Thread: Time for a new hard drive

Originally Posted by Meta

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 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.

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

Originally Posted by MrTroy

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sudo

What software are you using? Commander Keen? Jeez.

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)

Originally Posted by MrTroy

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)

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.

Originally Posted by sudo

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.

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.