Cost of DVD as data storage versus HDD (UK)

In article , "half_pint"
says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article , "half_pint"
says...
snip
However what you fail to realise is that data just behind the read head
requires one revolution for it to be read (unless it has multipule read
heads).
So my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern' 7200 drive.

A fact which even the most persistant of trolls cannot deny.

That's the maximum time that the head will take to start reading the
data after it has been positioned over the track. You have not taken
account of the time for the head to position over the track or the speed
of data transfer once it has started reading.

WEll they are not relevant to my point so obviously not.
But thanks for verifying that i am correct anyway.

You originally wrote "I dont think new harddrives will be any faster
than mine ( speeds are basically the same 5400 or 7200 ) so I cant see
them writing any faster". So you are either stupid, trolling or
deranged.

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:02:26 +0100, "half_pint"
wrote:

Your drive spins at either 5400 or 7200, the *same* as mine.

As has already been said *your* drive does *not* spin at 7200rpm.

Not what I said "Your drive spins at either 5400 or 7200, the *same*
as
mine"

Miine spins at 5400 (5401 I think), which statisfies the the 5400 or
7200
clause.

And which by definition, you would agree that a modern 7200rpm drive
will out perform a 5400rpm drive?

At what?

Do you know what a hard drive is for and what the definition
"performance" means?

Yes ,but you will to find that out for yourself as I don't have time to
explain, you are asking in the wrong forum anyway. (alt.hardrives maybe?).



Why not offer the info on the drive make and model, and we can
demonstrate with hard facts your assumptions on speed of throughput,
read and write are incorrect.

I would wager that even 4000rpm laptop drives far out perform your 7
year old 3 gig drive.

When I first started playing with analogue Video capture about 6
years
ago, only SCSI drives were capable of substained write capabilities
needed of about 7Mbps. Now, *every* IDE drive on the market can
*easily* cope with that and pass the figure needed probabily in
excess
of 8 times what is needed.

Something that should be pretty obvious, the fact that technology
continues to improve in leaps and bounds. Something, everyone
readily
accepts as a fact and easily provable with stats on the net. I can
only assume you are playing games if you cant see this to be the
case
and are acting as a troll.


However what you fail to realise is that data just behind the read
head
requires one revolution for it to be read (unless it has multipule
read
heads).
So my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern' 7200 drive.

Seeing as the density of data is far more in a modern multi-platter
drive, the amount of data read in one revolution will be so much more,
the spin speed of your ancient drive becomes irelevant when trying to
suggest your drive reads and writes the same volume and speed as a
modern drive.

SO you agree that "my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern' 7200
drive."

Your drive might spin at 33 less speed, but that has no relevance in
your claim your ancient 3 gig drives performance is equal to modern
drives. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Every modern 5400rpm
drive will outperform your ancient drive, even though the spin speed
is the same.

Spin speed is a critical factor.



A fact which even the most persistant of trolls cannot deny.

Since I'm not a troll and you refuse to post as requested the drive
model number to PROVE what you are suggesting is nonsense, perhaps you
would like to prove this point incorrect and do so? Or will you just
continue to ignore this as you have previously?

I have a Samsung and noisy Western Digital I an not going to dismantal
may computer, post your drive model number first.

I have several machines and even more hard drives. I dont need to
dismantle any machine to know what model number the drives are. Its
clearly shown in control panel, system devices. Perhaps if your
knowledge of PCs was better, you would know a few more facts than the
lack of knowledge you persist in displaying.

No you are wrong that info is mt on my computer, there
is no system devices in my control panel. (its not in system either)

I just had a quick look online at specs of drive of slightly larger
and newer drives than your own (A massive 6 gig!). It says transfer
speeds are up to 5 meg per second. Now compare that with modern up to
100meg per second drives. Do you notice any difference in those
figures?


Yes one is writing to ram, you need to find the speed at which
a head writes a track not to a data buffer.


It would appear your argument is based on a flawed premise that
technology has not advanced. If you want to believe that, then be my
guest.

I am sorry to tell you that hardrives spin at aproximately the same speed
they did ten years ago. Fact.



--
www.senaction.com

"half_pint" wrote in message
...

Do you know what a hard drive is for and what the definition
"performance" means?

Yes ,but you will to find that out for yourself as I don't have time to
explain, you are asking in the wrong forum anyway. (alt.hardrives maybe?).

Right forum. You must be posting from alt.kooks.

Your drive might spin at 33 less speed, but that has no relevance in
your claim your ancient 3 gig drives performance is equal to modern
drives. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Every modern 5400rpm
drive will outperform your ancient drive, even though the spin speed
is the same.

Spin speed is a critical factor.

Nope, access time and STR for IDE drives.

Yes one is writing to ram, you need to find the speed at which
a head writes a track not to a data buffer.

Incomprehensible.

It would appear your argument is based on a flawed premise that
technology has not advanced. If you want to believe that, then be my
guest.

I am sorry to tell you that hardrives spin at aproximately the same speed
they did ten years ago. Fact.

There is medication for delusions.

"half_pint" wrote:

Seeing as the density of data is far more in a modern multi-platter
drive, the amount of data read in one revolution will be so much more,
the spin speed of your ancient drive becomes irelevant when trying to
suggest your drive reads and writes the same volume and speed as a
modern drive.

SO you agree that "my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern' 7200
drive."

Your drive might spin at 33 less speed, but that has no relevance in
your claim your ancient 3 gig drives performance is equal to modern
drives. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Every modern 5400rpm
drive will outperform your ancient drive, even though the spin speed
is the same.

Spin speed is a critical factor.

Clueless idiot. You're evading the point. Learn how to read and
think. Or maybe you just enjoy making a fool of yourself in public.

In article ,
says...
"Simon Finnigan" wrote in message
...
[snip]
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.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're right about the relative data density (assuming
one platter for the 5GB drive), but that number is the product of two
others: relative bits per unit length (along the track), and a factor you
ignored, relative tracks per unit length (radially). The latter affects
capacity, while the former (along with spindle speed) affects transfer rate.

So instead of 12x more data passing underneath the head,
it's more like Sqrt(12) faster, right?

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
"half_pint" wrote:

Seeing as the density of data is far more in a modern multi-platter
drive, the amount of data read in one revolution will be so much
more,
the spin speed of your ancient drive becomes irelevant when trying
to
suggest your drive reads and writes the same volume and speed as a
modern drive.

SO you agree that "my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern'
7200
drive."

Your drive might spin at 33 less speed, but that has no relevance in
your claim your ancient 3 gig drives performance is equal to modern
drives. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Every modern 5400rpm
drive will outperform your ancient drive, even though the spin speed
is the same.

Spin speed is a critical factor.

Clueless idiot. You're evading the point. Learn how to read and
think. Or maybe you just enjoy making a fool of yourself in public.

you are talking ********, there has been no significant improvement in drive
speeds, spin speed is the most important factor and new drives don't spin
appreciateable
faster than old drives (not more than twice the speed) whilst other
components have
improved by several factors (about 10 times better).

I can wander into any PCfashionvictim store and click on a file, it will
appear
not faster than on my ancient PC.
You obviously don't really understand computers, like many other wannabes
in this thread.
My knowledge stems from intelligence, not listening to to a PC salesman
or reading expensive glossy PC magazines (you would be probably find
something
more suitable to your abilities on the top shelf).

There is medication for delusions.


Maybe you should try councilling then.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article , "half_pint"
says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article , "half_pint"
says...
snip
However what you fail to realise is that data just behind the read
head
requires one revolution for it to be read (unless it has multipule
read
heads).
So my 5400 is only about 33% slower than a 'modern' 7200 drive.

A fact which even the most persistant of trolls cannot deny.

That's the maximum time that the head will take to start reading the
data after it has been positioned over the track. You have not taken
account of the time for the head to position over the track or the
speed
of data transfer once it has started reading.

WEll they are not relevant to my point so obviously not.
But thanks for verifying that i am correct anyway.

You originally wrote "I dont think new harddrives will be any faster
than mine ( speeds are basically the same 5400 or 7200 ) so I cant see
them writing any faster". So you are either stupid, trolling or
deranged.

No you obviously have no idea of how a computer works.

..

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).

End of story.

Why can you not admit you are wrong?

"half_pint" wrote in message
...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article , "half_pint"
says...

WEll they are not relevant to my point so obviously not.
But thanks for verifying that i am correct anyway.

You originally wrote "I dont think new harddrives will be any faster
than mine ( speeds are basically the same 5400 or 7200 ) so I cant see
them writing any faster". So you are either stupid, trolling or
deranged.

No you obviously have no idea of how a computer works.

Way to stupid to be a Troll. Deranged it is then.