Larger Faster HDDs - Page 2

Man get off it. You are not gonna convince anyone you said other then what you did.

I am not trying to. I know exactly what I said.

I dont think he needs to do any convincing, since what he said was clear from the start.

Yes he was clear. Unfortunately clearly wrong. And if I had let it go, it would have stood as advice to the others.
The disappointing thing to me is I gave him a great source where he could have gone to educate himself were he at all concerned with the facts rather then just typing away.

no, what he says is true.

test a 20mb 7200rpm hard drive (if one exists) against a 120gb 7200 rpm hd (same form factor) and the 120 gb hd will own it.

even if you drop the 120 down to 5400 or even 4200, it will still be faster than the 20MB hard drive.

If you dont understand just stfu, you obviously dont understand the significants of density.

You are wrong. You are completely utterly could not have it more wrong.
There are no Benchmarks to bear out what you say.
The same generation of 20gb drive w/ 7200rpm would not lose to a 4200rpm drive.

Consider going and reading some on storagereview.com, this is the best HD performance site I can think of.

There is no case ever of any 4200rpm drive beating any 7200rpm drive.

This is not to say that factors other then RPM's do not play a significant role (which I stated in my opening rebuttal of Deltawalker), but to claim that bit density does more to enhance drive performance then spindle speed (and it's resultant lower latency, etc) is just missing the fact of how drives work.

The first IDE 7200rpm drives I remember seeing were at 80gb. I have one of these, a 7200rpm 80gb currently in my wife's computer. It is quite fast, but not as fast as one my 120gb drives but is faster then the other. The 120gb drives do not share the same charateristics. One has a higher bit density(Seagate), the other is older and has an extra platter(WD). Guess which drive is faster? The Seagate is the nicer drive, being cooler and quieter. But, the WD is faster. Additionally, I have a 200gb backup drive in my system (5400rpm). By your reasoning, it having by far the highest bit density it should have by far the fastest transfer rate, but it is by far the slowest drive I own.

You didn't say what is the rotational speed of the Seagate 120Gb Drive?

And no, you could not compare two drives with different density and different rotational speeds that easily. Simply stated, the extra density will make it faster, while the slower rotational speed will make it slower than the other. How will this compound effect affect the speed of the drive relative to the other? It will either need a complex calculation or real world data. When you said "By your reasoning, it having by far the highest bit density it should have by far the fastest transfer rate", it appears you have difficulty grasping this very basic concept.

Ok man, whatever. The Seagate drive is 7200rpm. It is nearly new (less then 2 months) Quiet, cool and fast... but not as fast as my two older technology WD which are both are faster. The maxtor is 5400rpm and slower.
As for the rest of your BS, I'm not going to bother.

I know you love to post. Your post count is probably the highest of any one on here. But this is not the 1st nor even the 2nd but the 3rd time you have posted utter rubbish as fact. If you have no idea what you're talking about posting some half-baked BS is not helping those who posed the question.
The point of replying to someones question should be to help them, I am at a loss as to what your motivations to just post whatever stray thought is wandering through your brain could be.

And what would you call your posts? Like the one I'm quoting for example...it contains no facts, no evidence, nothing but unsupported, personal attacks. So far I have not seen anything that could even qualify as facts that could prove me wrong. But I have seen many, many ad hominem attacks. If you cannot prove what you are saying, do not resort to such meaningless measures. For some reason you are so shut in your hubris that you do not even realize what you are doing. (Did you even bother to look up areal density of drives and what it means?) So I guess there is no way I can convince you of the errors of your ways. But of course, neutral third parties can see the situation quite clearly.

Hey isn't it pretty cool about the larger hard drives.....

Bjorn:
Truth is a simple place
Here for us all to see
Reach as it comes to you
As it comes to me
As I will always need you inside my heart

Can't we all just be friends?

I'm not going to bother responding to your allegations, since you are unable to understand facts and the truth. You vacillate between trying to say your position was the same as my position to saying my position is without merit.

Feel free to continue to post your disinformation and I will feel free to continue to correct you. But you should instead consider doing as I have suggested all along. Go to the definitive source for comparitive hard drive performance testing and learn something instead of just posting your ignorance.

