It is cool. Having a second drive could do wonders.

Again as I have been saying in other threads why not just use a usb external and save your optical drive.
I have Windows 7 installed on a 500gb Seagate which I run on my Windows 10 laptop and it works like a charm.

I can't see the clip in the OP but it's a thought I had once with an old HP laptop... "what if I could replace this with an SSD".

I never used the optical drive so it was taking up valuable space that could have been used for a HDD or SSD.  That was back in the day when SSDs were a new thing just on the market, and I happened to have a spare Crucial 120 gig that would have done the job.

Oh well, I don't have that machine anymore, and my current one doesn't have an optical drive, but it's something for the memory banks... now I know it's possible.

I have several portable USB HDDs. But Usb is slower than internal, AND, I'm trying to use an SSD as my internal drive, for the speed benefit. I can't afford a good sized SSD for the laptop, so this may be a good idea for my needs.

The laptop in question is a brand new Dell with a 1 TB HDD, which I would put in the optical drive caddy for the extra storage. Having to lug an external drive around is a hassle to me, kinda takes away from the "portableness" of the laptop.

A laptop should be self contained. And I never play cds or dvds in it. I really have very little need for the optical drive. But IF I ever did, I have an external optical disc drive for that.

But then, I could give some thought to using the 1 TB HDD out of the lappy as an external instead, if just for storage. I don't really intend to dual boot or anything.

Well I can see it if you don't need or want the optical but something I need to debunk is the speed. I do not notice any speed drop using the usb hard drive. It might be a little slower booting but I am not even sure about that. When I ran the experience index the rating only dropped half a point over having windows 7 install on the machine. If you used a USB 3 or SS hard drive speed should improve. Perhaps a laptop should be self contained as you have said but look at the size of that hard drive in my photo. You can put it in a shirt pocket.

Have that too, 2 x 1 TB drives in the laptop (I gave up on desktop PCs and use the lap as a workstation and for business), SSD for windows in the bay. Bought a kit with the adapter and an external usb-frame for the drive. Works great.

I didn't necessarily mean boot speed. It's a known fact that USB, even 3.0, is slower than internal stuff.

I am mostly interested in having the main drive be an SSD, for real speed, including boot time.

But since I can't afford more than a 120 GB SSD, I'll need a second drive for storage, and a portable may do fine for that. I'd just prefer to have everything contained inside the laptop.

Edit:  I meant to say that as for file transfers, USB is slower than internal drives.

Jim I knew you would challenge me on the speed thing and I am not saying that it is not suppose to be true but I am telling you that I do not notice a difference. I would be happy to make a youtube video showing the external in action. There is no lag, when I click on things they open immediately. Now I will say that the first time I installed Windows 7 on the same usb hard drive it was slower but I also had the hard drive full of programs and files. The second install I made a separate partition for the operating system and a few programs such as Windowblinds and use the rest of the external for storage. It seems to work just as fast as my internal even though as you say it is not suppose to. I also only paid 40 dollars for the 500gb seagate and in my case it is my only alternative because my laptop came without an optical drive. I also have an external optical if I need to play or burn a disc.

Jim I just made and sent you a video so you can see that I was not feeding you a bunch of BS about speed. The video quality is not the best because I made it on a cheap camera.

I got the email, but it seems to be a pic, not a vid.

It isn't necessary, Ken. I believe you. I just wish I had the same experience. I have 2 USB 3.0 drives but I have never tried to boot an OS from one.  I have done file transfers and that is much slower than moving things about internally.

My post isn't about running an OS from external. It's about adding a second drive to my laptop. I am positive that I can boot, and run, an OS much faster from an internal SSD than from any internal or external HDD. No question.

The link is fixed and you now have the video. I know that your post is not about an external. I was simply giving an alternative which for me makes more sense than removing the optical drive but if that is what you want to do go for it. For me file transfer speed is not an issue. I do not store the files on the windows partition and speed is only slower with large files. I copied 200gb of flac files to the external and yes it took a long time but I was still able to do other things while transferring the files. Once they are on the hard drive you are set.

Unless the mobo of the lappy is a dog a usb3 external will always be slower than an internal .....

It's all about throughput. ...

*injection of humor*

Do I dare?

Well......wouldn't be me if I didn't so...

All the itty bits on the inside don't have so far to go 'cause they're all on the inside. Stuff on the outside have to travel further, perhaps taking a few nano seconds longer to get where they got to go. After all they got to travel a longer distance while all the itty bits are right there on the inside so......

*going back to work*

On the specs alone, SATA3 tops out at 6Gbps, and USB3 tops out at 5Gbps. Current high-end SSD transfer rates are still around 4Gbps.

The trick is that while SATA speeds should be pretty consistent, USB3 speeds vary wildly depending on the implementation on both the motherboard and the device. Some of them are pretty poor. So they could quite easily deliver speeds well below their specs.