Dadtom65 Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Hi all, Will be getting Win 7 Pro next month like all of you, the full edition that is, and seeing as it says it has to be a clean install, was thinking to save a lot of trouble, I will buy a new hard disc. But which one. At the moment my operating system win XP PRO sits on drive c:, internal, with FSX on a seagate freeagent 500 gb external drive G: and some shooters on an old maxtor external drive F:. Would FSX benefit being on the same drive as the operating system. I know some people like the seagate, ughhhh ;can not think of the name, the 10,000 rpm one. Which costs here about £160.00. I could get a samsung spinpoint 500gb here for about £45.00. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers Derek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Not an expert on HD's, but I would recommend having FSX on an internal rather than an external drive. The latter is much slower than a SATA internal drive, although I have a lot of addon scenery on external drives without problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice_King Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 You should never run any application from an external source like SATA or other external drives, Network services excepted. Based on what I've read and seen recently I'd run my OS on a dedicated 50Gb HDD on SATA and Your FPS and FSX from a SSD if you so desired , there is a lot of talk about Velociraptor Drives but in all honesty if your hardware is matched the drive performance shouldn't be an issue. FreeAgent is a pain but any good External SATA enclosure will be of use although I prefer an internal Caddy to change drives in when needed. So in the end run a 100 and 500 SATA with your OS and programming on it and a 1 Tb for system back up and Download storage etc. I'm partial to Seagate simply because I have never ever had one fail, 3 other manufacturers I have. Oh Never get identical drives from the same shop on the same day because they may well be from the same production run, and if in the event one fails during a burn in test the other may also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_A Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 You should never run any application from an external source like SATA or other external drives, Network services excepted. Why? I've been running FSX on a 750G eSATA on my laptop for over two years, and never had a single problem (okay, there was the one time I took it somewhere and left the cable at home, but that was definitely User Stupidity Error! ). My FS install runs to 180GB and simply wouldn't fit on the internal drive. With Vista and W7, I'm convinced it's pretty much essential to offload as much from the OS drive as possible. But I'd love to know why you think it's a bad idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 You should never run any application from an external source like SATA or other external drives, Network services excepted. Why? I've been running FSX on a 750G eSATA on my laptop for over two years, and never had a single problem (okay, there was the one time I took it somewhere and left the cable at home, but that was definitely User Stupidity Error! ). My FS install runs to 180GB and simply wouldn't fit on the internal drive. With Vista and W7, I'm convinced it's pretty much essential to offload as much from the OS drive as possible. But I'd love to know why you think it's a bad idea... In my reply I meant don't run apps from an external USB2 drive; data transfer is too slow. Don't have a laptop, so not familiar with eSATA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgruschow Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I noticed a vast improvement in visuals when I switched from a 750 to a velocitiraptor. It was definately worth the price. But now I have fsx on a SSD disk and I have noticed no, or very little, difference in performance. Benchmark tests tell me I have a vast improvement in read/ write times but these do not show up on my "eyeball" test. In my experience there is no noticeable difference in having fsx on a separate drive. Certainly it helps with maintenance, but ,to me, there is no performance difference. I have got the best performance boost from my cpu. I now have a 975 o/ced to 3.8.This works fine with default cooling and has overcome the problem of scenery materialising as you approach. I now have no page file, but this seems to make no difference The windows 7 64 bit performance report tells me that my "poorest" performing item is my graphics card. I have a 285 with 2 gigs ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.