[Link]
Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack| Author | Post |
|---|---|
Bob  All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03 |  Posted - Sep 10 2006 : 1:28PMI'm coming back to the well yet again for more expert info. I'm looking for a desktop hard drive with at least 250 GB of vertical storage. Thanks! P.S. -- I don't have an SATA interface. [Link] |
| pinc_noiz Deactivated User 758 Posts 6/05 | Posted - Sep 10 2006 : 2:06PM [Link] |
| oatmeal Meat Popsicle Seeking Beauty 1738 Posts 8/04 | Posted - Sep 10 2006 : 3:50PM There's also [invalid URL removed]Memeo AutoBackup. Edited by - Oatmeal on 9/10/2006 4:24:41 PM [Link] |
| croy Platinum Member Discovry 4574 Posts 3/04 | Posted - Sep 10 2006 : 10:40PM Is a firewire interface faster? Since it looks like I can't just take out my D: drive when I upgrade this is a concern for me too. [Link] |
| Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03 | Posted - Sep 11 2006 : 3:54AM 1. Is there a meaningful performance difference, for the average user, between a hard drive with an 8MB cache buffer and one with a 16MB cache buffer? 2. How important is having a hard drive with both a USB 2.0 interface and a firewire interface (assuming one's computer has both kinds of ports)? For instance, of two similarly priced Seagate models, one has both interfaces and 200GB of storage, whereas the other has only the USB interface but has 250GB of storage. [Link] |
| kukm4 Member so-cal 212 Posts 9/04 | Posted - Sep 11 2006 : 1:18PM "I've seen some benchmarks (I can't seem to find them right now, but I'll keep looking). The 16MB cache is faster, but not noticeably faster for normal day-to-day use. It was really noticeable when doing stuff like video encoding. I'd say that for the normal user, the slightly higher price doesn't justify it right now (unless you get a really good deal). I'd rather get a few more Gigs of storage for the same price." Mind you this was back on 2005, you can get drive fairly cheap. I recently saw 300gb 16mb buffer seagate drive for under 100.00USD I would go with 16mb buffer, just because its more that standard and 8mb buffer are pretty much ancient. 2. http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/ [Link] |
| oatmeal Meat Popsicle Seeking Beauty 1738 Posts 8/04 | Posted - Sep 11 2006 : 7:48PM Theoretical Speeds are: You'd think USB 2.0 would be a great choice but the difference in architecture makes Firewire faster. more to read: http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html [Link] |
| croy Platinum Member Discovry 4574 Posts 3/04 | Posted - Sep 11 2006 : 10:27PM From a previous thread, it looks like I can't just yank out a my secondary drive from one computer (the one where all my data is) and just stick it in the new computer I will get and read all the data. I don't remember the outcome of that thread, put another poster tried this and couldn't access any of his data. [Link] |
| justalurker Member 241 Posts 8/03 | Posted - Sep 11 2006 : 11:19PM [invalid URL removed]"Access is Denied" Error Message When You Try to Open a Folder You also may need a Recovery Agent if the drive/files are encrypted. [invalid URL removed]How to add an EFS recovery agent in Windows XP Professional [invalid URL removed]How to back up the recovery agent Encrypting File System (EFS) private key in Windows Server 2003, in Windows Server 2003, in Windows 2000, and in Windows XP [Link] |
| jrv Senior Member 1266 Posts 2/03 | Posted - Sep 12 2006 : 9:49AM Keep in mind that e-SATA cable can only be 3 feet or so long max which is a lot less than USB2 or Firewire. Most e-SATA enclosures still use the old-style “L” connectors rather than the new “I” e-SATA connectors so you have to be careful to get a cable with the right connectors. I recommend Norton Ghost, versions 9 or 10 but not earlier.The essence of a backup solution, in my opinion, is to be able to get the machine running again when it won't (i.e. a “bare metal” restore) and a lot of these backup “solutions” can't do that. The other key factor is that a backup actually gets done, i.e., it is not awkward or inconvenient, and does not depend on the user remembering to do it. 1. For backups there should be no difference. You're not going to be reading from the drive to hit its cache and there will be few seeks or reads to allow write deferrals to build up.2. Firewire should be faster than USB2 for disk drives unless the driver stack is badly broken, which it may well be on Windows. For a backup drive I doubt I'd spend even a dollar on the difference. 480 Mbps is the total bandwidth of the bus. No one device is supposed to be allocated anyhere near that. Several years ago I calculated the limit at (from memory) around 30 Mbps on a compliant system (amazingly it was not easy to calculate and was not stated in the spec).The key architectural difference between the two is that USB is a polled architecture. Keep in that the design points for USB1 were telephones, keyboards and mice (and USB2 didn't change that) and that it was mandated that it be a lot cheaper to put in silicon than Firewire. [Link] |
| Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03 | Posted - Sep 12 2006 : 10:33AM [Link] |
| Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03 | Posted - Sep 12 2006 : 12:33PM [Link] |
| Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03 | Posted - Sep 13 2006 : 10:48AM I went to Fry's Electronics in Burbank yesterday, and bought a Seagate with 300GB, a 16MB cache buffer, and both USB and firewire interfaces. It was on sale, so I was able to buy it for $50 less than the best price I could find for it on the web and $20 less than the best price I could find for the 200GB model with an 8MB cache buffer. I also bought an additional 500MB of RAM. I'm a happy camper . . . for a day or two at least. Thanks again, guys! [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |