mechanicals can throw source at the CPU/RAM is faster than it can be compiled.

SSD's tend to make software run at an instantaneous level, so while those are dismissing this based on loading word well it goes without saying that very little benefit is there.. but using browsers is very different you only need to go on youtube to see the massive speed increases while browsing, pages load instantly, with a HDD you have to wait seconds, it sounds like a small thing but its not..

I would personally never use a HDD as an OS drive again, the fact your PC boots in a matter of seconds, software loads instantly as you click it, and I am talking photoshop or lightroom type software not word, see how fast importing an SD card is on lightroom on SSD compared to HDD,

I keep seeing the fraction quicker comment, but the reality is if your HDD is the bottleneck an SSD will solve that issue greatly.

and browsers are very much quicker with an SSD not a fraction but alot quicker. go on youtube the evidence is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84eEjP-RL4

Shame this has expired, looked good at that price.

The typical user is also quite likely to have Norton or McAfee antivirus installed. This can turn a speedy new laptop into an absolute slug without an SSD.

To give you an example, a colleague at work brought in a brand new £949 HP Envy 17-n104na yesterday which had Norton installed and it was unbearably slow at pretty much everything. Some programs could take an entire minute to open due to the real-time protection scanner. If this computer had an SSD I doubt you would even notice the performance drop caused by Norton.

Norton, McAfee and iTunes all have the ability to turn the fastest computer into a dribbling mess. 3 programs no-one should ever install.