Which HD should I use for C: and Data:?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roblobster
  • Start date Start date
R

Roblobster

I'm planning on building a computer. I thought I'd get a motherboard with
SATA support. Since the prices for SATA drives aren't that much more than a
comparable ATA, I guess I may as well buy a SATA for the new system.
Question is, if I buy a 80G SATA drive while still utilizing a 30G ATA drive
from existing computer, which should I use as the C: and Data drive?
Since SATA load a little bit faster, would I benefit from it being the drive
where W2K and other programs load or the drive where data load? Or does it
even matter?
Would anyone have any suggestions?

Thank you for your opinion.
 
I'm planning on building a computer. I thought I'd get a motherboard with
SATA support. Since the prices for SATA drives aren't that much more than a
comparable ATA, I guess I may as well buy a SATA for the new system.
Question is, if I buy a 80G SATA drive while still utilizing a 30G ATA drive
from existing computer, which should I use as the C: and Data drive?
Since SATA load a little bit faster, would I benefit from it being the drive
where W2K and other programs load or the drive where data load? Or does it
even matter?
Would anyone have any suggestions?

Thank you for your opinion.
Click to expand...

In practice, I don't think it matters at all. Speed differentials reported by
benchmarks generally don't matter nearly as much as people may think, since
the actual speed bottle-neck on any workstation is the human operator. Also,
OS and program design have much greater effect on speed than the hardware
does. In fact, the increases in CPU speed in the last 5 years or so have not
fully compensated for the bloating of Windows, and the consequent reduction
in execution speed. (Try DOS or one of the other OSs on fast box, and you'll
be amazed what a lean OS can do!)

OTOH, if you use computation- or disk- intensive applications, then CPU and
disk access speed matter. That means high end scientific or graphics apps -
is that what you will be using?

That being said, by all means make the faster drive the boot drive (= Master
on primary controller). May as well get W2K to load a few seconds faster. :-)
And consider XP, which is a faster version of Win2000.

BTW, I would partition the 80GB drive into at least two partitions (AKA
drives or volumes) in any case. A), it's easier to organise data - dedicate
each partition to one type of data; " B), you will probably need more space
for data than for OS and apps, and mixing data with OS and apps is a bad idea
because C) when W2K messes up, repair or reinstall may damage data on the
same volume, but data in a different volume will not be affected. Also D),
disk housekeeping chores are easier and faster on smaller partitions.
 
Thank you.
One of my apps would be Adobe Premiere to convert digital tapes to DVDs.
That's one reason why I thought about using the large drive as data instead.
 
Is there a rule of thumb on how large the page file should be and the
partition for it?
 
I have 768 MB of ram, and that is the size I made my page file. It is
permanently set, min and max to 768 MB. I notice the most improvement if I
am playing a game, I don't get those "pauses" as windows decides to make the
page file bigger. I keep my page file on a separate 20 gig IBM hard drive
that I also use for backing up essential files.

There is a rule of thumb but I forget what it is.
 
Back
Top