On Jan 24, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Kris Tilford wrote:
On Jan 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
why so hostile?
Tired of dealing with guessing.
Definitely faster? You sure?
Yes, I'm sure.
To confirm that from a 2nd source, look to the original poster who says:
After a bunch
At 3:05 PM -0800 1/24/2011, John Carmonne wrote:
Would [over-clocking] change the overall speeds including the FW 400?
Over-clocking increases the speed of the cpu and perhaps the memory
bus (since its speed is usually a multiple of the cpu's).
It does not change the speed of the i/o buses
On Jan 24, 8:58 pm, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote:
I learned this THE HARD WAY, I actually BOUGHT FW800 enclosures
expecting them to be TWICE AS FAST as my old FW400 enclosures, but
when I TESTED THEM, they were the SAME SPEED, not because they're not
CAPABLE of twice as fast,
Of course, drives today are almost ten times faster (more than?) but
the principles haven't changed a bit.A 133 MB/s interface doesn't
matter one wit, if the drive can only deliver 70MB/s of data.
And, the internal performance of some drives is as low as 40 MB/s.
--
You received this
On Jan 23, 2011, at 7:51 AM, iJohn wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM, John Carmonne carmo...@aol.com wrote:
If I use an external 3.5 7200 RPM via Firewire 400 will I gain speed over
the internal HDD 4200 RPM in my Mac Mini?
That's a hard one to guess at. But my guess would be no,
On Jan 22, 3:36 pm, John Carmonne carmo...@aol.com wrote:
If I use an external 3.5 7200 RPM via Firewire 400 will I gain speed over the
internal HDD 4200 RPM in my Mac Mini?
In my personal experience, my friend, the speed and size of the
external drive more than make up for the slower bus (FW
On Jan 23, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Ashgrove wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:36 pm, John Carmonne carmo...@aol.com wrote:
If I use an external 3.5 7200 RPM via Firewire 400 will I gain
speed over the internal HDD 4200 RPM in my Mac Mini?
In my personal experience, my friend, the speed and size of the
On Jan 23, 2011, at 9:51 AM, iJohn wrote:
That's a hard one to guess at. But my guess would be no, I don't think
you'd see a gain. Or if there was one, it would not be as large as you
hoped.
What? Why are you guessing? These are measurable facts. Guessing
about things isn't acceptable.
A 7,200 RPM HD is DEFINITELY faster in a FW400 enclosure than either a
5,400 RPM or 4,200 RPM. Have you ever even booted from Firewire on a
daily basis? Have you made measurements? Have you streamed video off a
Firewire enclosure? Obviously your experience is limited.
The rotational speed of
Kris, why so hostile? Since FW400 is limited to 400Mbs, and a 5400RPM
drive will run 3Gbs, how will a 7200RMP offer more performance when
the bottleneck is in the FW400 itself? In any system, one needs to
look at where the bottleneck is, and iJohn's guess passed the common
sense test with me. An
, January 24, 2011 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Mac Mini HDD speed
Kris, why so hostile? Since FW400 is limited to 400Mbs, and a 5400RPM
drive will run 3Gbs, how will a 7200RMP offer more performance when
the bottleneck is in the FW400 itself? In any system, one needs to
look at where the bottleneck
On Jan 22, 3:58 pm, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote:
Cyberguys also has 2.5 drives, but all of the drives in this size,
IDE/ATA and SATA, are 5400 RPM. The 2.5IDE/ATA drives are Western
Digital and come in 80GB ($57), 160GB ($72) and 250GB ($88)
capacities.
Micro Center stocks WD ATAs in up
and
SATA III in a Firewire enclosure will of course run slower than plugged
directly into a SATA II or SATA III Controller.
From: JoeTaxpayer joetaxpaye...@gmail.com
To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Mac Mini HDD speed
Kris, why
On Jan 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
why so hostile?
Tired of dealing with guessing.
Definitely faster? You sure?
Yes, I'm sure.
To confirm that from a 2nd source, look to the original poster who says:
After a bunch of testing speeds not only is the external 7200 IDE FW
400
At 12:06 PM -0800 1/24/2011, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote:
Yet, the average throughput capacity of most drive electronics and host
bus adapter electronics remained essentially the same, at about 40
megabytes/second, MAXIMUM.
This is not about raw or sustained throughput. If all people did was
To be clear, you're talking PATA in the external FW enclosure,
correct? In which case the numbers support your position.
I don't know that it makes sense to go buy a PATA drive to load into
an enclosure, one can buy a 1TB external for less than the 320GB PATA
going into the FW box. An odd choice.
