Western Digital Warranty : replace w/ USED HARD DRIVE!

[Richard Saunders]

That last is the big question mark. Presumably at

least some of the used drives have an intermittent
fault that wasnt visible once it showed up back at the
factory and got shipped out again to another sucker.

Suppose the error rate of the used, re-certified replacement drives is
twice the rate of new drives. It still would be relatively small,
under 10%, so most likely the replacement drive will have the full
usable life-span. I'm guessing that drives with intermittent problems
are rare, and that most drive failures are catastrophic.

Still, I'm going to have to defer opinion on this topic. It was quite
pleasing to receive a fresh, spanking-new replacement drive. It
partly remunerates the breach of faith and the hassle of sending back
the failed drive in the special packaging.

http://www.hgst.com/warranty/jsp/arma25h.jsp

On the other hand, I can understand drive companies wanting to cut
costs in the RMA department. I'm sure there are people out there who
routinely fry their drives due to poor operating environments (mainly
bad power supply) and then seek replacements.

They do actually. There are always duds around. Which particular
manufacturer is currently getting fanged in the arse does vary tho.
Anyone with any sense would avoid the model thats currently
failing at a high rate like the IBM GXPs or the Fujitsu MPGs.

If people knew which drives are duffers in advance, then of course
they wouldn't buy them. That begs the question, why isn't there a
free, public website where people can find out about the error rates
and RMA experience of drive models *before* they buy?

 

[Rod Speed]

No generally I do whatever helps the flow of information - It is no
big deal to me.
No generally I do whatever helps the flow of information - It is no
big deal to me.

You've developed a stutter.

I do seem to have a knack for irritating you no matter where I post.

Best get your seems machinery seen to.

I couldnt care less where you post.

 

[Rod Speed]

I realize everyone is using different newsreaders.

And there are different ways of posting too.

I'm using Mozilla, which is a mouse-driven,
threaded, and paneled reader.

Most use one of those too.

I just don't like scrolling through three miles of
quoted previous replies to read a one-line response
to the last sentence of the most recent reply.

Which is why some prefer top posting, so the new material is
immediately visible and there is no need to scroll at all to see it.

And the context is visible by scrolling if you need to read it.

That is borderline trolling to me--the
sender bears no weight of the gaffe.

Mindlessly silly. There is no 'gaffe',
just different approaches to posting.

Otherwise, whether it's top, middle,
or bottom doesn't really matter.

Then why did you ask that one style be used ?

 

[Rod Speed]

message
This is an example of much too aggressively snipping.
No attributions at all and it isnt obviously what 'that last'
is about when you have molested the quoting so badly.

Suppose the error rate of the used, re-certified
replacement drives is twice the rate of new drives.

Irrelevant supposition with that problem with intermittent faults.

It still would be relatively small, under 10%, so most likely
the replacement drive will have the full usable life-span.

Mindlessly superficial with intermittent faults that see a
faulty drive returned to a customer who has ALREADY
been shafted by getting a drive that has died.

I'm guessing that drives with intermittent problems
are rare, and that most drive failures are catastrophic.

You're wrong. Particularly with drives that the manufacturer
cant see any problem with and assumes user stupidity.

Still, I'm going to have to defer opinion on this topic. It was
quite pleasing to receive a fresh, spanking-new replacement
drive. It partly remunerates the breach of faith and the hassle
of sending back the failed drive in the special packaging.

Rewards is the appropriate word. And I already
said that in the quoting you hacked out.

http://www.hgst.com/warranty/jsp/arma25h.jsp

On the other hand, I can understand drive companies
wanting to cut costs in the RMA department.

Stupidly short sighted with RMA rates so low and
so many users not being fully backed up at all times.

I'm sure there are people out there who routinely
fry their drives due to poor operating environments
(mainly bad power supply) and then seek replacements.

Sure, but thats a fact of life in that particular industry.

And its more likely that they get fried from
inadequate cooling that bad power supplys.

And this example of your stupid approach to quoting
is even worse than the last. You left out the next bit
and I've restored it. Makes no sense without it.

