SATA Drive / Copy Windows Install

Panda On Smack

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,030
Currently on IDE still, can i buy a SATA drive and copy windows over so i dont have to reinstall somehow?

Really cant be arsed to reinstall . . . again

Anyone got a suggested SATA drive to buy while im on the subject?

ta
 

inactionman

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,864
You need something like ghost. It will cost you though (£34 on dabs.com, http://www.dabs.com/productview.asp...geMode=1&NavigationKey=11169,50400,4294957466).

Else, I'm sure you could use something like dd under linux (for free), but the partition size would have to be the same. Never done this before, but it is theoretically possible. I probably wouldn't recommend you do this unless you know your way round linux.

I like maxtor drives at the moment (the plus 10's or maxline if you want really reliable, but they cost a bit more), the 300Gb plus 10's cost about £90. Also Hitachi and Seagate are also good drives.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
you may be able to manage that with something like Ghost. that might work, but tbh I've not used Ghost in like...5 years or so :/

as to SATA. don't bother getting SATAII, even if your mobo can take it. it's not worth it, unless the II drives happen to be cheaper. it's impossible for a 7200RPM disk to fill the SATAII interface's bandwidth to anything remotely like capacity. or a 10.000RPM, or a 15k RPM. unless you've got 10 of them in a raid or something wierd like that. imo ofc.

on makes. aparantly it's not wise to buy IBM. other than that I really don't know. I've got a hitachi and a samsung, both 7200RPM, both 8MB cache, both far, far faster than my old WD disk. you can get big SATAI drives with 16MB cache for that extra e-penis factor.
 

Honza

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
363
Well, if the price difference between SATA-1 and SATA-2 drives is not big, it's bullshit going for SATA-1. Reason? SATA 2 drives are using technology that optimises reading/writing so drive heads don't have to run here and there but requests are sorted that way heads go the shortest average way possible (SoftSeek)... result: faster access to data, slightly faster reading and writing, much less noise and heat production. Yep, you won't use bandwidth - tbh you can't use SATA 1 bandwidth neither with current drives ;p

As for drives - I'd go for Western Digital drives 7200RPM 16 MB cache... Usualy larger drive = faster drive (due to shorter distances heads have to move to get to next requested data segment). Reason of WD: Contrary to Seagate or Matrox warranty event emerges on any single failure, while S or M require certain % of disk not to be readable. Also, if you are using disc to store some important material (projects or so) WDs tend to be able to recover more data when damaged.

In general just be sure to buy new hardware, not x series back stuff - new hardware is quiter, better supported and usualy faster.
 

inactionman

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,864
Teeds, Hitachi are IBM, they bought the storage division off them a few years ago!

Yeah as for SATA vs. SATA2, no real difference. Most SATA drives have the features of SATA2, just not the interface speed, which no drive can currently, achieve even the SATA version!

Recommending hard drive manufacurer's is a bit subjective. Check storage review (http://www.storagereview.com), however their favourite at the moment is the Hitachi Deskstar 7K500, which is not widely available in the uk atm (barring the 500Gb version).
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
inactionman said:
Teeds, Hitachi are IBM, they bought the storage division off them a few years ago!

lol :D goes to show what I know :)
 

inactionman

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,864
inactionman said:
their favourite at the moment is the Hitachi Deskstar 7K500, which is not widely available in the uk atm (barring the 500Gb version).

Whoops, they've changed their numbering, and that's the specific number for the 500Gb verion! There's a 250Gb version available (the Deskstar T7K250), but it's lacking in cache (8Mb). So I'd recommend either a maxtor or a seagate (had bad experiences with WD in the past, but everyone says that about all brands).
 

Panda On Smack

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,030
Clown said:
I like the feeling of a fresh install :(

Heh. Me to but i only just installed it all a week ago. Thanks for the input guys.

Perhaps i can buy one and slowly install stuff on it.

I saw a WD drive on Scan but only 8mb cache?
 

smurkin

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
560
I've done that with ghost...I keep a clean XP install with games on a spare drive for my old pc. My version is old tho, on a floppy - it may not supprt sata because it works outside the normal os. Its a good product tho...I'd imagine the most recent version will do sata.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom