Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?

Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade.

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.

On 14/09/14 15:16, kathy wrote:
Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade.

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.


A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5"
drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would
notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are
talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not
make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge
difference either way.

(I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be
hard to find outside of a museum.)

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote:

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.


A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5"
drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would
notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are
talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not
make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge
difference either way.

(I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be
hard to find outside of a museum.)

Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data cable
about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres wide.

In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch
drives when I've run them on the same motherboard.

If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much faster.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote:

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.


A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5"
drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would
notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are
talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not
make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge
difference either way.

(I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be
hard to find outside of a museum.)

Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data cable
about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres wide.

In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch
drives when I've run them on the same motherboard.

If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much faster.

The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it.

On 13:40 16 Sep 2014, kathy wrote:

On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote:

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch
format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower
power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors
the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.


A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5"
drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you
would notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but
you are talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this
will not make much difference either. So it is not going to make a
huge difference either way.

(I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be
hard to find outside of a museum.)

Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data
cable about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres
wide.

In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch
drives when I've run them on the same motherboard.

If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much
faster.

The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it.

No!!!! My mistake. I mean PATA. The old one with the 40 or 80 way
connector.

kathy wrote:
On 13:40 16 Sep 2014, kathy wrote:

On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote:

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch
format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower
power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors
the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.

A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5"
drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you
would notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but
you are talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this
will not make much difference either. So it is not going to make a
huge difference either way.

(I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be
hard to find outside of a museum.)
Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data
cable about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres
wide.

In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch
drives when I've run them on the same motherboard.

If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much
faster.
The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it.

No!!!! My mistake. I mean PATA. The old one with the 40 or 80 way
connector.

Based on the prices and capacities on Newegg (320GB 2.5" PATA for $399),
I would say forget about this (PATA laptop drive) approach. There is
another way.

*******

I use one of these to connect SATA hard drives to an IDE cable
on the computer. The jumper on the adapter, indicates whether the drive
is master or slave. I jumper to Master and stick it on the end
of my IDE cable, as usually I'm only working on a single SATA
drive this way at one time. (My IDE cable happens to support HPA.)
The worst part of this adapter, is you have to be very careful
installing or removing the IDE side, as the pins can get bent
in the process. This has power connectors, to connect your
existing supply, to the SATA drive. Inspect the pictures of
the product, to see how it would connect to your system. The
easy part, is how smoothly this plugs into the back of a SATA drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812200156

That would increase the number of drive models you could connect.

$80 gets you a 1TB 7200RPM 2.5" SATA. Then you use the StarTech
adapter, so it'll connect to your IDE cable.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA54G1R09153

It's a 512e drive, so you can use it with WinXP without a problem.

http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/FF05B02FBBBF9E8288257AAF00686AD6/$file/TS7K1000_ds.pdf

I would put a lot more care into selecting a drive, than just
picking the first one I could see.

When securing it mechanically, you need to make sure there is
room for the StarTech adapter. In an Antec Sonata, with outward
facing drive bays in the bottom, the adapter
would hit the computer side cover. Only mounting the drives
in the regular orientation would work. I've even used that
StarTech adapter, while a SATA drive sat open in a USB to IDE
enclosure. My StarTech adapter has been through hell and it
still works :-)

Paul

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:16:57 +0100, kathy wrote:

Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade.

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.




2.5" drives are slower than 3.5" drives. I would only use a 2.5"
drive if I had to (laptop, USB power only) or if it was a SSD.
(There's no speed penalty with SSDs.)

Loren Pechtel wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:16:57 +0100, kathy wrote:

Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade.

I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.

The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?

Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?

Thank you for any advice.




2.5" drives are slower than 3.5" drives. I would only use a 2.5"
drive if I had to (laptop, USB power only) or if it was a SSD.
(There's no speed penalty with SSDs.)

I would concentrate most of my energy, in finding
a drive brand that was reliable. Reading the reviews,
find out how long they last and so on.