If people knew which drives are duffers in
advance, then of course they wouldn't buy them.

Separate issue to your silly claim that there
is no difference between manufacturers.

That begs the question, why isn't there a free, public
website where people can find out about the error rates
and RMA experience of drive models *before* they buy?

Because the only viable source of failure rates is the
manufacturer and for what should be obvious reasons,
they arent about to list their duds on a site like that.

IBM never had the balls to even admit to a problem with GXP drives.

 

[Richard Saunders]

I'm sorry to have molested your quoting. I wasn't trying to distort
your words.

What do you think about a site where ordinary people could post
regarding their experiences with their failed drives? People tend to
get upset and post when they get shafted, like the thread starter J
Kester. If enough people posted, then a picture might start to emerge
of which models are the worst.

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm sorry to have molested your quoting.

You actually molested your quoting.

I wasn't trying to distort your words.

Sure, it was obvious that you just chopped the
quoting back too hard, not trying to distort deliberately.

What do you think about a site where ordinary people could
post regarding their experiences with their failed drives?

The very fundamental problem is that its never going to
be possible to be sure just how competant the posters are
and how much the failure was caused by their own actions.

If they have run the drive stinking hot by not ensuring
adequate cooling and not even bothering to monitor
the drive SMART temp, that doesnt say anything
much useful about the particular drive except that
gross overheating can kill those drives. No news.

Most users wont be able to work out if its
their power supply thats killed the drive.

And we'll never know if they dropped it when installing it.

And only a very tiny subset of the drives that fail in
use will ever have the user report a failure anyway.
And that may well be rather biased with particular
higher performance drives being what those who
are likely to post their failures tend to buy.

The bulk of the sheep using say Seagate U6 drives
because thats what came with their system are
very unlikely to report failures, or even know what
sort of drive they had. Some of them are so bad
that they arent even completely sure they have a PC.

People tend to get upset and post when they
get shafted, like the thread starter J Kester.
Yes.

If enough people posted,

And thats never going to happen.

then a picture might start to emerge
of which models are the worst.

We basically see that in here with the worst of the drive models.

 

[chrisv]

I realize everyone is using different newsreaders. I'm using Mozilla,
which is a mouse-driven, threaded, and paneled reader. I just don't
like scrolling through three miles of quoted previous replies to read
a one-line response to the last sentence of the most recent reply.

Yep, it's pure laziness to not trim, in a case like that. Saves time
for the poster, wastes time for the many who will (attempt to) read
it.

 

[chrisv]

OT: P.S. To all the posters, when you reply in a newsgroup, can you
put your reply at the top of the email, and the quoted text at the
bottom?

No, I will not be an idiot and top post.

Better yet, remove the parts of the quoted message that are
not relevant. This makes it so much easier to read the messages.

Trimming is good, but top posting is stupid.

 

[Tom Scales]

Why? Because you have some bizarre need to follow a 15 year old guideline
designed when 2400baud was a fast modem? Do you have that big of a need to
conform to something that's not a rule, but a guideline?

You don't learn new things very well, do you?

 

[chrisv]

Why? Because you have some bizarre need

Idiot. It's not bizarre. It's by far the best way to do it.

to follow a 15 year old guideline
designed when 2400baud was a fast modem?

I guess you're too damn stupid to figure out that the ease with which
I understand what you're trying to communicate has NOTHING to do with
the speed of our Internet connection.

Do you have that big of a need to
conform to something that's not a rule, but a guideline?

Only lazy, selfish idiots think top posting is better.

You don't learn new things very well, do you?

I don't learn stupid things well, you mean. Idiot.

 

[Tom Scales]

Well, you're entitled to your OPINION. I'm entitled to mine. They differ.

Live with it.

 

[Rod Speed]

No, I will not be an idiot and top post.

Pathetic, really.

Trimming is good, but top posting is stupid.

So is mindlessly obsessing about how others post.

 

[Rod Speed]

Idiot. It's not bizarre. It's by far the best way to do it.

