not because it is called a ssd makes it automatically double as fast as a hdd , there are huge differences in read /write speeds and obvious in price of ssd's
as you pointed it out already toshiba's hdd will reach 100mb/s write speed while your transcend only will reach 80mb/s , and there is nothing you can do about it , and these are MAX speeds not average , because there is a difference as well , sorry but you successfully downgraded your PowerBook
you would have been better off with a 5400 rpm samsung spinpoint 2.5" pata(ide) hdd one of the fastest , you got fooled by the name SSD
or investing in a s-ata ssd with adapter , because the Max speeds are higher independent from the bus speed the Pata ssd's average around
the 50-60mb/s while the s-ata ssd's can reach around the 200mb/s
Wow! How about some fullstops and new sentences?
Anyhow, the 4200RPM 2.5" Toshiba mechanical drive will NEVER ever reach 100MB/s, 50 seems much more realistic. 133MB/s is the maximum throughput of PATA, given the age of the Powerbook, older PATA protocols (100MB/s, 66MB/s) might also be the case.
Anyhow, given not only sequential speeds of the SSD will be faster than the ones of the mechanical drive, random speeds (which matter the most) will undoubtedly be faster, which is why the SSD definitely won't be a downgrade.
like i said in another post i get usually nearly a nervous breakdown if i hear the word maximum speed , as that usually means you never even get close to those speeds, was the same problem when usb2.0 got on the market the manufacturers usually praised it with its 480mb/s topspeed , but did not mention that even under ideal conditions these speed is unrealistic as only short peaks will reach 480mb/s and the same now with ssd , the word ssd alone gets people to buy it and expect 250mb/s speeds , but only a couple ssd's are reaching those speeds under ideal conditions, a reason why i settled for a velociraptor 600gb hdd (10000rpm) for my iMac instead of a ssd(soon gets transfered in my PowerMac G5 🙂) , sure some ssd would be faster , but four times the price and a third of the capacity
You seem to totally mix up MB/s and Mb/s.
USB2.0 has a maximum throughput of 480Mb/s, which equals 60MB/s. Subtract the overhead and you'll end up with roughly 35MB/s in practice. This drastic difference from theory to practice, however, generally applies solely to USB. FW, Gigabit ethernet and other peripheral connections don't suffer that much from overhead (e.g.; FW800 theroretical 100MB/s, practice 80MB/s).
Anyhow, values around 250MB/s SSD vendors tend to release for their SSDs already are the throughput values the drives can reach (sequential speeds apparently as random speeds normally aren't used for advertising).
Just take a look at anandtechs SSD benches.
Another example: my Intel SSD is advertised with 250MB/s / 100MB/s sequential speeds, and that is exactly what the drive offers.
That has nothing to do with ideal circumstances, it simply is the sequential performance the drive offers. And unless you're buying an SSD with out-dated controllers (two to three year old models), that performance will remain as modern SSDs do not suffer from performance degradation any more.
Please don't mix up random and sequential speeds here. Again the 250MB/s only apply for sequential read speeds. Random speeds are way lower (still multitudes of those mechanical drives offer) for SATA II drives.
SATA 6Gb/s drives easily reach this number for random speeds as well, but that would go too far here as we're still talking PATA in this thread.
😉
Long story short: OP, please to a clean install on the SSD.
