Which of these 4tb drives should I buy

[dragonstunna]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178338
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822235011
?

 

[eton975]

I'd go with the Seagate. It's cheaper and spins a little faster (5900 RPM).

 

[shabby]

Get the one that's not a seagate, wd in this case, or the hitachi if you can afford it http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=hitachi_4tb-_-9SIA0AT3KF2435-_-Product

 

[smitbret]

Just whichever is less expensive. It won't make much difference.

 

[Elixer]

It the long run, it don't matter, just make sure you backup the drive, no matter which brand.

 

[Soulkeeper]

toshiba is another option
I noticed the 4TB is more expensive than those 2 options, but the 5TB is only $4 more

 

[fiberst]

For me, no difference lies in the two. The only issue is the budget.

 

[Shmee]

What is the purpose of the drive? I would rather get a good SSD.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've used both. Seagate NAS drives for my server; WD Blue drives to supplement my boot-system SSDs.

Every so often during my 30-year "micro-computer tech experience," I've lost a hard drive. And over that span of time, I think it's been a number less than I can count on one hand. I had a 600GB Veloci-Raptor go south about 2 or 3 years ago, and they replaced it under warranty. I use it as a backup disk in a hotswap caddy now.

I just don't think we're yet at a point where SSDs can practically replace an HDD for mass-storage capacity, even though prices are coming down. Except for the machine my 90-year-old Moms uses, all of our systems pair an SSD and an HDD.

I've been very happy with a 3-PC license for Romex PrimoCache. There are many threads that arose with Samsung's introduction of RAPID, with criticisms about using this approach over the raw speed from a RAID0 array. But the Romex program replaces RAPID with the ability to fold a cached boot-system disk and an SSD-cached HDD under the same RAM cache, writing the RAM-cache to disk (SSD) between boot-sessions.

This extends or delays boot-time, but whether "Resuming" from hibernation or simply re-starting, the "persistent" RAM cache is a real advantage. I don't think RAPID did this.

So my favorite workstation is fitted with two SSDs under a dual-boot Win7/Win10 configuration. The OS-es share one boot SSD split in two volumes. They also have separate but equal partitions (or volumes?) on a 60GB caching-SSD, and separate but equal volumes on a large HDD.

In the latter case, I could simply share the HDD between OS-es, except that I might want to extend "Program Files" data to that disk, and I'd rather keep the volumes separate between OS-es.

There's less wear and tear on the HDD because of this. Since I reduced the Windows swap-file for each OS to about 2GB against the 16GB-default based on my RAM size, I can afford to allow as much as a 4 to 8GB "cache-prefetch" write to the boot SSD at system shutdown or restart. This all seems to be working darn well for me.

The only thing that might happen to cause any problems with it are system instability or a dying RAM stick. Without those situations, I can afford to cache and defer disk writes, which further improves performance.

 

[bigboxes]

What is the purpose of the drive? I would rather get a good SSD.

I realize that you didn't mean it that way, but your comment comes off as threadcrapping. There are no viable consumer SSDs of that size at this time. HDDs are not dead yet.

 

[tweakboy]

WDC all the way!