HD for TP600

Message

think@pad · #1 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:57 pm

I´m planning for an upgrade of the 5.1GB HD in my TP600 2545-850. What makes me a little bit anxious is the thickness of the old HD being 12.7 mm and newer HD´s being 9.5 mm. Is it going to be an issue?

Doe´s the 2645-850 support new HD´s? I had a 7200 rpm disk in mind. I know the 2645-850 supports only ATA33 and PIO4, so it won´t benefit from the faster transfer rate, but it should benefit from the faster seek time - right?

Greatful for all the help I can get.

whizkid · #2 Post by **whizkid** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:44 pm

The drive height will not be an issue. The 9.5mm drives will fit just fine.

With the latest BIOS, the 600 should work with drives up to 128GB or so.

You will certainly notice the improved drive speed. 7200RPM will help. Faster seek time will help. Larger on-drive cache will help. And it will likely be quiter too!

Good luck shopping!

think@pad · #3 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:22 pm

Thank you, whizkid, for the information.

So, the drive doesn´t need any kind of support even though it is thinner than the drive bay? Of course, it lies on the bottom of the bay, but there is no risk that the drive might clatter against the bay if the laptop is moved around?

I´m certainly hoping for some added speed, since the old disk is annoyingly slow, compared to a desktop computer of the same age.

whizkid · #4 Post by **whizkid** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:28 pm

The drive is held in place by the connector and a bracket that screws to drives of either height. No worries.

440roadrunner · #5 Post by **440roadrunner** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:56 pm

I've actually operated the thicker drives that will fit the 600 series without a CADDY (the bracked referred to above) For these newer thinner drives, you should DEFINATELY get a caddy for them to support them in the bay---so they don't move around and cause intermittent connections with the drive connector.

You can buy these on eFray every day.

think@pad · #6 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:01 pm

Now, when I examined the bay once more, it struck me that the drive is actually fixed to the bottom of the bay with a screw through the bottom of the case. How stupid of me to not think of that earlier

But, you are right 440roadrunner, I need the bracket anyway, since it has a strip allowing you to pull the drive out of the bay. It would be difficult without the bracket.

DNA_DAN · #7 Post by **DNA_DAN** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:07 pm

Has anyone noticed if the 7200 RPM drives consume the battery faster than a 5400 RPM drive would? I mean intuitively I would say yes.

I don't want to decrease my already short battery time from 2 hours to 1.5.....

think@pad · #8 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:11 pm

I would guess that modern hard drives are quite a lot more efficient than the generation originally fitted in the TP600, but there was someone warning about the heat generated by a 7200 rpm drive. Is there someone who can confirm or deny?

whizkid · #9 Post by **whizkid** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:16 pm

There's this thing called the Internet. Hard drive makers know that their customers are pretty tech-savvy, so they put up all kinds of hard drive data like power consumption on their "web sites."

I'd suggest you look up the model you have and the model you're shopping and compare.

DNA_DAN · #10 Post by **DNA_DAN** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:16 pm

I saw the same comments about heat too. I opted for the 5400 because I am planning on doing the P3 upgrade. I don't want added heat in there.

Certainly anything other than the stock cluckity clucker is an improvement.

Funny thing is, the new drive for my 600E (40GB) cost the same price as a new (250GB) Seagate for my desktop!! These things are like used Hondas I swear. They are still holding their value pretty darn well.

think@pad · #11 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:41 pm

Yes, we have heard about the internet. I didn´t find any datasheets on the Travelstar DADA-25120 drive, though. That´s why I have to speculate. What I wanted was to hear from someones experience.

#12 Post by **pkiff** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:50 pm

think@pad wrote:Now, when I examined the bay once more, it struck me that the drive is actually fixed to the bottom of the bay with a screw through the bottom of the case.

whizkid wrote:The drive is held in place by the connector and a bracket that screws to drives of either height. No worries.

Whizkid is correct (as you note later), but I would add that there is in fact a tiny little piece of blue plastic that you can insert into the hard drive cover that accts as a "shim" to hold a 9mm drive snugly in the 12mm bay. I can't think of very many situations where this would have any practical additional effect, except perhaps in the case of the drive screw coming loose (or getting lost).

I've never seen these blue plastic thingys for sale anywhere, but I have one that I use on one of my 600X's.

Phil.

#13 Post by **pkiff** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:50 pm

[duplicate post removed]

whizkid · #14 Post by **whizkid** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:52 am

think@pad wrote:Yes, we have heard about the internet. I didn´t find any datasheets on the Travelstar DADA-25120 drive, though. That´s why I have to speculate. What I wanted was to hear from someones experience.

I can't speak to experience, but I did find on Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (who bought the drive business from IBM) web site references to models DADA-25400 and DPLA-25120, although I did find references to DADA-25120 with Google.

Looking at the datasheet of the DADA (6GT) series, it looks like it uses about 0.95W while idle and 2.2W while in use. I'd wager your DADA drive is in this category.

