Seagate NL35 HD's more reliable?

[xfile]

Does anyone know if the NL35's are more reliable for the average user/gamer in a non-RAID system?

There seem to be a lot of problems reliability-wise with the 7800.8 series. The 7800.9's are for sale as Refurbs already...indicating a lot of returns on a fairly new product series. Either Seagate sells an insane amount of drives (and some returns are expected) or their quality is slipping big-time.

I just had one of my 7800.8 drives die after less than a month. I thought I would be a lucky one but I guess I got bit too.

I would like to stick with Seagate due to the 5 year warranty. The 7800.8's were really quiet but the 7800.9's seem to be so-so.

Thanks!

 

[xfile]

Bump..

 

[Howard]

You mean 7200 and not 7800, right?

 

[Missing Ghost]

NL35 are useless for single user tasks. You won't see a benefit from the cost difference. I usually use them for 5-15 client file servers.

 

[xfile]

I meant 7200. Doh!

I was wondering if the components were of higher quality. I don't really care about extra features.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: xfile
I meant 7200. Doh!

I was wondering if the components were of higher quality. I don't really care about extra features.

Normally drives advertised as enterprise storage tend to be more reliable because of their touted 24x7 operation capability.

There isn't much data to compare but you can check the manufacturer datasheets between the cheetha/nearline/barracuda and look at reliability stats like mttf/unrecov. errors.