Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: danny37 on August 26, 2009, 04:56:03 AM
-
anybody use McAfee total care having a problem with it?
i have it set to manual start and unchecked in startup but it seems to turn itself back on at startup and in the task mgr when i end the processes for it as it has many,they also turn themselves back on before i can even get them all shut down :huh.dont get me wrong its good security software but i have to wonder about any security that can keep turning its self on,the problem is it is popping up when im playing ah2,its not cutting the game out but i can see it flicker on the screen and i instantly know what it is,i minimize the game and sure enough its McAfee there on my screen. :uhoh
is there a security software that stays shutoff when you shut it off?
-
If you are paying for it then I suggest you use Eset/Nod32 fullpackage and you will find you don't have to shut it down.
I have it and it has NEVER caused me a problem and it gives you excellent protection! :x
-
Their corporate anti-virus product seems to be a much different grade than their retail customer product. I'd avoid their retail stuff.
-
Do yourself a favor...uninstall anything to do with McAffee and grab a better anti-virus...you're not as secure as they want you to believe (even the corporate stuff stinks)...and all it does is take up system resources. If you want a good subscription based anti-virus Avast and Avira are less expensive, have lower system overhead, and actually work...they have free "home user" versions too but unless you're very computer savvy I don't recommend them.
-
McAfee ..... is junk !
last version that work ok was stand alone Mcafee antivirus version 7 ....
NOD 32 works ok
-
I cant disagree with the other posts since I also believe McAfee is among the worst of products....... ranks right along side Nortons in my mind as crap.........
To solve your problem however if you arent going to switch products.... nearly any product worth its salt is going to restart itself if you simply end process in the task manager..... its intentional...... prevents a virus from simply ending the process....... you can however stop the processes before they start.....
in your services console set all services related to McAfee to MANUAL....... they wont start at startup then........ when youre not playing the game and you want to surf the intardnet then just go back in and start them up
just remember to start them back up before venturing to the intardnet land of baddies
-
u can turn mccaffey off in the security center console. also in the windows control panel security center u can turn anti=virus off and it will stay off.
semp
-
btw i removed mccaffey to install nod32. I lost all connections to the internet. I tried to reinstall using my original att cd and it kept telling my that i didnt have a network adaptar, I finnally had to restore windows. not sure how it happened. this is what I did
1 d/l nod32
2 removed mccafey and restarted the computer
3 installed nod32
no network connection.
any ideas from anybody about what couldda happened? is it possible that mccafey changed the bios to disable connection in my mobo? or is it possible that nod32 did? or it was one of those things that happens sometimes.
semp
-
btw i removed mccaffey to install nod32. I lost all connections to the internet. I tried to reinstall using my original att cd and it kept telling my that i didnt have a network adaptar, I finnally had to restore windows. not sure how it happened. this is what I did
1 d/l nod32
2 removed mccafey and restarted the computer
3 installed nod32
no network connection.
any ideas from anybody about what couldda happened? is it possible that mccafey changed the bios to disable connection in my mobo? or is it possible that nod32 did? or it was one of those things that happens sometimes.
semp
No, mcafee uninstaller didn't restore your original system state after you removed it and that killed your network connection. It probably installed a network hook to scan incoming traffic and broke your connection in the process of removing it.
-
Both McAfee and Norton replace key system files when they install, and the un-installer, which ships with the products, does not undo those changes.
I think Norton actually has a secondary removal program at their WEB site which will correctly restore those changes made.
The best thing to do is never install McAfee or Norton. Your computer will be much happier and you will be less frustrated, in the long run.
-
Any way to get around mccaffey removing network connections while unintalling it? I found around 5000 virus, trojans etc. While checking with iobit that mccaffey didn't even detect.
-
Any way to get around mccaffey removing network connections while unintalling it? I found around 5000 virus, trojans etc. While checking with iobit that mccaffey didn't even detect.
Check in your Device Manager and make sure your Ethernet (Network Adapter) MB drivers are on there. If not, use the Drivers disc (if you have one for your MB) and reinstall it.
McAfee is junk. I'll always re-up with ESET Smart Security, which includes NOD32.
-
(even the corporate stuff stinks)...and all it does is take up system resources. If you want a good subscription based anti-virus Avast and Avira are less expensive, have lower system overhead, and actually work...they have free "home user" versions too but unless you're very computer savvy I don't recommend them.
