I thought the new IBMs were doing well (I have one -- works fine), but it seems that the 60GXPs are experiencing many failures, too. Since I'm heading overseas, I need to buy a RELIABLE drive that works well in a RAID configuration. I remember that older Maxtors were slower in RAID -- is that still true? Any other choices? WD/Fujitsu/Seagate?
Is there a consensus on the best IDE drives now?
- Thread starter AndrewR
- Start date
I have a Seagate Barracuda IV 60GB hard drive that's awesome. I don't know whether RAID 0 is good with it but I'm tempted to get another Seagate 60GB drive with my tax return and RAID 0 them on my Asus A7V133.
Here are some URLs to good reviews on Seagate:
http://www.slcentral.com/reviews/hardware/storage/seagate/barracudaataiv/
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/storage/seagate/barracuda_80gb/001.htm
Here are some URLs to good reviews on Seagate:
http://www.slcentral.com/reviews/hardware/storage/seagate/barracudaataiv/
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/storage/seagate/barracuda_80gb/001.htm
<< Is there a consensus on the best IDE drives now? >>
LOL! There will never be a "consensus" on the best IDE drive IMO........................everyone will always have a reason to like or dislike a certain brand or madel no matter what.................
It's a toss-up, like usual.
My money is on two brands: Seagate and Maxtor. From personal experience, of course. I do have a 75GXP still chugging along, but I don't trust any data to it. I fully expect it to sh!t out completely any day now, at which time I'll promptly RMA it and sell the replacement.
A lot of people seem to be going for Western Digital, but not me. My experience with WD over the years hasn't been good at all. I've never had a Seagate fail (SCSI or IDE), and the lone Maxtor I had go bad several years ago was replaced overnight, no questions asked. That's great customer support which Maxtor still provides today.
There will never be a consensus. Everyone has their own personal preference, and then you've got brand loyalty and past experience factored in.
The only drives I'd -highly- recommend not purchasing are IBM. Sorry, but both 60GXP and 75GXP have suffered from ubiquitous quality control issues. I wouldn't trust my data to the 120GXP series at any price.
My money is on two brands: Seagate and Maxtor. From personal experience, of course. I do have a 75GXP still chugging along, but I don't trust any data to it. I fully expect it to sh!t out completely any day now, at which time I'll promptly RMA it and sell the replacement.
A lot of people seem to be going for Western Digital, but not me. My experience with WD over the years hasn't been good at all. I've never had a Seagate fail (SCSI or IDE), and the lone Maxtor I had go bad several years ago was replaced overnight, no questions asked. That's great customer support which Maxtor still provides today.
There will never be a consensus. Everyone has their own personal preference, and then you've got brand loyalty and past experience factored in.
The only drives I'd -highly- recommend not purchasing are IBM. Sorry, but both 60GXP and 75GXP have suffered from ubiquitous quality control issues. I wouldn't trust my data to the 120GXP series at any price.
Andrew, YMWV on all hard drives. I can only suggest that you stay away from the 75GXP series (as you already know). However the 60GXP's seem to be just as reliable as the rest of the vendors. There is no guarantee that the drive you buy will not fail. With that in mind, I say get the best drive for the $$, unless you want cutting edge performance.
Another rant...
Unfortunately, most on this forum recommend hard drives based on their advocacy for brand; their recommendation has little to do with actual performance, reliability, or noise. If you really want the best drive, either for performance or acoustics (noise), then you need to visit a site like Storagereview.com, the industry's most reputable and comprehensive hard drive testing site. They've tested virtually every hard drive under the sun, comparing performance, acoustics, heat, and other criteria.
From this thread, we see that people still insist on recommending drives that are 40% slower than what is available. It's just nuts. All hard drives are not the same, or even close in performance--from from it. Can you imagine if people here all recommended a VIA C3/C4 processor, claiming it was the best processor available, while completely ignoring everything from AMD and Intel? That's what most people here are doing--except for hard drives.
Hard drives are the slowest components in most modern systems. They are the bottleneck. As a result, hard drive performance impacts system responsiveness a good deal more than other components. Whereas we sometimes debate merits of CAS2 vs CAS3 latency, difference that is only measured in nanoseconds, hard drive performance is measured in milliseconds (thousands of nanoseconds). As far as performance goes, there is far more difference in system performance as seen with different hard drives....than there is with CAS2 vs CAS3 memory, or 133FSB vs 150FSB (at same cpu freq). Hard drives play a huge role in how fast web pages are saved to the cache, how fast web pages are read from the cache, how fast drives and folders pop up in windows, how fast directories list, how fast image thumbnails show in explorer, how fast applications launch, how fast you can save and open documents, how long it takes game levels to load, how long it takes to join a net game, and so on.
