Speeding up hard drives?

Posted June 3, 201014 yr

I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

Maybe, but mistakes will make your system unusable and possibly wipe out

your installation. At the least you would want to do a full backup first.

Given your stated level of knowledge, I'd strongly recommend leaving things

be. Unless you're an extreme gamer or performance hobbyist or do very disk

intensive work like large database operations there's unlikely to be any

benefit worth the risk.

"Thomas" wrote in message

news:hu8gv2$n8q$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access

> to the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64

> bit machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor.

> I don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

Maybe, but mistakes will make your system unusable and possibly wipe out

your installation. At the least you would want to do a full backup first.

Given your stated level of knowledge, I'd strongly recommend leaving things

be. Unless you're an extreme gamer or performance hobbyist or do very disk

intensive work like large database operations there's unlikely to be any

benefit worth the risk.

"Thomas" wrote in message

news:hu8gv2$n8q$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access

> to the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64

> bit machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor.

> I don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

Thomas

Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive that is fast

then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly but extremely

fast

--

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others

Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Thomas" wrote in message

news:hu8gv2$n8q$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to the

>read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit machine. I

>have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I don't understand a

>whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I have seen seem to be missing

>or just not available. The drives are both 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary)

>and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a method of speeding up the access/read/write of

>these drives?

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

Thomas

Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive that is fast

then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly but extremely

fast

--

Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others

Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Thomas" wrote in message

news:hu8gv2$n8q$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to the

>read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit machine. I

>have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I don't understand a

>whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I have seen seem to be missing

>or just not available. The drives are both 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary)

>and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a method of speeding up the access/read/write of

>these drives?

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

wrote:

> Thomas

>

> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive that is fast

> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly but extremely

> fast

And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

wrote:

> Thomas

>

> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive that is fast

> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly but extremely

> fast

And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

"Ken Blake" wrote in message

news:dpag065sjdo7tj3p8iqumiionn3b62dqe2@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

> wrote:

>

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast

>> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly

>> but extremely

>> fast

>

> And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

From what I've seen of solid state drive specs the read write speeds are

slower than 7900 RPM SATA drives.

Are there any specific ones you are thinking of?

>

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 3, 201014 yr

"Ken Blake" wrote in message

news:dpag065sjdo7tj3p8iqumiionn3b62dqe2@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

> wrote:

>

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast

>> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus. Costly

>> but extremely

>> fast

>

> And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

From what I've seen of solid state drive specs the read write speeds are

slower than 7900 RPM SATA drives.

Are there any specific ones you are thinking of?

>

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

> Thomas

>

> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

> plus. Costly but extremely fast

Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

disk or disk to net or net to disk.

Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

> Thomas

>

> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

> plus. Costly but extremely fast

Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

disk or disk to net or net to disk.

Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:05:45 -0600, Canuck57

wrote:

>On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

>Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

>disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

>Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

Windows 7 - hand timed.

Not quite 3 times but close enough.

..

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:05:45 -0600, Canuck57

wrote:

>On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

>Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

>disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

>Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

Windows 7 - hand timed.

Not quite 3 times but close enough.

..

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

Gilgamesh wrote:

>

> "Ken Blake" wrote in message

> news:dpag065sjdo7tj3p8iqumiionn3b62dqe2@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

>>> drive that is fast

>>> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus.

>>> Costly but extremely

>>> fast

>>

>> And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

>

> From what I've seen of solid state drive specs the read write speeds

> are slower than 7900 RPM SATA drives.

> Are there any specific ones you are thinking of?

>

This is one of the first consumer SATA III interface SSDs, and it actually

delivers data faster than SATA II on reads. There is room for improvement

on writes, so this won't be the fastest drive. I would expect Intel

to develop something to match them, but give Intel a bit of time

to do the job right. The previous generation Intel SSD was pretty good.

(You can plug this into a SATA II port if you want. Your read speed will

drop a bit.)

Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 2.5" 256GB SATA III $680 retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=20-148-349&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=100&SelectedRating=-1&Keywords=(keywords)&Page=1

"In the end I get read speeds of 350 MB/s and writes of 210 MB/s"

http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Datasheets-letter_C300_RealSSD_v2-5-10_online.pdf

It is still an immature technology. A firmware fix is needed for that

particular drive, but is probably being shipped on new units by now.

Anandtech is good at beating up the drives and making them

malfunction :-) They do better testing than many of the manufacturers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2974/crucial-s-realssd-c300-an-update-on-my-drive

Paul

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

Gilgamesh wrote:

>

> "Ken Blake" wrote in message

> news:dpag065sjdo7tj3p8iqumiionn3b62dqe2@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:19:55 -0400, "Peter Foldes"

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

>>> drive that is fast

>>> then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or plus.

>>> Costly but extremely

>>> fast

>>

>> And even faster (but more costly) is a solid state drive.

>

> From what I've seen of solid state drive specs the read write speeds

> are slower than 7900 RPM SATA drives.

> Are there any specific ones you are thinking of?

>

This is one of the first consumer SATA III interface SSDs, and it actually

delivers data faster than SATA II on reads. There is room for improvement

on writes, so this won't be the fastest drive. I would expect Intel

to develop something to match them, but give Intel a bit of time

to do the job right. The previous generation Intel SSD was pretty good.

(You can plug this into a SATA II port if you want. Your read speed will

drop a bit.)

Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 2.5" 256GB SATA III $680 retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=20-148-349&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=100&SelectedRating=-1&Keywords=(keywords)&Page=1

"In the end I get read speeds of 350 MB/s and writes of 210 MB/s"

http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Datasheets-letter_C300_RealSSD_v2-5-10_online.pdf

It is still an immature technology. A firmware fix is needed for that

particular drive, but is probably being shipped on new units by now.

Anandtech is good at beating up the drives and making them

malfunction :-) They do better testing than many of the manufacturers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2974/crucial-s-realssd-c300-an-update-on-my-drive

Paul

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run that

crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run that

crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>

> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>

It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

too fucking stupid to see that.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>

> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>

It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

too fucking stupid to see that.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>

>

> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

> too fucking stupid to see that.

>

> --

> Alias

So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

Windows and move to Linux? I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may be

faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>

>

> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

> too fucking stupid to see that.

>

> --

> Alias

So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

Windows and move to Linux? I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may be

faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 4, 201014 yr

Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>

>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>>> Thomas

>>>>>

>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>>

>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>>

>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>>

>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>>

>>

>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>

> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

> Windows and move to Linux?

Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

has going for it is using it for gaming.