Zork152
09-12-2003, 12:57 AM
Currently I can get both for the same price.
Which one would be better. Provide better performance and reliable.
Which one would be better. Provide better performance and reliable.
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Seagate 120GB SATA vs. WD Caviar SE 160GB
MJCfromCT
09-12-2003, 01:00 AM
first off, does your computer support SATA?
second off, do you do alot with your computer that you would notice the increase in speed? If not, i'd recommend the Caviar...i've had lots of drives from WD and so far, no complaints :)
second off, do you do alot with your computer that you would notice the increase in speed? If not, i'd recommend the Caviar...i've had lots of drives from WD and so far, no complaints :)
BipolarBill
09-12-2003, 01:01 AM
The Seagate is not very impressive for a SATA drive. The WD is faster. Reliability-wise, it's a toss-up. No one knows how the Seagate SATA drives will hold up.
You should have two drives anyway - use Norton Ghost to back up the system drive to a backup drive regularly and drive reliability will no longer be an issue. :)
You should have two drives anyway - use Norton Ghost to back up the system drive to a backup drive regularly and drive reliability will no longer be an issue. :)
Zork152
09-12-2003, 01:16 AM
This drive would be an option in a new computer. I have the ASUS P4P800 motherboard, so I think this supports SATA. I was also reading somewhere I need a motherbaord that supports SATA in order top get past 133 MBps speed of the PCI bus. Would I need a SATA controller as well.
http://usa.asus.com/products/mb/socket478/p4p800-d/overview.HTM
With what sort of activites on a computer would I notice a difference with SATA.
http://usa.asus.com/products/mb/socket478/p4p800-d/overview.HTM
With what sort of activites on a computer would I notice a difference with SATA.
BipolarBill
09-12-2003, 01:22 AM
Come on. You can get all of these answers with Google.
SATA is not magic. It's just a new type of interface. A drive is a drive is a drive for the most part. Only the tiny Western Digital Raptor is living up to the promise of faster speeds. So far, SATA is a flop in my book.
www.storagereview.com
SATA is not magic. It's just a new type of interface. A drive is a drive is a drive for the most part. Only the tiny Western Digital Raptor is living up to the promise of faster speeds. So far, SATA is a flop in my book.
www.storagereview.com
_Mystical_Night
09-12-2003, 09:29 AM
Western Digital Hard drives are faster , better , and even have a less failure rate (die rate) then seagate
mobo57
09-12-2003, 08:57 PM
Ok Zork, listen to (read) Bipolar.
If your mobo supports SATA, you do not need a controller.
A single SATA drive will not give much of a noticable increase in speed over a ata 133 8 meg buffer.
Where your increase comes from is setting up a RAID. I went from a singel maxtor 160 gig 8 meg ATA 133, to a single raptor as my primary. Not much of a difference. When I got my second raptor and set up the RAID 0, the difference was mind blowing, especially over the single maxtor.
If you don't want to go this far, stay with the WD. Otherwise, look at other SATA drives. LOVE MY RAPTOR'S (no period key) :x
If your mobo supports SATA, you do not need a controller.
A single SATA drive will not give much of a noticable increase in speed over a ata 133 8 meg buffer.
Where your increase comes from is setting up a RAID. I went from a singel maxtor 160 gig 8 meg ATA 133, to a single raptor as my primary. Not much of a difference. When I got my second raptor and set up the RAID 0, the difference was mind blowing, especially over the single maxtor.
If you don't want to go this far, stay with the WD. Otherwise, look at other SATA drives. LOVE MY RAPTOR'S (no period key) :x
Zork152
09-16-2003, 03:14 PM
Ok, I just installed the WD 160G hard drive. Do I need a controller card for this? I am running Windows XP Pro. And ahve ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
When I go to "My Computer" and check the properties of the hard drive. It says capacity 160,039,239,680 bytes then it says 149GB.
Is is correct...shouldn't the 149GB be 160GB.
When I go to "My Computer" and check the properties of the hard drive. It says capacity 160,039,239,680 bytes then it says 149GB.
Is is correct...shouldn't the 149GB be 160GB.
mobo57
09-16-2003, 03:51 PM
You should not need a controller card if you have it set up EIDE. Have you formated and installed your os to the drive? Generally capacity is lower due to hidden, systtem files and the like.
In W2K I click on My Computer> Manage>Disk Management and it show my 120 gig drive to have a capacity of 114.9 gig. When I click on Logical Drives in the same window, it shows a capacity of 122 gig.
In W2K I click on My Computer> Manage>Disk Management and it show my 120 gig drive to have a capacity of 114.9 gig. When I click on Logical Drives in the same window, it shows a capacity of 122 gig.
BipolarBill
09-16-2003, 04:14 PM
149GB is the correct size. It's that way because the drive makers state size as if there was only 1000MB per GB. In fact, there are 1024MB in a GB and 1024KB in a MB. It's really stupid and I wish they would stop stating size that way, but it would be a hard thing to change.
Anyway, your BIOS is seeing it correctly.
Anyway, your BIOS is seeing it correctly.
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.