I find it such an interesting parallel to "real life" situations that I so often find myself in that Tannin makes his point and backs it up with logical, well discussed and thorough evidence and other people counter that point with "I'm right - I'm always right, just prove me wrong!". It's very hard to prove people wrong (to them at least) when there minds are so closed. My first (and only up to this point!) statement was that I feel that harddisk benchmarks in general do not seem to reflect the differences in performance displayed by various models of drive in "real world" usage - Tannin clearly spent a lot of time to prove that point, and all I've heard to counter it is "you're a dick, the 800JB r00lz y0 a55" sort of replies. Nobody has at any point in this thread said that the 800JB is not the best ATA drive available at this time, and thus offers the vast majority of users (as in the mass-market) the best performance they will find for an amount that they are willing to stretch to, so why are a couple of posters getting their panties in a twist over something that nobody has actually said?
Back to the point. 15k and 10k RPM harddisks are much quicker at any really heavy stuff that you may ask them to do, but this does not seem to be reflected in any benchamrks - what is wrong with the testing methodology to cause this? I don't give a stinker that "my momma can't afford that SCSI stuff for her system, so it's crap", and neither do I give a rats ass that you think the 800JB is the mutts nutts - I was after an intelligent discussion of the state of harddisk benchmarking, and I would like to personally thank Tannin for his excellent and well argued post. You can all go back to bickering now - next time I'm curious about something and want advice from someone who is technically competent I'll just PM Tannin!