I'll let you others in on a little secret: just because you like what's in your system...does not mean that its the best thing available now. Just because a certain vendor may have offered the fastest drive(s) in the past does not mean that they do so now. And just because a vendor's drive reliability was good, bad. pr mediocre in the past....does not mean that it's good, bad, or mediocre now. The hard drive industry is constantly changing....one vendor may offer the fastest drive for 3-4 months, then another vendor may have the highest performing drive, then another, and so on. Each vendor, at times, has leapfrogged the other by introducing some new technology. All you can do is buy the best available at the time; you do not do yourself any favors by buying the fastest drive from two years ago, a year ago, or even six months ago.
Unfortunately, most on this forum recommend hard drives based on their advocacy for brand; their recommendation has little to do with actual performance, reliability, or noise. If you really want the best drive, either for performance or acoustics (noise), then you need to visit a site like Storagereview.com, the industry's most reputable and comprehensive hard drive testing site. They've tested virtually every hard drive under the sun, comparing performance, acoustics, heat, and other criteria.
From this thread, we see that people still insist on recommending drives that are 40% slower than what is available. It's just nuts. All hard drives are not the same, or even close in performance--from from it. Can you imagine if people here all recommended a VIA C3/C4 processor, claiming it was the best processor available, while completely ignoring everything from AMD and Intel? That's what most people here are doing--except for hard drives.
Hard drives are the slowest components in most modern systems. They are the bottleneck. As a result, hard drive performance impacts system responsiveness a good deal more than other components. Whereas we sometimes debate merits of CAS2 vs CAS3 latency, difference that is only measured in nanoseconds, hard drive performance is measured in milliseconds (thousands of nanoseconds). As far as performance goes, there is far more difference in system performance as seen with different hard drives....than there is with CAS2 vs CAS3 memory, or 133FSB vs 150FSB (at same cpu freq). Hard drives play a huge role in how fast web pages are saved to the cache, how fast web pages are read from the cache, how fast drives and folders pop up in windows, how fast directories list, how fast image thumbnails show in explorer, how fast applications launch, how fast you can save and open documents, how long it takes game levels to load, how long it takes to join a net game, and so on.
I'll let you others in on a little secret: just because you like what's in your system...does not mean that its the best thing available now. Just because a certain vendor may have offered the fastest drive(s) in the past does not mean that they do so now. And just because a vendor's drive reliability was good, bad. pr mediocre in the past....does not mean that it's good, bad, or mediocre now. The hard drive industry is constantly changing....one vendor may offer the fastest drive for 3-4 months, then another vendor may have the highest performing drive, then another, and so on. Each vendor, at times, has leapfrogged the other by introducing some new technology. All you can do is buy the best available at the time; you do not do yourself any favors by buying the fastest drive from two years ago, a year ago, or even six months ago.
I realize that there will NEVER be a consensus on hardware of any sort, especially hard drives, but I was merely referring to even a plurality of opinions about particular brands. I want the best of all categories, but considering my new to-be new home, I want reliability most of all. Noise is likely to be a consideration as well, with performance not being essential for a home PC (though I won't accept 5400 rpm speeds!).
The best IDE for performance is unquestionably the Western Digital WD1200JB (120gb special edition). Check SR if you doubt it.
Hands down, the fastest IDE hard drive avaliable is the WD1200JB - with the exception of server performance where it falls to offerings from maxtor and the IBM 120GXP, but if you want good server performance then even a low end SCSI drive can burn any IDE drive. If server performance is your forte, then go SCSI - don't even waste your time with an IDE drive.
But for desktop usage and high end storage - the WD1200JB is pretty much undisputed.
Like KenAF said, it's really futile to base "reliability" on such a small interaction of drives and personal experience/perception of drives. The only drives that I know of that have a "higher" than average failure rate are the IBM 75 and 60GXP series - and even then, the majority of people with those drives don't experience failure and statistically you'd probably be fine of buying one.
Either way, if reliability is such an issue with people then they should do frequent backups and set up a raid 0 config - trusting just one hard drive with critical information is like playing russian roulette.
Is anyone else really curious what will happen when they switch to even higher densities than 40gb a platter? I don't know when a HD company is going to offer 60 or 80gb a platter, but it should speed up transfer times significantly - maybe enough that serial ATA might be in order....=) I'm excited. Faster is almost always better.
