Larger Faster HDDs - Page 3

Yes, that time when I thought IA-32 was also appriopriate for AMD processors was pretty stupid. But since then I have learned your true nature. At the time of that post, I thought you actually hold some expertise and knowledge, and would like to present them objectively. Sadly I've learned that that was not true. You lied then, and I mistook that for true knowledge. You tried to do it again, and I refuse to be fooled thusly. Back then, you claimed that the Intel EMT64 is exactly the same as AMD64, and MS have no announcements regarding compatibility with EMT64. Both statements turned out to be lies, perhaps to further your agenda, or perhaps due to your own ignorance. I didn't know these facts then and thought you were telling the truth, but now I know better. I've also discovered that you are not neutral either. For some reason you don't like me, and at the time of that thread you may be focusing on insulting me rather than to present the facts. I didn't suspect it back then, but later I realized that I've encountered you before, and you said this to me:
That was the first time I encountered me, and you attacked me personally. Now I know the true nature of you, and will not allow you to spread your lies when I know it. I hope I have done that here.

PS. Just to show how irrational you are, let's compare two quotes from you.
So you say a drive being faster due to higher density is a lie? It is BS? Completely untrue? Well, what about the below?
Either you know you are lying, and yet you do it deliberately just to insult me, or you can't tell the difference between truth and lie. Either way it doesn't speak very well for your character.

What was the topic again?

Delta, he said it wouldn't be fast, not that it wouldn't be faster. I think you're hearing what you want to hear. Either because of a lack in intelligence, or because you're skimming through everything. I'd like to think it's the latter, but in any case, you've lost, GET OVER IT. No one is benefiting in the least from this pathetic squabbling you two have been engaged in, and I applaud Bjorn's decision to discontinue.

I look forward to reading your posts ELSEWHERE.

I would like to discontinue too...so this will be my last post. I think I sort of figured out one confusing concept that may have partially lead to the argument. It is this concept of "fast". StormX02 and Bjorn seems to have an innate sense of what "fast" should be, and feels a 4200RPM drive do not qualify for that "fast". Well, there is really no absolute scale for fastness, and when I made my first comment, I meant that a 80Gb 4200RPM drive would be faster than a 40Gb RPM drive. That was my intention, to inform the original poster that this 80Gb drive will not be as slow as those 40Gb 4200RPM drives out there. I hope this clears it up.

I believe that for some this was clear all along, yet for some reason others couldnt see it that way.

my 1rpm 80gig hd owns all yours

Uh, Uh, you are so dense

wanna fight

Pikachu, I choose you! Release lightning bolt!

Metagross go!

Attack with earthquake...

*pikachu dies*

You are a sick man. How could you hurt such an innocent pokemon?

Boys calm down... dont make me take out my Squirtle and water gun your Pokemons.

oh boy

haha this coming from someone who calls himself xxh0rlywarsxx



lolol u can't kill a pokemon , they always faint b4 that happens...
u can't capture someone else's pokemon either, which also sucks.

uh huh

if u have teh portable shadowmachine from pokemon collsuem

u can turn your pokeballs into snag balls and steal other peoples pokemon!

Ricewind your still on top of the Pokemon world or what? hehe....

I stopped with the Pokemon stuff when silver and gold came out... Red and Blue were enough for me... (and a little bit of Stadium)....

Bjorn:

I have been following this thread for amusement only, since it quickly degenerated into a typical shooting match, where at least one of the opponents (mis)quotes the other one, without providing more concrete information that would benefit other users.

To get back on topic, let me quote deltawakerl's original post:

"A 100GB hd should be plenty fast despite only having 4200RPMs...due to the increased density of the drive. RPM isn't that good an indication of drive speed since there are so many other factors."

and your first reply:

"This is incorrect. Rotational speed has a great deal to do with the speed of the HD. You might enjoy going to storagereview.com and reading up on HDs and the testing of them."

I think that deltawalker's post was correct. Since you think otherwise, could you provide more specific pointers? Although there is a lot of information at www.storagereview.com, its quality varies drastically (some FAQ info is not really up to common standards).

rpm is a greater representation of how fast a drive is

as opposed to bit density of a drive

and if u dont believe me

wanan fight?

After reading through the whole of the thread, I believe that both delta and bjorn both only want to provide information in order to better inform the users of the is forum. Of which I do applaude both of you for. But could the personal attacking be left out please.

Both statements are correct. Higher aureal density and higher RPM both increase the performance of a hard drive. Other factors includes, interface type (SATA / ATA133 etc), controller chip, buffer size etc.

I understand what delta is trying to achieve, but did not express clearly enough is regarding aureal density and its affect on performance. Reading your post I interpret it that all you are trying to do is to draw attention that other than RPM, there is another factor which affects the performance of a harddrive. This in itself is fair enough. However, high density cannot compensate totally for the slower rotational drive. This I believe is what Bjorn is trying to get at.

Also the term 'fast' is a vague evaluation of a drive performance. It will totally depend on the what type of situation the drive is performed under. If you are video editing / doing large file transfer. This will be most affected by Higher Aureal Density, because most likely the data is read / written to sequantially. And because of this, the higher density means that data transferred quicker.

But say under office tasks or OS access type of situation. Then its more important to have the higher RPM. Because data R/W pattern is likely to be non-sequential, and the higher RPM will lend itself to lower latency due to quicker access times.
This will make the machine 'feel' much more responsive.

I hope I've made things abit more clearer and that others are able to find this thread more informative.
But at the end of the day, most people will agree that the rotational speed is the BEST indication of a drives performance.

ok smartey pants

slaking... ATTACK WITH HYPERBEAM