Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I would also favor the 120 w/8Mg cache, but another consideration is cost, and a third would be how much disk space you expect you will need over the next year or two. In other words, if you currently are only using, let's say, 30G of space, then even if you tripled that, you'd still have either 30G free (on the 120) or 70G free (on the 160). Personally I don't see that there is that much advantage to having giant disk drives if you simply will never use anywhere close to the max capacity. Just my 2 cents -- J.W.
I'd go with the 160gig drive with 2mb cache. I've never noticed any performance difference with cache size with a modern OS. For listening to music, there is really no difference whatsoever!
With the GIMP, the primary consideration for improving performance is to ensure that the hard drive is used as little as possible. This means RAM, RAM, and more RAM. Hard drive cache size has virtually no effect whatsoever. If the GIMP is going to be hitting the hard drive, it's going to be hitting it for a LOT more than 8megabytes at a time.
Actually the price of the two drives are the same, that's why I'm at a loss as to which one to buy...
But guess what, when roaming around for about half an hour around computer shops, I found a 160Gb Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 with 8Mb cache at a price that was about US$4 more than a 160Gb Seagate Barracuda with 2Mb cache. I went for it right away.
The large cache (8 megabytes) tends to be better for database environments or loading up a program by accessing several files. You will not see an improvement when using a hard drive with 8 megabytes of cache for audio listening or editing files. I suggest getting the 160 GB hard drive because images can be large depending what DPI you scan the images at.
BTW, do not buy Maxtor and Seagate drives because they use more processor usage than IBM/Hitachi and Western Digital.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.