half_pint wrote:
.

Ok, so my drive spins at 7200 rpm, the same as yours. How big are
your platters? Lets be VERY generous, and say the full 5 gig
capacity of your drive is on a single platter. My smallest drive is
180 gigs - lets say there are 3 platters there. My platters
therefore hold 60 gigs each, despite being the same physical size as
your platters. Therefore the data density on my platters is 12
times greater than on yours.

Therefore, for each revolution of the platter, my drive can read 12
times more data. That`s 12 times the amount of data in the same
amount of time, making the data transfer rate 12 times greater.

Is that simple enough for you, or is it still too complicated for
you to understand?

You have demonstrated how stupid you are, you have no idea how a
computer works, statistacially the data will be on the other side of
the drive and it will take
your drive just as long to assess it as mine. (aprox bearing in mind
your marginally
faster spin speed).

As someone else has stated, on average the drive will have to seek across
half of the platter. Depending what you`re doing, this could be reduced a
lot (if you`re accessing a load of data in sequence on a fairly well
de-fragged drive), but I can`t see many real-world situations that would
increase that figure by any significant margin. Why do you think that the
only issue here is the access time? Incidentally, if my drive spins at
7200rpm, and you`re spins at 5400rpm, that`s not a marginal increase in spin
speed, it`s almost a 50% difference.

What is the access time on your drive, can you find out?

End of story.

Why can you not admit you are wrong?

Because I`m not wrong.

Out of interest, why do you spend so much of your life trolling? You REALLY
should try going out and getting laid sometime, I`m sure it`d help your
mental issues.

--
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc
Earn money reading emails!
http://tinyurl.com/2pcgm