Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > reinstalled os

Reply
Thread Tools

reinstalled os

 
 
Impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2006
"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43df37a6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Impossible wrote:
>> Not really. Every new generation of drives turns out to be markedly
>> quicker in real-world tests. A combination of platter geometry and
>> cache. One of the better/cheaper upgrades you can do. Have you
>> checked
>> out the database at StorageReview.com lately?
>>
>> http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

>
> No, I hadn't. Thanks for that. Seems things have changed since I
> last
> looked. <g>. Mind you, SATA was just a theory then.
>
> <Note to self, shut the fusk up if you aren't current with your
> knowledge>
>
>> You'd have the best "feel" for how your system is running. But I'm
>> curious about this, because off-hand I'd be inclined to think that
>> you
>> should just run everything off the newer Seagate.

>
> You could be right, I never booted from the Seagate at all. The ex's
> Samsung
> Spinpoint overheated and started giving errors (She re-locatedit in
> the case...Don't ask) so I cloned my Windows
> partition off the Seagate 80GB I was running onto the Maxtor 20GB
> and used that for the moment, then cloned the Samsung onto the
> Seagate 80 and gave her that. I didn't know how long the Samsung
> would last and I had my 80 here, plus I figured that, if anyone was
> getting an upgraded drive it would be me.
>
> When I had enough money, a couple weeks later, I bought the 200GB
> and a PCI-SATA card (No on-board SATA on this old nForce2 Ultra 400
> board). I partitioned it and was intending to move the boot
> partition. Then I benchmarked and decided that, although the 200
> showed up as being quicker, it wasn't by a huge margin so I'd keep
> the small drive as a boot drive and then I could back it up onto the
> big one. Perhaps my 200 would be faster if I had on-board SATA
> instead of a PCI VIA (barf) card driving it?
>
>> What benchmark are
>> you using? It's hard to imagine that your OS actually runs quicker
>> from that old drive.

>
> I've always used ATTO bench32.exe as recommended by a regular poster
> in alt.comp.hardware.
>
> You could be right about the system being faster if I booted from
> the 200. However, I don't nknow if the difference would justify the
> ease of backing up my boot partition to another drive. Also, I like
> having the swapfile on a seperate, fast drive.
>


Yes, many things to consider. And it's not as if experimenting is dead
simple. Just something to think about maybe the next time you
reorganize/upgrade. So long as you're happy with the way your system
runs now, I wouldn't fool with it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Running with scissors
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2006
On , , Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:44:58 +1300, Re: reinstalled os,
"jedmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"JC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:drmf84$ip5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> jedmeister wrote:
>>> Having bought a larger C drive (from 80gb seagate to 300gb seagate) I
>>> reinstalled xp pro to the new drive.
>>>
>>> It is remarkeable how my machine speed has increased. I have installed
>>> mostly the same applications too.
>>>
>>> Even though the old drive was regularly defagged I can't believe the
>>> performance increase.

>>
>> Defagged? err ok...

>
>woops


It has been quiet without David Murray chiming in.
How did you do it?
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2006
Impossible wrote:
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:43df37a6$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You could be right about the system being faster if I booted from
>> the 200. However, I don't nknow if the difference would justify the
>> ease of backing up my boot partition to another drive. Also, I like
>> having the swapfile on a seperate, fast drive.
>>

>
> Yes, many things to consider. And it's not as if experimenting is dead
> simple. Just something to think about maybe the next time you
> reorganize/upgrade. So long as you're happy with the way your system
> runs now, I wouldn't fool with it.


Yeah, I'm happy with it. It suits me and certainly isn't slow to respond in
it's current confirguration. Not bad for an old Barton XP2600+. If / when I
upgrade drives etc. I'll decide then what suits me best.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On , , Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:44:58 +1300, Re: reinstalled os,
> "jedmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:drmf84$ip5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> jedmeister wrote:
> >>> Having bought a larger C drive (from 80gb seagate to 300gb seagate) I
> >>> reinstalled xp pro to the new drive.
> >>>
> >>> It is remarkeable how my machine speed has increased. I have installed
> >>> mostly the same applications too.
> >>>
> >>> Even though the old drive was regularly defagged I can't believe the
> >>> performance increase.
> >>
> >> Defagged? err ok...

> >
> >woops

>
> It has been quiet without David Murray chiming in.


Be even more quiet with no scooters
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
reinstalled vs 2003 error bruce lawson ASP .Net 0 12-25-2005 02:56 AM
reinstalled vs 2003 error bruce lawson ASP .Net 0 12-25-2005 02:53 AM
Reinstalled SQL-server Kent Johnson ASP .Net 5 10-15-2005 12:48 PM
Reinstalled WIN 98 noreply@invalid Computer Support 13 12-30-2004 07:53 PM
reinstalled xp mozilla won't run dabigguy Firefox 2 12-09-2004 02:00 PM



Advertisments