Wed Oct 17 10:53:40 2001
Wed Oct 17 13:40:28 2001
I just wish it was a little easier to pick and choose drives for the custom database comparison stuff. It's killer, once you figure out how it works.
Wed Oct 17 19:55:08 2001
So, you could come up with a test pattern of your own usage,
play it on the same machine, and come up with the actual
feel of how your machine would be with that drive.
They do use some pretty weird tests, like Winbench 99, which pretty much says, rank drives in order of cache size,
and you don't need to run the test...
I like i/o meter, but, the current rag is it doesn't take into account access time, sustained data transfer, buffer size, buffer optimization, and balance them out.
I've found i/o meter to give me the best comparisions
of my experience with drives, but, your results may vary.
Socrates
Wed Oct 17 21:55:57 2001
It's not really their fault though, because I bought them right after they came out and the evidence of their poopiness was not available yet.
Wed Oct 17 22:28:12 2001
It's beggining to look like it's an MSFT problem, combined with an IBM problem.
The drives work great, as long as you never turn them off.
They also have a great record, if used in macs, or, used as a D drive, not a C drive.
The thread explains it pretty well.
Motherbitch
Thu Oct 18 02:21:23 2001
Thats why i'm gonna stick a Western Digital 800BB(the one that has 2MB cache and is 7200RPM) drive in my powermac and hope for the best.
Thu Oct 18 03:08:42 2001
I got to the place where if I buy an ide drive, it has to be a year old, proven, and reliable.
The Quantum LM is out of production, but, had the access time faster then any current ide drive, and no one has reported one failing, and I've asked a couple times.
I just bought one for 70 bucks for a 20 gig.
Drives where made in Japan, I believe.
Motherbitch