Printable View
I haven't actually used a 10k RPM drive, but it can't be that much faster than any given 7200 RPM drive to make it worth 4 or more times more money for the same amount of space (looking at the 300 gb one). I'm a frugal motherfucker though, so whatever. If that's what you're willing to spend...
i would watch out if you're thinking about getting a 10k RPM HDD. i heard they're quite loud. but if noise doesn't bother you, then it's really up to you. personally, i'd get something that has a lot of storage with decent RPM. you're not going to need the higher RPMs if you're using the drive for storage. also, SSDs will get cheap....eventually.
why would you get anything less than a terabyte
I'd hold off on the 10k drives unless you do a lot of file sharing. They can be a little noisy, but nowhere compared to a scsi drive.
You don't NEED a TB of storage, that's just ridiculous(ly awesome).
Buy a cheap drive for now and wait for a solid state to come down in price.
I think the Hard Drive's RPM speed (read/write really) and obsolete software are the biggest bottlenecks today, everyone has these massive processors, 8 gigs of dual channel high clock speed RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meta
But they have to wait for the hard drive to ramp up in RPM to get going, plus all this old software that was written for Win 95/98 that can only go so fast, no matter if you have a 800Mhz processor or a 3.2Ghz
What software are you using? Commander Keen? Jeez.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTroy
Most new software if blazingly fast and makes use of all the technology. Examples: Firefox, Chrome, any new games, gaim, etc.
I would just go for a 7200RPM drive for now. There is too much new technology on the horizon to invest in something as expensive/inefficient as a 10K RPM harddrive.
No... what I mean for example is Vista x64 with a 64 bit processor (obviously), the only 64 bit software being used is the OS and the 64bit version of IE. Nothing else is going to be faster, and software still today does not go nearly as fast as it could, I would bet money that firefox runs just as fast on a P4 as it does on today's processors (on a CLEAN system with no other junk, just the OS and firefox)Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo
I have 1.5 TB and only have like 38 gigs left. I'm going to be expanding soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harner
So yes, some people NEED a TB of storage.
Also, if you're up for buying it in the nest 6 hours or so, the woot is a 500 GB HD for 50 bucks
There's no reason a home user should be running a 64-bit OS. It doesn't make any sense, you get no up front advantages that you can see - only headaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTroy
That's the way it is going, the rest of the world needs to catch up in terms of the way they write software, based on the information available today Microsoft next OS will also be x86 and x64, but the OS after that will be only x64. I agree that the average home user would get more headache then benefit from it as this point, but until the industry forces people to 64 bit we stay stagnant, the x86 architecture has been around since 1978 - it is time to move on and allow greater things. Once ALL software is truly 64 bit we can finally take advantage of our processors that we are using... all these x64 processor's and no one using them at their potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo
The average users isn't doing anything much audio/video encoding, scientific visualization, hardcore rendering, etc. In fact, the only reason applications would need to run 64-bit would be beefy applications such as databases etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTroy
The time we need to run soley 64-bit on our home PC's is a long time off.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is the word "64-bit processor" is such an over hyped word. Anyway, we derailed this thread.
Ive been happy with Seagate's 7200.10 and 7200.11 harddrives; I have one of each in my computer and will probably be buying another because Im at like 750gb total right now :[
A terabyte is cool if you never delete anything ever.
I delete stuff, just not stuff I think I may use more than onceQuote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Another thing to mention regarding the 32 vs 64 debate is 32bit Windows' inability to make use of anything more than (about) 3.5gb ram. Obviously the average home user isn't going to be using that much ram, but there are times when it might be nice to have the extra (games are the most obvious example). I'm using 64bit Vista currently to support 4gb and it's definitely worth it for me, but it did come with a few of the aforementioned headaches to begin with.
Yeah, I have a terabyte drive and, after surviving on a 10gb IDE drive for a while and picking up more than a few cleaning habits, the chances of me using it all are miniscule. It's still nice to have though and it's good to know the space is there if ever I need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
Same with me, I am running Vista Ultimate x64 with 4 gigs of dual channel ram. I have just over a TB of total storage space counting my external backup drive, but to be fair I just use it for data transfer and backing my system, my bottlenecks are my processor and my 3Gbps 7200Rpm SATA Hard drives, I can't image what Vista would rate an IDE 7200 RPM drive. Screenshot below.Quote:
Originally Posted by hydro
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/j...000me/MyPC.jpg
Edit: P.S: 5.9 is the highest rating you can get on Vista
I'd get the 150 VelociRaptor and use the $100 toward a bigger drive. Haven't looked recently, but I thought the WD 640 GB was supposed to be pretty good.