7200 RPM Drive Laptop

Looking to do some video and audio editing. What 15" 7200rpm drive laptop
would people here recommend?

Zzyzx wrote:
> Looking to do some video and audio editing. What 15" 7200rpm drive laptop
> would people here recommend?
>
>
Hi,
Have an external drive dedicated for that.
My son has 100GB firewire ext. drive and he does video NLE, music
recirding, etc. Works well. Our main desktop is toaster made for
that with SCSI Raid. His laptop is Toshiba PIII 850MHz with 256MB.
Tony

"Zzyzx" <> wrote in message news:vHalc.52217$Jy3.16365@fed1read03...
>
> Looking to do some video and audio editing.
> What 15" 7200rpm drive laptop would people
> here recommend?


Toshiba MK-5024GAY. 7200rpm, 16MB cache. And
it is a lot quieter than the IBM/Hitachi 7K60.



dk

"Dan Koren" <> wrote in message news:<409559a6$>...
> "Zzyzx" <> wrote in message news:vHalc.52217$Jy3.16365@fed1read03...
> >
> > Looking to do some video and audio editing.
> > What 15" 7200rpm drive laptop would people
> > here recommend?
>
>
> Toshiba MK-5024GAY. 7200rpm, 16MB cache. And
> it is a lot quieter than the IBM/Hitachi 7K60.
>
>
>
> dk

Do you have data to document that the Toshiba MK-5024GAY, 7200rpm 16MB
cache is alot quieter than the IBM/Hitachi 7K60?

LG
>

( before e-mailing, remove "NOSPAM" from address )

>> Toshiba MK-5024GAY. 7200rpm, 16MB cache. And

I recall reading threads in video/audio-related newsgroups where it
was posted that AV work won't necessarily benefit from a larger HD
cache. If I remember, it was pointed that the SYSTEM disk would help
with a larger cache, but not an AV-dedicated secondary disk.

If this reasoning really applies then the best would be to have the
Toshiba as main HD with the Hitachi as second.
But I also recall reading that access times are differen't.

If you're not worried about portability, I'd say go with an external
enclosure and a FireWire PC card, and get a much larger HD for the
same price you'd pay for a 7k laptop HD.

<> wrote in message
news:...
> ( before e-mailing, remove "NOSPAM" from address )
>
> >> Toshiba MK-5024GAY. 7200rpm, 16MB cache. And
>
> I recall reading threads in video/audio-related newsgroups where it
> was posted that AV work won't necessarily benefit from a larger HD
> cache. If I remember, it was pointed that the SYSTEM disk would help
> with a larger cache, but not an AV-dedicated secondary disk.
>
> If this reasoning really applies then the best would be to have the
> Toshiba as main HD with the Hitachi as second.
> But I also recall reading that access times are differen't.
>


I hope you don't mind, but this is
complete non-sense.

In any case, 1 test is worth 1000
opinions. Take the workload that
is of interest to you and measure
it.



dk

( before e-mailing, remove "NOSPAM" from address )


He inquired about AUDIO and VIDEO work, but wasn't specific as to how
demanding is the kind of AV work he plans to do (multi-track ?
stereo?).

The argument that I offered was gathered from specialized newsgroups
and is certainly directed to at least moderately demanding work.
I don't have time now to research again the video threads that I've
gone through, but here's a quick audio one from rec.audio.pro :

"The drive cache has *very little* influence on long term continuous
data throughput, as when recording audio.
It will only help at all if the disk is fragmented."
At: http://tinyurl.com/yrrge

Hope it helps, even though it's just an eye-opener not a conclusive
statement.


"Dan Koren" <> wrote:

>I hope you don't mind, but this is complete non-sense.
>In any case, 1 test is worth 1000 opinions. Take the workload that
>is of interest to you and measure it.

Can I assume Mr. koren does not have the answer to my question:
"Do you have data to document that the Toshiba MK-5024GAY, 7200rpm 16MB
cache is alot quieter than the IBM/Hitachi 7K60?"
Thanks.
LG

Dr Lou wrote:

> Can I assume Mr. koren does not have the answer to my question:
> "Do you have data to document that the Toshiba MK-5024GAY, 7200rpm 16MB
> cache is alot quieter than the IBM/Hitachi 7K60?"
> Thanks.
> LG
I don't have first hand knowledge about this but a friend of mine has
the IBM drive on his machine and is very happy with it but he admits he
did not notice a significant output difference compared to the slower
disk he had before. The point remains that it seems reasonable to expect
a faster disk to be somewhat warmer and noiser than a slower one. For
disk intensive activities and large files, it is clear a cache will not
be as effective as speed, the reverse being true to some extent for
small files and less intensive activities.

All in all, I would go for the IBM/Hitachi drive but this would just be
just a matter of personal preference.

Guess you will now have to go by the seat of your pants...
--
John Doue

It will be used to do live recordings and video editing.


<> wrote in message
news:...
> ( before e-mailing, remove "NOSPAM" from address )
>
>
> He inquired about AUDIO and VIDEO work, but wasn't specific as to how
> demanding is the kind of AV work he plans to do (multi-track ?
> stereo?).
>
> The argument that I offered was gathered from specialized newsgroups
> and is certainly directed to at least moderately demanding work.
> I don't have time now to research again the video threads that I've
> gone through, but here's a quick audio one from rec.audio.pro :
>
> "The drive cache has *very little* influence on long term continuous
> data throughput, as when recording audio.
> It will only help at all if the disk is fragmented."
> At: http://tinyurl.com/yrrge
>
> Hope it helps, even though it's just an eye-opener not a conclusive
> statement.
>
>
> "Dan Koren" <> wrote:
>
> >I hope you don't mind, but this is complete non-sense.
> >In any case, 1 test is worth 1000 opinions. Take the workload that
> >is of interest to you and measure it.
>
>
>