For the DPLA (5GS) series, the datasheet shows about 1.3W while idle and 2.6W while in use.

Comparing to a (slightly) more modern drive, like the 40GNX I have, it has an active idle power consumption of 1.3W and uses 2.5W while in use. Seems pretty much the same to me.

Now let's check the most recent and fast stuff...

The 5400RPM 5K100 series uses 0.85W in active idle and 2.0W while reading and is better than the older drives above. The 7200RPM 7K60 series uses 1.3W (53% more) in active idle and 2.5W (25% more) while reading and is about the same as the older drives.

think@pad · #15 Post by **think@pad** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:08 pm

So, we can assume that even a 7200 RPM drive won´t run hotter than the old ones, jus what I expected. Another thing is if the temperature still rises too high. Modern drives have temp probes, but I doubt that the TP600 would have any means of getting a reading. Two point five watts sound like nothing, but one has to bear in mind that the drive bay doesn´t have any kind of ventilation. Isn´t there anyone who would have fitted a 7200 rpm drive in one of theese?

I think I´ll go for a 7200 rpm drive anyway. It´s more expensive, but who would think of that in a couple of months? If I´d choose a 5400 rpm model and it would turn out that it wasn´t significantly faster than the old one, I know I would regret my choice as long as I use the machine. There are, of course, those who think there is no point adding a 130$ drive to a PII 300 computer, but I think it would be OK for office use if it only booted and loaded applications faster. I have the full amount 294MB of memory and I´m running XP pro on this piece of ancient history, so it is as much up to date it can get. A PII 400 upgrade would, of course, be nice

Rob Mayercik · #16 Post by **Rob Mayercik** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:02 pm

think@pad wrote:So, we can assume that even a 7200 RPM drive won´t run hotter than the old ones, jus what I expected. Another thing is if the temperature still rises too high. Modern drives have temp probes, but I doubt that the TP600 would have any means of getting a reading. Two point five watts sound like nothing, but one has to bear in mind that the drive bay doesn´t have any kind of ventilation. Isn´t there anyone who would have fitted a 7200 rpm drive in one of theese?

I have an E7k60 in my 600. I haven't noticed any difference in heat, but I've never paid much attention to heat, other than noticing the CPU fan does go on and off from time to time (hmm, maybe I should think about pulling the fan out an cleaning it some day...)

I don't have the piece of plastic Phil mentions; I have a metal bracket that screws to the drive. It does have a little blue pull tab - maybe that's what he means?

Rob

whizkid · #17 Post by **whizkid** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:16 pm

Nah. The drive door cover is black, but has an extra blue tab that pushes smaller (9.5mm) drives against the bottom of the case to engage the screw better.

epbrown · #18 Post by **epbrown** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:05 pm

Were the blue tabs put in by IBM or some sort of upgrade? I've owned 3 600-series laptops and only my current 600X came with one of these; I discovered it trying to swap in my old 32GB drive.

think@pad · #19 Post by **think@pad** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:56 pm

The tab would for sure be handy when inserting the new 9mm drive, as the drive must be held against the drive bay when fastening the drive screw. After the drive screw is in place I guess it makes no difference if the tab is there or not.

skygodtj · #20 Post by **skygodtj** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:48 pm

[quote="think@pad"]So, we can assume that even a 7200 RPM drive won´t run hotter than the old ones, jus what I expected. Another thing is if the temperature still rises too high. Modern drives have temp probes, but I doubt that the TP600 would have any means of getting a reading. Two point five watts sound like nothing, but one has to bear in mind that the drive bay doesn´t have any kind of ventilation. quote]

The 600's do have temp monitoring, but it's based on OS.. Run MobileMeter

http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-Oakland/8259/

and you'll be able to keep tabs on the CPU temp and freq, as well as the HD and Bat temp and charging rates... but only with XP. It wont run on 98 OS.

TJ

vincentfox · #21 Post by **vincentfox** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:44 am

I picked up a Samsung 40-gig 5400-RPM 8M cache drive from newegg recently. Cheap and the quietest drive around. I value quiet these days more than raw speed. Although that is relative. This baby is still WAY faster than anything from when these older thinkpads shipped.

think@pad · #22 Post by **think@pad** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:30 am

I´m waiting for a 60GB 7200rpm 8MB drive to arrive. It will be interesting to see what affect it will have on the boot speed. I´ll make a test and write down the time it takes to boot with the current drive, just for comparison. I would like to clone the drive to the new one, but I don´t have a HDD adapter, so I have to find another solution. Writing an image on DVD would be one way, but I don´t have a DVD-RW drive on the TP. I have to see if I can find an application that would clone the HDD over the ethernet. Any suggestions?

think@pad · #23 Post by **think@pad** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:22 pm

I picked up a Hitachi TRAVELSTAR 7K100 60GB ATA6 2.5IN 7200RPM 8MB HDD today. It all went fine with the installation of the drive, but that´s where the problems began. The computer booted from the cd-drive by default when there was no partitions found on the HDD, so installing WinXP was easy so far. The installation reported the drive size correctly and I created a primary partition and one extended partition. I chose to install WinXP on the primary partition and the installation started formatting the partition. The formatting seemed to go OK even though it took ages, which I would consider normal with a large disk on an old computer. After the formatting had reached 100% it reported that the partition couldn´t be performed due to a disk error. I was told that the disk might be corrumped or the disk might not be connected correctly. I was told to check the connections if I have a SCSI disk bla, bla....

