time

Member
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About time

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brisbane, Oz
  1. time

    180GXP warranty - 3 years !

    Well, my hearing could be better, and I'm becoming long-sighted, but I can just make out the text on NewEgg's website where it says 2MB 180GXP. Furthermore, it clearly states three years for the 120GXP models. The originator of this thread verified the information with IBM directly. His conclusion looks pretty good. I don't care what you think, but there may be others who read this board and go away believing your misinformation. So I imposed on my contact at IBM and asked him about ASI. He stated bluntly that they are not an IBM partner, and referred me to this page. He suggested that they were in fact a "broker", and said that any "one year warranty" drives were either "gray market" or from OEMs. Apparently this is a big problem in the US. Frankly, anyone with a knowledge of the channel would have known all this as soon as they saw that ASI "distributes" seven brands of HDD. :roll: My contact is the manager of IBM Technology Group, Storage Division, in this part of the world. He recommended that anyone who wants to confirm IBM's current warranties should check the warranty page (kudos, Orca). I guess Reparations may not believe any of this, but those who know me will. Honold, I'd be glad to chip in $5.
  2. time

    180GXP warranty - 3 years !

    That's the creation date, Eugene. Elsewhere it says: © International Business Machines Corporation 2002 and a meta tag mentions March 1 2002. I already had confirmation from IBM that warranties were still three years in this neck of the woods, but I've been trying to make absolutely certain that it holds for the US as well. How about the fact that NewEgg is now selling the 180GXP (80 and 120) with a three year warranty? If you check the other brands as well, you will see that their information is up to date. But before everyone breaks open the champagne, you should also know that it is more than likely that IBM will follow WD's lead and reduce the warranty for all desktop drives except the 8MB models. If they decide to do this, it will probably happen when the new joint venture with Hitachi starts trading. Reparations: I already outlined one possibility for your supplier's one year warranty, as quoted in the above warranty statement: IBM HDDs purchased from or supplied through an authorized IBM Distributor. A second is that you asked a pimply faced youth, i.e. salesperson, rather than a product manager. If you doubt this, consider that when I called a distributor here, the resident PFY said he'd heard IBM warranties would be one year from October 1 - he read it in a channel news publication. :roll: The publication never mentioned IBM - it was railing about collusion between Maxtor, Seagate and Western Digital. I guess a third is that there are different circumstances depending on where you are. Sort of a channel Twilight Zone?
  3. time

    Western Digital Warranty Lies

    reparations, I felt the tone was set by you, and responded as civilly as I could manage. It seems I'm alone in thinking that you're making this up as you go, so I'll apologize for suggesting that you lacked credibility with a posting history of zero. I'm glad you appreciate my assistance with your arithmetic. Let's just recap, shall we? I have built PC's for a living for a decade now (6000+ complete PC's ... The scale of my business allowed me to average 7.25 computers a day for 5 years running. If we give you 4 weeks off each year, that's 8,700 computers in 5 years, and I assume -2.25 a day for the other 5 years. A 15K serial ATA drive may appear in the near future, at which point the (few remaining) SCSI benefits may cease to exist. Personally I would love a UDMA133 ATA 10 OR 15k drive to show how effective such a device could be, and how realistic it might indeed be to do without SCSI. Serial ATA is virtually cut down SCSI rather than just a revision of ATA. You'd expect a drive so equipped to perform comparably to SCSI. It proves nothing. My point about intended use would be well known to people on this site who have followed the evolution of SR's benchmarks. As I said, expensive server drives are optimized for operation in servers. The fact that they may also perform slightly better in a desktop is incidental. It's not a design consideration, and replacing the interface with ATA133 is nothing but a hypothetical exercise. Similarly, it's hard to see why Seagate would produce a SATA version of the X15. Even most of the enthusiasts here choke at the cost, and that's not going to change by changing the interface. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. I bought a 40GB 60GXP from the same distributor a year ago for my personal use, and it had a 3 year warranty. I RMA'd the device due to an increase in spin noise at one juncture, so I am sure of its warranty status. My distributor is indeed an authorized IBM drive reseller. I don't know what you find on the shelf in your neck of the woods, but I have never seen a "retail" IBM disk drive. An IBM OEM drive is sold direct to OEMS (eg Dell). Everything else is a "retail" drive, including most of what's in the channel. In theory, you should see nothing but "retail" drives, but the large OEMs dump excess inventories into the channel, so it's possible to end up with OEM drives. The reason they're differentiated is because IBM offers a three year warranty on retail drives, but one year or zip on OEMs (the OEM provides the warranty). AFAIK, this doesn't happen if you buy direct from an authorized IBM distributor, or a wholesaler that buys solely from an authorized IBM distributor. With regard to the magic $20, here's how a business looks at it: If I buy 100 drives at $60, and 10 fail in the second and third year, it will cost me $600 to replace them, or $6 amortized over each drive used. That's less than what the drive manufacturer wants to rob me for, so why would I bother? The AARR would have to be a whopping 17% just to break even, and that's ignoring the fact that I get to keep the extra $2000 for an average of two years.
  4. time

    Western Digital Warranty Lies

    Congratulations! You are very possibly the first person in the forum to complain about the reliability of Samsung hard drives. Unfortunately, there are a number of other dealers here (not just Tannin) who swear by Samsung hard drives. This is backed up by actual numbers from a Samsung distributor (who coincidentally is also a WD distributor) that I have seen with my own eyes, and Annualized Return Rate information from Samsung themselves. To top it off, Tannin has helpfully provided his own numbers, and apart from the larger scale of his business compared to yours, he has the advantage that we actually believe him. That's interesting speculation, but most of us would be happy to see even an announcement of a 10k ATA drive. And Serial ATA is not compatible with ATA, but rather with future SCSI, so I'm struggling to see the point of your argument. The fact remains that high end drives are intended for servers, not desktops running word processors or games. IBM OEM drives have had a one year warranty for as long as I can remember. The standard retail drives, which are what most system integrators use, are three years. If your supplier says the warranty is only one year, then I assume they are not an authorized IBM drive reseller. So you're saying that a 33% charge for warranty is acceptable? I can't see any box builder bothering with those odds, unless you really believe that one in three WD drives will fail inside three years. :roll:
  5. Just like Fujitsu is happily replacing all those failed drives?
  6. I suggest you read this: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5430
  7. time

    Digital Photo recommendations?

    FS, I wasn't responding to you, but trying to correct a growing misconception. You can see how people may have misunderstood you. I agree that CF is likely to eventually displace SmartMedia, but that doesn't make it unviable here and now. Citing other types of devices seems irrelevant to me. It's hardly encouraged battery standardization. We're talking about digicams here, and a significant number still use SmartMedia. Anywhere you can buy CF, I guarantee you'll also be able to buy SM. Speaking of possible orphans, I think you can include IBM's Microdrive. You can already buy 512MB flash cards, and I'd assume 1GB by next year. Unless IBM can double their drive's capacity, they just won't be able to compete.
  8. time

    Digital Photo recommendations?

    SmartMedia is not an Olympus proprietary standard. It's also used by Fuji, and some MP3 players. It does have the advantage of being slightly cheaper, thanks to its lack of onboard controller. Given you would generally buy the cards for use with a specific camera, it's not really an issue for most people. Those with multiple cameras may disagree. It's also worth pointing out that even CompactFlash compatibility is not guaranteed. Most cameras only have CF-I slots, which are physically too small for CF-II cards. If you want to criticize someone for introducing an unnecessary proprietary standard, Sony fits the bill nicely. Their company philosophy appears to revolve around achieving monopoly status in several markets.
  9. You may have to approach an authorized Epson distributor for the extended warranty (Epson should be able to advise you). Ordinary dealers probably don't know what you are talking about, and it's probably not even on their pricelists. And I seriously doubt that you would have 90 days. Thirty is more common. But it's definitely well worth getting. I'm beginning to suspect that highend photo inkjet printers have long passed the ability of the human eye to discern flaws. Therefore the emphasis is shifting to color longevity and speed. Color output of 150 lines per inch is acceptable for most purposes. I have seen a test that measured the output of an Epson 1270 at 190lpi. That's only a 1440x720 dot printer. Hypothetically increasing that to nearly 300lpi is unlikely to make any difference, because the human eye just isn't that good. Hence the comparison that Pradeep linked to where despite the Epson having superior output to the Canon 9000 under magnification, there was no visible difference. Of course, this also suggests that Canon's claimed dot resolution of 2400x1200 is horse manure, but who cares?
  10. The point of Xbit's extensive testing was to show that there may well be a performance improvement after all, and it may be significant. Are you basing your conclusions on Atto?
  11. Hmmm, you're right about NT3.51 stability. NT 4.0 was much worse: As a server, we found NT3.51 with SP5 rock stable, and without the stupid licensing restrictions imposed with NT4. I like your ranking except for Win95 OSR2, Mercutio. IMHO it should be between Win98SE and XP (provided you actually install the patches such as Vredir). I'm conveniently ignoring the broken USB and other troubles. As Picard pointed out, Microsoft never did fully solve the shutdown problems with 98SE.
  12. time

