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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
Anyone know how much performance difference there is between 2 old HD's I
picked up.. 1) 20 gig Caviar WD200BB (7200rpm) 2) 40 gig Protege WD400EB (5400RPM) mc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
"mc" wrote in message newsWLoj.34$xE.25@trnddc01... Anyone know how much performance difference there is between 2 old HD's I picked up.. 1) 20 gig Caviar WD200BB (7200rpm) 2) 40 gig Protege WD400EB (5400RPM) mc Though the 7200 rpm drive will be faster...it may not be that terribly noticable. The last time I had a drive that was so slow the performance was terrible... was an old 170meg drive that came on a Packard Bell 486. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
On most modern systems you will not see that much difference between 5400 and
7200 rpm. The data transfer time for a track spinning at whatever RPM is a small fraction of the number of milliseconds to seek to the track. No matter what, the same amount of CPU time is consumed in a data transfer. Then too, each drive has some on-board data caching mechanism, usually on a track-by-track basis. 7200 rpm is 1/3 faster, so some part of the data transfer will be 1/3 faster... Ben Myers On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:11:49 GMT, "mc" wrote: Anyone know how much performance difference there is between 2 old HD's I picked up.. 1) 20 gig Caviar WD200BB (7200rpm) 2) 40 gig Protege WD400EB (5400RPM) mc |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
I'm guessing then that it would be best to use the 7200 in the master
position, but I was told there is a way to put the 2 drives in without either needing to be master/slave but I do not know how to do this... The intent is to use one drive for windows and one for Linux ( for which I know nothing) mc |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
The last time I had a drive that was so slow the performance was terrible... was an old 170meg drive that came on a Packard Bell 486. I've got an old compaq laptop with a 200 meg HD. Amazingly someone got windows 95 to work on it with excel and word and there is still 50 megs available... mc |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
"mc" wrote in message news:VyMoj.657$Ou1.548@trnddc07... The last time I had a drive that was so slow the performance was terrible... was an old 170meg drive that came on a Packard Bell 486. I've got an old compaq laptop with a 200 meg HD. Amazingly someone got windows 95 to work on it with excel and word and there is still 50 megs available... mc Win95 on a 200 meg drive is no problem at all. Though win95 takes around 50 megs...you need a drive larger than 50 megs to install it. I like to experiment and get the most out of the least. I xcopied an existing win95 installation onto a 50 meg drive...yes just 50 megs and have a 386 with a 40 mhz AMD cpu and 16 megs of RAM... it really runs win95 quite well. I did have to pare down the OS a bit to get rid of unnecessary files... then had enough room to install a small browser (Off-By-One) I also had to set the swap file to a fixed 2 megs...to be sure the HD did not fill up completely. With the 16 megs of RAM...the small swap file does not seem to hurt anything. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wd hard drives
"mc" wrote in message news:mwMoj.656$Ou1.381@trnddc07... I'm guessing then that it would be best to use the 7200 in the master position, but I was told there is a way to put the 2 drives in without either needing to be master/slave but I do not know how to do this... The intent is to use one drive for windows and one for Linux ( for which I know nothing) mc On the same IDE cable...one drive is always master and one is always slave. If you do not use the master/slave jumper settings...you can set each drive to cable select. The drive closest to the mobo will be master and the further one, slave. I'm pretty sure that will require an 80 conductor ribbon cable. As to Linux...I suggest doing a test install first until you get familiar with it... If you want to install both windows and Linux... The best thing to do is install Windows first on the "primary" drive. Just do your basic install...then as your 2nd step...install Linux on your secondary drive. If you manage to get both Windows and Linux installed OK... then continue setting up your Windows. The reason I suggest not fully setting up your Windows system first...is in case you make an error installing Linux and end up blowing away Windows If you want to experiment first you may want to try one of the "live CD" versions of Linux... it will not require a harddrive installation Damn Small Linux works very well and is just a 50 meg download! http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fans/Hard Drives/Dvd Drives power up but no display. -.- | [email protected] | Asus Motherboards | 8 | October 28th 06 03:59 PM |
OT Mirror Hard USB/FireWire hard drives | Robert R Kircher, Jr. | Dell Computers | 4 | November 10th 04 03:50 AM |
6 Hard Drives - IDE Drives Too Hot To Touch - Drive on Promise Card Barely Warm | Carol | General Hardware | 1 | August 2nd 04 11:16 PM |
FS: Five 6 gig hard drives $49.50 | robotron -X- | Storage (alternative) | 0 | June 21st 04 10:48 PM |
Mapped Network Drives, USB Hard drives and "Not enough server storage is available to process this command" | CWatters | Storage (alternative) | 1 | November 14th 03 08:35 AM |