mbf

Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mbf

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Is it known which recording technology the drives (particularly the 10 TB model) use? Is it SMR, PMR or something else altogether?
  2. Well, installed the drive in my pc today. Was a pain in the a** as expected. Then I ran that extended diagnostic test again. Estimated time was about 4:45 hours, but it ended up taking about 6:15. The good news is that no errors were found. For now. I also found out, that WDIDLE3 runs on all WD drives. Meaning that if you've 2 WD drives connected it'll alter the IDLE3 timer mode on both of them. Alas, the timer was already disabled on the WD Black 1TB, and now it's also disabled on the WD Green 2TB.
  3. Yeah, I know that USB is slow for transferring, but I wasn't sure how the impact would be on running that test. It's not just the noise from the pc that prevents me from having it switched on while I sleep. It's also those blasted ultra-bright LEDs. Hmmm... I'll see if I can fix something. Thanks for your input, by the way...
  4. Well, I did it. I took the plunge this afternoon when I returned from work. Or rather, the cat... eh, the disk is out of the bag and connected to my pc via a SATA-to-USB adapter I borrowed from a colleague. I thought it might be a good/easy way to check the drive without having to mess around with the pc. That's always a chore as I've very little space to work with, both inside and outside the case. I'm currently running the Extended Test in WD DLG. The problem is, the estimated time of completion is 16 hours and I'm only about 2.5 hours into the test. Don't know if that's because I'm using that adapter or if a proper SATA connection would take equally long. I might have to stop the check prematurely since my pc is next to my bed and I'm unable to sleep with it turned on for any length of time. One question: Would the Extended Test stop upon encountering any error or does it continue until the disk has been checked completely? As for WDIDLE3, I downloaded that tool the moment I saw it mentioned on Storagereview.com. Haven't tried it yet, though. I can't see any parameter to select the drive to alter. Would I have to disconnect my primary (WD Caviar Black) drive to be able to alter the idle behavior of the WD Caviar Green? If not, it'd be easier for me, since I still have a FAT32 partition with DOS on the primary drive (don't ask me why... ).
  5. Thanks a lot for sharing that information with me. Between what you and Brian have written I feel much more at ease giving this new drive a spin. I'll most likely go ahead with my original and install the drive this coming weekend. Going to do an extended test on the drive. Hopefully, it'll turn out I either got a good drive or if not at least I'll able to uncover problems (read: bad sectors) before putting the drive into service. Wish me luck!
  6. Thanks a lot! That puts my mind at ease. The reason I went for a "green" drive was mainly to get a lot of (reliable!) space cheaply. Of course, power usage and noise also had an impact in that I'd rather notice the drive as little as possible. Price-wise the Seagate and Samsung drives are on par with the WD drive around here (literally), but considering that a number of friends had Seagate drives fail and I've never tried a Samsung drive I went for what I believed was the "safe" choice. Well, it hasn't failed (yet) to my knowledge, as it still sits on my desk in its anti-static bag. I was merely inquiring if chances for having gotten a dud were so high, that I shouldn't even attempt installing it and instead exchange it for eg. a Samsung or a Seagate drive. My main concern here is reliability.
  7. To make a long story short(ish ): Recently I noticed that I was fast running out of disk space and obviously instead of deleting stuff I opted to get another drive. I've always been kind of partial to Western Digital drives, so when I found the WD20EARS cheap a couple of days ago I jumped at the chance and bought it. Today I got the drive and it turned out to be the WD20EARS-00MVWB0 model manufactured 13 Jan 2011. For some reason I decided to look it up on the net and apart from it being a 3-platter model (nice!) there also seem to be a lot of reports regarding drives that are either DOA or failing within a pretty short time frame. Originally I intended to install the drive this coming weekend. Now, I'm a bit hesitant. Should I go ahead and install it or should I just return it for a refund? So I turn to my favorite storage site for much needed guidance. Is the WD20EARS-00MVWB0 really this unreliable?
  8. Just wanted to thank for the additional input. I hadn't realized there was any, which is why I'm so late to reply. I'm still a bit wary of the Samsung F1 series. Especially the bit where drive failures are put down to problems with Samsung's HD Tool. I don't have any particular insight into the workings of hard disk drives, but should it really be possible to destroy a disk by examining it? Shouldn't this be a non-intrusive check? Sounds more like quantum mechanics to me. With this being said I'm still torn between the new Seagate and the WD1001FALS. In the mean time the Seagate has gotten more expensive(!) and availability has been pushed into november around here. Maybe this will help me make my mind up. Again, thanks for all your input. It is much appreciated! Oh, and sorry for the accidental double post as well as my inability to type the word "horror"...
  9. Thanks for your replies! I'm still not really decided on which way to go, but I feel I've come a bit closer. The Samsung drive I've dropped completely off my list, since I don't trust it with my data. There've been too many horrow stories. I might actually pick up a second drive for backup purposes, and I've also considered putting two WD6400AAKS drives in my system, as it would be both cheaper and giving me more storage than a single WD1001FALS. I'm just worried that two drives might produce more noise, both directly by themselves and indirectly in regard to heat output. So all in all I'm more keen on a single drive. In the end I'm still tied between the WD1001FALS, because of its speed (and I like WD drives better than Seagate drives, but that's just on a subjective note) and the Seagate 7200.11 1.5TB, mainly because of its value for money (the drive costs about $10 more than the WD1001FALS), and because it apparently isn't a slouch either (the larger platter size seems to give it a bit more speed than e.g. the 1TB version). Decisions, decisions...
  10. Thanks for your replies! I'm still not really decided on which way to go, but I feel I've come a bit closer. The Samsung drive I've dropped completely off my list, since I don't trust it with my data. There've been too many horrow stories. I might actually pick up a second drive for backup purposes, and I've also considered putting two WD6400AAKS drives in my system, as it would be both cheaper and giving me more storage than a single WD1001FALS. I'm just worried that two drives might produce more noise, both directly by themselves and indirectly in regard to heat output. So all in all I'm more keen on a single drive. In the end I'm still tied between the WD1001FALS, because of its speed (and I like WD drives better than Seagate drives, but that's just on a subjective note) and the Seagate 7200.11 1.5TB, mainly because of its value for money (the drive costs about $10 more than the WD1001FALS), and because it apparently isn't a slouch either (the larger platter size seems to give it a bit more speed than e.g. the 1TB version). Decisions, decisions...
  11. I'm going to build a new system very soon. I usually only put 1 drive into my system, so naturally that drive has to double as a system drive and a storage drive. I had first set my sights on the Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB drive, until I read up on the problems people were having with them. My next (and current) favorite was the Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB (WD1001FALS). However, as I've just found out, I can get the new Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB for almost the exact price I'd have to pay for the WD1001FALS. Now I'm again at a loss as to which drive to choose. I'm aware, that the 1TB (or smaller) version of 7200.11 are pretty slow in comparison to other drives (except for perhaps the WD GP drives), but a test of the 7200.11 1.5TB over at tomshardware.com seems to indicate that the 7200.11 1.5TB drive is actually quite fast (on par with or slightly faster than the WD1001FALS) except for "workstation I/O loads". I'm not really sure what that means in a normal desktop scenario. I'd appreciate all the input you guys can give me that would help me decide which drive to go for. The Seagate sounds pretty sweet considering the extra 50% storage space, but maybe I'm overlooking something important?
  12. Eugene, here you are talking about the WD4000KS being the desktop version of the WD4000YR, yet elsewhere in this article people are referring to the WD4000KD. Was the 'KS' in this post a typo? I can see that WD has both a WD4000KD and a WD4000KS, and apparently a WD4000YS is also available from WD (soon.) Strictly talking desktop drives, wouldn't the KS series be preferable to the KD series?
  13. mbf

