Stele

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Stele

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Great work on the review, as usual! I wonder where the bulk of the performance gain comes from - a different platform/design or just the added capacity. I'm more in the market for a 320GB-500GB model; so it'd be great if the performance improvements in the 7500AAKS would eventually (if they haven't already) make it into the lower capacities as well. However, the 7500AAKS might just turn out to be another replay of the 4000KD (which was based on the Raptor unlike the smaller capacity models then, so that if you wanted the high performance you'd have to get the 400GB drive)... I'm guessing the performance increase is part of the characteristics of the newer AAKS series (especially considering that the smaller AAKS models also include the head ramp), which would make sense if the RE2 used in the review is based on the older KS series. In that case, the 7500AAKS scores would be reflective of the AAKS line, with performance differences due only to the different capacities. I could be wrong though... does anyone know?
  2. A good standalone recorder, imho, would be sufficient... 320kbps 192kHz 24-bit quality recording is probably rather overkill for our purposes, which is merely to give a decent, audible idea of what the HDDs roughly sound like and compare them inter se. 192kbps 44.1kHz MP3 would be great, I think. Unfortunately, from what I could dig up, it seems that portable recording devices (with direct interface and transfer capability to PC) are generally split into either voice recorders or (expensive) professional portable recorders. The voice recorders - Sony is probably as good a choice as any other - are simple and fairly inexpensive; however, the majority of these devices only have a decent frequency response around the 60-3500Hz region (human voice) - not quite enough to catch especially the high-frequency whines of some HDDs. The higher end ones like Sony's ICD-MX20 are pretty good and can effectively cover 60-13500Hz, which should be sufficient for our purposes, but costs about USD250-300. whiic, thanks for the info, it does make more sense with those factors in mind. I'm still debating between getting a 7K500 or hunting for a T7K500 - where I live there is only the former, but I was thinking of the T7K for its increased ruggedness (as far as shock is concerned anyway) inherent in a design with fewer platters. Guess it all balances out in the end Now if only 7k1000 came in 500GB and replaced the 7K500 altogether (bringing in 7k1000's higher areal density, 32MB buffer, thermal fly height control and other technological improvements), I'd snap it up in a heartbeat!
  3. What about the 7K1000? Hehehe That aside, perhaps SR could make greater use of their noise-measuring setup by adding a condenser microphone right next to their sound meter to record a clip of the HDD's noise, with, for example, the first 3 seconds of the clip recording with the drive powered off (to give an idea of the ambient noise), then recording the noise of the drive as it goes through its power on, idle and seek stages during the usual objective sound pressure level meter measurements. That, imho, might be a good complement to SR's subjective comments as well as the objective sound pressure level meter readings, since the meter readings may not be able to indentify the strong presence of particular (and potentially annoying) frequencies - which a sound recording could. Frostytech.com does this for their heatsink reviews, for instance. It's not perfect, but it's a useful relative measure between HDDs and works along the same lines as "a picture is worth a thousand words"
  4. Great review! And a major relief to finally see one on a desktop drive after half a year~ as usual, kudos to SR for another quality effort. The 1TB drive may be bleeding edge, but imho the 750GB probably offers greater bang for the buck (at this level anyway). I wonder why Hitachi keeps two lines of high-cap drives (Kurofone and Vancouver) instead of merging them together; or is Kurofone specifically for 5-platter designs only? Otherwise they could use the Kurofone platform and just lose the platters as needed, as per usual - after all, IIRC Vancouver uses a newer (?) DSP. Hopefully the 7K1000 series proves to be reliable - that's an awful lots of eggs in one basket, as far as data storage is concerned. As it is, for some reason, Hitachi T7K500 and 7K500 drives appear to take quite some fire over reliability issues from user reviews at various online vendors compared to WD or Seagate.
  5. Stele

    Seagate 7200.10 Review

    It could be a design issue or early firmware ... *shrug* Perhaps a formal review by SR would settle the question once and for all. Speaking of which, I wonder why there haven't been any new reviews or news on SR for an unusually long time now... does anybody have any idea?
  6. Great post, lots of very useful info! Just wanted to ask a short question while we're on this... so far the advice is 1:1 swapfile:RAM size for >1GB of RAM. What about below that? Say, 512MB and 1GB RAM - would the ideal ratio differ, and if so, what would it be in each case?
  7. Excellent review, as one would expect from SR The reason for such a review is quite nicely and accurately put: Though drives may all fall under the same "family" as specified by a manufacturer, in reality these units could feature differing densities, seek times, and buffer sizes. To add to that, some drives within the same 'family' may even have different internal engineering designs - an excellent case in point being the WD2500KS v. WD4000KD... one from the older Caviar and the latter from the Raptor. In fact, the only similarity between the two seems to be the 16MB buffer! The differences It's almost as if the two drives could (should?) be from different families altogether. That they do come from the same family (and are grouped together by WD) is therefore further reason such a review as this is so important - if SR had not reviewed the 2500KS but only the 'flagship' 4000KD, many users may have gone and bought the 2500KS expecting identical performance to that of the 4000KD... when in reality the bigger drive consistently leads in single-user (and especially in multi-user) performance by noticeable margins. With that in mind, I wonder why WD doesn't just use the new 4000KD platform and shave off platters/sides to create smaller capacities and hence supercede the older designs altogether... there should have been enough time to do so and wind down production of the 2500KS. If anything, it would clean up the SE16 line and introduce higher performance into smaller capacities that more users could afford.