1T Harddrive

[ipaulo]

If any one is interested here's a Hitachi 1T harddrive for $79.99 after a $30.00 rebate from TigerDirect.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=3333210&sku=TSD-1000H3

[doctorhardware]

That is not a bad price, my preference is Seagate, but I would also take Western digital.

[dr_ml422]

That Hitachi's not available, but I must say that WD you linked me to at Supermedia is on the $$$. Super quiet, and if I have already said this, it's even zipping faster than my Seagate 500gb. I'll see when they return the 500gb. Seems there was a firmware issue.

WD has also upped the times on their warranties, which I think is a big catch, or was for those getting Seagates.

[gonwk]

So, I guess none of you guys would be interested to shell out $50 for my 320GB hard drive!?!?

@ dr_ml ... aren't the Seagates kinda wishy-washy HDs!?!? Never had one but I thought I saw something on it that said is not too hot. But I think it might have been on the 2.5" assembled ones!

G!

[dr_ml422]

You prolly did read something like that about them. The WD in my Dell is zipping faster than the 250gb Seagate on my new build and was also faster when I had the 500gb Seagate in there w/it as well. Now I have a 1tb from WD and my build is zipping faster w/the 250gb from Seagate. So I don't think it's a coincidence that both WD's are working faster than the Seagates. I'm waiting to see how the 500gb works when I get it back w/the new firmware. Seagate told me to just see how it works after the new firmware and if anything we'll take it from there. At least they're honoring the warranty. If the hd doesn't seem like it improved then I'll be getting something else from them. I'm pretty good over the phone, especially when there's nothing really to argue about, and they already know there's issues. That together w/their warranty usually spells a positive result for the customer. After this I don't think I'll be getting Seagates anymore though. I'll wait and see. I won't say never.

[doctorhardware]

Gwonk just got a 500 gig for $59.99.

[gonwk]

Gwonk just got a 500 gig for $59.99.

So, I guess that is a "NO"!

Hi Doc, I almost don't have the heart to get rid of this thing ... it is a pretty darn Great External ... and I have all my Archives (software, pictures, ...) on it.

G!

[dr_ml422]

Gwonk just got a 500 gig for $59.99.

What kind a WD? Guess since he likes them as well. Let me know. I'm done for a bit on purchasing for about a month or two. Maybe only blank discs. If after I fill this WD tb and 500 gig I need more room, then I'll pull the trigger again.

@ gonwk Keep it. What kind is it anyway? A Seagate? 320 gigs is decent for some flics, but prolly more suited for the stuff you have on there already.

[doctorhardware]

Yes it is a wd sata drive.

[cynthia]

Went on hunting for a new hard disk myself. Noticed that the smaller ones seems to be vanishing quickly from the market. I ended up with a 1.5TB SATA Seagate.

Later hard disk not only have more space, they seems to be a lot faster in transfer rates. The bad thing is that the formatting takes ages.

[UncasMS]

hi cynthia,

i have used quick format for ages and never had a problem - what's the reason you go the whole nine yards?

[cynthia]

Never considered that. Used to old habits. It looks as I need to rethink the next time.

Over the past 10 years, I have used (and retired) at least 10 different "Pro" desktop hard disk drives of various makes, models and sizes. Each one was quick-formatted, and the only drive failures I ever experienced were for reasons that had nothing to do with a physical error on the surface of the drive. If you feel more reassured by performing a surface test when formatting, go ahead and do one. But it's not as crucial now as it was a decade ago.

http://searchwindowsserver.techtarge...27255,00.html#

[dr_ml422]

Never considered that. Used to old habits. It looks as I need to rethink the next time.

http://searchwindowsserver.techtarge...27255,00.html#

What does full formatting a disc for sector areas which are inside have anything to do w/physical surface errors on the outside? This I don't understand> Each one was quick-formatted, and the only drive failures I ever experienced were for reasons that had nothing to do with a physical error on the surface of the drive.

Does this mean that some kind of misalignment or dent or w/e that can't really be seen by the naked eye can cause internal disc errors? Please explain as writing about internal read sector errors and then going to physical surface errors didn't make any sense. To me at least. Thnx.

Also a drive w/more space and same specs as one w/lesser storage space would be that much faster? That also doesn't make sense. In fact when I talked w/Seagate about how slow my 500 gig drive was compared to the 1tb I just purchased, they even said that didn't make sense. They told me to simply return the drive and see how it performs when I get it back. Then they'll take additional action accordingly. So do you have anything anywhere that shows how exactly there could possibly be a noticeable speed difference in this scenario?

[cynthia]

The speed increase was observed when I copied stuff to the new hard disk compared to the old 500GB that was attached to the same cables as the old one.

The old transfer rate around 60MB/sec and and the new one 86MB/sec.

[dr_ml422]

Thnx Cynthia. Good to hear from you also. What do you use as a measuring device, and is the new 1.5 TB SATA Seagate same manufacturer as the 500gb you replaced? I noticed faster speed as well, but my new 1 tb is a WD. The 500gb was a Seagate. Do you have same specs on both except for storage limit? I'm very interested in the proggie you used to measure the transfer rates. That way when Seagate sends me mine back I can gauge it and return it if it doesn't measure up to specs.