In news:Xns9CF6A4B84A40VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140,
Bert Hyman typed on 04 Jan 2010 22:11
3 GMT:
> In news:hhtnk0$3ba$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
> <BillW50@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