If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:20:48 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote: On 9/14/2014 7:21 PM, John Doe wrote: Of course how much an SSD increases performance depends on what exactly the "old SATA interface" is. Most likely it will provide a very nice boost in speed because it affects so much of the system. For anybody that wants to keep such a system, it's the only way to go. Especially since the conventional hard drive is sitting there ready to be bumped into its useful secondary position. Except that SSD's sometimes quit without warning. As does my heart (one attack so far) and yet I continue to rely on it. SSDs may not arguably have that "last gasp" plattered drives variously exhibit, such as through diagnostics or other portends of aberrant behavior. Roughly five years already on popularly consumed SSDs, though, there's hasn't been a widespread plague from reports of SSDs literally falling out of the sky. Performance benefits all but negating other considerations, all but raw, ponderous bulk storage, that is, where plattered drives are no less sensible. Data not being constantly churned over in less than industrial fashion, say, average Joe's desktop archives. Perhaps a plattered performance hit, at half and less SSD transfer rates, isn't really so much a hit, after all, while data predominately just sits there doing not much. Besides, nor really such a bad idea, an indicated course and plattered drive, dare we say, should a SSD "just up and take leave." Small-sized SSD drives aren't, really, such an imposition provisionally for and a part of plattered-drive backup stratagems. Of course market aims would be to replace HDDs with NAND, especially if your SSD costs $1500 over a competitor's $80 3T plattered drive. As, inevitably, would such pied-piper logic appeal to a marketable segment: If it's all that great at, say, at 60G and $40 for a SSD to most common ends at maximum performance benefits, then it's going to be exponentially that much better just to spend $1500 for a 3T HDD. Probably. And, if not, should be worth at least something to brag about or fondle during wee late hours. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:16:57 +0100, kathy wrote:
Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade. I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough. The new drive will replace the old one. If you really mean 250Mb, that would be an old-oh-so-old motherboard (circa 1993-1994). Probably not worth spending money on. OTOH, if it's a 250Gb drive, there is a good chance the MB will have SATA connectors. So maybe it's just a matter of buying SATA power/data cables and a SATA HD. Check the SATA specs, some of the earlier chipsets had problems with fast and large drives. The motherboard make/model/chipset would help us. CPU-Z will get you the info http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html Use the zip version. Unzip it to a folder and click on the 32 bit executable. Select the "mainboard" tab. HTH []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
Regular troll...
-- "Rod Speed" rod.speed.aaa gmail.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Rod Speed" rod.speed.aaa gmail.com Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware .pc-homebuilt Subject: Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:44:36 +1000 Lines: 98 Message-ID: c7riafFim0aU1 mid.individual.net References: XnsA3A8914A36283835A1B 8.17.249.100 lv4qsq$jln$2 dont-email.me 54164299$0$34267$b1db1813$79461190 news.astraweb.com lv5ied$bbu$1 dont-email.me 54175e6c$0$27449$c3e8da3$dbd57e7 news.astraweb.com lv7o77$6kh$1 dont-email.me 5417a1c2$0$64293$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com lv8863$v3a$1 dont-email.me lv8f1n$5hd$1 dont-email.me lv8jkr$r46$1 dont-email.me lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ZNurxXh/oZYckJMpaUpo/gGKpU7yfHzEHd+r0C1bofWf87Pc8= Cancel-Lock: sha1:rJGv/KqVA3ivRd8or3qVKrDthjU= In-Reply-To: lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:12873 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:31084 "Paul" nospam needed.com wrote in message news:lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me... John Doe wrote: Paul nospam needed.com wrote: John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? Since both SSD and Hard Drives are firmware/CPU based, they are both untrustworthy. And you cannot really estimate when they'll fall over or why. You can actually with some faults that show evidence of a problem in the SMART stats. For example, some bugs are related to how many times the device has been power cycled. Those arent bugs. Some users will see an early failure (because they power cycle the PC a lot). Others will see the device last a long time (since they don't power off). Those arent bugs. Companies will not always admit why their product failed. Doesn't matter what they admit, with plenty of failures the reason for them is obvious. In the case of Seagate, occasionally a company engineer will make an unofficial statement about why some failures are occurring. Due to the prototype nature of the SSD market, the early SSD failures involved a lot of ass covering, as no maker attempting to capture mindshare, would want to admit why their product is failing. So you can't always get a nice neatly laid out report as to what to expect from SSDs. So my point is, no matter what the track record is to date, the same fault modes can exist on SSDs, as on hard drives. But the technology is so different that you don't often see the same fault modes. Both have rudimentary firmware, It's a hell of a lot better than rudimentary. with no attempt to automatically recover from