CF v HDD

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:13:49 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

Under normal situations (where hardware handles talking to the CF device)
it should boot faster, as the sustained read rate is better and the seek
time is much lower [no physical movement]).

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:13:49 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

Under normal situations (where hardware handles talking to the CF device)
it should boot faster, as the sustained read rate is better and the
seek time is much lower [no physical movement]).

If you want to do the practical experiment most PCs can be persuaded to
boot directly from CF media. Dedicated SSD is faster still and becoming
increasingly affordable. They are silent in operation. Very useful if
you have huge multi-GB files requiring random readonly access.

Another quick and dirty test would be to put in a fast USB thumbnail
drive and let Vista put the fast boot image on it.

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

I have put a 133x CF into a logic analyzer and it works fine. I notice
no speed degradation. At least the ratling noise is gone.

On 08/03/2010 10:21, Martin Brown wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:13:49 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

Under normal situations (where hardware handles talking to the CF device)
it should boot faster, as the sustained read rate is better and the
seek time is much lower [no physical movement]).

If you want to do the practical experiment most PCs can be persuaded to
boot directly from CF media. Dedicated SSD is faster still and becoming
increasingly affordable. They are silent in operation. Very useful if
you have huge multi-GB files requiring random readonly access.

Another quick and dirty test would be to put in a fast USB thumbnail
drive and let Vista put the fast boot image on it.

No way am I getting near Vista!
Anyhow, I only need to boot about 3GB
Either embedded XP or Linux

I'll try the USB flash expt though, since I've downloaded the netbook
version of Ubuntu which is designed to run from flash.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

I have put a 133x CF into a logic analyzer and it works fine. I notice
no speed degradation. At least the ratling noise is gone.

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) writes:

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

Not if it's connected via an IDE adapter, then it just looks like an
old fashioned IDE drive with no removability. CF provides that mode,
so the adapter is just mechanics.

On Mar 8, 8:15 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 08/03/2010 10:21, Martin Brown wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:13:49 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

Under normal situations (where hardware handles talking to the CF device)
it should boot faster, as the sustained read rate is better and the
seek time is much lower [no physical movement]).

If you want to do the practical experiment most PCs can be persuaded to
boot directly from CF media. Dedicated SSD is faster still and becoming
increasingly affordable. They are silent in operation. Very useful if
you have huge multi-GB files requiring random readonly access.

Another quick and dirty test would be to put in a fast USB thumbnail
drive and let Vista put the fast boot image on it.

No way am I getting near Vista!
Anyhow, I only need to boot about 3GB
Either embedded XP or Linux

I'll try the USB flash expt though, since I've downloaded the netbook
version of Ubuntu which is designed to run from flash.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show

Can you do a core dump of this project when you finish? I have a G-job
where I need something similar.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:01:07 GMT nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote in
Message id:<4b95734d.181586125_at_news.planet.nl>:

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Any idea of the practical time differences between a CF x200 versus a
5400rpm 2.5" drive when it comes to booting a PC?

I have put a 133x CF into a logic analyzer and it works fine. I notice
no speed degradation. At least the ratling noise is gone.

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

That's why they make fixed-disk compact flash.

Anssi Saari <as_at_sci.fi> wrote:

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) writes:

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

Not if it's connected via an IDE adapter, then it just looks like an
old fashioned IDE drive with no removability. CF provides that mode,
so the adapter is just mechanics.

I did that and Windows still sees it as a removable disk. It has to do
with some bits in the identification.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:01:04 GMT, nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Anssi Saari <as_at_sci.fi> wrote:

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) writes:

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

Not if it's connected via an IDE adapter, then it just looks like an
old fashioned IDE drive with no removability. CF provides that mode,
so the adapter is just mechanics.

I did that and Windows still sees it as a removable disk. It has to do
with some bits in the identification.

This is where I started when CF-ifying XPe for a piece of gear.
http://versalogic.com/kb/KB.asp?KBID=1403&QueryString=Searchtxt%3Dcompact%2Bflash%26SearchBy%3DKeyword%26SearchType%3DAll%26KBCatID%3D0%26submit1%3D%2B%2B%2B%2BSearch%2B%2B%2B%2B

Why do "webmasters" insist on links like that? If it's broken, hop over
to http://versalogic.com/index.asp and search their knowledge base for
"compact flash".

We used one of their PC/104+ processor boards; I'd guess that other
PC/104 vendors would have similar info. Long story short: almost all CF
modules are used in consumer video gear and the like as recording media,
where the ability to boot isn't needed and adds cost. So, away it goes.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:01:04 GMT, nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Anssi Saari <as_at_sci.fi> wrote:

nico_at_puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) writes:

Just one note though: Windows probably sees the CF as a removable
device. Not all software allows itself to be installed on a removable
device (thats yet another stupid microsoft-ism).

Not if it's connected via an IDE adapter, then it just looks like an
old fashioned IDE drive with no removability. CF provides that mode,
so the adapter is just mechanics.

I did that and Windows still sees it as a removable disk. It has to do
with some bits in the identification.

This is where I started when CF-ifying XPe for a piece of gear.
http://versalogic.com/kb/KB.asp?KBID=1403&QueryString=Searchtxt%3Dcompact%2Bflash%26SearchBy%3DKeyword%26SearchType%3DAll%26KBCatID%3D0%26submit1%3D%2B%2B%2B%2BSearch%2B%2B%2B%2B

Why do "webmasters" insist on links like that? If it's broken, hop over
to http://versalogic.com/index.asp and search their knowledge base for
"compact flash".

We used one of their PC/104+ processor boards; I'd guess that other
PC/104 vendors would have similar info. Long story short: almost all CF
modules are used in consumer video gear and the like as recording media,
where the ability to boot isn't needed and adds cost. So, away it goes.