23 Dec
2010
23 Dec
'10
7:22 p.m.
On Thursday 23 December 2010 18:09:20 Ivan K wrote:
--- On Thu, 12/23/10, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
Why should there be a performance benefit if the disk is smaller? If there was,
I still have a 650MB disk I could sell you...
You want the disk for storage, not for RAM-extension. And doing audio you will
read and write big files. Unless the disk-cache is big enough to hold the whole
session, it will not make a significant impact.
What matters is reliability. And when you ask 10 people about that, you will
get 10 different opinions.
As you ask for that, here is my experience:
I had seagate disks fail, I have seagate disks running fine since 5 years. I
have western digital disks work fine since years. I had an IBM disk fail after
about two years. I have maxtor disks perform good since 5 years. My hardware
dealer recommended me samsung disks, but the first two I bought failed after
about two years. Lets see how the rest of them (bought later) performs...
Have fun,
Arnold
The difference in price between 500G
and 1.5TB is less
then the difference in size.
I was not writing about cost in terms of money. Everyone
knows that 1-2TB drives are cheaper than candy these days.
I was writing about cost in terms of reading/writing.
I would be willing to pay more for a 500GB drive if
there is a performance benefit.