Idiot. It's completely bizarre. It's by far the worst way to do it.

Top posting and interleaved posting leaves bottom posting for dead.

I guess you're too damn stupid to figure out that the ease
with which I understand what you're trying to communicate
has NOTHING to do with the speed of our Internet connection.

And you're obviously so stupid that you cant manage
to work out that top posting eases communication
when the reader is moving thru a thread reading the
latest posted material with the context in his head.

Only lazy, selfish idiots think top posting is better.

Only terminal morons cant work out for themselves
that top posted material is the quickest to read.

I don't learn stupid things well, you mean. Idiot.

Bet that'll make him curl up and die for sure.

 

[chrisv]

Idiot. It's completely bizarre. It's by far the worst way to do it.

Top posting and interleaved posting leaves bottom posting for dead.

Idiot. I'm advocating "interleaved" posting.

And you're obviously so stupid that you cant manage
to work out that top posting eases communication
when the reader is moving thru a thread reading the
latest posted material with the context in his head.

You're too stupid to understand that iIt prevents quality,
point-by-point discussions.

Only terminal morons cant work out for themselves
that top posted material is the quickest to read.

Only mental retards can't work out that "quick" does you no good if
you can't understand what's being replied to, which makes it in fact
LESS quick.

Bet that'll make him curl up and die for sure.

Idiot.

 

[Rod Speed]

Idiot. I'm advocating "interleaved" posting.

****wit. You never actually said that until your
nose was rubbed in your terminal stupidity.

You're too stupid to understand that iIt
prevents quality, point-by-point discussions.

Pigs arse it 'prevents' anything like that.

And some just want to make a general point, not
engage in a point by point discussion, and in THAT
case top posting makes a lot more sense than
posting the new text anywhere else, because its
seen with the minimum effort with all newsreaders.

Only mental retards can't work out that "quick" does you
no good if you can't understand what's being replied to,

Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to work that out when a general comment is
being made about the issue being discussed.

which makes it in fact LESS quick.

Pathetic, really.

Idiot.

****wit.

No be a good boy and curl up and die.

 

[J. Clarke]

Well, you're entitled to your OPINION. I'm entitled to mine. They
differ.

Live with it.

Would somebody please start a collection to buy both of these people lives?

 

[J Kester]

..... I like Top Posting ... ( apologies to those offended )
I wish to add some more information/thoughts to my initial post:

1) I purchased WD800JB at the local big box retailer (C.C.) in a
sealed plastic "retail" box that takes the "jaws of life" to get open.
Warranty terms are sealed inside box, so can't read until purchase
and rip open the box. On the warranty terms included in box there is
NO mention they replace defective unit with used drive. Warranty
sheet does say that "more" terms can be found on their website. On
their website, yes now they reveal that RMA's may be replaced with
used units. At the very least that is misleading. It is hard to be a
fully informed consumer when the manufacturer does not make warranty
terms easily available at the point of purchase.

side note: I have purchased/used approx. 16 WD drives in past 12
years. Over past year or so, their failure rate has become too high.
I believe that WD quality control/manufacturing process needs to
re-evaluated. That is why the bean counters changed the warranty from
three down to one (1) year. (p.s. avoid HD's fron Thailand). I WOULD
gladly pay $25-$75 more for reliable HD ( failure rate less than
1/100000 in five years). As an engineer, a failure rate of ~2/100 the
first year for a hard drive is unacceptable; those early failures
should be weeded out on the manufacturing line. Using the customer as
the final QC check is just plain "BAD BUSINESS". Hard Drives are
"mission critical" in any PC and should be
designed/engineered/manufactured/tested to last 100000 hours under
normal usage. They need to have a lower failure rate than any
everything else in the box. Even with reliable backups available,
getting restored and up-n-running again is time consuming, costly and
a big pain in @$$. Maybe, they are setting us up so everyone will
need a RAID level-5.

