Velociraptor not faster than IDE Drive in my G4

You are discounting the time required to traverse the connection (not to mention the IDE to Sata translation inherent in a bridged connection) Time to attribute your opinions with a fact or 2.

But why, do I see folders opening faster using the SATA-PCI-Card and a SATA drive, which is not a SSD? My assumption: the SATA-to-IDE adaptor on the ATA-66 BUS, must have problems handing the information though.

The ATA/66 bus is slower than the PCI bus.

Folder action is also limited by the memory bus.

SSD "tactile" performance is indiscernable from a rotational SATA drive (either on PCI).

This is from actual experience with the setup in G4 Sawtooth, G4 Gigabit Ethernet and G4 Quicksilver machines.

Benchmarking software test resuts are as I documented. Though faster, SSD performance isn't "visibly" faster than rotational SATA via PCI.

As someone who does use a SSD in a G4, when someone suggests using a SSD in a G4, I say don't waste the effort or the money if performance beyond a standard SATA drive is expected....

You won't see it.

Csound1 wrote:

You are discounting the time required to traverse the connection (not to mention the IDE to Sata translation inherent in a bridged connection)

That is an incorrect accumption. Such time would also be equal with the Velociraptor.

Meaning, in addition to the 4ms seek time, you will have a 6ms seek time as compared to a 2.1ms seek time with an SSD.

In your example, an SSD will still find and open folders 3 times faster than the Velociraptor.

Thanks japamac, I know that, I was quoting Electricidad who does not believe that it is so.

japamac wrote:

say don't waste the effort or the money if performance beyond standard SATA drives is expected....

Thank you for your opinion, but your opinion is false. As a user of multiple PowerPC macs with SSDs (G3 233 beige tower, G4 AGP, Mini 1.4GHz, G5 2.3 dual core and G5 Quad) I know for a fact there is a tactile and measurable difference in OS responsiveness.

Combined with the fact SSDs are available for under $75 and will be usable in any future Mac you purchase (PPC or otherwise), there is no reason NOT to buy one if you want your computer to be as responsive as possible.

The difference is even more significant when installed in Macs with 2.5" drives like laptops and Minis.

Thank you for your opinion, Csound1, even though it was inaccurate and clearly intended to be inflammatory.

A Velociraptor has a seek time of 4ms while any SSD has a seek time of less than 0.1ms.

That means the OS and drive will be able to locate and open folders 40 times faster

Again, measurable in practice, invisible to the senses.

One cannot see the 3.6ms difference, especially when it is choked down by other components in the chain.

japamac wrote:

Again, measurable in practice, invisible to the senses.

Thank you for your subjective opinion, but you are clearly wrong in this case. It has been proven by hundreds of thousands of SSD sales and hundreds of objective tests that SSD drives both outperform and respond faster than HDD drives with the only downside being $/GB.

japamac wrote:

One cannot see the 3.6ms difference, especially when it is choked down by other components in the chain.

Also incorrect. It is clearly visible when opening folders, especially if "calculate all sizes" and/or "show icon preview" is enabled.

A single instance of 2.1ms is hardly noticeable, but combined with the fact that OSX has over 128,000 files/folders under 64kb adds up.

When measuring combinations of loads, such as opening a folder which is not empty, every one of those instances add up.

Say you've got a folder with 20 items. Thats 1 folder, 20 items, 20 size calculations and 20 icons. That all adds up to 128.1ms for the folder to finish loading on an SSD ccompared to 366ms for the Velociraptor. That is VERY noticeable by the human eye and senses.

I would not have installed an SSD boot/app drive in every single one of my Macs if there was no benefit as you claim.

Your opinions suggest that you're simply afraid of new technology and unwilling to embrace advancements made over your established hardware. Perhaps the fear of being obsolete or supplanted?

Your mother already called "bedtime", young man.

JapaMac already runs an SSD an SSD in a G4, so clearly knows more from experience than what you guess at using statistics from the box in BestBuy.

I would not have installed an SSD boot/app drive in every single one of my Macs...

Curious which Macs these might be???

Oh & how much RAM these have, since dippiong into VM would make a much bigger difference I think.

BDAqua wrote:

Curious which Macs these might be???

BDAqua, your inflammatory posts are an obvious attempt to goad me into a neagative response. Your attempts will not work.

To answer your "question", please read my third post on this page (In case you need more detailed directions, it is post number 6 of page number 3 of this thread).

BDAqua, your inflammatory posts are an obvious attempt to goad me into a neagative response

Uhh,no such intent here, was a true qusetion, likely it may have been answered where ever that is, but visually impaired here. 😟

inflammatory???

Simple questions are inflammatory???

steve359 wrote:

Your mother already called "bedtime", young man.

Please read the TOS again: https://discussions.apple.com/static/apple/tutorial/tou.html

2. Be polite. Everyone should feel comfortable reading Submissions and participating in discussions. Apple will not tolerate flames or other inappropriate statements, material, or links. Most often, a "flame" is simply a statement that is taunting and thus arbitrarily inflammatory. However, this also includes those which are libelous, defamatory, indecent, harmful, harassing, intimidating, threatening, hateful, objectionable, discriminatory, abusive, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, or offensive in a sexual, racial, cultural, or ethnic context.