Ok, I thought that it must be a M$ bug and tried formatting the partition again. Same result. I removed all partitions and created only one on the disk and started formatting once again... with the same result. Well, nothing to do but reboot. Now the BIOS finds a partition on the HDD and reports that there is a system error on the boot partiton. I wasn´t able to boot fron the CD-rom anymore, since BIOS found a HDD boot partition, so I made a dos boot disk with all the necessary parts like fdisk and format. I booted from the diskette and removed the NTFS partiton, and created a primary and an extended dos partiton on the drive. I formatted the primary partition just to see if it was possible, and that went fine. Now I have a primary dos partiton on the disk and now I can´t even get into BIOS. On boot I get the error code I9990305. I can´t find a way to boot from the WinXP cd as there is a boot partition on the HDD. I would have wanted to try a installation on an existing partiton, but I´m stuck... I need some advice...

whizkid · #24 Post by **whizkid** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:29 pm

Sounds to me like the boot order is not set at the default. Go into EZSetup and clear the boot device list. It should then boot floppy, then CD then hard disk.

You could also force that boot order as well.

I don't know what to say about the formatting not completing... other than be sure your BIOS is up to date. Remove your hard disk or put your old one back in if required to get the BIOS update to complete.

In my 600X's, starting with no partitions went fine with 12GB, 20GB and 40GB disks.

think@pad · #25 Post by **think@pad** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:43 pm

Yes, whizkid, you were right about the boot order - it was wrong. The problem was that I couldn´t get into BIOS. I didn´t realize that I was supposed to sit on the F1 key

I´m used to tap on the del key during post in order to get into BIOS. I finally got the boot order changed, and now I´m installing WinXP on the primary partition. There were some problems though, at the first attempt the installation copied the installation files to the HDD and restarted. After a while the installation announced that it couldn´t find a certain file and the installation was aborted. Now I´m on my second attempt with 6 minutes to go before the job is finished. I don´t trust the disk to be OK, and that is annoying. Lets see how it´s going and I will do a complete surface scan on the disk to be sure.

think@pad · #26 Post by **think@pad** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:58 am

I finally managed to install WinXP on the HDD. The problems were:

1. Unable to format HDD with WinXP installation utilities.
2. Partitioning and formatting in DOS was successful.
3. Converted FAT to NTFS,
4. The installation was unable to read files from slipstreamed WinXP+SP2 CD.
5. The installation failed to read all setup files from HDD during installation attempt #2, and the installation was aborted.
6. The third installation attempt was successful.
7. Installing SP2 done without problems.
8. Formatting Extended partition to NTFS also without problems.

Now I have to find an application to make a surface scan on the HDD. The most annoying is not knowing the reason to the problems. I wonder if it might be a drive temperature issue. The computer case felt quite warm at the HDD when the installation utility was trying to format the drive. I have no way of knowhing the exact temperature of the drive nor have I ever examined the operation temperature of the old drive, so I really can´t say if there is something exceptional about the temp of the new drive.

Any thoughts?

Website · #27 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:20 am

What is the condition of your installation CD? I have had problems with even the slightest nicks at just the wrong places.

think@pad · #28 Post by **think@pad** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:16 pm

The slipstreamed installation CD should be OK as it works in two of my desktop computers, but I have had problems with it on one desktop computer and now on my laptop. I probably should make a new copy of it and burn it at minimum speed. The original installation CD works fine, but its much more convenient to use the slipstreamed one as it installs SP2 at the same time.

think@pad · #29 Post by **think@pad** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:07 pm

I did not find an answer to the issue concerning the installation CD, but the computer works fine. I used the Drive Fitness Test utility from the Hitachi website to examine the integrity of the HDD. It found no errors, so I have to assume that the problems formatting the drive with the WinXP installation program were due to a bug or something. Apart from the initial problems, the new drive has been a giant leap forward, as it makes the tp load the op. sys. much faster than it did with the old one - not to speak about having room for some applications as well as the op. sys.

think@pad · #30 Post by **think@pad** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:16 am

The TP has been running great for more than a week now, so I guess it´s time to edit my profile... There has been no signs of any HD problems apart from the initial formatting difficulties, so I guess we can assume it was nothing after all. Upgrading the HDD is for sure the greatest improvement after adding RAM.

HD for TP600

HD for TP600

Re: HD for TP600

Who is online