reinstalled os

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by jedmeister, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. jedmeister

    jedmeister Guest

    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.

    I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference (the old
    one was 2mb).
     
    jedmeister, Jan 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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.
    >
    > I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference (the
    > old one was 2mb).


    I'd be inclined to think that it's because it's a clean install, assuming
    that both drives have a similar interface speed. In fact, smaller drives are
    usually 'faster' than larger drives. Better seek times etc.

    An interesting experiment would be to clone the 300 back to the 80 now and
    try booting from that and comparing times and 'machine speed'.

    I'm running a Maxtor 20GB ATA133 7,200 rpm drive as my C: drive with a 200GB
    Seagate SATA with three partitions for pagefile (first on the drive and
    FAT32 for best performance), programmes and data. It works well for me, easy
    to back up the C: partition to the larger drive too.

    I've benchmarked the drives and, although the Seagate is in fact faster at
    the beginning of the drive, the difference isn't enough to make me change
    the current set-up. It's less than 5%. At the end of the 200 the speeds are
    similar between the two drives.

    Cheers,
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jedmeister

    JC Guest

    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...
     
    JC, Jan 31, 2006
    #3
  4. jedmeister

    jedmeister Guest

    "JC" <> wrote in message news:drmf84$ip5$...
    > 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 :)
     
    jedmeister, Jan 31, 2006
    #4
  5. jedmeister

    thing2 Guest

    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.
    >
    > I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference (the old
    > one was 2mb).


    I noticed a difference between a fresh install on a 30 gig drive in my
    Imac and a fresh install on a new 250gig drive in my Imac.

    maybe try some speed testing software.

    I while back I did some speed tests on scsi drives and found, a huge
    difference between 4 gig 10,000 rpm, 9 gig, 18 gig and especially 36 gig
    drives, the performance gap seemed to double with the capacity. in the
    end the throughput was 4~6 times higher....(between the 4 and 36 gig, I
    seem to recall 6 meg/sec v 30+).

    So while the cache is helping, the improved data transfer off the newer
    generation of disks is the more significant aspect I suspect.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Jan 31, 2006
    #5
  6. jedmeister

    GraB Guest

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:24:22 +1300, "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.
    >
    >I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference (the old
    >one was 2mb).
    >

    When I copied my Win98SE Lite from my old 20.5Gb Fireball to the new
    160Gb Samsung SP1614N (8meg cache) with Drive Image, the improvement
    in overall speed was very noticeable. This wasn't a new install.
    SiSoft Sandra benchmarked it at about 65% faster.
     
    GraB, Jan 31, 2006
    #6
  7. jedmeister

    Impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >>
    >> I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference
    >> (the
    >> old one was 2mb).

    >
    > I'd be inclined to think that it's because it's a clean install,
    > assuming that both drives have a similar interface speed. In fact,
    > smaller drives are usually 'faster' than larger drives. Better seek
    > times etc.


    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

    >
    > An interesting experiment would be to clone the 300 back to the 80
    > now and try booting from that and comparing times and 'machine
    > speed'.
    >
    > I'm running a Maxtor 20GB ATA133 7,200 rpm drive as my C: drive with
    > a 200GB Seagate SATA with three partitions for pagefile (first on
    > the drive and FAT32 for best performance), programmes and data. It
    > works well for me, easy to back up the C: partition to the larger
    > drive too.
    >
    > I've benchmarked the drives and, although the Seagate is in fact
    > faster at the beginning of the drive, the difference isn't enough to
    > make me change the current set-up. It's less than 5%. At the end of
    > the 200 the speeds are similar between the two drives.


    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. What benchmark are
    you using? It's hard to imagine that your OS actually runs quicker
    from that old drive.
     
    Impossible, Jan 31, 2006
    #7
  8. jedmeister

    Jerry Guest

    Impossible wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>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.
    >>>
    >>>I wonder if the 8mb buffer on the new drive makes the difference
    >>>(the
    >>>old one was 2mb).

    >>
    >>I'd be inclined to think that it's because it's a clean install,
    >>assuming that both drives have a similar interface speed. In fact,
    >>smaller drives are usually 'faster' than larger drives. Better seek
    >>times etc.

    >
    >
    > 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?


    The 50th anniversary of the first disk drive happens this year, on 13
    Sept. http://www.cedmagic.com/history/ibm-305-ramac.html
    http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/650/650_ph07.html

    It consisted of a stack of 50 24" (600mm) platters and two heads, whick
    moved up and down to the selected disk. Total storage was 5 million
    characters (7 bits, 6 data and a parity)

    That one was a bit before my computer fixing days, but I've spent many
    happy hours working on these
    http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_2314.html
    One thing that made the 2314 interesting was that the heads were moved
    with a hydraulic unit. There was a pump (made by Cessna, they would
    have made thousands more for disks than aircraft) and a unit that opened
    valves to put varying amounts on one or the other side of a piston in a
    cylinder, which moved the carriage with 20 heads mounted on it. Some
    problems got very interesting, a slick floor wasn't unusual, and I've
    seen oil dripping from the ceiling (it wasn't me, honest). There was a
    baffle plate that needed to be removed for some adjustments, but if you
    forgot to put it back on and powered on the drive, all the oil in it
    turned into a frothy mess, and ran out everywhere. Have *lots* of rags
    ready.
     
    Jerry, Jan 31, 2006
    #8
  9. jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    JC wrote:
    > 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...


    LOL, still laughing actually.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 31, 2006
    #9
  10. jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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.

    Cheers,
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 31, 2006
    #10
  11. jedmeister

    Impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:43df37a6$...
    > 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.
     
    Impossible, Jan 31, 2006
    #11
  12. On , , Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:44:58 +1300, Re: reinstalled os,
    "jedmeister" <> wrote:

    >
    >"JC" <> wrote in message news:drmf84$ip5$...
    >> 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?
    >
     
    Running with scissors, Feb 1, 2006
    #12
  13. jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Impossible wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:43df37a6$...
    >> 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~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 1, 2006
    #13
  14. jedmeister

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On , , Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:44:58 +1300, Re: reinstalled os,
    > "jedmeister" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"JC" <> wrote in message news:drmf84$ip5$...
    > >> 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
     
    Rob J, Feb 1, 2006
    #14
    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. dabigguy

    reinstalled xp mozilla won't run

    dabigguy, Dec 9, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    503
    William W. Plummer
    Dec 9, 2004
  2. noreply@invalid

    Reinstalled WIN 98

    noreply@invalid, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    761
    Old Gringo
    Dec 30, 2004
  3. Kohlrabi

    reinstalled windows, now there's no monitor display

    Kohlrabi, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    533
    Night_Seer
    Nov 3, 2003
  4. CJ
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    857
  5. Wayne Wastier
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    448
    Wayne Wastier
    Aug 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page