1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Better choice - (1x) 160GB or (2X) 80GB

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Dennis L, 2004/03/06.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2004/03/06
    Dennis L Lifetime Subscription

    Dennis L Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/06/07
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Buy has Western Digital Caviar Special Edition 80.0GB Internal Hard Drive - Model: WD800JBRTL for $49.99 after $30 + $20 rebates.
    OR
    Western Digital Caviar Ultra ATA/100 160.0GB Internal Hard Drive -
    Model: WD1600JBRT     for $99.99 after $50 + $30 rebates.
    So with total GB "$" being the same, 1 big one or two smaller ones? Above would be used for backup only.
    If 2x - 80's, one would be FAT32 primarly for "image copies ", the other NTFC for "incremental backup" for post image... and both for my everygrowing media library. If choose the 160GB, would partition the drive... which I've never done and don't have the software (?). The only negitive I can see with the 2x 80's would be possible PS needs. Then we have math odds...
    Split info over 2 drives reduces data lost by half, but have twice the risk of hardware failure... hmmm, left my Einstein hat at the local pub... always smarter after a few.
     
    Last edited: 2004/03/06
    Dennis L,
    #1
  2. 2004/03/06
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    IMO - 2 x 80 Gb - my system.
    Chances of 2 Hd's going down is unlikely - unless they are from the same batch.

    Something like 'Don't put all your eggs in one basket' :D
     
    PeteC,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2004/03/06
    Dennis L Lifetime Subscription

    Dennis L Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/06/07
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's my line of thought also. Maybe both 80's using FAT32 with redundant image and incremental on both... still leaves a boatload of room for media.
     
    Dennis L,
    #3
  5. 2004/03/06
    kiddk

    kiddk Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/05/29
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have 2 X 160GB running mirror raid, no worries here.
     
    kiddk,
    #4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...