I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore. But I think I should post this, as it doesn't contribute to the argument. Rather I hope this will explain how the argument really started and what it was really about.
Unfortunately, there is no technical merit to this argument. As I've come to realize, Bjorn and I agree on the major technical points here.
-We both agree that areal density of a drive (with all other factors being equal besides drive size) will affect the speed of a drive. As seen in my post here
and Bjorn's post here
-We are both in agreement over the fact that in the current generation of drives, spindle speed of the drive is a very relevent indicator of a drive's performance, as seen in my post here
and Bjorn's post here
The argument is, sadly, one of semantics. Specifically, it arises out of two concepts, "difference" and "fast".
I realized that Bjorn is a very different sort of person from I am. I tend to focus on the precise logic and technicalities of something in question. Whereas Bjorn is concerned more about the outward appearance of something, or the a posteriori facet of something in question. I realized this when I saw his post in another forum here
, where he said:
Originally Posted by Bjorn
Originally Posted by Ramificatio
But isn't it true that the bigger the capacity of the HD the faster it's going to perform. An 80 GB HD is automatically faster than say a 40 GB HD with the same amount of platters(spell?) inside. This is becaus of the density of the data is stored more compact and if they spin at the same rpm the HD with the highest dencity platters wins. But yes 80 GB 5400rpm would be nice even if I don't really need it.
This is inaccurate. The data density has an impact on drive speed, but it is fairly trivial.
I suggest you check out storagereview.com. This is the definitive site about HD speed and the impact of various HD factors (RPM, density, cache, etc).
After reading this, I realized that Bjorn ignores this difference between two drives with different areal density because the difference is trivial. Whereas I would say the statement is accurate due to the slightest difference.
Seeing this, I understood Bjorn's original rebuttal to my statement here
. What he meant to say was, although having a higher areal density increases a drive's speed, it is very trivial. Had he said this, I would not have replied. But I could not see this at that time, and felt the need to defend my statement.
The difference between my reasoning and Bjorn's further exasperated the situation. Since Bjorn is more concerned with how things are a posteriori (and hence makes use of everyday sensations such as "fastness"), he has in mind a scale with which to judge whether something is "fast" or not. This is not true for me. When I said fast, I did not have this interpretation in mind. However, to Bjorn, saying a 4200RPM drive "fast", when in his mind these drives are not considered "fast", constitutes a erroneous statement.
Lastly, our differences in reasoning again manifested itself in the cases we consider. Bjorn is concerned with those data that are actually useful, so he considers all the current generation of drives as the general case. Storagereview have a comprehensive comparison of most of all these drives, and it is indeed true that areal density is not a prevalent factor. To Bjorn this is sufficiently the general case. However to me it is different. Like someone brought up, there is the hypothetical situation of comparing a 20MB 7200RPM drive and a 200GB 5400RPM drive. This situation is not very realistic, and probably will not be considered by someone who is concerned with the outward appearance of things rather than the strict logic. To me, the general case contains a lot more samples, some not very useful.
So I hope this explains how this argument came about. Sadly there is no technical value to it. It arose mostly out of the words we used.
I hope all the parts above were neutral. But there are two things I'd like to add:
There is an error I made, or rather something I failed to mention. The stuff about bit density only works if the bit density does INDEED increase. But it may not be true. The drive could contain more platters with the same density. That's something I failed to mention.
Secondly, what really angered me about Bjorn's responses to my posts is the fact that his statements were not directly against what I said, but against something he inferred
from what I said. (For example, I never said bit density is more important than RPM, and I never said this particular 4200RPM drive will beat the 5400RPM, 40GB drive in question) When someone does this I find it unacceptable. This again goes back to the differences in our reasoning. I just happen to not accept that kind of arguing, although others find it perfectly reasonable.