«

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> The Other Guy wrote:
>> The 107S used to be a good monitor, wouldn't touch one these days.
>
> The 107P is lovely.

The 107P is no longer listed on the Philips site, so I guess it is not
available anymore. My old (199 107S was a nice monitor, but the
quality of the newer revisions has reduced greatly, along with the prices.

The Other Guy

Boot time, ACDsee photo browser, Windows Explorer thumbnail view. Anything
drive intensive. No lag in loading apps.

"MarkH" <> wrote in message
news:cd3cm1$j73$...
> "Industrious" <> wrote in
> newsp3Jc.8155$:
>
> > Get a motherboard that supports serial IDE raid. Get 2 identical
> > drives. Whoosh. Best and easiest performance tweak.
> > I use an appolication called HDTach and my drives go off it's scale.
>
> Which apps do you notice the huge performance gain in? Most apps I run
> would gain in load time, but once running they barely touch the HDD, I
find
> RAM is faster (Of course apps vary: games and Photoshop need tons of RAM,
> database apps need fast HDD access).
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
> See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
> "There are 10 types of people, those that
> understand binary and those that don't"
>

The Other Guy <> wrote in news::

> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>> The Other Guy wrote:
>>> The 107S used to be a good monitor, wouldn't touch one these days.
>>
>> The 107P is lovely.
>
> The 107P is no longer listed on the Philips site, so I guess it is not
> available anymore. My old (199 107S was a nice monitor, but the
> quality of the newer revisions has reduced greatly, along with the
> prices.

That’s happening everywhere.

There is nothing made today that couldn’t be made cheaper and crapier.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

In article <cd2kfl$df$>,
Malcolm <> wrote:

>oh and a floppy..need that to load the promise FastTrak 378 RAID array
>driver when installing your OS...

Why bother with RAID at all?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <cd2kfl$df$>,
> Malcolm <> wrote:
>
>
>>oh and a floppy..need that to load the promise FastTrak 378 RAID array
>>driver when installing your OS...
>
>
> Why bother with RAID at all?
Hi
Easier to use RAID1 for my data at the moment (Mainly VPC's and some
won't fit on DVD), on the off chance one drive does fail, won't take
long to rebuild. Will need to borrow a DAT40 tape drive from work soon
and do a proper backup.
Can't say I've noticed any system speed using the RAID0 for the OS (XP),
really need some 10K or 15K rpm drives for that.

Cheers
Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:
> Can't say I've noticed any system speed using the RAID0 for the OS (XP),
> really need some 10K or 15K rpm drives for that.

and some ear plugs

In article <cd5h6a$33l$>,
Malcolm <> wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Why bother with RAID at all?
>
>Easier to use RAID1 for my data at the moment (Mainly VPC's and some
>won't fit on DVD), on the off chance one drive does fail, won't take
>long to rebuild.

For a backup I would prefer to have a second copy on an entirely
separate machine, if not on removable media. Less troublesome than RAID,
I find.

>Can't say I've noticed any system speed using the RAID0 for the OS (XP),
>really need some 10K or 15K rpm drives for that.

I would stay away from RAID-0, since that gives you negative redundancy.
Think about it: if a single disk on its own in JBOD (i.e. not RAID)
configuration fails, you lose everything on that disk, but not on any
other disk. But when a set of disks is striped into a RAID-0
configuration, if any disk fails, you lose everything on all the other
disks as well. Thus, RAID-0 is worse than the zero redundancy of a JBOD
configuration.