1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

2.5" Hard Disk Drives Roundup

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by Virkon, Jun 13, 2004.

  1. Virkon

    Virkon Guest

    Virkon, Jun 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Virkon

    John Guest

    John, Jun 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Virkon

    Virkon Guest

    Yes... I wanted to buy the 40GNX, but Hitachi has replace it with the 5K80.
    I want to see some benchmarks of this unit first...
     
    Virkon, Jun 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Virkon

    EM Guest

    There's more than buffer size to determine how "fast" a drive will be.
    Perhaps the most important factors being spindle RPM and areal density.

    Anyway... I like "speed" as much as the next guy, but what interests me
    the most is how drives perform in the long run (i.e. the RELIABILITY).

    What's the point in having a hi-speed (i.e. hi-RPM) drive that runs hot
    (not to mention being a bigger load on a battery) if it means (in all
    likelihood) a higher risk of hardware failure?

    I'm not saying that's the case with the new Seagates, but personally, I
    *ALWAYS* go with the manufacturer with the proven reliability record.
    Speed be damned.

    That's why I'll *NEVER* buy [desktop] drives from WD. Nor will I "try" a
    fast Seagate (or any other "hot drive") for the sake of speed
    alone--unless it's garnered a good-enough reliability record for itself.
     
    EM, Jun 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Virkon

    Virkon Guest

    I used to think like you... for me was very important the long life of the
    drive... But in my personal experience, now, I think that it´s just a
    question of luck. I have had try all brands of hard drives for desktops...
    No matter what the people or the magazines say... I have "bad" brands of
    drives that are still working after 5-7 years, and I have had very good
    drives that failed in two months... The laptop that I have right now has a
    Travelstar, and had to get a raplecement after 4 months...

    Maybe I´m wrong, but it´s my personal expirence...


     
    Virkon, Jun 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Virkon

    EM Guest

    There are still "trends" that exist.

    I still chuckle whenever I see a WD listed as a "top" drive by some
    reviewer. Reliability-wise, WD hasn't had a decent model since the early
    sub-500MB days. They're all CRAP, as far as I'm concerned--even the new
    ones. In fact, I recall seeing a post on a board a couple years back
    from a WD techie, and even he recommended AGAINST using WDs in any
    "critical" application.

    Quantums (made by Panasonic, and now owned by Maxtor): Well, they didn't
    call 'em "Fireballs" for nothing. Yes, they were fast, but.....

    Seagate have had a few stinkers as well (esp. the earlier Conner-Seagate
    "sardine cans" (1-2GB)). Good Seagates were (and are) VERY good indeed.
    The thing with Seagate is that they have many model lines accross
    similar capacities, and some of those lines are more reliable than
    others (and the reliability factor isn't always commensurate with the
    drives' performance).

    IBMs were reliable as night and day--absolutely the best... right up
    until the 60/75-GXP fiasco. 'Nuf said.

    Maxtors were quite reliable in the early years, then they hit a snag
    during the 500MB-4GB years. Maxtors nowadays are pretty good (provided
    you don't chance upon a rebadged Quantum). Given a choice, I'd take a
    Maxtor over a WD ANY day.

    *Right now*, the HDD company with the best reliability record is Samsung
    (kind of ironic, considering how FRAGILE they were back in the early
    '90s). You can take that advice to the bank. I *ONLY* use Sams in my
    desktops. Too bad they don't make laptop drives.

    All that being said, perhaps the best way to go if you want reliability
    and performance--in DESKTOP drives--is to get a SCSI model. SCSI's cost
    more not because of the SCSI interface, but because they're designed
    with higher-spec components, meant for constant 24/7 (i.e. server) use.


    Who *actually* makes those nowadays, IBM or Hitachi?

    I'm not saying nor implying that you're wrong. But I too, am speaking
    from experience (my own and that of others).

    And as far as laptop drives go, I'll continue to put my trust in
    Toshiba... until I have reason to do otherwise.


     
    EM, Jun 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Virkon

    John Guest

    The laptop that I have right now has a
    AFAIK, Hitachi

    John
     
    John, Jun 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Virkon

    John Guest

    Yes... I wanted to buy the 40GNX, but Hitachi has replace it with the 5K80.

    I have been using three Hitachi 40GNX drives with no problems.
    However, I upgraded to Toshiba MK6022GAX 60GB because of the
    16.3 buffer. Also, it is cost less than the 40GNX ... checkout:

    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=101670

    John
     
    John, Jun 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Virkon

    David Chien Guest

    BIG difference!!!!!! The Seagate is running at a faster 5400rpm
    speed vs. the 4200rpm the others are running at. Rotation speed
    differences alone will result in very significant differences in HD
    benchmarks regardless of buffer size differences.


    See this benchmark here for a comparison of even faster 7200rpm HD
    vs. slower 2.5" models:
    http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/IDE/hitachi_travelstar60GB_7200/travelstar60GB_7200rpm.html
     
    David Chien, Jun 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Virkon

    David Chien Guest

    oops! need to read the next row of HDs! scratch that!

    While the Seagate has a faster 5400rpm rotation rate vs. the Toshiba
    at 4200rpm; and has a smaller buffer vs. the other Toshiba (which I
    didn't notice the first time) with the same 5400rpm rotation rate, the
    difference comes in the number of platters used - here, Seagate uses
    just one, the Toshiba has two.

    As a result, the density of information on the HD platters is lower
    on the Toshibas, and because of this the Seagate will naturally be able
    to push data on and off the platter faster per revolution.
     
    David Chien, Jun 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Virkon

    Dan Koren Guest

    Dan Koren, Jun 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Virkon

    Dan Koren Guest

    But that ignores the fact that most
    desktop PC's these days do not have
    SCSI out of the box. One would need
    to also add a SCSI controller, etc..



    dk
     
    Dan Koren, Jun 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Virkon

    1 Guest

    Obviously.

    The one--and only--advantage ATAPI/IDE has over SCSI is [initial] cost.
    But if long-term reliability is of prime concern, SCSI's added cost is
    definitely worth it, IMO.
     
    1, Jun 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Virkon

    Inspiration Guest

    the hitachi 6K70 at 7200 rpm will be much better
     
    Inspiration, Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.