If I were to take FSX off my C drive (two 150GB Raptors in RAID0) and put it on a dedicated 7200RPM 500GB drive, would you expect frame rates to increase, assuming everything else is left as is?

Hmmm, I would think if your two raptors in RAID 0 were defragged properly that they would beat the Caviar (or whatever non raptor drive you have)Could be wrong though....

I would not expect frame rate to change by any significant amount.Also, load time would be LONGER, assuming the RAID array was properly defragged and all of that.In my opin the best setup for the drives you describe would be to have only FS on the RAID0'ed raptors and put the OS on the slower 7200 drive. ;)Who cares how long the OS takes to load (which isn't long anyway on a modern PC with a 7200 drive)? It's FS performance we care about! Put FS on the RAID'ed Raptors.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I had more time to research this today and I kinda tend to agree now. I also might be moving to Vista soon, so perhaps that would be a great time to do so.

I have FS9 on a 15K SCSI, Win2K on a different 15K SCSI, and the page file of 60mb on a 3rd . . . 15K SCSI. Works! Yes, pricey, but these drives are flawless and very durable and enjoy a 5y warranty. After running 4.4 years for 6-8h a day--S.M.A.R.T. is still showing perfect performance and reliability. I decided a few weeks ago to replace the very small 18G 15K SCSI that my OS was on with a 75G 15K SCSI. I actually did not base the choice on these drives for FS, but for GigaStudio which can benefit from the fast seek times. But they work well for FS . . . of course. At the time I went SCSI there was nothing that could compare. The, Raptors, esp the more recent ones definitely compare favorably.Noel