bad situations. The whole point of remapped sectors with hard drives and spare cells with SSDs is to recover automatically from bad situations. Firmware flaws would have no representation in SMART. So it's not like you can be warned there is a bug in the firmware. Sure, but that is only a minor cause of HDD and SSD failure now. And the device is most likely to "disappear", when you first turn it on in the morning. When the SSD "internally boots". If a brand new SSD comes out today, I could pick one up assuming the SSD market is mature and every SSD maker knows what they're doing. Only to lose all my data a month later. And then reports come out that it is a firmware issue. Whether it happens regularly, is not the issue. It's the possibility that it can happen that counts. And the track record of firmware issues on hard drives, should attest to how often these mistakes make it into the field. (Repairing a bricked Seagate ST3500320AS using a TTL serial cable... An example of a model with a firmware problem.) http://www.overclock.net/t/457286/se...-fix-with-pics (Firmware update if you catch it before it bricks) http://knowledge.seagate.com/article...S/FAQ/207951en |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
John Doe wrote Regular troll... Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of it, ****wit child. "Rod Speed" rod.speed.aaa gmail.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Rod Speed" rod.speed.aaa gmail.com Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware .pc-homebuilt Subject: Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:44:36 +1000 Lines: 98 Message-ID: c7riafFim0aU1 mid.individual.net References: XnsA3A8914A36283835A1B 8.17.249.100 lv4qsq$jln$2 dont-email.me 54164299$0$34267$b1db1813$79461190 news.astraweb.com lv5ied$bbu$1 dont-email.me 54175e6c$0$27449$c3e8da3$dbd57e7 news.astraweb.com lv7o77$6kh$1 dont-email.me 5417a1c2$0$64293$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com lv8863$v3a$1 dont-email.me lv8f1n$5hd$1 dont-email.me lv8jkr$r46$1 dont-email.me lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ZNurxXh/oZYckJMpaUpo/gGKpU7yfHzEHd+r0C1bofWf87Pc8= Cancel-Lock: sha1:rJGv/KqVA3ivRd8or3qVKrDthjU= In-Reply-To: lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:12873 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:31084 "Paul" nospam needed.com wrote in message news:lv8s1s$dbn$1 dont-email.me... John Doe wrote: Paul nospam needed.com wrote: John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? Since both SSD and Hard Drives are firmware/CPU based, they are both untrustworthy. And you cannot really estimate when they'll fall over or why. You can actually with some faults that show evidence of a problem in the SMART stats. For example, some bugs are related to how many times the device has been power cycled. Those arent bugs. Some users will see an early failure (because they power cycle the PC a lot). Others will see the device last a long time (since they don't power off). Those arent bugs. Companies will not always admit why their product failed. Doesn't matter what they admit, with plenty of failures the reason for them is obvious. In the case of Seagate, occasionally a company engineer will make an unofficial statement about why some failures are occurring. Due to the prototype nature of the SSD market, the early SSD failures involved a lot of ass covering, as no maker attempting to capture mindshare, would want to admit why their product is failing. So you can't always get a nice neatly laid out report as to what to expect from SSDs. So my point is, no matter what the track record is to date, the same fault modes can exist on SSDs, as on hard drives. But the technology is so different that you don't often see the same fault modes. Both have rudimentary firmware, It's a hell of a lot better than rudimentary. with no attempt to automatically recover from bad situations. The whole point of remapped sectors with hard drives and spare cells with SSDs is to recover automatically from bad situations. Firmware flaws would have no representation in SMART. So it's not like you can be warned there is a bug in the firmware. Sure, but that is only a minor cause of HDD and SSD failure now. And the device is most likely to "disappear", when you first turn it on in the morning. When the SSD "internally boots". If a brand new SSD comes out today, I could pick one up assuming the SSD market is mature and every SSD maker knows what they're doing. Only to lose all my data a month later. And then reports come out that it is a firmware issue. Whether it happens regularly, is not the issue. It's the possibility that it can happen that counts. And the track record of firmware issues on hard drives, should attest to how often these mistakes make it into the field. (Repairing a bricked Seagate ST3500320AS using a TTL serial cable... An example of a model with a firmware problem.) http://www.overclock.net/t/457286/se...-fix-with-pics (Firmware update if you catch it before it bricks) http://knowledge.seagate.com/article...S/FAQ/207951en |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Housing two 2.5-inch hard disks in one 3.5-inch drive bay? | Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) | Storage (alternative) | 11 | March 29th 10 07:42 PM |
Solid State disk for a desktop system C drive? | Al Dykes | Storage (alternative) | 10 | January 19th 09 11:20 PM |
Desperately needing 3.5 inch DD disk drive (1Mb/720K) | Daniel Vonboles | General Hardware | 1 | May 3rd 04 04:56 PM |
Which Intel P4 motherboards have 66mhz PCI slots? Suitable for desktop use? | dg | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | April 4th 04 03:05 AM |