2) I believe that if I took the defective HD back to the retailer
within 30-45 days ( I was right at that limit), I could have
negotiated a NEW replacement drive from them. But WD's "advance
replacement" was more attractive as I would then have both drives
available and be able to salvage/recover some data from the accessible
partitions on the defective drive.

3) As earlier responders have sympathized, I think WD should send NEW
drives to replace the 1-5% ( or whatever qty ) that fail within 1-2
months. WD can recyle the re-furbished drives to older failures or
even better to sell "fully disclosed" re-furbished drives, honestly
via an outlet store or through a discount retailer. Even though it
may be standard policy, a)it is not good customer relations, b) it is
not fully disclosed and c) if enough people complain to them and/or
other authorities, change can be accomplished
( .... the old hippy demonstrator comes out again... )

4) to remove any doubt about the my failure: WD has received the RMA
and has determined it is in-fact defective. I sent documention: a)
screen-shot of DELL Dim. 8200 P.O.S.T. HD failure warning and b)
ActiveS.M.A.R.T. report of 3 failure modes. (btw: TEMP was not an
issue.)

5) This failure was viscious: My more recent back-ups from the
defective drive to other storage drives ( 1 bck-up drive in each in
two local CPU's and a removable HD stored offsite) were corrupted as
well. But, I was able to recover data from backups done 1-2 weeks
after the drive was installed ( ~jan 8-12). (just a warning, that you
may be backing up corrupted data).

thanks to all who replied, regards J M K.

*******************************************************************

 

[Tom Scales]

Hey, I dropped out of the thread a long time ago

 

[John Turco]

I'm sorry to have molested your quoting. I wasn't trying to distort
your words.

What do you think about a site where ordinary people could post
regarding their experiences with their failed drives? People tend to
get upset and post when they get shafted, like the thread starter J
Kester. If enough people posted, then a picture might start to emerge
of which models are the worst.

<cut text from earlier articles, for brevity>

Hello, Richard:

Epinions <http://www.epinions.com> has myriad user-written reviews,
covering a wide range of products -- both computer and non-computer,
alike. The former category includes hard disks, naturally.

Good luck, and happy hunting!


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Rod Speed]

.... I like Top Posting ... ( apologies to those offended )
I wish to add some more information/thoughts to my initial post:

1) I purchased WD800JB at the local big box retailer (C.C.) in a
sealed plastic "retail" box that takes the "jaws of life" to get open.
Warranty terms are sealed inside box, so can't read until purchase
and rip open the box. On the warranty terms included in box there
is NO mention they replace defective unit with used drive. Warranty
sheet does say that "more" terms can be found on their website.
On their website, yes now they reveal that RMA's may be replaced
with used units. At the very least that is misleading. It is hard to be
a fully informed consumer when the manufacturer does not make
warranty terms easily available at the point of purchase.

Its just not feasible to have the entire warranty detail on the
outside of the box so it can be scrutenised before purchase.

No one does that.

side note: I have purchased/used approx. 16 WD drives in past 12
years. Over past year or so, their failure rate has become too high.
I believe that WD quality control/manufacturing process needs to
re-evaluated. That is why the bean counters changed the warranty
from three down to one (1) year. (p.s. avoid HD's fron Thailand).

Mindless conspiracy theory when the entire industry
except for Samsung has moved to 1 year warrantys
for the mass market commodity drives and WD is
happy to sell you a warranty extension to 3 years
if you want one, and the drives that come with
a 3 year warranty are made in Thailand too.

I WOULD gladly pay $25-$75 more for reliable HD

Then buy a Samsung currently.

( failure rate less than 1/100000 in five years).

Its never going to be feasible to quantify the failure
rate over 5 years until the drive is obsolete and is
no longer what anyone much would want to buy.

As an engineer, a failure rate of ~2/100 the
first year for a hard drive is unacceptable;

A real engineer would have been able to grasp that
that is technically a pathetically inadequate sample.

those early failures should be weeded
out on the manufacturing line.

Easy to say. IBM and Fujitsu would certainly
have preferred to do that but it just wasnt
feasible to do that on the manufacturing line.

Using the customer as the final QC
check is just plain "BAD BUSINESS".

