Any ideas on what I should do?

[fincoder]

Hard Disk Sentinel shows the drive health as 35%. I repaired some bad sectors.

Computer was reportedly running slow. You discover the HDD has a low health status and bad sectors. You've clearly found the problem.

The computer is actually running normally as far as I can tell, no lag experienced so unsure as to what the client is talking about.

When a HDD is failing, the resulting slowness may only occur when a certain part of the drive is accessed.

will replace with an SSD. Of course, if I don't need to do this, I would be even happier if 35% health is indeed acceptable

Any computer that has a HDD boot drive and has been presented as slow or some other possible drive related issue, the HDD should be replaced with an SSD. Your diagnostics confirmed that to be the correct approach. You seem to be resisting all the good advice in this thread.

Because the HDD is still limping along, you should be able to clone it to save the apps, settings and data.

Few HDDs made in the last 10 years survive for more than a few years as a boot drive. They're not made how they used to be. Despite being so much faster, SSDs are also more reliable than modern HDDs.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

No SSD, regular spinning disk. ...

End thread...here is the answer to why Windows 10 is running slow. "Spinning hard drive"

Win10 has no business on a spinner, unless you don't mind doing things like...mowing your lawn with toenail clippers, or painting your house with a toothbrush. I don't have that many weeks in a day for spare time. I know some people may tolerate Windows 10 on a spinner...but...for me, for my clients..."No..just...no!" Not even on a new WD Black! Or WD Raptor 10k. I started moving my clients to SSD en masse back with Windows 7.

Prices of SSDs are so dirt cheap, grab one, clone current drive over to it, boot up, reboot two more times, and enjoy a much better running rig. The amount of time you spent trying to troubleshoot a slug of a spinner.....translated to dollars per hour....could have nearly bought a new laptop.

 

[britechguy]

End thread...here is the answer to why Windows 10 is running slow.

BS, pure and simple.

Windows 10 and Windows 11 do just fine, thanks, on HDDs. Boot up time is significantly slower, but that's about it.

I would be willing to bet if I put most of the people here making these claims in front of an already booted Win10 or Win11 machine that they're not intentionally trying to bring to its knees they'd have no idea whether it sported a spinner versus an SSD.

This is a prejudice, pure and simple. Even I prefer SSDs to HDDs, but the idea that Windows 10 or 11 just run miserably when one is the system drive is just not true. The difference is slight, not like night and day.

 

[fincoder]

Boot up time is significantly slower, but that's about it.

No, opening apps is also significantly slower. Even web browsing feels slower when on a HDD (as all page content is cached to the drive before loading for rendering).

I would be willing to bet if I put most of the people here making these claims in front of an already booted Win10 or Win11 machine that they're not intentionally trying to bring to its knees they'd have no idea whether it sported a spinner versus an SSD.

I reckon I could pick it every time.

 

[britechguy]

I reckon I could pick it every time.

I only wish we could "blind test" this. But, alas . . .

Preconceived notions (and I will openly admit that I have those, too, it's only the "about what" that differs) can have a powerful effect on impressions. But when the thing that can trigger that preconceived notion is hidden from view, the impression often changes.

The preconceived notion that SSDs are "blisteringly fast" compared to HDDs from a "sitting in front of the computer and doing not-particularly-stressful for the machine activities" is also one I don't see holding up. I can and do have "characteristic lags" quite similar in overall profile for certain things on SSD and HDD equipped machines. The difference is in degree, but not essential quality. And if you're not paying very careful attention . . .

 

[timeshifter]

I reckon I could pick it every time.

Me too.

 

[labtech]

If it only ran "a little better" in safe mode I'm also leaning towards a failing HDD. As others have said sometimes all SMART tests can pass yet performance drops off a cliff. Think when this happens it's an issue with the controller rather than the disks themselves as I've had something similar happen to a SSD once.

Would be interesting to see a benchmark from something like CrystalDiskMark or ATTO then compare to a known working HDD (or just google average HDD results).

Sorry, controllers do not make HDDs or SSDs slow. It is like saying a CPU on a motherboard makes the machine slow, which is virtually never the case. Controllers operate within specs & it is probably the most reliable component on the board.

Whether it is physical damage or software bug, controllers on HDDs are hardly ever the problem.

On SSDs, there are bugs, however most issue were on earlier models from 5+ years ago. Controller software in SSDs have improved a lot.

On the physical side, the only controller related problems are on some of the Built-for-Apple SSDs (2014-2016 Toshiba based SSDs for example). They get unusually hot.

Hybrid drives (Disks with onboard Cache Flash chip), when failing, with basic tools, it does feel like a controller issue, but it is not. With those, the problem is often the cache flash chip degrading and making the drive inoperable.

 

[mikeroq]

Me too.

Me three.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Hard Disk Sentinel shows the drive health as 35%. I repaired some bad sectors. Before it was at 27%. CPU is running at full speed (not underclocked due to performance). The computer is actually running normally as far as I can tell, no lag experienced so unsure as to what the client is talking about.

I am not 100% fluent with drive tech, does this imply it's failing? HDS says it is at an acceptable level, though I'd hardly consider 35% acceptable.

