6
I recently heard that, all else being equal, larger hard are faster than smaller. It has to do with more bits passing under the read head as the drive spins - since a large drive packs the bits more tightly, the same amount of spin/time presents more data to the read head.
I had not heard this before, and was previously inclined to believe the the read heads expected bits at a specific rate and would instead stagger data, so that the two drives would be the same speed.
I now find myself looking at purchasing one of two computer models for the school where I work. One model has an 80GB drive, the other a 400GB (for ~$13 more). The size of the drive is immaterial, since users will keep their files on a file server where they can be backed up. But if the 400GB drive will really deliver a performance boost to the hard drive, the extra money is probably worth it.
Thoughts?
Since the space is inconsequential, I'd be concerned about the number of platters in each drive. Drives with more platters generally fail faster due to a few factors like increased heat and stress on the spindle. – PaulWaldman – 2010-04-29T15:26:46.560