    Maxtor Maxline 3

    Thanks a lot for your reply! I'll take your suggestions to heart, although I'm still a bit hooked on 2 DM10 200GBs rather than 1 DM10 300GB. There's just nothing like 100GB extra "for free", even with the funny way HDD manufacturers calculate drive sizes... On a side note, you don't happen to know if the new "QuickView" version of the DM10 would be preferable to the original one? I just saw the QuickView models listed at the same price as the original ones. Best regards, mbf
  14. mbf

    Maxtor Maxline 3

    Hi there! This is my first post on this forum and first off, let me thank you guys at SR for providing all this great info on HDDs. Reviews on SR are always a great read and the review of the MaxLine III series is no exception, especially with the revised info on the drive. In the article it's mentioned that the MaxLine III series equal the DiamondMax 10 series in specs and performance, and vice versa. How do the 8MB DM10s (200GB and below) stack up against the MLIII/high-end DM10s, though? The thing is, I'm currently in the market for some extra storage speed, but money is somewhat tight, so when I can get 2 DM10 200GBs for the same price as 1 DM10 300GB, I'd choose that unless the performance hit is too high. Also, how much "better" really is the MaxLine series compared to the DiamondMax series, since another option for me would be to get some last-gen MaxLine II Plus 250GB drives at a good price. I'm just a bit concerned about some possible performance issues since the MLIIPs seem to be native (P)ATA drives bridged to SATA. Someone "in the know", please help me out! Also, I apologize in advance if I've used the inappropriate forum for this. TIA, mbf