On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:17 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
To be clear, you're talking PATA in the external FW enclosure,
correct?
No. It doesn't make any difference. It can be SATA I, SATA II,
PATA133, or PATA150 . They're all going to be roughly the same speed
as single HDs. A newer 7,200 RPM PATA
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM, John Carmonne carmo...@aol.com wrote:
If I use an external 3.5 7200 RPM via Firewire 400 will I gain speed over the
internal HDD 4200 RPM in my Mac Mini?
That's a hard one to guess at. But my guess would be no, I don't think
you'd see a gain. Or if there was
On Jan 22, 2011, at 9:28 AM, John Carmonne wrote:
I recently got a Mac Mini PPC 1.25 with a 4200 RPM ATA 40 GB HDD.
Is there an advantage to putting in a 7200 RPM ATA HDD? I know
they're a little scarce but if it increases performance it's worth a
try.
yes, in my experience with
John,
The 7200 RPM drives have faster seek times. There may also be a
higher Bus speed and a larger buffer, making data access, transfer
and use by software more rapid.
So far as price, cyberguys.com has Western Digital IDE/ATA drives in
3.5 diameter. These have the 7200 RPM speed you're
The 7200 RPM drives have faster seek times. There may also be a
higher Bus speed and a larger buffer, making data access, transfer
and use by software more rapid.
So far as price, cyberguys.com has Western Digital IDE/ATA drives in
3.5 diameter. These have the 7200 RPM speed you're looking
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
On Jan 22, 1:21 pm, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote:
The 7200 RPM drives have faster seek times. There may also be a
higher Bus speed and a larger buffer, making data access, transfer
and use by software more rapid.
So far as price, cyberguys.com has Western Digital
Cost?
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at
My experience with PowerBooks was that going fron 4200 to 7200 had a noticeable
increase in speed and a noticeable decrease in battery life. I think on a Mini
you would like the results.
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:28 AM, John Carmonne carmo...@aol.com wrote:
I recently got a Mac Mini PPC 1.25
On 2011/01/22 09:28, John Carmonne so eloquently wrote:
I recently got a Mac Mini PPC 1.25 with a 4200 RPM ATA 40 GB HDD. Is
there an advantage to putting in a 7200 RPM ATA HDD? I know they're a
little scarce but if it increases performance it's worth a try.
My only concern would be heat. I
Cyberguys also has 2.5 drives, but all of the drives in this size,
IDE/ATA and SATA, are 5400 RPM. The 2.5IDE/ATA drives are Western
Digital and come in 80GB ($57), 160GB ($72) and 250GB ($88)
capacities.
Because of the smaller diameter, it seems as though 5400 RPM on a
2.5 drive would be
On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:22 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
Because ATA SSD's are small, and insanely expensive, and lightness isn't the
prime requirement of a Mini.
--
Bruce Johnson
Wherever you go, there you are B. Banzai, PhD
--
You received this message because you
That particular Mini uses PATA interface instead of SATA. Finding an SSD
in PATA could be problematic.
On 1/22/2011 1:22 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
On Jan 22, 1:21 pm, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote:
The 7200 RPM drives have faster seek times. There may also be a
higher Bus
On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:22 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
Because ATA SSD's are small, and insanely expensive, and lightness isn't the
prime requirement of a Mini.
--
Bruce Johnson
Wherever you go, there you
I think OWC makes a SSD with a PATA interface.
That particular Mini uses PATA interface instead of SATA. Finding an SSD in
PATA could be problematic.
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular
Is ther IDE 2.5 SSD's? or for that matter is ther IDE SSD's period? Jeff
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Alex Barnes wrote:
Cost?
For 2.5 why no use a SSD?
--
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a
On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
That particular Mini uses PATA interface instead of SATA. Finding an SSD in
PATA could be problematic.
Newegg has a large selection of them including large accompanying prices.
Cyberguys also has 2.5 drives, but all of the drives in this size,
IDE/ATA and SATA, are 5400 RPM. The 2.5IDE/ATA drives are Western
Digital and come in 80GB ($57), 160GB ($72) and 250GB ($88)
capacities.
Micro Center stocks WD ATAs in up to and including 320 GB.
Micro Center's price on
A place named iFixIt stocks a drive cage and adapter which replaces the
ATA CD or DVD drive with a second hard drive. Doesn't come with any of the
required mounting screws, however.
There are a number of folks on ePrey (sic) which are selling a similar
product, but is SATA-to-SATA, for later
34 matches
Mail list logo
