Greg,
Thank you for your honest remark about 'small sample size.' I've waited
years for this to float to the surface of our discussions. This is an
important metric when we generally, freely bash the major suppliers. I do
understand that all of us have our favs. This is quite normal. You like
WD, I like Seagate. Nice. And?
Yes, as I get older and more cost aware, I look to our List for ways to
avoid getting screwed. Please do not stop sharing your experiences. We all
do what we can do at the time we do it, I think.
I mean no disrespect to those on the List that are 'In-the-biz.' I know
that you have options that I, as a pure retail-monkey do not. I can live
with this. I have since 1995!
Thanks Greg. Great post!
Best,
Duncan
At 14:50 01/04/2008 -0600, you wrote:
Like I said before, the sample sizes most of us work with are utterly
irrelevant. My Seagate drives (7200.9, 7200.10) generally run hotter than my
WDs, and have had a higher failure rate (especially those pre-7200.9). But,
for my part, I discount my experience when someone asks "which drive is the
most reliable" because I appreciate the fact that my sample size is too
limited to be applied generally.
Frankly, I find myself buying more and more based on support experiences.
I've had excellent experiences dealing with WD returns/support, so that's a
preferred manufacturer for me.
Greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Tapia
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [H] My PC Build for January
>
> I've actually had quite the opposite. After loosing my final WD drive
> last
> year (Dec) (400gb sata) I have sworn off WD. A buddy of mine also
> loves to
> buy WD, raptors for speed, but has had the same type of problem where
> they
> just wear out quickly or just go bad. It could be because they tend to
> run
> hotter imho. As for my seagates, the oldest one I currently own is
> from
> 2001, and it's still humming along just fine.
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 12:33 PM, Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd go Western Digital over Seagate. I replaced a lot of dead and
> > dying Seagates, and very few Western Digitals. I only sell WD, and I
> > have a very low failure rate. As an added plus, WD will cross ship
> > and Seagate won't.
> >
> > T
