I need to replace a 2.5" notebook drive. I can just purchase another
2.5" drive, or there's the possibility of getting a 1.8" drive and a
2.5" - to - 1.8" drive adapter. What II'm curious to know is if anyone
knows to what degree the 1.8" drives are quieter than the 2.5" drives.
They all seem to run at 4200 rpms, so I would think the smaller moter
and platter would make for a quieter drive. The problem is this is
just an assumption. I've looked for dB ratings for the smaller drives
but haven't found any as of yet.

If anyone has any dB info or any personal experience with these two
different size drives, I'd appreciate your sharing this knowledge.

Thank you.

William

hi william. bear in mind that a 4200 drive will give even more
miserable performance than a 5400 drive. although it should be
marginally quieter. a 10k raptor drive in comparison is a bit of a
tiger.
i've just swapped out my mechanical drive and replaced it with an 8Gb
compact flash card + IDE adaptor. the laptop is now totally silent
except for the quiet fan, and the performance benefit is amazing,
vista boots in about 15 seconds and programs load and close
instantly. vLite enabled a 2Gb vista installation and i don't need a
whole of software on the laptop anyway (office, visual studio, sql
server etc) so it has turned out great. thought you may be interested
if you want to reduce noise. getting rid of the hard drive should
also extend battery life, but i accept that not everyone will be happy
with such limited storage space. you could get a cheap 8 or 16 Gb USB
drive to help. a guide to the steps i took is online at
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=219225

tim

On Apr 6, 11:59 am, wj7...@netscape.net wrote:

Tim,

Thanks for your post. A Flash drive is a great idea, but I need more
space as the 2.5 laptop drive has been used in a desktop unit for its
relative quietness compared to a regular 3.5" drive. So I guess I'll
stay with another 2.5" drive.

Thanks again.

William

On Apr 8, 5:49 pm, Tim_Mac <timm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tim_Mac wrote:

<edited for brevity>

<edited>

Hello, Tim:

I followed the link you've provided, above...still, I'd be concerned about
flash memory's relatively limited number of rewrite cycles (approximately
100,000, typically), if I were you.

Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:10:58 -0500 John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote
in Message id: <47FF4742.D30883@concentric.net>:

Some industrial flash is good for 2 million writes. Combine that with wear
leveling this is not as bad as you might think. We've shipped over a
thousand XP embedded systems on CF in the last few years, and I've yet to
see a drive wear out.

JW wrote:

Hello, JW:

Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but, didn't know about that "2
million writes" stuff.

Thanks, for the info!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

"John Turco" <jtur@concentric.net> wrote in message news:4801CA94.553D1020@concentric.net...
why do continue to post your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?

Eric Gisin wrote:

Hello, Eric:

No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g> Besides, if the Windows "page file" is
enabled, even 2,000,000 write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly -- wear
leveling, or not.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

"John Turco" <jtur@concentric.net> wrote in message news:48080A66.F79460DA@concentric.net...

Eric Gisin <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

What matters is the write I/O. Your claim is just plain wrong with many Win systems.

You still get page file write I/O even with the maximum ram the system can handle.

Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:

No flash can do 2'000'000 writes per cell. That is after wear
leveling and/or ECC. SLC flash does around 100'000 writes reliably
per cell. MLC is still stuck in the 10'000 range. However wear leveling
and ECC are facts and will extend device life significantly.
Some flash drives can even do defect remapping, AFAIK, which will
extend device life even more.

There are also things you can do to reduce wear. One thing is
realizing that pageing actually can be done on ramdisk to a degree.
Surprising, but true. Pageing is not only about having more memory,
but also about being able to use precious direcly mapped memopry in
multiple instances. Some OSes do not need to do that. Linux, for
example, runns pretty well without swap-space. XP is braind-damaged
that way and needs some minimal amount, which can be provided
on ramdisk.

Side note: The german computer magazine c't occasinally tries
to break FLASH devices by overwriting. So far they have not
succeeded with current memory sticks and SSDs.

Arno

On 18 Apr 2008 04:29:00 GMT Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in Message
id: <66qmccF2jc12hU1@mid.individual.net>:


http://ec.transcendusa.com/product/I...ID=TS8GCF45I-D
"Endurance: 2,000,000 Program/Erase cycles"

Previously JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

I stated "per cell". They state nothing, so likely "per device"
as manufacturers tend to pick the biggest number.

Maybe also the "Built-in dynamic defect management and error
correction ECC technology" is a hint?

Arno

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:66qkbpF2lenmkU1@mid.individual.net...
Trivial to measure, you stupid pile of dingo dung.
Grab an old HD, put pagefile on it, and compare disk's IO on with perfmon.

On 18 Apr 2008 12:09:39 GMT Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in Message
id: <66rhc3F2lh7s3U1@mid.individual.net>:

I dunno, I'm figuring that they mean the entire device. But I could be
wrong.

"JW" <none@dev.null> wrote in message news:1gbh04ddmiifecps7j04c9t8ut30q1k7pr@4ax.com...
Which implies you could kill the drive in a few hours of writing.

Millions of people use flash drive for TEMP, browser cache, pagefile, ready-boost.
You would expect many reports of them failing if writing too much was a problem.
It would take about a month for my IE cache to reach 1GB, or 2M blocks.
The directory entries and index.dat are frequently rewritten.

Previously JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
Well, same here. Basically it is unclear what the number means.

Arno

fact is... flash memory has been used successfully for a long time
before it's current mainstream introduction. but it is new to a lot
of people who don't trust it, which is also understandable. if you
are a skeptic, then wait another 5 years until you're comfortable with
it. in the meantime, let the early adopters prove you right or wrong,
either way they're doing you a favour

Eric Gisin <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote
Nope, not with the vast raft of systems in use out there.

Says sweet fuck all about how many use the amount of physical ram used in that test.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate
that claim with the average system in use out there.

Irrelevant to whether its writes that may well be relevant to the life of flash memory.

John Turco wrote in news:48080A66.F79460DA@concentric.net
You call JW a liar, Turco?

Well, there's the stupidity in that statement.
It's either 2,000,000 write cycles *with* or *without* wear leveling. If
without then obviously that's of no concern _unless_ the whole drive is used
for pagefile and all the 8GB is *actually used*, begin to end, cancelling out
wear leveling. That's a hell of a lot of paging.