The Velociraptor is a 2.5" drive which comes
with its own heatsink and 3.5" carrier. It
is 10000 RPM, and spins faster than many other
desktop drives. The 600GB one, reads out at
180MB/sec. But these boutique drives aren't
for everyone. These ones could be refurbs rather
than new (the low price is a hint).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822236244

There are even some out there, that come without the cooler,
and the available information suggests to take special care
cooling them.

I think rather than fall in all those sort of
traps, a plain ordinary 3.5" drive for $60 is a
better deal. After looking through the reviews
to find which ones are dropping dead too fast.

In terms of reliability, the 2.5" 5400 RPM ones look
good, but those would be slow (seek speed). The 2.5" 7200 RPM
look like they're a less good deal, as the reviews for
those are no longer 5 out of 5. The 3.5" drives are pretty
well uniformly bad, and finding a winner there involves
a lot of luck. Each generation can be better or worse than
the previous. For example, I had to stop buying my favorite
drive (again), after the new model showed itself to be
a dog (the price drop was a hint something changed).

The hard drive manufacturers know *exactly* what they're
doing. Just like in the car industry, they have tables
for bearing designs, which trade lifetime versus cost.
When a bearing fails on your car, some engineer just
nods his head and checks the tick mark on the chart.
"As designed". At one time, designs used over-engineering
because we didn't know any better. And as the tools improve,
every aspect of quality versus price is known. So whatever
comes from Seagate or WD, they know what the tradeoffs were.
There are no "surprises". If they want to make drives that
last like toilet paper, they can.

Paul

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:

The Velociraptor is a 2.5" drive which comes with its own
heatsink and 3.5" carrier. It is 10000 RPM, and spins faster
than many other desktop drives.

I have one of those, they sent to me as a warranty replacement.
It's only 150 GB, but that's 7500 times bigger than my first hard
drive.

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Loren Pechtel wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:16:57 +0100, kathy wrote:

Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade.
I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to
increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough.
The new drive will replace the old one.

I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format.
Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power
consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same?
Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive?
Thank you for any advice.




2.5" drives are slower than 3.5" drives. I would only use a 2.5"
drive if I had to (laptop, USB power only) or if it was a SSD.
(There's no speed penalty with SSDs.)

I would concentrate most of my energy, in finding
a drive brand that was reliable. Reading the reviews,
find out how long they last and so on.

Trouble is that there are only 3 real brands now
and one of them, Toshiba, doesn't do 3.5" drives.

The Velociraptor is a 2.5" drive which comes
with its own heatsink and 3.5" carrier. It
is 10000 RPM, and spins faster than many other
desktop drives. The 600GB one, reads out at
180MB/sec. But these boutique drives aren't
for everyone. These ones could be refurbs rather
than new (the low price is a hint).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822236244

There are even some out there, that come without the cooler,
and the available information suggests to take special care
cooling them.

I think rather than fall in all those sort of
traps, a plain ordinary 3.5" drive for $60 is a
better deal. After looking through the reviews
to find which ones are dropping dead too fast.

In terms of reliability, the 2.5" 5400 RPM ones look
good, but those would be slow (seek speed). The 2.5" 7200 RPM
look like they're a less good deal, as the reviews for
those are no longer 5 out of 5. The 3.5" drives are pretty
well uniformly bad, and finding a winner there involves
a lot of luck. Each generation can be better or worse than
the previous. For example, I had to stop buying my favorite
drive (again), after the new model showed itself to be
a dog (the price drop was a hint something changed).

The hard drive manufacturers know *exactly* what they're
doing. Just like in the car industry, they have tables
for bearing designs, which trade lifetime versus cost.
When a bearing fails on your car, some engineer just
nods his head and checks the tick mark on the chart.
"As designed". At one time, designs used over-engineering
because we didn't know any better. And as the tools improve,
every aspect of quality versus price is known. So whatever
comes from Seagate or WD, they know what the tradeoffs were.
There are no "surprises". If they want to make drives that
last like toilet paper, they can.