    Power Supply question

    I guess that tells us something about Intel "tech support". Here's an idea. Why not look up the manufacturers' specs? Seagate X15 - 10.7W idle, 0.81A@5V + 1.15A@12V startup Atlas 10K III - 10W idle, 0.9A@5V + 2.2A@12V startup IBM 75GXP - 6.7W idle, 2.0A@12V startup Pioneer 106 - 19.6W average, 1.2A@5V + 1.8A@12V peak LiteOn 401248 - 0.9A@5V + 1.5A@12V maximum Plextor doesn't publish power consumption figures, so I used a faster drive from LiteOn. The X15 LP uses slightly less power again. I don't know why the 16x DVD is so hungry. So, 2x 15K + 2x 7200 + 10K + CD-RW + DVD = 62W idle (guesstimate - CDs chew almost nothing when idle) and worst case peak of 4.6A@5V + 11.8A@12V. A typical 300W PS is rated at 15A@5V + 30A@12V. QED, no problem. You will notice that manufacturers do not specify maximum consumption in amorphous watts. Remember also that the machine should never see those worst case currents because the hard drives' peak draw occurs at a different time from the removable media drives. The 5V draw is higher than I expected, thanks to the optical drives, but remember that a 300W PS still has a further 155W to share between the 3.3V and 5V lines. BTW, the real eye opener for me was when I happened to check the specs for the Barracuda IV. Would you believe 1.2A@5V + 2.8A@12V? If this extends into the SATA Barracuda V, the people that think desktop drives will replace SCSI in arrays are in for a shock.
  13. time

    Digital Photo recommendations?

    I just reread Future Shock's post and realized he was in fact talking about focussing. :oops:
  14. time

    Digital Photo recommendations?

    I'm sorry, but you're both wrong. Although the points you raised can be issues, the lag most people notice on consumer digicams is the auto focussing and the picture processing. Plenty of RAM means that more than one image can be stored in raw form before processing. Cameras also buffer the processed images before writing to the CF card or microdrive, so that you can in fact take some subsequent shots without waiting for the storage device. Prosumer cameras do both and achieve higher transfer rates to the card, so you rarely realize the limitations of the technology. This is one small reason I recommended the Coolpix 2000/2500. Although the focussing is still very slow, the actual shot time is a tenth of a second, which is way better than most consumer digicams. So still no good for action shots, but at least you can move the camera after finishing the button press.
  15. time

    Digital Photo recommendations?

    The Fuji is a little long in the tooth now. I think you should consider a Nikon Coolpix 2000 or 2500. They're both very light and compact and offer good pictures, ease of use and very fast prefocussed shutter lag (but slow focus lag as usual). The 2500 has the swivel lens and color matching software, but the 2000 takes standard AA, which with the latest NiMh gives you double the battery life of the 2500 (which is already pretty good). If you want a photo printer, I suggest an Epson 810/820/830 (the 830 will be available soon). You can of course spend far more, but this one provides reasonable quality, running costs and speed. If you want an all purpose printer, consider either a Canon S520 or whatever is about to replace the Epson C70/C80. By all accounts, the 520 sucks with anything other than photo paper, but the running costs are very good. The above list describes what I would call entry level but great value for money. By the time you buy a decent CF card, batteries and charger (included with the 2500), you'll still be well under $500 all up. It gets a little murkier if you want to spend more. You'd have to work out what you really wanted from the outfit, eg. 6x4 or poster output, fast shooting, etc. I think the market is polarizing into 2 and 4 megapixel cameras (and higher of course), so I'd look at a 4MP unit as the next step. And if you don't mind the running costs, the Canon S900 printer is under discussion in another thread as being an extremely fast photo printer.