Though not actually what is discussed here, but while I was searching for another Applications, I stumbled upon those two (to make a RAM-Disk):
http://mac.majorgeeks.com/files/details/iramdisk.html
http://mac.majorgeeks.com/files/details/make_ram_disk.html
Other thing I was thinking: Isn't there a Drive from Seagate that has a flash chip as Cache-Buffer in a normal hard drive disk?
Originally posted by bteam
I found some cheap optibays for my powerbook G4, early 2005. (...)
which would be the slower of the two IDE controllers (slower on the optical drive). One could also just use SATA-to-IDE-Adapter (there are slim ones for Laptops, though I do not see them in big numbers on Ebay).
For IDE desktop Macs, SATA can also be achieved through SATA-PCI-Controllers (not sure about the actual transfer rates with overhead and all this stuff over PCI).
I do as well. And its boot drive is a WD Green drive. I don't know why people say those drives are so bad.
First bad image people have of it belongs to reliability, which comes from the first days, it was new, when there was a certain production series failing a lot, I guess.
I wonder, too. I did not test them, but I wondered, because they often are used in mediaplayers and such, but I had a 2,5" 5400rpm Drive hooked to my mediaplayer (part of a satelite Receiver) and it would start to stutter (an older 7200rpm SATA drive I had spare then did the job), so I asked myself, why then are Caviar Green Drives pictured as very slow? I searched a bit and got the impression that though they work for mediaplayers, people get frustrated using them as Drive for "media" editing, making a connection in their mind like "use in mediaplayer -> photos and films are media -> Drive for mediaediting".
I would really like to test them once out of curiosity, but I guess like with most hard drives I do not see a real difference in real life use (or I will think it is my old Mac, when something slows down). The cases were I (myself) can really see, that a drive is slow are few (I am not doing intensive stuff). Using Xbench, just to know the numbers, would be interesting, if Xbench wouldn't produce phantasy speedvalues (I saw this, testing the same drive over and over again. Just not comparable).