SnowHiker

Member
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SnowHiker

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Weird, a double post within a single post. I should look for a job that hires idiots to find holes in data entry systems.
  2. You're absolutely right, thanks. 3.9 ms measured seek time... even more impressive. Regards, Eugene Hey Eugene I just looked at the WD VelociRaptor article again and see: The VelociRaptor turns in a measured average read access time of 6.9 milliseconds (ms). After accounting for the 2 ms associated with a 10,000 RPM spindle speed, WD's latest is left with an average read seek time of 4.9 ms and misses the manufacturer's 4.2 ms claim by over half a millisecond. Did the ISP downtime screw up the revisions you made on the article, or am I on crack, as I see the 2 ms number again??? It seems that people are reporting 7.1 ms access time for the shipping drive so seek seems to be 4.1ms, pretty close to the 4.2ms claim? Thanks again You're absolutely right, thanks. 3.9 ms measured seek time... even more impressive. Regards, Eugene Hey Eugene I just looked at the WD VelociRaptor article again and see: The VelociRaptor turns in a measured average read access time of 6.9 milliseconds (ms). After accounting for the 2 ms associated with a 10,000 RPM spindle speed, WD's latest is left with an average read seek time of 4.9 ms and misses the manufacturer's 4.2 ms claim by over half a millisecond. Did the ISP downtime screw up the revisions you made on the article, or am I on crack, as I see the 2 ms number again??? It seems that people are reporting 7.1 ms access time for the shipping drive so seek seems to be 4.1ms, pretty close to the 4.2ms claim? Thanks again
  3. From the article, Page 2: "The VelociRaptor turns in a measured average read access time of 6.9 milliseconds (ms). After accounting for the 2 ms associated with a 10,000 RPM spindle speed, WD's latest is left with an average read seek time of 4.9 ms and misses the manufacturer's 4.2 ms claim by over half a millisecond." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10,000 rpm disks have 3 ms of rotational latency not 2 ms. Or am I missing something? Can't wait for this drive to hit the streets.
  4. A friend went ahead and bought: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115034 Not from newegg.com but a local shop (PC Club). Yeah, he should have bought a 2.4 GHz and overclock, etc, etc. Anyways......he has an EVGA 680i chipset motherboard that is NOT COMPATIBLE with the new 45nm Yorkfield CPUs and he can't return CPU without a 15% restocking fee. Sooooo I need to recommend a good motherboard for him, probably a Gigabyte one. Requirements/system it will run: - Support for Yorkfield 45nm quad core CPU. - 64-bit Vista Home Premium. - 4 memory slots (he'll want to upgrade to 4x2=8GB ram). - NO SLI/Crossfire needed. Thank You so Much.
  5. SnowHiker

    Status of this site

    IIRC the bottom fell out of online advertising like 2-3 years ago. Web sites lost like 50-90% of their revenue. Consequently, two of the regular SR staff members had to leave and find different jobs to support themselves. SR only has two people now, and they are part-time at best. I can guess that SR is not longer getting HDs from vendors and retailers to test. Or are getting a lot less. I would guess that current ad revenue is paying for server/bandwidth costs and not making the owners of this site rich by any means. A shame really. Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Please enlighten us Eugene. Much thanks to you for running this site over the years.
  6. SnowHiker

    Test your computer knowledge.

    Yep. Spysweeper was one of the preinstalled programs on the HP. Along with a bunch of other preinstalled trial programs. Each one asking "Do you want to buy me?" or "Do you want to upgrade me?" or "Do you want to patch me?" etc. I always knew that vomit boxes had a LOT of "overhead" (aka crap slowing things down) I just thought that with such HIGH system specs a 2.13 GHz Core2Duo with 2 GB of ram would still run fairly fast. NOT.
  7. SnowHiker

    Test your computer knowledge.

    Thanks for all the comments. Obviously a complete wipe and re-install of the HP machine would make it faster. My point being that even if you buy a smokin' machine (spec-wise) it's not always the fastest. It may even feel downright real slow as compared to an older machine. A machine with 3.5x cpu clock speed, two processors vs one, 4x ram, 10x faster HD and better O/S should at least feel faster. I know the reasons why it's not and possible solutions, it's just frustrating and stupid to have to go through all the hassle to get a decent working machine. I couldn't simply wipe/re-install the Compaq as there were numerous programs installed and some install cds were lost/misplaced in a recent house move. No WinXP cd came with system and I don't have access to one, sad but true. 25+ GB of pics/mps could not be "moved" off of HD. And in the past I've had less than perfect luck getting proprietary (hp/compaq) hardware re-installed due to funky, impossible to find/download hardware drivers, etc. And of course my lack of skill. Thanks again for all the comments. I've been lurking these boards for years and have learned a lot.
  8. SnowHiker

    Test your computer knowledge.

    Luckily for me, I won't have to work on it. Took me 3+ days to clean out a Compaq for my bro, don't want to even THINK about messing around with that HP.
  9. SnowHiker

    Test your computer knowledge.

    LOL. My post was created out of the frustration I had when working on my niece's new computer. There must be 15 icons in the system tray, 80+ processes, and multiple running programs just after the computer gets to the desktop 3 minutes after I press the power button. When I read the specs on the box, I thought this might be a real smoker and told my sis-n-law that those are awesome specs on a computer. But as I was using the computer I clicked on the IE icon and it took AT LEAST 90 seconds for Internet Explorer to open. I think a 40 GHz Core16duo will make that computer snappy. Crazy.
  10. SnowHiker

    Is anyone excited about Vista?

    Hmmmmmmmm anybody see a trend here. Fewer and fewer service packs.
  11. When I ask, "Which computer system is FASTER?" I don't mean benchmarks, but actual "snap and pop" items, such as boot-up time, window switching, program launches, shutdown, etc. So which system is faster: #1 ~~~ CPU: Intel Core2Duo 2.13 GHz RAM: 2 GB of DDR2 PC-667 HD: 2x250 GB O/S: WinXP MCE #2 ~~~ CPU: 600 MHz Pentium 3 (Katmai) RAM: 512 MB PC 100, Cas 3 HD: 20 GB WD (3 platter WD/IBM hybrid design WD's first 7200 rpm?) O/S: Win98se Hint: Computer #1 is an HP vomit box, while #2 is "DIY custom parts" and O/S install.
  12. SnowHiker

    Asus P2B-F + large hard drive support?

    I have a 160 GB HD running at FULL capacity on a Win98se system. Mobo is an Old ASUS A7V133. I have 3 partitions. Maybe >137GB per partition is NOT supported in Win98se. Hmmmmmmmmm.
  13. SnowHiker

    Orderting pizza in the future

    VERY scary. But remember, we NEED to have all these databases linked to stop the terrorists! NOT!!!
  14. SnowHiker

    Can't we restructure this forum?

    The Storage Review forums USED to be split into more categories, but the traffic just wasn't there to support it. And there has not been any significant changes in traffic to warrant a redesign of the forums.
  15. Thanks for the link. Some type of Linux would probably be the smart way to go, but there are some older apps and occational VERY old games that are played on this box, so Linux we not be suitable. And I'm TOO lazy to switch. Win98se works fine for what I need. Thanks for any/all suggestions.