On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a Green > (EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates about 10 > times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus, concentrate your power > saving efforts elsewhere than the disk drive. Buy a non "green" drive, > and save yourself these sector alignment/performance headaches.
Hi, I just wanted to mention that this is a type of faulty logic that we run into all the time when trying to conserve energy. The idea that if a second thing can conserve more energy than the first, then we do not need to conserve energy in the first thing. It can go like this: The first person comes along and says, "Why are you so worried about phantom power, when you can get so much more savings from switching to CFL light bulbs?" The second person comes along and says, "CFL light bulbs? Why bother when city street lights are on ALL NIGHT LONG?". The third person comes along and says, "City street lights? What about heating and cooling AIR PORTS around the clock?!. Anyway, nothing personal or angry. I just wanted to mention that I seed this as a logic fault, and it particularly happens around energy conservation. My own opinion is that you should get energy savings everywhere you can. There is a separate point to argue about whether Western Digital hard drives are really "Green" because they use less energy, or if WD is using the term "Green" to market and sell inferior technology. Hope this helps, Phil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110109184822.ga5...@kasploosh.net