Looks like I am leaning towards a drive replacement somehow, will replace with an SSD. Of course, if I don't need to do this, I would be even happier if 35% health is indeed acceptable. The good news is they subscribe to my cloud backup solution, so they're covered.

35% is a trip to ER. Rush in the drive on a stretcher before we lose it.

Anything between 70 - 90% in my opinion calls for letting the customer know the drive is showing symptomns of failure, and anything below 70% is a red alert and if client doesn't replace, the service stops.

I'm not as familiar with other apps but HD Sentinel should be able to tell you the date if you look at the SMART Log. That can tell you when errors happened. So, if a drive shows 5 bad sectors but that was 2 years ago, I wouldn't be as concerned compared to 5 new bad sectors that just happened within a month.

We all have different levels of what we consider "replaceable" and that in part is down to economics and personal opinion. It's always best to advise the customer but never force. Just like a doctor, we tell the patient what's wrong, we can advise them, but we can't force them into a treatment plan.

Yes, HDD's are slow, but Windows 10 will happily run on a HDD for typical users who run one app at a time. For power users who multitask, then yes, a SSD is recommended.

 

[alexsmith2709]

BS, pure and simple.

Windows 10 and Windows 11 do just fine, thanks, on HDDs. Boot up time is significantly slower, but that's about it.

I would be willing to bet if I put most of the people here making these claims in front of an already booted Win10 or Win11 machine that they're not intentionally trying to bring to its knees they'd have no idea whether it sported a spinner versus an SSD.

This is a prejudice, pure and simple. Even I prefer SSDs to HDDs, but the idea that Windows 10 or 11 just run miserably when one is the system drive is just not true. The difference is slight, not like night and day.

So many times i've had computers brought to me saying its slow and there is no reason for it other than it running on a spinner. Switch to SSD and job done. The difference is very much, night and day.
As a test i have put in a spinner removed from a slow computer to a known working "fast" computer and it crawls so this proves to me that Windows 10 (and by extension windows 11 in its current form and most likely future forms) do not run well on spinners, even on a clean boot.

You have a different experience to most users here on many occasions. Good for you, but it seems the majority of people have experienced issues like this.
I dont sell anything with a spinner any more and devices running windows 10 or 11 brought in are always advised to upgrade to SSD even if its not the main problem its brought in with.

 

[TazUk]

BS, pure and simple.

I guess we've all been coning our customers for a long time then

 

[lcoughey]

Well, I suppose one could argue for the cost of a 2TB SSD replacement, one could have a RAID config with comparable speeds...and redundancy.

Another thing to consider is that the hard drive still has a chance for recovery of files. Most SSD failures are fast, without warning l, and less likely to be recoverable.

Personally, I'm a fan of SSD boot drives, SSD temporary storage drives and HDD data drives.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I would be willing to bet if I put most of the people here making these claims in front of an already booted Win10 or Win11 machine that they're not intentionally trying to bring to its knees they'd have no idea whether it sported a spinner versus an SSD.

This is a prejudice, pure and simple. Even I prefer SSDs to HDDs, but the idea that Windows 10 or 11 just run miserably when one is the system drive is just not true. The difference is slight, not like night and day.

It's from experience of around 3,000 computers under our command at any time.
Most of our clients run MS Office apps. They're a bit heavier...Word, Excel.....larger spreadsheets. Oh...Outlook...on 365 mailboxes. Meaning, as any business mail account should be allowed to do, mailboxes are large....double digits in gigs in size.

Oh...and accounting apps, such as Quickbooks. Or...if some poor persons is tortured by being forced to run from a 7,200 rpm spindle..."Slowbooks". Just SHOOT ME NOW!

Business employees often utilize Windows Search. It's not bad on SSD. Stuck with a prehistoric spindle? May as well go wash your car, or take a lunch break...during that Search.

How about from a management/preventative maintenance perspective...
*Microsoft updates....reboots...you want to wait a few minutes..or 30 minutes to an hour?
*Updating Windows 10 major releases...such as shoving in 21H2. Personally I'd rather get it done in 20 minutes versus 480 minutes...but hey, it's a free country. I do most of that work outside biz hours, and I value my after biz hour time. If this is a billable job, adding those hours...may as well have sold them a new computer!!!
*Daily antivirus quick scans...thanks to SSDs doing quick scans really makes things unnoticeable to the end user. But back in the spindle days...we'd often get complaints...especially on spindles that were a couple of years old...as it's well known that as spindles age and get wear and tear, (higher mileage)...they slow down. SSD's...not really.

But most of all.."Why still a spindle?" Really...prices of SSD's are so_dang_cheap now. So is RAM too! I just don't get allowing spindles...or 4 gigs....or old Pentium DUO processors these days.

