Prev: Dell Inspiron 5100 - can't see BIOS on external monitor
Next: External screen "chopped off"
From: BillW50 on 4 Jan 2010 16:46
I was taking laptops apart here and while I was at it, I tested the boot
speed on the same machine. But I cloned three PATA HDD, one a 4200rpm
and the other two 5400rpm drives. I always assumed that 5400rpm drives
were just faster. Well guess what? All three boots XP in 60 seconds. Who
would have guessed?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3


From: Bert Hyman on 4 Jan 2010 17:11
In news:hhtnk0$3ba$1(a)news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
<BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote:

> I was taking laptops apart here and while I was at it, I tested the
> boot speed on the same machine. But I cloned three PATA HDD, one a
> 4200rpm and the other two 5400rpm drives. I always assumed that
> 5400rpm drives were just faster. Well guess what? All three boots XP
> in 60 seconds. Who would have guessed?

Just because one disk spins faster than another doesn't guarantee that
data will be found and transferred faster.

Still, the effect that you've measured probably just means that
whatever else is going on during the boot is swamping any I/O speed
effect.

You could run some real I/O throughput tests if you really care.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert(a)iphouse.com
From: Roy on 4 Jan 2010 17:42
On Jan 5, 5:46 am, "BillW50" <Bill...(a)aol.kom> wrote:
> I was taking laptops apart here and while I was at it, I tested the boot
> speed on the same machine. But I cloned three PATA HDD, one a 4200rpm
> and the other two 5400rpm drives. I always assumed that 5400rpm drives
> were just faster. Well guess what? All three boots XP in 60 seconds. Who
> would have guessed?
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3

Aha.... that is maybe the reason why some version of Sony VAIO FW have
4200rpm HDD instead of the 5400rpm...
Does it mean that data read and write would be roughly the same?

Roy


Previously I was also curious why they did it.....
From: BillW50 on 4 Jan 2010 17:53
In news:Xns9CF6A4B84A40VeebleFetzer(a)216.250.188.140,
Bert Hyman typed on 04 Jan 2010 22:11:33 GMT:
> In news:hhtnk0$3ba$1(a)news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
> <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I was taking laptops apart here and while I was at it, I tested the
>> boot speed on the same machine. But I cloned three PATA HDD, one a
>> 4200rpm and the other two 5400rpm drives. I always assumed that
>> 5400rpm drives were just faster. Well guess what? All three boots XP
>> in 60 seconds. Who would have guessed?
>
> Just because one disk spins faster than another doesn't guarantee that
> data will be found and transferred faster.
>
> Still, the effect that you've measured probably just means that
> whatever else is going on during the boot is swamping any I/O speed
> effect.
>
> You could run some real I/O throughput tests if you really care.

Hi Bert! Yes that was my guess as well. And I do monitor the bandwidth
with Hard Disk Sentinel. And the bandwidth is the same with either of
the drives.

Some claim that they get far better performance from defragging. I've
never seen any improvement myself. As I always blame the bandwidth of
the I/O is the real bottleneck and even a fragmented hard drive still
reads faster than the I/O speed anyway.

One of my laptops has a SATA drive running at 7200rpm. I haven't done
any bandwidth tests on it yet. But that thing does fly. I can't run this
same cloned image, as the drivers are different. So it wouldn't really
be a far test without being the same. But it boots XP Pro in 30 seconds.
<grin>

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3


From: BillW50 on 4 Jan 2010 18:04
In
news:d7c49a51-69e9-4c19-9b34-025d49115a66(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
Roy typed on Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:42:07 -0800 (PST):
> On Jan 5, 5:46 am, "BillW50" <Bill...(a)aol.kom> wrote:
>> I was taking laptops apart here and while I was at it, I tested the
>> boot speed on the same machine. But I cloned three PATA HDD, one a
>> 4200rpm and the other two 5400rpm drives. I always assumed that
>> 5400rpm drives were just faster. Well guess what? All three boots XP
>> in 60 seconds. Who would have guessed?
>
> Aha.... that is maybe the reason why some version of Sony VAIO FW have
> 4200rpm HDD instead of the 5400rpm...
> Does it mean that data read and write would be roughly the same?
>
> Roy
>
>
> Previously I was also curious why they did it.....

I kept the 4200rpm drive in this machine and I am playing around with
it. And frankly, it feels just like the 5400rpm ones. And I see no
difference in performance at all. These are all PATA drives though.

I have one laptop with a SATA 7200rpm drive and that thing flies. Big,
big, difference here! As it boots XP in half the time (in 30 seconds).
Maybe you need a SATA drive to see any real difference? What kind are
those Sony's using?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Dell Inspiron 5100 - can't see BIOS on external monitor
Next: External screen "chopped off"