Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (7485)	5/16/1999 5:15:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 14778

>>Have either Sean or Dave ever put their methodology in writing here Yep, both of them. They merely installed NT in a small partition (the only one on the drive) then grew the partition with Partition Magic to the full drive size. In both cases the drives were 13GB IBM IDE drives, and I believe both were 7200 rpm (I only remember that explicitly from Sean's posts, but I'm reasonably sure Dave had the same drive). I tried the same thing on a Maxtor 17G drive and failed, as reported here at the time (and recounted painfully to you a few messages back <gg>). For all I know, it's also a matter of drive geometry. FWIW, PC Mag recently benchmarked these exact two drives, the IBM 13.2GB 7200 vs the Maxtor 17.4GB 5400. PC Mag, as you all know, is not my most trusted rag, but here they described their methodology in detail even to my satisfaction, and the maxtor beat the IBM in all benchmarks. They even showed you why (which, if you read back here far enough, you will find my discussion on how that could be). A very satisfactory verification. But I still can't boot from a large partition on the Maxtor ( <G> + :( ). BTW, not a benchmark, but one area the IBM will always beat the maxtor (or any 7200 drive will always beat a 5400 drive) is in random access of a small amount of data. That's limited to the current physical cylinder (physical head position) if the drives have widely unequal seek times, but as most recent drives are within a few percent of each other on that, it really means over the whole drive. That's because the rotational delay is independent of the data; it depends only on the rotation speed. Spots