I’m thinking about a buying laptop (that happens to convert to tablet, but that’s likely not pertinent) and the standard model comes with a 80GB 7200rpm hard disk, but for 21 bucks less that can be replaced with a 160GB 5400rpm.
I’m leaning towards the more space with the speed penalty, anybody have any suggestions otherwise?
I’ll likely use the machine mostly for writing and web surfing, but I’ll likely also play some games on it too.
If I were you, I’d choose space over speed; I don’t think it will even affect games performance noticeably. The slower drive will consume less power, which is significant if you intend to run the machine from batteries often.
If you were doing something that chews up drive access bandwidth consistently - like, say - video editing, DVD authoring, or 3D graphics and animation, then you’d want a fast drive, otherwise, it’s not quite so important.
Check the specs of the HDs involved. You’d be surprised how often the “slower” drive is not really all that much slower. The larger capacity usually means higher bit density so more bits get read per revolution and there is a smaller gap between tracks (reducing seek times).
There have been on occasion cases where, given similar drives by the same maker, it’s been the lower RPM drive that has the higher transfer rate in tests.
Lower RPM drives also tend to use less power and also generate less heat. Good for laptops. But again, check the specs.
What specs should one look for, specifically?
The average seek time.
This is a good point, and especially likely to be the case in laptop drives, where the extra capacity will usually not have been achieved by simply having more platters.
Is that it? There needn’t be anymore research when shopping for a hard drive?
Er no. Also look at media transfer rate - not interface transfer rate, which is a pretty meaningless statistic. The first one tells you how much data the drive can actually transfer per second, the second one tells you how much it could transfer in the (purely hypothetical) case that it could somehow saturate the interface to the computer. The media transfer rate is usually half the interface transfer rate or less.
Oh, and I’d go for the 100% capacity increase over the 33% increase in speed - which also helps with battery life and keeping your laptop cooler.
For writing and web surfing even 80GB is plenty, you probably wouldn’t use 1/3 of it. The extra speed would probably be better than the extra space.
For games, it depends. Are you talking simple little puzzle games or big complex games with lots of graphics like Call of Duty or Flight Simulator? If it’s simple puzzle games, still go for the 80GB.
I’m really not sure what games I’m going to try to play on it. I’ll play the most advanced games that can play decently on it, whatever that turns out to be.
I’d also like to backup my media files (music mostly), which is a big reason to get the 160GB. I plan on using fileshare (www.fileshare.com) to synch up my media between my desktop and the laptop.
If you ever plan on doing any digital photography, go with the extra space. You’d be amazed at how fast you can eat up an 80 GB drive. (My reaction to the OP was “You can buy a 160GB laptop harddrive? Where?”)
The 160 gb seems like the way to go in your case. Some big multi-track digital audio programs specify 7200 rpm drives in their minumum requirements (or at least they used to), so I always go with that.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with file transfer methods or how often you plan to synchronize, but if you can get your laptop and desktop in the same room together, there are much faster ways to do that. A $5 crossover cable can do the job in very short order, or, for an even quicker transfer, you could go for a 2.5" (laptop size HDD) to IDE cable adapter for about $10.
Those free file transfer sites are normally capped at speeds that are orders of magnitude slower than the aforementioned methods.
Then again, I’m not familiar with your situation, so if it’s frequent synchronization of small files you’re looking for, the web sites will probably prove to be more convenient.
It’s the Gateway CX210X that I’m looking at:
The customization options are as follows:
80GB 7200rpm Serial ATA hard drive [ +US$0.00]
160GB 5400rpm Serial ATA hard drive [ -US$21.00]
100GB 7200rpm Serial ATA hard drive [ +US$60.00]
200GB 4200rpm Serial ATA hard drive [ +US$129.00]
So you can go up to 200GB (but as you can see it adds $129 bucks to the price and it kinda slow)
Good points, I should probably use your methods for the initial synch of media, and then foldershare for upkeep. Thanks!
On Wednesday I faced a similar decision with a Dell Inspiron E1505, and wound up going with the 100GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive (I ordered next to no software for it, so I was able to spend a little more on the hardware). It already shipped so it’s too late to reconfigure, but now I’m hoping that it won’t make the laptop run too warm.
If I may hijack the thread for a moment, does anyone have an opinion on this Targus Notebook Chill Pad? Would something like this be worth the $31?
I think it would depend on how often you use it on battery power and how much power the pad drains. If it is power hungry then I wouldn’t bother, who cares if your laptop is icy cold if it only runs for 15 minutes before going to sleep?
Depends. Are you using a Sony battery?
Do they run warmer on battery power?
Do you mean one of the recalled ones? 
I sure hope not: it’s a brand-new laptop that hasn’t even arrived yet!
check the drive specs for memory cache/buffer. More memory is always better then less memory. It will positively effect battery life and probably file performance.