 | | 
06-02-2003, 08:50 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 177
| » 
External Harddrives
Hey guys, I need an external harddrive pretty bad right now. I'm looking for a 120GB external harddrive, USB specific because my computer is about 4 years old. Any ideas, I really have no clue on what I should be looking for, oh and I'm going for something cheap here, but good too. Thanks
__________________
OMG, i just watched it. if only i could marry software!
| 
|  | |
06-02-2003, 08:55 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 3,081
|
Why external? The best reason for using external is it allows a hard drive to be moved from one computer to another easily. The down side is speed. With that system, you probably have USB 1.1, which is going to be relatively slow. You could upgrade to USB 2.0 with a PCI card, however.
| |
| | |
06-02-2003, 08:58 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Groveland,Florida
Posts: 564
| | |
| | |
06-02-2003, 08:59 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 177
|
woah seems like a lot of money for that. How slow is going to be, so for instance if I'm transferring a file 700MB, how long would that take?
__________________
OMG, i just watched it. if only i could marry software!
| |
| | |
06-02-2003, 09:10 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Groveland,Florida
Posts: 564
|
-USB2 - 34 MB/sec
-FireWire - 40 MB/sec
| |
| | |
06-02-2003, 09:13 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 3,081
|
Found this blurb comparing USB 1.1, 2.0 and IDE in PCWorld: Quote: |
The maxtor external hard drive realized the largest increase in transfer rate of the three peripherals we tested with USB 2.0 cards. The average time all five cards took to complete our file-copying task using the drive was 58 seconds, versus 12 minutes, 13 seconds with USB 1.1--12.6 times faster. The five-card average on our Photoshop test was 4 minutes, 24 seconds--8.5 times faster than the 37 minutes, 19 seconds that USB 1.1 took. Even so, our anecdotal analysis indicates that a 5400-rpm internal hard drive with a standard UDMA/100 bus still performs noticeably faster than our USB 2.0 drive. | | |
| | |
06-02-2003, 09:19 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Groveland,Florida
Posts: 564
|
Thanks for that bit of info osprey4...good to know.  | |
| | |
06-02-2003, 09:19 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Groveland,Florida
Posts: 564
|
crap...sorry...double clicked
| |
| | |
06-02-2003, 11:22 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 177
|
so does that mean if I were to get an External Harddrive, that it would run better than the 2.0???
Basically, I just want a cost effective solution to saving space on my HD, I have 2GB left and there is nothing I want to delete, so I need to do something fast, ;-) and cheap
__________________
OMG, i just watched it. if only i could marry software!
| |
| | |
06-02-2003, 06:42 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,151
|
You can get a 60 gig internal drive for less than HALF of an external.
| |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |
Recent Discussions | | | | | |