Actually their corporate stuff is really really good. In fact combined with EPO I'd say it's the best out there at the moment. Avast and avira are fairly average (or less than average) performers. For home the best choice is NOD32.
-
beautiful it just got better, lol. my cd rom (both of them) just died looks like windows dont even know they're installed. and windows got so corrupted i cant do a system restore restore windows show's up blank. any ideas on how to fully reinstall windows or how to fix cd? i manage to restore connection to the internet but currently have no anti-virus and only the windows firewall is working ( i hope).
here's dxdiag its long but i didnt know how much to include.
thanks semp
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 8/27/2009, 22:16:07
Machine name: YOUR-A4C4B6D125
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
System Model: EP45-UD3P
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 3070MB RAM
Page File: 285MB used, 6714MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode
------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.
--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 9800 GTX+
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0613&SUBSYS_0592196E&REV_A2
Display Memory: 512.0 MB
Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0011.8120 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 12/25/2008 22:08:00, 6168960 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: n/a
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
VDD: n/a
Mini VDD: nv4_mini.sys
Mini VDD Date: 12/25/2008 22:08:00, 6301344 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-4553-11CF-6665-992503C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x0613
SubSys ID: 0x0592196E
Revision ID: 0x00A2
Revision ID: 0x00A2
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalSt retch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalSt retch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalSt retch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalSt retch
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run
-------------
Sound Devices
-------------
Description: Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio
Default Sound Playback: Yes
Default Voice Playback: Yes
Hardware ID: HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_1102&DEV_000A&SUBSYS_11021006&REV_1000
Manufacturer ID: 1
Product ID: 100
Type: WDM
Driver Name: t3.sys
Driver Version: 5.10.0000.0200 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
WHQL Logo'd: n/a
Date and Size: 6/18/2007 22:38:52, 735744 bytes
Other Files:
Driver Provider: CREATIVE
HW Accel Level: Full
Cap Flags: 0x0
Min/Max Sample Rate: 0, 0
Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 0, 0
Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0
HW Memory: 0
Voice Management: Yes
EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: Yes, Yes
I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: Yes, Yes
Sensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No
Registry: OK
Sound Test Result: Not run
---------------------
Sound Capture Devices
---------------------
Description: Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio
Default Sound Capture: Yes
Default Voice Capture: Yes
Driver Name: t3.sys
Driver Version: 5.10.0000.0200 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Date and Size: 6/18/2007 22:38:52, 735744 bytes
Cap Flags: 0x0
Format Flags: 0x0
-----------
Attached: 1
Controller ID: n/a
Vendor/Product ID: n/a
FF Driver: n/a
Poll w/ Interrupt: No
Registry: OK
-----------
USB Devices
-----------
+ USB Root Hub
| Vendor/Product ID: 0x8086, 0x3A35
| Matching Device ID: usb\root_hub
| Service: usbhub
| Driver: usbhub.sys, 4/13/2008 11:45:37, 59520 bytes
| Driver: usbd.sys, 8/10/2004 12:00:00, 4736 bytes
----------------
Gameport Devices
----------------
-
5000 trojans, now everything is corrupt, why bother fixing. Reformat start over and do yourself a favor and get a mirror imaging software like acronis or ghost, there are some free one's out there but I don't know the names.
You will need a extra hard drive for your backups also, whether it be internal or external.
The next time you have a malfuntion or drive go bad, you can reinstall a mirror image and be up and running again in no time.
You hopefully can go into bios and set your pc to boot from drive, insert your windows disk , restart and see if it will start to install
this is what I would try first
cattb/Tim O
-
Tried it. Won't work
Semp
-
Tried it. Won't work
Semp
You went through a full reload process (boot to windows cd, delete partition, create partition, full format, install) and that didn't put you back to a clean Windows?
-
Sorry what I meant is I can't get either cd rom to actually boot. So no cd works. Getting another cd drive today just in case for some weird reason both got damaged.
I will also check connections just in case cable themselves are damagged. But most likely drivers are gone.
Semp
-
Ok bad cd cable was the problem. But I got a stupid question for u guys. Will reformat/reinstall. Windows get rid of my 5k viruses or getting a new hard drive will be better
-
I havnt reinstalled windows for awhile, but you can quick format or full format, do not quick format.
I think if you had that many problems, If you have access to over write the drive I would be tempted to that first. I would want to overwrite the masterboot record is what I would want and, while in prosess the whole drive.
http://eraser.heidi.ie/ this is a free program to overwrite drive.
Easier is to just do a full reformat, reinstall,virus check your install.( If you have anything backed up on cd,dvd, thumb drive, etc etc, I would virus check any of the material before migrating it back to your system)
If everything is good,install your antivirus of choice and firewall once your OS checks out OK.
When I redo my system I install OS, updates,My needed programs ( antivirus and firewall is in the top 3 to get installed), defrag, then I mirror image,as I keep reinstalling I perodicaly make a image file, I use ghost but it is not free, there is freeware out there.
Hope this helps cattb/Tim O
-
Ok bad cd cable was the problem. But I got a stupid question for u guys. Will reformat/reinstall. Windows get rid of my 5k viruses or getting a new hard drive will be better
Yeah.
Do the full step from delete partition to full format and install. What Windows XP and Vista have built in to perform those functions is just fine...3rd party apps just add headaches.
-
If I had to do all this I would seriously consider getting a new faster harddrive _now_.
Reasoning behind it? You get more performance, more hd space and same amount of trouble as if you'd do it again later on. Another benefit is that you can then use the old hd for swap file giving you an added boost again.
If your existing hdd is 3-4 years old I would definately get a new 1Tb or 1.5Tb 7200rpm drive on the side. You'll notice a marked improvement in i/o performance. Just remember to partition the Tb drive to at least 2 partitions, 200 or so Gb for OS and programs and other partition for AH etc. games that will not require installation to program files. This makes a reformat of c: a breeze later on - especially if you back up the cleanly installed image of c: on the leftover hd or partition.
-
Ripley, I hate to say it but the bigger drives are not "more efficient" at data handling than smaller drives. I know someone is going to disagree with me, and I'm probably not going to mention something important but as simplified as I can get, higher capacity means higher data compression rates, higher seek times and higher write times. Though it may be more efficient technology than say 5 years ago (larger cache, faster components, better compression algorythms) it still has to follow the same principles and the higher capacity you go, the more cycles the drive has to perform for any given task. A 7200RPM Terabyte drive can have the exact same latency or slower, write and seek times as a 7200RPM 500GB hard drive, even if the smaller drive has a smaller cache.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148309 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148309)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278)
Both Seagate drives. Notice the lack of information about seek and write times on the 1TB drive.
Now take a look at specs on a lower capacity 10,000 RPM drive:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278)
That would be a big data transfer performance difference from his current drive(S) if he had the SATA3.0GB interfaces...as it stands his cpu is a Pentium D 2.8GHz which puts the age of that system at around 4 years +/- 1 which puts the SATA connections at SATA II, not the current SATA3.0Gb. He can put a SATA3.0Gb drive in it but the data throughput is going to be at the lower standard, which means no significant performance improvement based on the hard drive other than transferring data across the drive from folder to folder.
Buying a huge hard drive then partitioning it is much less effective and much riskier to data loss than multiple physical drives. Take your setup for example. A 1TB drive with 2 or 3 partitions. What's going to happen to your data if sector zero gets damaged? You lose access to the entire drive and everything on it. You won't get it back unless you want to spend some cash shipping it to a data recovery specialist. Using a mulitple drive (maybe multi partition on the secondary drive) scheme is much more effective and less likely to experience catastrophic data loss than over working a single drive with multiple partitions. It's common knowledge that the primary drive (C:\) gets the most use and is more prone to failure than a secondary drive doing nothing more than housing data. Adding partitions to the same physical drive just adds to the workload. Having multiple drives in a system die is not impossible but it doesn't occur as often as primary drive failure. Reloading the OS on a drive with multiple partitions becomes a pain in the butt too, especially with Windows. Sitting up at 2 a.m. and having a few drinks under your belt, it's very likely a mistake will be made.
Just my personal preference, but I run a smaller drive as my primary and a large capacity drive for my secondary. Windows as well as all programs goes on the smaller drive then my paging file as well as data that I want to keep goes on the larger secondary drive. I have yet to lose any data.
-
thanks for the help,getting rid of McAfee :salute
btw,nice thread hi-jack :aok
-
sorry about that hi jack. my bad, I just assumed (you know what that means) that would all be related to how to remove mccaffey, which i had been wanting to remove it for a while but everytime i did it just messed up my system.
semp
-
Ripley, I hate to say it but the bigger drives are not "more efficient" at data handling than smaller drives.
