Printable View
Hey bunch! I wanna buy a new HDD with 8Mb cache, but the question is what is the most reliable brand! My ol' western digital had some bad sector and thasehd my OS. My data still there but the HDD is not going to be any better. Do you know how many years is WD warranty???
Thanks in advance....
SCSI Seagate
IDE Maxtor
From the things I have read on the web .....
Maxtor and Seagate can't be beat when it comes to stability.:)
This is like an impossible question to ask though.
I have had 0 problems with WD drives.
Look at the models, not just the brands. Every brand has built a few "economy" drives that have high failure rates.
SCSI drives are better than IDE drives in the reliability arena.
i was looking at drives yesterday because i believe one of mine is dying.
i'm going to get one with a three year warentee.. not a one year.
i think i'll get the 120gig western digital with 8mb cache. special edition... on sale for $136 at newegg....
anyone have any idea how loud this drive is?
I would have to say Maxtor and Seagate. I am not too fond of WD hard drives. I had two of them fail on me before. :(
I agree with richardginn. There is no definitive answer. I still think IBM drives are best regardless of their relatively recent problems with the 75GXP line. Personally I'd opt for a Maxtor if you want 8 mb of cache (which I did as you can see in my sig :D ).
I thought IDE were more reliable. I thought that scsi drives had higher failure rates in general than IDE because most of them run so hot. Is this not true?Quote:
Originally posted by ua549
SCSI drives are better than IDE drives in the reliability arena.
Failure rates on SCSI drives are drastically less than IDE drives, mostly because SCSI drives are engineered for a more demanding crowd like high-end workstation and server use. IDE drives are generally meant for consumer/desktop use, and cost is more of a design priority than reliability.
As for which brand drives are more reliable than others... Each of the major manufacturers' failure rate is usually pretty close to one another for comparable models. Each maker seems to have had a few models that were better or worse than average.
Of the literally thousands of machines I've worked with or been responsible for, the major exception to the rule was Quantum. I've had a much larger percentage of Quantum drives die on me than WD, Seagate, or Maxtor... I hope Maxtor tossed those designs when they acquired the company!! ;)
than ks all for your input! :)
IBM and WD have 8MB cache versions too...Quote:
Originally posted by BlueOval
Personally I'd opt for a Maxtor if you want 8 mb of cache (which I did as you can see in my sig :D ).
i think IBM's start at 120gigs though..
I think you're right. At least I know they didn't have an 80GB model at the time I bought mine. Too, I bought mine under a rebate offer and got it for like 60 bucks. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Korndogg
IBM and WD have 8MB cache versions too...
i think IBM's start at 120gigs though..
I had two Seagate 30gig Baracude drives die on me ... I don't think there is any way I'll ever purchase another. The first one died one day (was about a year and a half old then), ran all the diagnostic tests they recommeneded, then it had to be sent it back to them for a replacement. Well, the new one arrived and right after getting Windows and all my programs installed, it had a head crash. Between talking to tech support, shipping the drives, and waiting for a replacement, I was pretty much computerless for damn near a month. I was not happy at all with Seagate's customer service, expecially since when I sent the second drive back, it spent over a week at Seagate's offices before they sent a replacement (which took another four days to receave). I'll buy Maxtor next time, thank you very much.
I still have yet to hear anything bad about Maxtor, and I personally have had a bad experience with WD and IBM (60GXP line).