External Hard Drive

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Richard, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is as
    slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a couple
    of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why in the
    hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard drive unless
    their like me and don't know any better?
    Richard, Jun 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:40:15 -0700, "Richard" <>
    wrote:

    >I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is as
    >slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a couple
    >of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why in the
    >hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard drive unless
    >their like me and don't know any better?


    If they only have USB connectors and don't know any better? :)
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, Jun 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    chuckcar Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in
    news:jhe_l.21765$:

    > I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    > as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    > couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    > in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    > drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >

    No reason at all. They fail quicker than regular hard drives, cost more
    and serve no useful purpose.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jun 17, 2009
    #3
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9C2DBFA30481Cchucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > "Richard" <> wrote in
    > news:jhe_l.21765$:
    >
    >> I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    >> as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >> couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >> in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >> drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >>

    > No reason at all. They fail quicker than regular hard drives, cost more
    > and serve no useful purpose.


    Always store in 2 places so with a 5 year warranty, I don't care if it fails
    quicker, I'll just get a replacement and when loading 100 Gigs from my SATA
    internal hard drives they serve a very good purpose.
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #4
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Evan Platt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:40:15 -0700, "Richard" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is as
    >>slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >>couple
    >>of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why in the
    >>hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard drive
    >>unless
    >>their like me and don't know any better?

    >
    > If they only have USB connectors and don't know any better? :)


    If they only have USB connectors that means they have an old computer with
    super slow hard drives and it's wouldn't make any difference for them but
    for the 90% of us who have SATA connections on our motherboards it should
    make a difference except for people like me that is slow to caught up.
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #5
  6. Richard

    doS Guest

    no way its six times faster, are you making this up?

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:jhe_l.21765$...
    >I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is as
    >slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why in
    >the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard drive
    >unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >
    doS, Jun 18, 2009
    #6
  7. Richard

    Richard Guest

    USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 MB so yes it's 6 times faster. Do some
    Internet research and then do the math.


    "doS" <> wrote in message
    news:N4f_l.7731$...
    > no way its six times faster, are you making this up?
    >
    > "Richard" <> wrote in message
    > news:jhe_l.21765$...
    >>I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is as
    >>slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >>couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >>in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >>drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >>

    >
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #7
  8. Richard

    Richard Guest

    USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB =
    megabytes & Mb = megabits

    > USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 MB so yes it's 6 times faster. Do some
    > Internet research and then do the math.
    >
    >
    > "doS" <> wrote in message
    > news:N4f_l.7731$...
    >> no way its six times faster, are you making this up?
    >>
    >> "Richard" <> wrote in message
    >> news:jhe_l.21765$...
    >>>I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    >>>as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >>>couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >>>in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >>>drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >>>

    >>

    >
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #8
  9. Richard

    doS Guest

    your post says USB sata,are you refering to usb sata being faster or
    internal sata?

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:74g_l.12$...
    > USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 MB so yes it's 6 times faster. Do some
    > Internet research and then do the math.
    >
    >
    > "doS" <> wrote in message
    > news:N4f_l.7731$...
    >> no way its six times faster, are you making this up?
    >>
    >> "Richard" <> wrote in message
    >> news:jhe_l.21765$...
    >>>I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    >>>as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >>>couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >>>in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >>>drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >>>

    >>

    >
    doS, Jun 18, 2009
    #9
  10. Richard

    Richard Guest

    I don't understand your question because there is no such thing as USB SATA.

    "doS" <> wrote in message
    news:eNg_l.1680$...
    > your post says USB sata,are you refering to usb sata being faster or
    > internal sata?
    >
    > "Richard" <> wrote in message
    > news:74g_l.12$...
    >> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 MB so yes it's 6 times faster. Do some
    >> Internet research and then do the math.
    >>
    >>
    >> "doS" <> wrote in message
    >> news:N4f_l.7731$...
    >>> no way its six times faster, are you making this up?
    >>>
    >>> "Richard" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:jhe_l.21765$...
    >>>>I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    >>>>as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >>>>couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >>>>in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >>>>drive unless their like me and don't know any better?
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #10
  11. Richard

    OG Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:U5g_l.13$...
    > USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB =
    > megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >


    Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds of
    USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds max out at
    quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any claim that 'SATA
    HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers would use rather than
    users.

    Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    significant.
    OG, Jun 18, 2009
    #11
  12. Richard

    OG Guest

    "OG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Richard" <> wrote in message
    > news:U5g_l.13$...
    >> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB =
    >> megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>

    >
    > Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds of
    > USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds max out
    > at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any claim that
    > 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers would use
    > rather than users.
    >
    > Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    > significant.


    and I may have mixed up my MB and Mb's there. figure based on advertised
    70Mb dtr
    OG, Jun 18, 2009
    #12
  13. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "OG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Richard" <> wrote in message
    > news:U5g_l.13$...
    >> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB =
    >> megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>

    >
    > Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds of
    > USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds max out
    > at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any claim that
    > 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers would use
    > rather than users.
    >
    > Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    > significant.


    disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where did
    you get your information on this?
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #13
  14. Richard

    OG Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:06s_l.64$...
    >
    > "OG" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Richard" <> wrote in message
    >> news:U5g_l.13$...
    >>> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB
    >>> = megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>>

    >>
    >> Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds
    >> of USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds max
    >> out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any claim
    >> that 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers would
    >> use rather than users.
    >>
    >> Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    >> significant.

    >
    > disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where did
    > you get your information on this?


    Toms Hardware 2009 charts for 3.5" Desktop HDDs
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,50.html
    Top scores for Avg Read and Write throughputs are about 103 / 104 MB/s
    I make that about 850 Mb/s .

    You may be able to get some higher burst speeds, but still nowhere near the
    3GB/s that advertisers promise from SATA.
    OG, Jun 18, 2009
    #14
  15. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Hipupchuck" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Richard wrote:
    >> I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    >> as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    >> couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    >> in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    >> drive unless their like me and don't know any better?

    >
    > Sounds like something is making your USB operate at 1.1 instead of 2.0.
    > Could be a cable, the HUB , the enclosure or your computer. If you have
    > anything rated at 1.1 plugged into your HUB it drags everything down.
    > But you are right, SATA is faster.


    No I'm operating at 2.0 or 480 Mb/s and SATA2 is 3000 Mb/s which is 6 times
    faster and I can see it.
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #15
  16. Richard

    Richard Guest


    >>>> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry MB
    >>>> = megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds
    >>> of USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds max
    >>> out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any claim
    >>> that 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers would
    >>> use rather than users.
    >>>
    >>> Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    >>> significant.

    >>
    >> disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where
    >> did you get your information on this?

    >
    > Toms Hardware 2009 charts for 3.5" Desktop HDDs
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,50.html
    > Top scores for Avg Read and Write throughputs are about 103 / 104 MB/s
    > I make that about 850 Mb/s .
    >
    > You may be able to get some higher burst speeds, but still nowhere near
    > the 3GB/s that advertisers promise from SATA.


    Are you sure your looking at SATA and not PATA?
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #16
  17. Richard

    OG Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:k9v_l.1837$...
    >
    >>>>> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry
    >>>>> MB
    >>>>> = megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative speeds
    >>>> of USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write speeds
    >>>> max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect that any
    >>>> claim that 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that advertisers
    >>>> would use rather than users.
    >>>>
    >>>> Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    >>>> significant.
    >>>
    >>> disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where
    >>> did you get your information on this?

    >>
    >> Toms Hardware 2009 charts for 3.5" Desktop HDDs
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,50.html
    >> Top scores for Avg Read and Write throughputs are about 103 / 104 MB/s
    >> I make that about 850 Mb/s .
    >>
    >> You may be able to get some higher burst speeds, but still nowhere near
    >> the 3GB/s that advertisers promise from SATA.

    >
    > Are you sure your looking at SATA and not PATA?