Hardware review benchmarks strongly disagree with you on that. Granted raptors or velociraptors are faster but they're horrible price/volume -wise. Not to mention the high failure rates people have been experiencing with them.
Example: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hard-drive-upgrade,2377.html
And what goes for partitioning, obviously its not for backup purposes but to make reinstallation of OS easyer. Backups should be done preferably to something else than an another harddrive.
-
Hardware review benchmarks strongly disagree with you on that. Granted raptors or velociraptors are faster but they're horrible price/volume -wise. Not to mention the high failure rates people have been experiencing with them.
I don't put much stock in bench marks...they are generally idealistic...works the same way as MTBF...ideally the drive should operate continuously for "x" number of hours.
I agree the raptor series hard drives look great on paper...but the failure rates remind me of the old ESDI drives from Micropolis.
And what goes for partitioning, obviously its not for backup purposes but to make reinstallation of OS easyer. Backups should be done preferably to something else than an another harddrive.
True. :aok :salute
-
I don't put much stock in bench marks...they are generally idealistic...works the same way as MTBF...ideally the drive should operate continuously for "x" number of hours.
I agree the raptor series hard drives look great on paper...but the failure rates remind me of the old ESDI drives from Micropolis.
True. :aok :salute
Benchmarks include simple i/o bandwith measurements and file copy which are consistently higher/faster on larger drives. That can't be argued can it?
-
Benchmarks include simple i/o bandwith measurements and file copy which are consistently higher/faster on larger drives. That can't be argued can it?
Yes...and I give you the WD Velociraptor series hard drives as the example, smaller capacities yet faster data transfer rates. Or if you prefer look at - SCSI1 vs Ultra SCSI 640 vs SATA vs SATA3.0GB.
Then you have 5400rpm vs 7200rpm vs 10,000rpm vs 15,000rpm.
It's not the size that determines i/o bandwidth and data transfer speeds, it's the combined technologies. Also across the board, "average" seek, write and latency times are going to be within milliseconds of each other regardless of drive size, connection type or drive speed. It just so happens that capacity limits have increased along with advances in the other areas.
Please do not tell me you believe a 1TB 7200rpm SATA3.0GB drive is going to outperform a 140GB 15,000rpm Ultra SCSI 320 hard drive.
-
Yes...and I give you the WD Velociraptor series hard drives as the example, smaller capacities yet faster data transfer rates. Or if you prefer look at - SCSI1 vs Ultra SCSI 640 vs SATA vs SATA3.0GB.
Then you have 5400rpm vs 7200rpm vs 10,000rpm vs 15,000rpm.
It's not the size that determines i/o bandwidth and data transfer speeds, it's the combined technologies. Also across the board, "average" seek, write and latency times are going to be within milliseconds of each other regardless of drive size, connection type or drive speed. It just so happens that capacity limits have increased along with advances in the other areas.
Please do not tell me you believe a 1TB 7200rpm SATA3.0GB drive is going to outperform a 140GB 15,000rpm Ultra SCSI 320 hard drive.
Please do not tell me you think anyone is going to get 15k scsi drives for gaming use. Compare a small older consumer harddrive with a new Tb drive and yes the Tb drive is loads faster while providing many times the Mb per dollar.
Raptors are not an option due to high cost and low reliability.
Scsi is not an option due to high cost of both drives and scsi controller + noise.
So where were we again? A new Tb drive will wipe the floor with a lower capacity consumer drive.
-
Compare a small older consumer harddrive with a new Tb drive and yes the Tb drive is loads faster while providing many times the Mb per dollar.
So where were we again? A new Tb drive will wipe the floor with a lower capacity consumer drive.
Uh see you keep shooting yourself in the foot Ripley...yes, an old 5400rpm 80GB IDE drive will not load as fast as a 7200rpm 1TB SATA3.0GB drive. But you can have a smaller drive perform as well if not better if the proper technologies are combined. You cannot exclude anything here because your original statement specifically said "SIZE IS EVERYTHING"...nothing about rpm speed, cache size, connection type, etc...
