hdd recommendations
- Thread starter Rambler
- Start date
This has more to do with the extremely fierce price competition in the harddrive market. Just look at the number of manufacturers that have gone out of business or been bought out during the last ten, fifteen years.Saem said:
It's hard to remain profitable today, and cutting warranties is one way of reducing costs. Doesn't mean the products will become worse, because if they did that'd be the end of the company. Harddrive manufacturers typically manufacture NOTHING else, so if their HDDs aquire bad rep, that's the end of the road for them. Only real exception to this is Hitachi/IBM.
Not sure if that's true or not. Seagate bumped their warranties back up to five years a buncha months ago.
Yes for the most part; IBM still owns a minority share of the division tho.
Dude, that's ancient. This was mostly related to the GXP75 series of drives, and to a much lesser extent, the GXP60. I had a GXP60 drive, it never died on me.
GXP120, and later series drives were all rock solid, very good quality, very high performance.
Well, I've had two WDs die but never a Maxtor or IBM (thought my DM9+ had gone a while ago but it was a cable issue). IMHO Seagate's actually seem to have a better reliability record than other drives, but that could just be circumstantial.
All hard drives die. Personally I'd go with Hitachi, for reasons already stated in this thread.
Incidentally I have a 75GXP (from one of the problem batches) that is still going strong despite having been in a PC that fell off a desk whilst turned on, shearing its molex socket off the PCB.
All hard drives die. Personally I'd go with Hitachi, for reasons already stated in this thread.
Incidentally I have a 75GXP (from one of the problem batches) that is still going strong despite having been in a PC that fell off a desk whilst turned on, shearing its molex socket off the PCB.
hoom
Veteran
A wierd thing I've found is that I have 2 same series Seagate 200GBs but one is SATA & the other IDE so their internals should be essentially identical but basically I can't hear the IDE but the SATA is quite rowdy.
I assume this is something to do with some setting in BIOS or drivers or something?
I want my SATA to be quiet damnit.
I guess I've been lucky with my HDDs I've never lost one yet.
I assume this is something to do with some setting in BIOS or drivers or something?
I want my SATA to be quiet damnit.
I guess I've been lucky with my HDDs I've never lost one yet.
EasyRaider
Regular
arrrse said:
Basically, the IDE has its seeks set to quiet mode while the SATA is set to performance. Unfortunately, Seagate drives does not support manual adjustment (known as AAM).
EasyRaider said:
Um? It surely does - at least i can set AAM on my old Barracuda IV just fine. I doubt they'd remove this option from the newer drives.
Btw i won't go with Hitachi for sure - i know it's quite different now, but it's kinda like _xxx_ with Maxtor - i won't buy a Hitachi drive yet....maybe few years later, when my distrust will fade
Oh well, guess i should roll a dice and pick random drive. I'm starting to think i should exclude 7200.7/8 from my list (7200.9 is not sold here yet), maxtor get mixed opinions, so far i haven't heard any complains about WD and Samsung. How do latest WD SATA drives compare to the rest regarding noise?
EasyRaider
Regular
Actually, they did. I believe there were some trouble with legal rights.Rambler said:
It had nothing to do with the ferocity of the competition and has everything to do with platter density was dangerously high, such that integrity for long periods of time was hard to guarantee.
In anycase, I went to a local computer store not too long ago. I asked them about some statistics on the number of RMAs.
From highest number of RMAs to least
Maxtor
WD
Seagate
WD and Seagate were tight. Though, I've heard some bios's don't like seagate drives.
In anycase, I went to a local computer store not too long ago. I asked them about some statistics on the number of RMAs.
From highest number of RMAs to least
Maxtor
WD
Seagate
WD and Seagate were tight. Though, I've heard some bios's don't like seagate drives.
Most likely not enough samples to create an accurate statistical representation.
Look for seaaam.exe or use the IBM/Hitachi utility.EasyRaider said:
Picked up 2x WD 250GB SATA RAID edition drives last year & they're cooler/quieter than the standard WD 200GB boot drive in the HTPC. The RAID edition actually cost less than the standard drives at the time.Rambler said:
Didn't Seagate remove AAM altogether from newer drives b/c they didn't want to pay the licensing fee? Thought I read that at SPCR.
I was right. Read the bottom half of the page.
Bah, I just ordered that Seagate. I hope it's not as bad as SPCR makes it out to be.
I was right. Read the bottom half of the page.
Bah, I just ordered that Seagate. I hope it's not as bad as SPCR makes it out to be.
I finally picked up the Seagate from a BB with one in stock. Now I'm debating whether or not to keep it. The price is decent, but I don't want another noisy drive. It's encouraging to note that while my first WD 800JB has an irritating whine and noisy seek, the one I bought a year later is just plain quiet. Given that WDs aren't known to be quiet, I'll be happy if the Seagate is equally silent. It's disappointing to see that SR's scores on both drives shows the older, smaller WD to be slightly faster than the newer Seagate.
Eh, I'll probably just keep it. $50 all told isn't too bad, and I've got a copy of XP waiting to be installed.
Russ, was that $35 after or before taxes?
Eh, I'll probably just keep it. $50 all told isn't too bad, and I've got a copy of XP waiting to be installed.
Russ, was that $35 after or before taxes?