On the amount of time the OP has spent trying to work on this computer already....on his bench...and posting this thread, and trying this, and trying that. Add all that time up...and be honest. Now..what's the OPs billing rate?
I could have taken the patient computer, listened to the complaint of "slow performance"...looked at the system specs and quickly found that it's a spinner...I would have gone directly to (without passing GO)...cloning to SSD. Spend 5 minutes hooking the drives up to our drive duplicator...let it cook while doing lots of other things, returned in about an estimate 30 minutes...til it's done, put the SSD in, booted up, rebooted...and I have about 15 minutes time invested in this computer.
*I'll guarantee it runs a heck of a lot quicker
*Client will be a heck of a lot happier
*In the past, spindle hard drives were generally the first part of a computer to fail, and they get slower over time. SSDs...generally live as long as the rest of the computer now, under average use..and don't noticeably slow down over time.

My bill to the client would have been for 1x hour of bench time, plus the price of the SSD....a very small bill.

 

[britechguy]

I guess we've all been coning our customers for a long time then

No, I guess you've been twisting my argument and not listening to it.

SSDs are preferred over HDDs. I've said it a million times. But Windows 10 and Windows 11 can and do run, just fine, and at speeds acceptable to a very great many users, on HDDs. The majority of my client base has been running Windows 10 (and, now, 11) on HDDs. None of them are calling me constantly complaining about "slow" machines.

A dying HDD and a fully functional HDD are not one and the same thing. A dying HDD can slow things to a crawl, but what does that matter, in that you then have a defective piece of equipment.

The "night and day" argument when dealing with a "normally stessed" machine and a good SSD versus HDD does not hold water. And I have plenty enough hands-on experience to state that without the slightest equivocation.

I routinely recommend and install SSDs if an HDD needs to be replaced, too. I also suggest buying machines with SSDs. But that's got nothing at all to do with some wildly divergent difference in speed in day-to-day use, for most clients, between the two. There is some improvement, definitely, but it's not "night and day." It also means that I really need to force the issue of doing backups, because SSDs that up and die are not really financially practical to recover any data from for a very great many clients.

 

[britechguy]

Business employees often utilize Windows Search. It's not bad on SSD. Stuck with a prehistoric spindle? May as well go wash your car, or take a lunch break...during that Search.

Only if you are searching non-indexed areas. Which you should not be doing at all routinely. But even Windows Search is crap compared to Everything Search from voidtools.com.

In any case, every example you've given is something people have been doing for many years on hardware far less capable than what exists today without crying, "Oh My God! This is soooooo SLOW!." What many here consider unacceptably slow is not unacceptable to a massive user base, and that matters.

SSDs, and other technologies, have not been miracle silver bullets that have revolutionized the user experience sitting in front of a keyboard and doing daily home and office tasks. The claims here by far too many purport exactly that. I don't know how anyone who's been in this business for decades can realistically take that position. It defies reason.

 

[Diggs]

SSDs, and other technologies, have not been miracle silver bullets

Not to be argumentative, but SSDs have done exactly that. Years ago when people complained their systems took forever to start or were always so slow there was little I could do. Check the old hard drive's health, look for 3 or 4 antivirus programs running together, check stuck Windows Updates, etc. I could maybe, if I was lucky, speed up their computer by 20-50%. Today, doing nothing else but replacing the HDD with a SSD I can speed up their computer 400-500%. Boot up and web access are what most residentials notice today and each of those are profoundly impacted with an SSD install. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[britechguy]

Today, doing nothing else but replacing the HDD with a SSD I can speed up their computer 400-500%.

Then you are very, very lucky indeed. I see very distinct increases in boot speed, but not that significant. And I don't see changes in web browsing speed that many would even notice under typical conditions of use.

But we are allowed to have different observations, experiences, and opinions. I am actually not expecting anyone to change theirs, nor will I be changing mine. But I have, I honestly have, carefully considered what all have said in this topic and in general about SSDs. And I don't think that I have been extended the same courtesy, as many of the replies have not followed from what I have stated or implied.

I quite like SSDs. I prefer them to HDDs in many ways, but not for long term mass storage, to name but one. And I have not observed them to be "silver bullets" for speed on machines that are "in good nick" to use a Britishism. Machines that are taking 10 minutes to boot with an HDD are either very poorly maintained (no housekeeping done, ever, and lots of startup "dust bunnies" slowing the gears) or the HDD is on its way out.

There have been multiple posts that directly imply that I'm stating HDDs should be preferred in most or all cases, and I have never said any such thing, and am not saying any such thing. But I am saying that a well-tended machine with an HDD should not be glacially slow compared with an SSD, particularly post-boot, for either Windows 10 or Windows 11. I just see far too many "normally functioning" machines with an HDD as their system and data drives humming along without issue for the claim that "Windows 10 is a dog on a spinner" to hold water. I saw machines get major boosts in speed when they went from Windows 7 to Windows 10, all on spinners at the time.

 

[nlinecomputers]

And I don't see changes in web browsing speed that many would even notice under typical conditions of use.

Different bottleneck there. Your browser can only retrieve as fast as your internet can feed to it. The biggest gains I see from SSD use is Quickbooks and Outlook. Both has notoriously slow database use.

 

[Porthos]

Your browser can only retrieve as fast as your internet can feed to it.

Just like you cant stop a full home fire with a garden hose.

 

[TazUk]

SSDs are preferred over HDDs.

For what reason then if the performance increase is only negligible?