Again, it has little to do with capacity, it's the other technologies...othewise if it existed a 1TB 5400rpm IDE drive would be just as good as a 1TB 7200rpm SATA...and regardless of whether or not you discount the raptors and the other drive types for whatever reason, the proof is in the pudding. And I guarantee you, if you stick that 1TB SATA3.0GB drive on a SATA1 connection, those "benchmarks" you put so much stock in won't be there.
The BIG PICTURE Ripley...it's all about the BIG PICTURE.
-
Read the tomshardware review where the 1Tb 5400rpm had double the performance of a smaller 7200rpm drive.
I guess you haven't followed up on many performance tests lately if you still need to disagree that larger disks equal higher performance if all other things are comparable, especially price/volume ratio.
I have not yet seen a review where a non-ssd drive wouldn't scale up in speed with size. Even the touted raptor is astronomically faster as 300gb version compared to the smaller one.
-
It is not the size of the drive, per se. It is the areal density that controls the absolute performance rates of drives. As it turns out, most higher capacity drives have higher areal densities.
Areal density performance can be augmented with higher rotational rates, or higher rotational rates can be used to shore up a low areal density.
It is all about how fast you can get a bit of data under the head of the drive. The two ways to accomplish this is higher areal densities and the second is higher rotational rates. That is for sequential data.
-
Spot on Skuzzy... :aok
Ripley...if I paid as much attention to Toms hardware as many people do, I would still be paying attention to what PC Magazine and Maximum PC have to say. But I learned a long time ago that what is done in benchmark testing can be manipulated to show pretty much whatever is wanted.
Amazing how every other "test/review" show the average read/write transfer times on those Samsung "green" drives to be slightly slower than 500GB Seagate Barracudas. And not one review outside Toms Hardware showed "double performance" in any factor...guess it depends on what they use for benchmarks.
-
Spot on Skuzzy... :aok
Umm sorry but Skuzzy just verified my point.
It is not the size of the drive, per se. It is the areal density that controls the absolute performance rates of drives. As it turns out, most higher capacity drives have higher areal densities.
Please note I never stated anything otherwise. The rising trend of size/performance is indeed through advances in densities and larger caches among other technological advancements in the new drives.
A drive with similar characteristics and larger data volume (meaning usually higher density) gives out more performance. As what goes for that article at Tom's they compared the new large drive to an older generation smaller disk. An example very similar to the situation of the OP and they stated it clearly.
Can't believe it's still even under debate. I'm quite amused by gyrene's condescending story about higher rpm drives etc. when in fact they have nothing to do in my example of getting a great price/performance and great volume/price ratio addition to the system.
As what goes for your worry about aging sata 1 spec ports on his motherboard I suggest reading the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA
As of April 2009 mechanical hard disk drives can transfer data at up to 131 MB/s,[8] which is within the capabilities of the older PATA/133 specification. However, high-performance flash drives can transfer data at up to 201 MB/s.[9] SATA 1.5 Gbit/s does not provide sufficient throughput for these drives.
The new Tb drives are almost all about benefits with a little penalty in seek times and once volume per dollar ratio is taken into account there's just no question what the choice should be for anyone but the most hardcore enthusiasts.
My point stands: A full reinstall is an excellent opportunity to get a new large low dollar/gigabyte drive that blows away the existing drive in performance.
-
Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.
You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content. :aok
-
Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.
You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content. :aok
um.....you have been echoing his points in a different way. Just figured I'd throw that out there. :salute
-
Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.
You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content. :aok
Gyrene please, you've been proved wrong on both of your false arguments (sata bandwith and higher performance of large disks) so give it a rest please.
Fact 1: You claim his older Sata1 channel will degrade a new Sata3 disk performance when in reality WD Black 1Tb 7200rpm SATA3.0 drive produces 85mb/s average, well within the 1.5Gbit/s bandwith of first generation SATA.
Fact 2: You claim higher size disks are in fact slower due to 'compression' etc. factors when in reality they're much faster due to higher data density, larger cache etc.
The BIG PICTURE you know.. :rolleyes:
-
Argh one beer and I'm already drunk. :eek:
-
Argh one beer and I'm already drunk. :eek:
Already? Now I'm jealous...must be 5 o'clock where you are or...well, like my dad use to say, "it's 5 o'clock somewhere". :D
-
Already? Now I'm jealous...must be 5 o'clock where you are or...well, like my dad use to say, "it's 5 o'clock somewhere". :D
A pint with food got to my head enough to press 'quote' when I meant to modify. :noid