You aint established that the drives that fail early
could even be detected by a better QC check.

Obviously any manufacturer would prefer to catch
them at manufacturing time rather than have to pay
the MUCH higher price to RMA them in the first year.

Hard Drives are "mission critical" in any PC

No more than any of the essential components are.

If your need really is mission critical, there are obvious ways
to ensure that no single failure is more than a nuisance.

and should be designed/engineered/manufactured/
tested to last 100000 hours under normal usage.

Not even possible. There will always be some failures
when the end user is installing something like a hard drive.

They need to have a lower failure rate
than any everything else in the box.

Sure, its certainly more hassle to deal with a hard drive
failure than the failure of any other essential component.

And there are obvious ways to ensure that hard drive
failure is no more than a nuisance, with a significantly
higher price. You just arent prepared to pay that price
and are demanding that be done for just $25-$75

Soorree, fresh out of magic wands to wave to achieve that.

Even with reliable backups available, getting restored and

up-n-running again is time consuming, costly and a big pain in @$$.

And it should be obvious even to you how to avoid that.

Maybe, they are setting us up so
everyone will need a RAID level-5.

Another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

You're always welcome to run RAID5 if you want to avoid
most of the risk of any hassle with hard drive failure and
always welcome to run duplicated systems to completely
avoid any risk of significant hassle with any hard drive or
essential component failure. And to have one of them offsite
to avoid any hassle when the house burns down too.

2) I believe that if I took the defective HD back to the
retailer within 30-45 days ( I was right at that limit), I could
have negotiated a NEW replacement drive from them.

Then you'd better buy your drives from operations that
do that. And pay a significantly higher price for the drives.

You cant have it both ways.

But WD's "advance replacement" was more attractive as I
would then have both drives available and be able to salvage/recover
some data from the accessible partitions on the defective drive.

If you're stupid enough to not be adequately
backed up, thats your problem, not WD's.

And the expensive end of retailers will allow
you to do it like that on drive failure anyway.

Completely routine to get them to agree to that approach
at drive purchase time. You'll pay for that tho.

3) As earlier responders have sympathized, I think
WD should send NEW drives to replace the 1-5%
( or whatever qty ) that fail within 1-2 months.

Sure, that would certainly be a better policy, but its
all rather academic if you have decided that they are
deliberately skimping on QC at manufacture time.

If you are stupid enough to believe that and cant find
any manufacturer that does it any differently, the only
thing that makes any sense is to just throw the drive
in the bin when it fails and buy a new one yourself.

And pay the price for that mindless approach.

WD can recyle the re-furbished drives to older failures
or even better to sell "fully disclosed" re-furbished drives,
honestly via an outlet store or through a discount retailer.

It would make more sense to just bin all returns.

The cost of your approach would be higher than the
cost to the manufacturer to make a brand new drive.
Because the cost is mostly in first world country monkey's
wages instead of third world country monkey's wages
with more time required at first world country wages too.

Even though it may be standard policy,
a)it is not good customer relations,

Correct.

b) it is not fully disclosed

Wrong. Its fully disclosed on their web site.

and c) if enough people complain to them and/or
other authorities, change can be accomplished

In your dreams.

( .... the old hippy demonstrator comes out again... )

Didnt do a damned thing to legalise soft drugs.

The few countrys that have done that
didnt do that in response to complaints.

4) to remove any doubt about the my failure: WD has
received the RMA and has determined it is in-fact defective.
I sent documention: a) screen-shot of DELL Dim. 8200
P.O.S.T. HD failure warning and b) ActiveS.M.A.R.T.
report of 3 failure modes. (btw: TEMP was not an issue.)

But you dont know that something else like the power supply wasnt.

5) This failure was viscious:

Like treacle eh ?

My more recent back-ups from the defective drive to other
storage drives ( 1 bck-up drive in each in two local CPU's
and a removable HD stored offsite) were corrupted as well.

Then you clearly didnt test those backups properly before the
drive died. Gross incompetance and nothing to do with WD.