But for desktop usage and high end storage - the WD1200JB is pretty much undisputed.
Like KenAF said, it's really futile to base "reliability" on such a small interaction of drives and personal experience/perception of drives. The only drives that I know of that have a "higher" than average failure rate are the IBM 75 and 60GXP series - and even then, the majority of people with those drives don't experience failure and statistically you'd probably be fine of buying one.
Either way, if reliability is such an issue with people then they should do frequent backups and set up a raid 0 config - trusting just one hard drive with critical information is like playing russian roulette.
Is anyone else really curious what will happen when they switch to even higher densities than 40gb a platter? I don't know when a HD company is going to offer 60 or 80gb a platter, but it should speed up transfer times significantly - maybe enough that serial ATA might be in order....=) I'm excited. Faster is almost always better.
<< Is anyone else really curious what will happen when they switch to even higher densities than 40gb a platter? >>
Supposedly IBM's pixie dust might take us to 400 GB by the end of next year. The trend of capacious hard drives continues...hopefully prices will remain low, too.
neutralizer
Lifer
- Oct 4, 2001
- 11,552
- 1
- 0
I don't see why people need such big hard drives like 120 GB. Couldn't they make some hdds that are fast yet small like around 40 GB - 80 GB.
I would go with the WDs! They are the most reliable drive out there. I have never had one go bad
on me yet!
on me yet!
My gripe also. I have a 60 Gig 60GXP that still has A LOT of room left. I wish there was a smaller version of the WD JB drives. I'd like the extra speed, but its kind of hard to spend the $$ when I'm not using the space I already have.
BTW, is the WD 1000JB just as fast as the 1200JB?
BTW, is the WD 1000JB just as fast as the 1200JB?
Whoops - I made a mistake - you want RAID 1 to ensure there's no loss of data. Excuse me. RAID 0 is where you get performance gains and double the odds of you loosing data to hard drive failure. *my bad*
Supposedly IBM's pixie dust might take us to 400 GB by the end of next year. The trend of capacious hard drives continues...hopefully prices will remain low, too.
I certainly hope so - if there's one bottle neck that drives me nuts, it's slow HD performance.
I don't see why people need such big hard drives like 120 GB. Couldn't they make some hdds that are fast yet small like around 40 GB - 80 GB.
Well, I do huge amounts of audio/graphics work. I've had my WD1200JB for about a week and a half now, and it's already got ten gigs of crap on it (and counting - damn soundfiles add up fast) so I really, REALLY need the space. A friend of mine that does HUGE amounts of video editing (it's his job, for the most part) wants me to build him a box with 500gb to 1 tb of storage space, and given that he's already using 300gb's of space, I'd say he'll use it pretty easily. =)
The reason they can't make small drives that are fast is due to the actual density of the data contained on the disks is directly related to the speed at which the data can be ripped off, since it means less movement of the heads and also data that's closer together. Because of this, smaller drives generally do not perform as well as larger drives (assuming they use platters that have less density).
I suspect caching on small drives would help tremendously, but I don't know if HD manufacturers want to shoot themselves in the foot. As it is, WD is already threatening the useage of SCSI in the desktop segment, IMO...currently, the only drives that offer a larger than normal cache are the WD1000 and WD1200 drives, 100gb and 120gb respectivly. I STILL wish they would step up the rotational speed of EIDE drives. Part of the reason the seek times suck for EIDE drives compared to SCSI is because of the rotational speed and the latency associated with that rotation (IE: 7200 vs 10000 vs 15000) - which also accounts for a large amount of the poor server performance of EIDE alone.
It'd be sweet if someone would make a 40/60/80 gb drive with a larger cache and at 10000 rpm - in general desktop performance, it'd probably rule (...although there's the question of cost associated with manufacturing...). Still, you have to remember that for companies like IBM and Seagate that make both EIDE and SCSI drives, it'd be akin to shooting themselves in the foot since they'd be making a drive that would directly compete with their SCSI line at probably a fraction of the cost.
Supposedly IBM's pixie dust might take us to 400 GB by the end of next year. The trend of capacious hard drives continues...hopefully prices will remain low, too.
I certainly hope so - if there's one bottle neck that drives me nuts, it's slow HD performance.
I don't see why people need such big hard drives like 120 GB. Couldn't they make some hdds that are fast yet small like around 40 GB - 80 GB.
