Poll: Please read my post before you vote. Which is best for my needs?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Asus, Windows XP, 1 Gig. $280
14.29%
1 14.29%
Asus, Windows XP, 2 Gigs. $410
28.57%
2 28.57%
Hp, Windows 7, 2 Gigs. Unknown cost.
0%
0 0%
Some other option? Please be specific in your post.
57.14%
4 57.14%
Total 7 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On A Netbook: Asus, 1 Gig, XP vs. Hp, 2 Gigs, W7.
#19
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:An SSD would increase the overall efficiency, because loading and writing requires less time. Besides, no moving parts, so it would be more resistant than a normal HDD. Only negative thing about such a HDD is that its disk space is low, so you should check that first.

And the price is like 5 - 7 times as much for about a fourth of the space. Call me when they're more cost effective, because I could break and replace 5 - 7 WD Caviar 1TB drives before I match the cost of like a 256GB SSD. Those 5 - 7 standard drives will last you longer than that single SSD, in both lifespan and effectiveness. Our typical file space usage is expanding, so the only SSDs the average consumer can afford isn't enough practical space anyway. They're only good for installing as a system boot drive or game boot drive, hardly even the former.

Not to mention a couple or more 1TB WD Caviars at 7200 RPM (or more, different drives) in RAID0 is pretty damn fast as it is.

EDIT: Offtopic, sorry. :<
Reply


Messages In This Thread
On A Netbook: Asus, 1 Gig, XP vs. Hp, 2 Gigs, W7. - by xLeviathan - 2010-05-30, 11:15 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)