Upgrading Compaq F572US HDD

Hi,

Can someone tell me the maximum disk capacity for a Compaq F572US laptop?
It now has is a 80GB, 1.5GB/s SATA. 160GB would be nice. Would a 3.0GB/s
SATA show any performance improvement at all or is a 1.5GB/s interface still
1.5GB/s?

Thanks,
Gary

Gary Brown wrote:
Hi,

Can someone tell me the maximum disk capacity for a Compaq F572US laptop?
It now has is a 80GB, 1.5GB/s SATA. 160GB would be nice. Would a 3.0GB/s
SATA show any performance improvement at all or is a 1.5GB/s interface still
1.5GB/s?

Thanks,
Gary


That is modern enough, I don't see a reason for a limit.
Chipset is Nvidia Go 6150. If I was doing it, I'd look for
a drive with power requirements the same or less than the
current drive (to avoid potential overheating). You'd also
want to eyeball the physical aspects of the drive, just
to make sure there is nothing out of the ordinary to prevent
it from fitting.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...reg_R1002_USEN

SATA 150MB/sec versus 300MB/sec cable rate, only helps
fill the cache on the hard drive controller a little faster.
The sustained (head rate limited) transfer rate, is lower than
both of those numbers. The best sustained rate drive right now
for SATA is the 10KRPM Velociraptor, at 120MB/sec. The disks in my
computer right now, are only capable of 60MB/sec sustained
(and that is downhill, with a wind at my back). What you'd want,
to answer that question, is some benchmarks comparing various
cache sizes on hard drives, to see how much effect the cache
has in regular or synthetic (PCMark) situations.

In this thread, a Go 6150 chipset laptop is combined with a 250GB
5400RPM drive. So the chipset takes at least a 250.

http://www.webtechgeek.com/Tech-Toys...otebook-PC.htm

Is your intention to use the recovery CD or DVD, to format and
prepare the new drive ? Or are you copying the two or three partitions
over from the old drive ? Be careful, as there may be a hidden
partition present.

If you need to copy stuff from one drive to another, a 2.5"
USB SATA enclosure can serve as a temporary way of connecting
a new drive. There are also adapter cables intended for
temporary hookups as well. You still want the drive to sit flat
while working on it, and preferably on a surface where it won't
take a mechanical shock.

http://www.apricorn.com/product_deta...e=family&id=39

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812161002

If you're "cloning" the drive, make sure the old drive is disconnected
during the first bootup of the new drive. After the first bootup
is complete, then you can connect the old drive again if you want.
The OS gets confused otherwise (I learned this lesson the hard
way, and had to clone all over again, because I didn't know how
to fix it).

Have fun,
Paul

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:26:00 -0400, "Gary Brown"
wrote:

Hi,

Can someone tell me the maximum disk capacity for a Compaq F572US laptop?
It now has is a 80GB, 1.5GB/s SATA. 160GB would be nice. Would a 3.0GB/s
SATA show any performance improvement at all or is a 1.5GB/s interface still
1.5GB/s?

Thanks,
Gary


It should be able to use the largest 2.5" drive you can
find, such a drive would be SATA300 instead of 150, and
newer drives are faster than older ones due to higher
platter density so yes SATA300 are faster on average but not
specifically because of the difference in transfer speed
ability.

Rarely you might find a system has a bios bug that
interferes with use of high capacity drives, in which case
you would flash a newer bios.

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Gary Brown wrote:
Hi,

Can someone tell me the maximum disk capacity for a Compaq F572US laptop?
It now has is a 80GB, 1.5GB/s SATA. 160GB would be nice. Would a
3.0GB/s SATA show any performance improvement at all or is a 1.5GB/s
interface still 1.5GB/s?

Thanks,
Gary


That is modern enough, I don't see a reason for a limit.
Chipset is Nvidia Go 6150. If I was doing it, I'd look for

That is what I thought. The Sweet Young Thing at HP said 120GB was the
largest but I think she was confused. 120GB is the largest HP sells the 572
with. Capacity limitations were one of the things I though SATA had gotten
rid of.

SATA 150MB/sec versus 300MB/sec cable rate, only helps
fill the cache on the hard drive controller a little faster.
The sustained (head rate limited) transfer rate, is lower than
both of those numbers. The best sustained rate drive right now
for SATA is the 10KRPM Velociraptor, at 120MB/sec. The disks in my
computer right now, are only capable of 60MB/sec sustained
(and that is downhill, with a wind at my back). What you'd want,
to answer that question, is some benchmarks comparing various
cache sizes on hard drives, to see how much effect the cache
has in regular or synthetic (PCMark) situations.

Interesting. I would have thought the 3GB/s would mean more than it does.

Is your intention to use the recovery CD or DVD, to format and
prepare the new drive ? Or are you copying the two or three partitions
over from the old drive ? Be careful, as there may be a hidden
partition present.

My intent is to rebuild the OS. I might "upgrade" from Vista to XP in the
process. Judging from the experience with the OS rebuild for our desktop I
don't want the laptop down for an extended period if (when!) something goes
wrong. Building the new OS on another disk rather than reformatting or
partitioning the existing one is a good alternative given the cost of disks
nowadays. I always have the existing disk for backup. Gone are the days
when a rebuild was feeding Windows, Reader Rabbit, Ami Pro, and TurboC++
into the floppy drive.

I'm rebuilding the desktop OS on an old disk. It took a week to get XP
installed due to SATA driver problems. We couldn't afford to have the
system down that long.

I don't really need a larger disk (80GB). I have 3TB between the file
server, desktop, and externals. Its just that, at first glance, 160GB
drives were cheapest.

Have fun,

Oh yeah.
Paul