don't forget we're talking external and usb 3.0 here, so the price comparison is apples to oranges if you don't include an enclosure. below we're just wondering why the cost of a bare WD is the nearly the same as one with an enclosure. The top capacity drives typically are not cost effective compared to the lesser ones, unless higher capacity drives are about the hit the streets (IME).

using your math, a 2tb external drive is about $100. projecting to 3tb is $150 and to 4tb is $200. Because the enclosures cost the same. So 3 tb inside an enclosure (usb 3.0) is a good deal if less than $150.

On 7/19/2011 2:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Problem is, 2tb drives can be had for $71 at Microcenter.   So, 2tb at 1/2 cost 
of 3 tb.  Which means you could get 4 for the price of 3 and so on.   I guess 
it may work for some, but not enough for me to stab at.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Anthony Q. Martin"<[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:59:28
To:<[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Recs on External Hard Drives 3T USB 2.0/3.0?

the bare WD 3TB Green is $140 on Amazon with a 3 year warranty.

External version of 3GB Green is $137 (now) on Amazon with a 2 year
warranty.

On 7/19/2011 1:35 PM, Joshua MacCraw wrote:
if you read my message I was quoting the bear drive price of $150.

it baffles me how they can offer these for $137 if the sata300 bare drive is
$150 dollars. The 2TB price makes more sense at $99 dollars where the bare
drive is $79 dollars.

most certainly a mere $40 dollars spread between the 2 drives does make the
3TB version attractive vs. being nearly double the price.

personally I would still spend the $150 (drive+case) to make my own 3TB
external vs. the $137 premade model. since currently the bare drive is $150
that does not seem possible. hell given that crazy price scheme one would be
better off buying the external to rip apart an use as an internal.
On Jul 19, 2011 9:47 AM, "Anthony Q. Martin"<[email protected]>   wrote:

Reply via email to