mangohead said:
Which links would these be?
thanks!
Ah, actually, I didn't originally post them, I just quoted them. Here they are again:
Wender said:
I REALLY need the space, and after reading this, getting the 200GB was a no-brainer:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=318
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=322
The basic idea is that if you partition a large drive, and put all your system files and heavily used apps in one partition, more rarely used large media files, e.g., in the other, then most of your accesses will be within one partition, which will reduce seek times. For some of the numbers they ran, they found better performance for a bigger, slower drive than a smaller, faster drive.
Of course, the natural question is, why not just do that with the smaller drive as well? But depending on the specifics, you could partition the big drive to equal a fast, smaller drive, whatever you did with that drive, plus an extra partition. That would be a definite win. Neither of those articles runs the actual numbers for the 160 vs. 200 comparison; somebody ought to do that. Maybe if I have time later tonight.
Also there was another comment questioning the assumption that average seek time would be cut in half of you were only using, say, the outer half of the disk. I have no idea how valid an assumption that is.