What is your point?
Should I allow disinformation to pass uncorrected for facts?
--- Oh wait, is that a parody of what Deltawalker had as his tag line?

Correct me? Misinformation? I am saying the same about you. I say that I have the correct information and I am trying to correct you, and that you are the one who needs to read up on the information. This sort of language is useless. It is obvious that you refuse to learn (which is what you are accusing me of), so I won't try to convince you. Others who know about this can judge for themselves who is right or wrong.

So how about those Bears?

No we are saying quite different things. I have said the same thing all along. You were wrong and should get the facts straight. You have vacillated all over the spectrum.

The chain of events so far:

I corrected your disinformation.
You replied back (incorrectly) that you and I were saying the same thing.
Does this ring any bells?
When I pointed out that what you had said was BS, you then changed your mind and decided that you had said was something else altogether and you came out with
When I pointed out that this is not at all what you had said and the misquoting yourself was a waste of time and suggested you instead educated yourself. I provide specific real world examples and a link to the definitive source for this info.

Now you think you can portray yourself as having been right all along. Not only is this ill-considered it is unlikely to convince anyone here of anything but your own intransigence in the face of facts, reasoning, examples and logic.

lol i'm sorry deltawalkerl but you're being pwned up the ass and across the floor. maybe you should give up?

I think this thread has gone way off topic...

Posted 5.1.2004 5:47AM http://notebookforums.com/showthread...733#post229733
Does this ring a bell?

Posted 4.29.2004 7:00PM
Seems you admit what I said was right? Funny you claim that I kept changing my stance, when it was you who had done so.

You first said this:
Which I agree is true. But then you began to make unsupported statements like
Which changes the meaning of my original words. I said it would be fast. I never said it would be as fast as a 5400RPM drive. Never did, therefore I never changed my statement. Soon you began to realize you made a mistake in your original comment:
You must've realized that when the density difference is significant enough, a slower RPM drive will beat a higher RPM drive. Which is why you later modified your statement:
This statement is different. And I agree with it: in the current generation, the density difference is not significant enough to impact the speed enough so that a slower RPM drive will surpass a higher RPM drive. I stated so earlier.
Your problem is that you modify other people's statements according to your will, and make them appear as false. For example
I don't remember anyone ever saying that. The example given was between two drives with a huge difference in density. You claim that this person said that it would be true between any two drives. That was never stated.
Another statement that no one made. You made these statements yourself, and claim that others made these false claims.
You claim that my statement is false on this ground. But I never even said that Rotational speed has nothing to do with the speed of the HD. You are misquoting me here. A lot of your rebuttals have been based on generalizations based on statements I made or simply claiming that I said something I never did.

Man this is almost as stupid as the time you claimed Intel Architecture was the generic name for Intel and AMD.
I can’t figure out if you’re really stubborn, not very bright, or (more likely) some combination. I point out that you should not misquote yourself and you post quotes of where and when you tried to “spin” your statements into something else. A pathetic attempt. I could take your last post apart as easily as I’ve taken apart your previous attempts at disinformation, obfuscations and BS, but I don’t see the point in wasting my time explaining to a fool when and how they’re being foolish. It is of no benefit to either me or the fool. You are so concerned with arguing that you seem in capable of focusing on the fact that a forum is not about your posturing or BS. I don’t know what kind of validation you think you get from this, but it is not worth posting your lies; this completely defeats the purpose of the forums just so you can feel better about yourself. It is supposed to be about helping others by sharing information and opinions, not validation.
The point is someone asked about HD’s. You replied with some BS. About a 4200rpm drive being fast due to bit density. I corrected this lie. A 4200rpm drive would be dirt slow. I also provide a link where anyone that wants to learn more can go. I originally posted that thinking it might be of benefit to you. Because, in the past what you’ve taken these sorts positions where the facts are not in agreement with your statements you had indicated an interest in learning from your mistakes. But even with you no longer interested in learning, the link might still be of value to others who are.

btw: My point in replying was to rebut your BS and present the facts. This is done, so feel free to get the last word. Be as outrageous and moronic as you want. Have at it, I won't bother to reply.