Talk:Western Digital Raptor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They just updated this hard drive to have a 16mb cache as well as some other minor improvements. This has not been noted on this page
Contents |
[edit] Kuo
He sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.39.15 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WD1500ADFD revisions
As far as I know, there are two revisions of the 1500ADFD:
- WD1500ADFD-00NLR0
- WD1500ADFD-00NLR1
I personally own the 00NLR1, but I don't know what are the differences, and should those be included in the article? Is it new firmware with the NLR1, or something? You can see your version on the XP by going to the Device Manager -> Disk drives. ---Majestic- 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relationship to SCSI
It has a speed of 10,000rpm, TCQ. Those are both things usually found on SCSI drives. Serial attached SCSI is very compatible with SATA, since they're both serial; in fact SAS drives can have the same connector as SATA drives. This makes me wonder... are there any other similarities to SCSI or SAS (e.g SCSI commands)? Is it only called a SATA because it works on motherboards with SATA controllers instead of SAS/SCSI ones? Should this drive be considered a slightly original SAS drive or a very unorthodox SATA drive? --KX36 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tidied up page, 80GB & 160GB Dell edition added
I've tidied up the model information, added a table showing all of the available models past & present (including the 80GB & 160GB Raptor made exclusively by Western Digital for Dell, for use in their OEM systems). See this page for more info. --Durzel 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 80GB Dell edition
The two which I have lack the molex connector. Should this be included somewhere? --159.28.160.241 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Raptor74_l.jpg
Image:Raptor74 l.jpg {{Replacethisimage}} -- nae'blis 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The revised 74gb has bad NCQ? Where's the citation?
The section about the revised edition of the 74gb Raptor says that it has a bad implementation of NCQ, and it has little performance advantage except for the larger buffer. Where did that information come from? I searched all over the net and found nothing. I think the citation of this source of information should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rigurat (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
This would probably not be considered authoritative, but it might be a starting point: http://inferno.slug.org/cgi-bin/wiki?Western_Digital_NCQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WD800ADFD
Does anybody know of the WD800ADFD model has the dodgy NCQ of the WD740ADFD, or the improved version that the page says that the WD1500ADFD has? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason404 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
