Quitch

Member
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Quitch

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  1. The leaderboard page seems to be slipping further and further out of date, at least if the single-user desktop recommendation is anything to go by. Has the page been abandoned? If not, it strikes me that dating the entries would be handy.
  2. Quitch

    Optimal desktop performance

    I'll probably go with a single 1TB drive then, I tend to find I need more space than I expect, but with a TB I should be well covered and the Samsung looks to have good performance too. Thanks chaps. I note that it has NCQ, is disabling NCQ for a desktop still the best move?
  3. Quitch

    Optimal desktop performance

    The leaderboard suggests the Hitachi 7K1000, is this incorrect (though this comparison seems to show the Samsung aherad??)? I note that it talks about a 1TB version, but all I could find is the A7K1000, is this the device in question? I suppose my only concern would be the noise of the drive. Is this something caddies could fix?
  4. Quitch

    Optimal desktop performance

    What I wonder is with drive indexing coming enabled as standard on Vista (and being very helpful), is a separation of user data onto its own drive something that could offer a performance boost?
  5. After five years it's time to setup a new desktop PC. Last time I played with SCSI and am of the opinion that it wasn't worth the cost involved. Especially now SATA drives are massive and cheap. What (if any) is the agreed optimal setup for your standard desktop? Are there any benefits to moving beyond a single large and powerful drive (assuming some means for backup)? Will a desktop see a noticeable performance benefit from putting applications on a different drive to the OS? Is there any RAID level which will aid drive access, ignoring RAID0 for obvious reasons? On a gaming machine are level loads (which I believe the most demanding hard drive task most PCs will do, beyond the initial boot) sequential access? If so is there a setup which would benefit them?
  6. Quitch

    Western Digital 2500KS or 3200KS?

    From what I've seen of discussions here, yes, I think that's the case. Small difference now, larger difference, possibly, later.
  7. Quitch

    PageFile Question

    Only you can know how large your pagefile should be. The x2 rule is an abomination from a day of tiny amounts of RAM and high RAM cost which should have died a long time ago. If you truly, TRULY want to know, then you will need to run some performance counters in the background for a week of typical use, then see what your peak RAM usage was during that time. That is how much RAM you need total. If you don't have that much RAM then make it up with pagefile, that's what the pagefile is for, giving you the total RAM required. The problem is that people treat the pagefile as something different, when all it is is harddrive RAM. The idea of having a larger pagefile just becaused you increased the amount of RAM in your machine is like a bad joke, but one too many believe. Imagine beliving 2GB of RAM was more than enough for your machine, then buying an extra 4GB and shoving that in to. That's what the x2 rule is: retarded.
  8. Quitch

    Western Digital 2500KS or 3200KS?

    very interesting info, also i saw that the 3200KS is going to have NCQ also, whereas WD has said before that NCQ might be worse off for the single user. can anyone speculate on that? The reviews on this site have tended to show that NCQ offers inferior performance until at least four simultaneous operations are being demanded of the drive i.e. unless it's for a server, don't bother.
  9. Used this tool a trillion times and it works everytime. Just reset the password to * as reccomended by the tool.
  10. From what I recall of the testing done on this site, NCQ will hurt performance on a desktop machine and only began to offer superior performance over non-NCQ when at least four operations were being demanded of the drive. I can't see how NCQ would help or hinder reliability.
  11. Quitch

    Are outer tracks faster today?

    Using multiple partitions is certainly not necessary for Linux, although it is traditional. Furthurmore, Linux isn't partitioned so that certain data lies at a certain point on the disk, but so as to separate file systems. Windows users love to do silly things like partition so that their operating system or page file is at the beginning of the disk. Not necessary, no, but I do believe that a proper security setup for Linux requires partitioning as certain security settings are allocated per-partition. I've never got that deep into Linux though, so things may have changed, or I may have mis-understood. I use to partition Windows like mad, then came here and saw the light
  12. Quoted from here. Guess I'll stick with the two standard size page files. EDIT: Found the XP version
  13. I have two hard drives. The faster is a 15K SCSI that once topped the leaderboard, but it probably third now (Seagate Cheateah 15K3.. or something) 76GB and acts as the operating system drive. The other is a W2000JS 200GB drive from Western Digital and has all my games and programs on it. I've read a lot of people say use both and let Windows decide, but it wouldn't surprise me if Windows simply fills up one then the next, and I'd really rather try and find which I should use. I don't like wasting the disc space either. Any reccomendations?
  14. Quitch

    Are outer tracks faster today?

    For Windows, yes, but if you're building Linux and want to secure your system then to do so properly will require the proper partioning.
  15. Quitch

    OS and Programs on seperate drives

    15K means SCSI, and for a desktop it's really not worth it. I've got a good controller and what was one of the best 15K SCSI drives around two years ago, and the difference between it and a good IDE drive is really not worth the price premium. I'd be tempted simply by two high capacity drives so that I don't need to worry about music and video files cluttering the C drive (and the higher the capacity the better the speed) and a seperate drive for programs so that I never need to uninstall again. Of course, if it makes for a 2% speed gain, it's really not worth it, especially as it's twice the noise and heat. I did wonder, how often do a game and OS, or program and the OS, try to access the HDD at the same time??