It will be hard to get results that reflect the real portion of failures. Unbiased polls are hard to do.
What you expect is that the most popular drive among the people that read this topic wlll have the most failures reported.
I remember when Seagate had the most popular HDs around. That was when HDs normally had 20-30 Megabytes (not Giga) in PCs, and Seagate probably had over 80% of the market. (They were the only ones to make HDs so cheap.) Tech after tech would say they saw far more Seagate failures than anything else, so be forewarned. But you would expect them to see Seagate failures at a rate 4 to 1 if Seagate if the rates were equal to other drives and they sold 4 times as many.
Those IBM 75GXP drives had a great following among performance freaks. A portion of these guys liked to use IBM drives in extremely heavy duty situations, where expensive SCSI drives would more normally be selected. So hpw much higher would the reported failure rate be if the rate was actually the same as for other consumer drives?
There was a local TV station that used to do phone-in polls. You phoned one number or the other to vote yes or no. On very hot topics they would report that the phones were constantly jammed, so keep on calling. The vote count was alway split 50-50 to within a fraction of a per cent in this case. How strange! Of course the split just reflected the fact that to vote on either number took equal time, nothing else.
I've had problems with 2 hard drives. A 700 Meg Western Digital that would fail to spin up if I left the computer off for 2 days in a row (stic-tion). You could get it going by taking out of the case an putting it back. And a 45 Meg RLL Mitsubishi, when I took it out of my "junk" pile of antiques a few years ago to see if it would work. A lot of bad sectors, and sectors-not-found. I am not sure whether to call either a failure. I have had failures-to-boot many, many times, but except for that one WD, a retry always works. I have never lost a single bit due to a hard drive "issue". I expect that to change with HDs now in the $50 range.
What you expect is that the most popular drive among the people that read this topic wlll have the most failures reported.
I remember when Seagate had the most popular HDs around. That was when HDs normally had 20-30 Megabytes (not Giga) in PCs, and Seagate probably had over 80% of the market. (They were the only ones to make HDs so cheap.) Tech after tech would say they saw far more Seagate failures than anything else, so be forewarned. But you would expect them to see Seagate failures at a rate 4 to 1 if Seagate if the rates were equal to other drives and they sold 4 times as many.
Those IBM 75GXP drives had a great following among performance freaks. A portion of these guys liked to use IBM drives in extremely heavy duty situations, where expensive SCSI drives would more normally be selected. So hpw much higher would the reported failure rate be if the rate was actually the same as for other consumer drives?
There was a local TV station that used to do phone-in polls. You phoned one number or the other to vote yes or no. On very hot topics they would report that the phones were constantly jammed, so keep on calling. The vote count was alway split 50-50 to within a fraction of a per cent in this case. How strange! Of course the split just reflected the fact that to vote on either number took equal time, nothing else.
I've had problems with 2 hard drives. A 700 Meg Western Digital that would fail to spin up if I left the computer off for 2 days in a row (stic-tion). You could get it going by taking out of the case an putting it back. And a 45 Meg RLL Mitsubishi, when I took it out of my "junk" pile of antiques a few years ago to see if it would work. A lot of bad sectors, and sectors-not-found. I am not sure whether to call either a failure. I have had failures-to-boot many, many times, but except for that one WD, a retry always works. I have never lost a single bit due to a hard drive "issue". I expect that to change with HDs now in the $50 range.
There isn't a more than one option 
I had a WD 40gb go out on me after 3 months, and 4 months ago I had a maxtor 40gb go out. The WD was overnited by Dell... the Maxtor was sent ground, but I still got it after 3 days. Both had excellent service... and I was able to recover all of the data off of the drives.
Spac3d
I had a WD 40gb go out on me after 3 months, and 4 months ago I had a maxtor 40gb go out. The WD was overnited by Dell... the Maxtor was sent ground, but I still got it after 3 days. Both had excellent service... and I was able to recover all of the data off of the drives.
Spac3d
How about people posting their service experience with WD, Maxtor, Segate, ect.
Regarding IBM, their RMA policy requires receipt of old drive first, then they evaluate and ship new (refurb) drive in about 10 working days. So we have 2-5 days to ship old drive back, 10 days for IBM to test/process, 2-5 days for replacement drive to arrive -about four weeks. Too long in my book!
Worst part is that the refurb drive they sent me crapped out in less than 6 months. And they couldn't care less about my inconvience. Second RMA has to follow the same time schedule as first. No expodited process at all for second time offenders.
Ed
Regarding IBM, their RMA policy requires receipt of old drive first, then they evaluate and ship new (refurb) drive in about 10 working days. So we have 2-5 days to ship old drive back, 10 days for IBM to test/process, 2-5 days for replacement drive to arrive -about four weeks. Too long in my book!
Worst part is that the refurb drive they sent me crapped out in less than 6 months. And they couldn't care less about my inconvience. Second RMA has to follow the same time schedule as first. No expodited process at all for second time offenders.
Ed
I've had an old caviar drive fail on me but it was like 4 or 5 yrs old. I just had an IBM scsi drive fail after just 3yrs. So much for scsi reliability, imagine if it was in a real server
what the hell...just as i responded to this yesterday, my newly RMAed fujitsu DIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
I KILL
I KILL
I KILL
I KILL
I KILL
I KILL
What about those of us who have had a hard drive fail, but not one of those? Back when my computer in college was new (fall 96), the hard drive failed in 3 months. I think it was a Quantum fireball. Don't really remember.
Since then, no problems. Including a 75 gig IBM 75GXP.
Since then, no problems. Including a 75 gig IBM 75GXP.
I agree with KF in that you probably aren't going to get meaningful statistics from a poll like this (and probably shouldn't write off one HD manufacturer or another on the basis of this vote, unless of course there are documented issues (75 GXP)). With that said, I have had two quantum 2.5 GB drives fail on me about 3 years ago. The first died 3 years ago, and then I received a replacement which died about a year later. By that time the warranty had expired so I bought a maxtor which has been on non-stop since then without a problem. I also have a 60GXP in my main rig that has been running nonstop since last July, also with no problems.
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
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter