|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Among other useful comments, Kevin Miles observed:
> you dont need a huge hardrive for instance. these 20 gig drives
> are overkill and i believe they can slow the system down.
Actually, the usual argument in their behalf, other than the gobs
of space for graphics and suchlike, is that they are faster than
smaller drives. Picture the disk spinning, with all those bits
scattered on the surface. Assuming that two drives each have
the same number of platters, the bits on the high-capacity
drive will be closer together, while the low-capacity drive will
space the bits farther apart. Thus, the low-capacity drive has
to turn farther in order to deliver the same amount of data.
Average access time could be a little slower on a large disk,
given the same rotation rate, but one serious computer geek
I talked with claimed that the trade-off comes out in favor of
the larger drive; from the time you call for data until it has all
been delivered, a 30 GB drive running at 5400 rpm will actually
get the job done faster than a 10 GB drive at 7200 rpm.
FWIW, this is being done on a 700 MHz Duron system with
a 15 GB Maxtor 7200 rpm drive, and it's the fastest thing I've
ever had my hands on, when it comes to moving data here
and there. Of course, that may be because the old machine
was a bit RAM-limited.
Original contribution: Go for a Matrox G450 video card.
It produces the clearest, brightest 2D graphics available, with
a quick screen refresh, and you can drive two monitors from it.
Price was $98 three or four months ago, and is probably less
now. The newer Matrox models don't offer a thing that would
improve on it for our purposes, and no one else can touch them.
Owen Davies
|