This discussion is archived
3111 Views 11 Replies Latest reply: Dec 10, 2009 9:11 AM by The hatter
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 6:25 AM (in response to eurobum)Also, will it take a 2 TB hard drive with no hassle?
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Currently running 10.5.8, would a 10.6 upgrade be necessary?Macbook 2.2GHz DCI, 2 GB ram; Mac Pro 2x2.6GHz DCI, 3 GB ram, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 6:32 AM (in response to eurobum)Hi-
You don't need to buy at the Apple Store.
Regular sources for drives are fine.
Of the 3 that you listed, Hitachi would be a good choice.
Avoid the "Green" type drives for regular use- they are slower than normal drives, and most complain about performance.
Personally, I would go for a Western Digital Black series drive:
2TB should be no hassle, and no upgrade is necessary.G4AGP(450)Sawtooth, 2GHz 7447A, 2GB, Raptor/SE16/Firmtek, 9800 Pro/ATI Silencer, Mac OS X (10.5.6), DVR-116, 23"ACD, Ratoc USB2.0, QCam Ultra, 520W PSU, iPhone 3Gs, iPod Classic
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 6:41 AM (in response to japamac)Thank you! Wow, these are a quarter of the Apple Store price. I may just go with 2 x 2TB, would that be a problem?
Also, why would you prefer the WD over a Hitachi one?
These are the ones I have to chose from. Aside from the "green" ones, which ones should I avoid?
Thanks for the info!Macbook 2.2GHz DCI, 2 GB ram; Mac Pro 2x2.6GHz DCI, 3 GB ram, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 7:00 AM (in response to eurobum)Hi-
Any drive that is "green" or has a spindle speed of less than 7200 rpm is not meant for ordinary or performance use.
These are archival or data base type drives.
The Hitachi 7K drives are very good, but they have not seen updates to the technology like the Western Digital drives have.
The WD Black drives are solid, quiet and cool, with some of the best performance characteristics of drives in that class.
Also, the 2TB WD Black has a 64MB cache, which is very large and helps the system keep performance up using repetitively called files.
The RE-4 is also a solid drive, with features that target the server market.
These benchmarks help explain some of the issues, and performance that I have discussed:
There is a new Seagate on your list that is of the new SATA III standard.
problem there is, it is a new, untested (by thousands of users) drive.
Recent history with Seagate shows problems with their drives in the early stages.
I would wait until that technology matures.
Just to demonstrate, here are the concluding comments from benchmarks testing the new Seagate, as compared to the WD Black:
Two (or more) 2TB drives isn't a problem.
Message was edited by: japamacG4AGP(450)Sawtooth, 2GHz 7447A, 2GB, Raptor/SE16/Firmtek, 9800 Pro/ATI Silencer, Mac OS X (10.5.6), DVR-116, 23"ACD, Ratoc USB2.0, QCam Ultra, 520W PSU, iPhone 3Gs, iPod Classic
Currently Being ModeratedDec 7, 2009 10:38 AM (in response to eurobum)Two letters that make me just SHIVER,...."WD"!!!!
Do yourself a HUGE favor,....pass on WD. I got three of them, ( I know,..dumb), 2 externals (first one broke, lost all data, second one mounts every christmas or so) and one internal (computer will not restart, only if I remove it).
Never ever again will I buy WD!!Mac Pro Dual 2.66 Ghz, 10 GB Ram, Logic Studio, WD 500GB/16 Mb Int. HD SATA, Mac OS X (10.5.8), Kontakt 2, GPO , PreSonus Firebox, Unitor 8 Midi Patch
Currently Being ModeratedDec 7, 2009 12:54 PM (in response to Wolfi228)Well, don't use WD externals, but don't judge how their internals do from that.
And how drives are handled and shipped has a lot to do, as well as consumer, professional, enterprise.
So tell that to my 2 dozen plus WD drives that I can't kill; Caviar, Green, Black and VelociRaptors (and some older Raptors).Mac Pro 8800GT 10K VelociRaptor, Mac OS X (10.6.1), Windows 7 i7 3.2GHz GTX 260-216
Currently Being ModeratedDec 10, 2009 8:56 AM (in response to The hatter)So just got them and installed them in a jiff. Niiiiice .. a little on the noisy side, but oh well, they WERE the cheapest. BUT with Mac OS Extended (journaled) format, 1.82 TB out of 2 TB. Really? Percentage wise I guess it's not that bad, but still, that's 180 GB!Macbook 2.2GHz DCI, 2 GB ram; Mac Pro 2x2.6GHz DCI, 3 GB ram, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 10, 2009 8:58 AM (in response to eurobum)Does formatting to FAT32 get you more space out of those 2 TB? But FAT32 cannot carry files above 4 GB, correct? I need that. Any other way to tap into those unused 180 GB?Macbook 2.2GHz DCI, 2 GB ram; Mac Pro 2x2.6GHz DCI, 3 GB ram, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 10, 2009 9:11 AM (in response to eurobum)It isn't something to worry about.
Is 1GB = 1000MB or is it 1024MB?
You have NEVER seen a drive, going back, 500GB was = 465GB; 320GB = 299GB; and 1TB is/was 933GB (until or unless you go with 'new math' maybe).Mac Pro 8800GT 10K VelociRaptor, Mac OS X (10.6.1), Windows 7 i7 3.2GHz GTX 260-216