what is the best reliable hard disk in the 120-250 category?

[Arno Wagner]

He probably sees fewer Samsungs because they sell (relatively) so few.

Well, last think I heard they sold enough that "very few" should still
qualify as "few" when taking that into account. But that is speculation,
admittedly. Anyways, I have RAID1 and backups, so I will likely not need
his services.

Arno

 

[Odie]

Perhaps you ought to quit saying stuff like "I see more of so and so brand
drives" implying they are less reliable in that case, eh? If it's obvious
to you that such info is useless, not posting it would keep down the high
noise content here.
--

If you don't know what you are talking about, perhaps you should just
keep your thoughts to yourself.

Instead, you are merely *adding* to said "noise content."


Odie

 

[max]

Perhaps you ought to quit saying stuff like "I see more of so and so brand
drives" implying they are less reliable in that case, eh? If it's obvious
to you that such info is useless, not posting it would keep down the high
noise content here.

As a relatively low-volume disk user (usually no more than a
half-dozen or so disks a year), I'm always interested in hearing from
people who can post personal experiences with reasonably large
quantities of disks.

The data may not be as statistically valid as an extensively funded
and well-designed experiment, it's still better data than what most
people offer up.

max

 

[Arno Wagner]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:30:13 -0500, Michael Cecil

As a relatively low-volume disk user (usually no more than a
half-dozen or so disks a year), I'm always interested in hearing from
people who can post personal experiences with reasonably large
quantities of disks.

The data may not be as statistically valid as an extensively funded
and well-designed experiment, it's still better data than what most
people offer up.

I completely agree with this.

Arno

 

[CJT]

I completely agree with this.

Arno

.... and I disagree. Shall we vote?

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno Wagner wrote:

... and I disagree. Shall we vote?

Voting does not work for technical or scientific questions.
Although it is tried far too often.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Voting does not work for technical or scientific questions.

So then, why were you voting, babblemouth?

Although it is tried far too often.

Yup, and that's exactly what you did when you ticked the 'I agree' box.

 

[CJT]

Voting does not work for technical or scientific questions.
Although it is tried far too often.

Arno

Then I say that bad statistics can be worse than no statistics, because
they make you think you know something which you do not.

 

[Rod Speed]

Then I say that bad statistics can be worse than no statistics,
because they make you think you know something which you do not.

More fool you. Some info like that is better than no info at all, stupid.

Of course anyone with a clue considers the source of that info.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Then I say that bad statistics can be worse than no statistics, because
they make you think you know something which you do not.

This is not statistics. That would be voting here. It is heresay.
Up to everybodys personal guess how valid it is. I am willing
to take somebody elses reported stories as (partial) basis for my
own best guess if I know a bit about them (posting history) and
my judgement is that they have some competence and insight into
the matter at hand. It really is a fuzzy process with not hard data
at the end and your guess could be significantly different from mine.
But wotout data like that from Odie, there is a good change (again
a guess) that the quality of my guess (relevant to me mostly) would
be worse.

So no, it is not statistically sound.
But yes, it is worthwile having it posted here, and that is what
I said.

Quit looking for absolutes.

Arno

 

[mbelli]

I've had it with Maxtor! I've now had three Maxtor drives that fail to
boot. My Westerm Digital's are all working fine. So, I'm staying clear
of Maxtor right now and can't recomment them. Although I liked Maxtor
years ago (they were good, inexpensive drives) I get the feeling that
their quality has dropped.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

This is not statistics. That would be voting here. It is heresay.
Up to everybodys personal guess how valid it is. I am willing
to take somebody elses reported stories as (partial) basis for my
own best guess if I know a bit about them

(posting history)

From a troll using a nym with a business interest to keep bad drives
coming his way.

and my judgement is that they have some competence and insight into
the matter at hand. It really is a fuzzy process with not hard data
at the end and your guess could be significantly different from mine.
But wotout data like that from Odie, there is a good change (again
a guess) that the quality of my guess (relevant to me mostly) would
be worse.

So no, it is not statistically sound.
But yes, it is worthwile having it posted here, and that is what I said.

Quit looking for absolutes.

Stop publishing your votes.

 

[CJT]

Rod Speed wrote:

Of course anyone with a clue considers the source of that info.

That's why I ignore "info" you provide.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:


That's why I ignore "info" you provide.

Me and you in spades, child.

 

[willbill]

Need a new 120-250 hard disk

which brand is the most reliable

imho, it's just about impossible to
get an accurate answer to a question
like this

i suggest going for a *recent* 7200 drive (either SATA
or IDE), that has a 5 year mfg warranty

the main key reason that you can't trust
posters here, on a subject like this,
is that almost none of them ever sez
word one on how good their case cooling
is of their hard drives

and air movement, over the hard drives, is key
critical in their longevity

i currently have Seagate SATA 7200.8 (250GB),
Seagate IDE 7200.9 (250GB), WD IDE Caviar RE
(250GB), and Seagate SATA 7200.9 (300GB) in
use on two machines

if anything, i like the metal work of the WD RE
drives better than that of the above Seagates
(all Barracudas)

bill

 

[Rod Speed]

hodw wrote

imho, it's just about impossible to get an accurate answer to a question like this

Yes, but it is possible to get some idea particularly
about which models have a higher failure rate.

You dont need an accurate answer to do better than chance.

i suggest going for a *recent* 7200 drive (either SATA or IDE), that has a 5 year mfg
warranty

Dunno, there's more than warranty involved with hard
drives, particularly if you dont backup religiously.

the main key reason that you can't trust posters here, on a subject like this, is that
almost none of them ever sez word one on how good their case cooling
is of their hard drives

and air movement, over the hard drives, is key critical in their longevity

There is rather more than JUST that involved.

i currently have Seagate SATA 7200.8 (250GB),
Seagate IDE 7200.9 (250GB), WD IDE Caviar RE
(250GB), and Seagate SATA 7200.9 (300GB) in
use on two machines

if anything, i like the metal work of the WD RE drives better than that of the above
Seagates (all Barracudas)

Doesnt necessarily say anything useful about the life of the drive.