what HD to get??


  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. what HD to get??

    • IBM ($148 CDN)
      5
    • Maxtor ($168 CDN)
      10
    • Seagate ($163 CDN)
      3
    • Western Digital ($174 CDN or $196 (8 MB cache))
      13


Recommended Posts

First, I've heard of more people having problems with IBM Deskstars than any other drive ever (I've gone through THREE of them in the last year...).

208 People who have reviewed IBM Deskstars agree at cnet agree:

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1092-...2.top.1859656-1

(Search for "scratch". Those are the most common problems with them).

Secondly, I've heard there have been some massive problems with the drives that have the 8mb cache. Corruption and whatnot. I'm not sure if these problems are gone now, but I would read some reviews before I dropped almost 200 clams for one (not that I would ever spend that much for a non-scsi drive anyways).

And finally, this piece of advice:

The speed differences between similiar drives is negligible. And a huge cache only helps you if the same data is being accessed really often (ie, long data streams, like video/audio, wont see much of an increase in speed). Same is true for ATA100/ATA133. I haven't seen a single review that's stated how "super duper" ATA133 is over ATA100 (contrary to popular belief, it's not "33% faster".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Vlad. The last thing I would get is IBM. I also have read reviews on the new "special edition" WD drives and they are proven to be even faster than the Maxtor ATA 133. IMHO, you can't go wrong with Maxtor or WD but I would vote for WD "special edition" if that is what you are refering to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, you DO NOT want to put exhaust fans by the drive. Blowing cool air over them is MUCH more efficent and effective

All my HDs are super cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by nartac

I agree with Vlad. The last thing I would get is IBM. I also have read reviews on the new "special edition" WD drives and they are proven to be even faster than the Maxtor ATA 133. IMHO, you can't go wrong with Maxtor or WD but I would vote for WD "special edition" if that is what you are refering to.

yeah ... i see a rush of ppl grabbing Linux just 'cause windows is pretty unstable ... grab IBM hd's ffs!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had them since last year, 4 of them even. 2 * 30 GIG GXP60 running in RAID 0. 2 * 40 GIG GXP75 storage and all backed up to an 80 GIG GXP120. Damn I can't see all of them failing at the same time, I would recommended them but I had a top of the line system last year with an awesome case. I hear that cooling the HDs helps too and the Lian-Li cases aren't a slouch at it either. Also IBM sold their HD property or something like that to another company. Now if I needed to buy a HD, I think I'll try Seagate. Had problems with Maxtor, WD, Fujitsu and Quantum (owned by Maxtor now I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For speed maxtor is the best, the ATA 133 model blew away IBM finally according to recent benchmarks. Just don't get Western Digital if you plan to turn your comp on/off ever day, they wont last 10 months (I went through 3!). If you wan reliability for the same price as the Maxtor drive minus ATA133, get Seagate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I've heard of more people having problems with IBM Deskstars than any other drive ever (I've gone through THREE of them in the last year...).

Same here, only i've gone through two last year, each time i lost tons of valueable data. I will never trust an IBM hard drive again because of that. You should definately go with the Western Digital, I have two in my box right now (80 gig and 120 gig) and they haven't failed yet, nor do i think they will fail anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm...keep the responses coming :)

just to confirm...i'm not going to have any compatibility issues if i have two HDs of two different companies, right?

i have maxtor ATA66 *i think*...actually, how do i check for that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sputnik

Seagate - reliable and quite !

and the speed difference is negligible (as been said)

I burned through two Maxtors in a year, and another the one on my 2000 box is constantly killing off sectors. My Seagate from four years before the first Maxtor died still works. I know there's a bit of difference between a 3.2 GB and a 19.2 GB with a four year spread... but the Maxtor SHOULD be more reliable if it's older and it's not.

Go with Seagate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone have any links to reviews that say that the western digital SE 8meg chache hard drives are unstable? i just ordered one for myself and would like to find out if i should send it back for a different make....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just say no to any IBM drive over 60 gigs! I just sent back my 75 gig. I was lucky and was able to salvage some of the data, but it took me almost a week of trying different things!

I have a Maxtor now and so far it's been very good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright.. In regards to the IBM drives, I recently had the option to replace my current Maxtor 80 gig with an IBM GXP120 80 gig hard drive. I decided b/c of the speed gain, I'd give it a shot. Well.. Lets say I am currently writing this from a computer running the Maxtor drive. THe IBM drive was actually SLOWER for me (tested in PCMark), and it made funny noises all the time (ticks) and the straw broke when it made a loud whining noise, so I promptly ghosted it back to my Maxtor and I'm back in business. I would NOT trust IBM. They are being SUED for their previous drive, the GXP75 over reliability problems and when the GXP120 initially came out, it had a 333 hour/month runtime recommendation in its specs.

Not to mention that IBM is using the new pixie-dust technology which although promising is NOT well-tested in the market place. I've always used Maxtor drives and I have never had a single failure. Anyone who has had multiple Maxtor failures was either flukey or did something to their computer that messed up the drives. I haven't had much experience with WD drives but let me tell you that I've read many a review that considers the Maxtor DiamondMax D740X the best server hard drive available (ie very reliable) - and look at its seek time to boot.

I personally consider Maxtor like AMD and WD like Intel - both pretty comparable except one costs a hell of a lot more for the name.

If you need any links to the reviews and such, let me know and I'll dig them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read in Maximum PC that IBM may be stopping manufacturing of hard drives, so I'd be hesitant to buy one, especially when there are other makers out there. Not to mention that I've heard a lot of horror stories on forums about IBM drives...but that goes pretty much with every company. If you get a pretty good deal on one, I'd go for it, but if you can find a cheaper Maxtor, go for that.

*edit*

Oh...right now, I have two Maxtor drives, a 7200 rpm ata100 20 gig and a 5400 ata100 60 gig. Never had a problem with them, and I've put them thru hell, trust me. Plus, I kinda dig the acoustic management utility that puts them in quiet stealth mode. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In standard drivers, ie we're talkin 7200rpm (wot person buys 5400rpm drives nowadays?) 2meg cache ATA133, the Maxtors are the definate winner, with the best speed and reliability. IBM drives suk. Period.

If you can afford the increase to the 8meg cache version of the WD drive, then get it, it blows all the others away and has performance close to a SCSI drive.

Dunno where that person thought the standard IBMs could keep up with the 8meg cache WDs, they cant even keep up with the other manufacturers drives of the same spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.