    <shrug>
    Look for yourself.
    OG, Jun 18, 2009
    #17
  18. Richard

    Richard Guest


    >>
    >>>>>> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry
    >>>>>> MB
    >>>>>> = megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative
    >>>>> speeds of USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write
    >>>>> speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect
    >>>>> that any claim that 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that
    >>>>> advertisers would use rather than users.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would be
    >>>>> significant.
    >>>>
    >>>> disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where
    >>>> did you get your information on this?
    >>>
    >>> Toms Hardware 2009 charts for 3.5" Desktop HDDs
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,50.html
    >>> Top scores for Avg Read and Write throughputs are about 103 / 104 MB/s
    >>> I make that about 850 Mb/s .
    >>>
    >>> You may be able to get some higher burst speeds, but still nowhere near
    >>> the 3GB/s that advertisers promise from SATA.

    >>
    >> Are you sure your looking at SATA and not PATA?

    > <shrug>
    > Look for yourself.


    I did and these are not SATA drives
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/.../h2benchw-3.12-Max-Write-Throughput,1012.html
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #18
  19. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:_Uv_l.23833$...
    >
    >>>
    >>>>>>> USB is 480 Mb and SATA2 is 3000 Mb so yes it's 6 times faster. Sorry
    >>>>>>> MB
    >>>>>>> = megabytes & Mb = megabits
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Surely the limitation is on the HDD data speed, not the relative
    >>>>>> speeds of USB/SATA. I'm not an expert, but AIUI most disc read-write
    >>>>>> speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb, so I still suspect
    >>>>>> that any claim that 'SATA HDD would be six times faster' is one that
    >>>>>> advertisers would use rather than users.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Buffering will make some difference, but I don't know when it would
    >>>>>> be significant.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> disc read-write speeds max out at quite a bit less than 1000Mb - Where
    >>>>> did you get your information on this?
    >>>>
    >>>> Toms Hardware 2009 charts for 3.5" Desktop HDDs
    >>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,50.html
    >>>> Top scores for Avg Read and Write throughputs are about 103 / 104 MB/s
    >>>> I make that about 850 Mb/s .
    >>>>
    >>>> You may be able to get some higher burst speeds, but still nowhere near
    >>>> the 3GB/s that advertisers promise from SATA.
    >>>
    >>> Are you sure your looking at SATA and not PATA?

    >> <shrug>
    >> Look for yourself.

    >
    > I did and these are not SATA drives
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/.../h2benchw-3.12-Max-Write-Throughput,1012.html


    Sorry wrong address: Benchmarks are just that Benchmarks so when they say
    SATA2 = 3000 Mb/s that is possible but only at it's very top performce. The
    best way to see perforance is to look at it and that is what I did. I have
    transfered 2 GB of data in 40 seconds and with a USB I might as well take a
    nap. I don't disagree with you I'm just saying that SATA2 is about 6 times
    as fast as USB or that's what I've seen on my computer.


    >
    Richard, Jun 18, 2009
    #19
  20. Richard

    Jordon Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > I went out and bought a Seagate EXTERNAL USB 500 MB hard drive which is
    > as slow as mud. I check out Seagate EXTERNAL SATA hard drives and for a
    > couple of dollars more I get a hard drive which is 6 times faster so why
    > in the hell would anyone in their right mind buy a EXTERNAL USB hard
    > drive unless their like me and don't know any better?


    One thing to keep in mind with an external sata drive is that
    there's no option (at least in Windows) to unplug or eject the
    drive. I have one that's a couple years old and there's no way
    to know if the write behind buffer has... ah... written behind.
    When I want to remove it I have to shut down the computer. Maybe
    newer ones come with some utility.

    But compared to USB or Firewire, they're a lot faster.

    --
    Jordon
    Jordon, Jun 18, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nate
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,091
    Ed Mullen
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. Anthropy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    977
    Anthropy
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,232
  4. Spin
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    728
    Bill in Co.
    Apr 9, 2008
  5. john hamilton

    files on external hard drive listed under DVD-RW Drive

    john hamilton, Nov 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    874
    richard
    Nov 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page