Well, I do huge amounts of audio/graphics work. I've had my WD1200JB for about a week and a half now, and it's already got ten gigs of crap on it (and counting - damn soundfiles add up fast) so I really, REALLY need the space. A friend of mine that does HUGE amounts of video editing (it's his job, for the most part) wants me to build him a box with 500gb to 1 tb of storage space, and given that he's already using 300gb's of space, I'd say he'll use it pretty easily. =)
The reason they can't make small drives that are fast is due to the actual density of the data contained on the disks is directly related to the speed at which the data can be ripped off, since it means less movement of the heads and also data that's closer together. Because of this, smaller drives generally do not perform as well as larger drives (assuming they use platters that have less density).
I suspect caching on small drives would help tremendously, but I don't know if HD manufacturers want to shoot themselves in the foot. As it is, WD is already threatening the useage of SCSI in the desktop segment, IMO...currently, the only drives that offer a larger than normal cache are the WD1000 and WD1200 drives, 100gb and 120gb respectivly. I STILL wish they would step up the rotational speed of EIDE drives. Part of the reason the seek times suck for EIDE drives compared to SCSI is because of the rotational speed and the latency associated with that rotation (IE: 7200 vs 10000 vs 15000) - which also accounts for a large amount of the poor server performance of EIDE alone.
It'd be sweet if someone would make a 40/60/80 gb drive with a larger cache and at 10000 rpm - in general desktop performance, it'd probably rule (...although there's the question of cost associated with manufacturing...). Still, you have to remember that for companies like IBM and Seagate that make both EIDE and SCSI drives, it'd be akin to shooting themselves in the foot since they'd be making a drive that would directly compete with their SCSI line at probably a fraction of the cost.
It'd be sweet if someone would make a 40/60/80 gb drive with a larger cache and at 10000 rpm - in general desktop performance, it'd probably rule (...although there's the question of cost associated with manufacturing...). Still, you have to remember that for companies like IBM and Seagate that make both EIDE and SCSI drives, it'd be akin to shooting themselves in the foot since they'd be making a drive that would directly compete with their SCSI line at probably a fraction of the cost.
But for companies like Maxtor and WD, it makes sense for them to go ahead and push these to market since it can erode their competitor's advantage with SCSI. I suspect it has a lot to do with manufacturing costs versus the current market prices for drives. WD doesn't want to threaten their current cash cow, but I wonder about Maxtor. Maybe we'll see something from them soon.
But for companies like Maxtor and WD, it makes sense for them to go ahead and push these to market since it can erode their competitor's advantage with SCSI. I suspect it has a lot to do with manufacturing costs versus the current market prices for drives. WD doesn't want to threaten their current cash cow, but I wonder about Maxtor. Maybe we'll see something from them soon.
I use both WD and Maxtor, but will use only Maxtor from now on! One of my machines took a surge right thru an old Kensington surge protector, which I replaced with a APC UPS, but it toasted my motherboard and Maxtor hard drive. I sent it back to Maxtor under warranty and they sent me a replacement immediately. Great service and fast turnaround!
I agree with most people who reply this thread. Stay away from IBM..... it's just a piece of sh!t. Basically, stay away from all IBM products as they do not want to improve but deprove their products. My laptop has been to the service center for 3 times in 3 weeks and it's still not fixed yet. I am thinking to send this to the service center again but don't want to wait for another week.
Ok, back to the topic... I would probably go with maxtor or WD. Maxtor has a really great support. I don't know about WD support but I've heard some of my friends say it has great support. My friend bought the 100 gig and it's doing fine.
so whatever your choice is probably either Maxtor or WD.
Darno
Ok, back to the topic... I would probably go with maxtor or WD. Maxtor has a really great support. I don't know about WD support but I've heard some of my friends say it has great support. My friend bought the 100 gig and it's doing fine.
so whatever your choice is probably either Maxtor or WD.
Darno
<< Is there a consensus on the best IDE drives now? >>
LOL, There will never be a consensus on this topic on this board at all.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
I've always had success with Maxtor. Their D740X line is great and so is their warranty.
I am at home at the moment, using my dad's PIII box that has a IBM 75GXP 30.0GB drive. I must say, that while it has been running for 12 months now, it does not inspire confidence. I swear it's running louder than it use to with a higher-pitched sound coming from its rotation.
I am at home at the moment, using my dad's PIII box that has a IBM 75GXP 30.0GB drive. I must say, that while it has been running for 12 months now, it does not inspire confidence. I swear it's running louder than it use to with a higher-pitched sound coming from its rotation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter