Re: [linux-dell-laptops] internal hard drive DELL800 latitude
- At Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:13:05 -0400 Jim Diamond <zsd@...> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:59 (-0600), bil wrote:Sure, but for modest blocksizes the transfer time you mention is less
>> I remember reading some battery performanace tests, from Phronix I
>> think, that said 5200 rpm provided better life
> The specs I read from the manufacturers indicated the newer generation
> 7200's were no more power hungry than the older 5400's. I didn't look
> and see if the newer 5400's (if there were any at the time) were
> different than the old 5400's (it wouldn't be surprising if the were
>> and the read write performace was not much slower then 7200 rpm with
>> larger disks since the data is packed so close together on the disk
> ? If the disks have the same density, the 7200 RPM one should read
> 72/54 times as fast once the reading/writing starts, no?
than either the seek time or rotational latency.
Rotational latency for 7200 would be only 54/72 that of a 5400
(analogous to your point about transfer time).
I know they aren't cheep but what about a slid state drive (SSD) they are getting lower and lower in price buy the month and their are even a few of them that support PATA 100 as well. I would say the 128GB modells are resonably priced. You need to install drivers etc offcourse but if you are willing to open your laptop with a screwdriver you probably can fix that too.
Go to a shooping site and search for good prices on a flash drive its the future anyway.
--- Den sön 2008-12-14 skrev Ardell Faul <ardell@...>:
> Från: Ardell Faul <ardell@...>__________________________________________________________
> Ämne: Re: [linux-dell-laptops] internal hard drive DELL800 latitude
> Till: email@example.com
> Datum: söndag 14 december 2008 07.17
> For what it's worth, I see a lot of failed hard drives
> in the laptop
> repair business, and my experience has been that the drives
> most prone
> to fail are the ones over 100Gbyte. In fact, I don't
> think I have ever
> had to replace a drive in the 40 to 80 Gbyte range. And
> almost without
> exception, the drives I see in laptops almost never have
> anything like
> even 40 gbytes of data in them. Anybody who downloads and
> carrys around
> 160 Gbytes worth of important data in a laptop is being
> foolish. Very
> foolish. They are just asking for it, and they usually get
> it. I don't
> understand why anybody would even WANT to put a very large
> hard drive in
> a laptop. If you want to collect a lot of music or video,
> an external
> backup drive or a desktop drive is a much more sane choice.
> It is just
> plain stupid to carry around a laptop with a lot of data
> stored in the
> hard drive. One slip of the hand, or a good solid thump
> under the area
> where the hard drive is, and you can kiss all your data
> I guess it is the Geek Squad blurb, you know--put in a 160
> Gbyte hard
> drive, 2 gigs of memory, and flash the BIOS and you will
> have a
> screaming machine.
> What a bunch of shit that is.
> Ardell Faul
> Computer Monitor Service Inc.
> Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
> 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
> Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
> kiyer25 wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > My 80 GB 7200 rpm internal hard drive (hitachi) died
> (just 3 year and 1
> > month). I would like to buy a internal hard drive
> which is reliable and
> > best one with reasonable price as well.
> > I am looking for 160 GB with 5400 or 7200 hard drive.
> > It is IDE 2.5, ata 100, 8MB buffer. Really appreciate
> suggestion and
> > any inputs to buy a new approbriate internal hard
> drive for my DELL800.
> > Thanks a lot
> > cheers
> > kris
> Please post your X config files in the group links or
> To unsubscribe, email:
> FAQ: http://www.whacked.net/ldl/faqYahoo! Groups Links
Låna pengar utan säkerhet. Jämför vilkor online hos Kelkoo.