infini

Seagate making worse low end models

Recommended Posts

Hi, this is my first post here.I intend to buy an 80gb ATA drive. My system is not very fast (Athlon XP 2100, 512MB and a maxtor diamond diamondmax plus 8 40GB. The use of hard disk is mostly for exctracting big rar file and iso images.I was looking for seagate 7200.9 but to my surprise

in this page

http://www.seagate.com/products/details/0,,4,00.html

they dont have a 80 GB ATA hard drive with 8mb buffer!!! It is very strange that although the 7200.7 series had the 8mb buffer, the 80gb model has only 2! I will propably buy a WD or hitachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you a Samsung. Their 80GB drive is available with 8MB of cache and according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
I recommend you a Samsung. Their 80GB drive is available with 8MB of cache and according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability.

Be careful... here in the SR reliability database this Samsung P80 series has just below-average reliability, only 34%. Hitachi is better. WD 80GB is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you a Samsung. Their 80GB drive is available with 8MB of cache and according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability.

Be careful... here in the SR reliability database this Samsung P80 series has just below-average reliability, only 34%. Hitachi is better. WD 80GB is much better.

How does the Maxtor DiamondMax 10 6L080P0 80GB campare against the WD800JB for performance and reliabilty? What model is the Hitachi that you mentioned?

Thanks! JD...

Edited by JDA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

I recommend you a Samsung. Their 80GB drive is available with 8MB of cache and according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability.

Be careful... here in the SR reliability database this Samsung P80 series has just below-average reliability, only 34%. Hitachi is better. WD 80GB is much better.

How does the Maxtor DiamondMax 10 6L080P0 80GB campare against the WD800JB for performance and reliabilty? What model is the Hitachi that you mentioned?

I looked at Hitachi 7K250 series here in SR database. Yes, being correct, in fact this series has not 80GB/8MB ATA drive (it has SATA 8MB and ATA 2MB). In fact Hitachi has not such drive needed here. This reliablity I noted was only for example.

In fact there's very limited number of ATA/80GB/8MB drive models in market today at all:

- WD800JB

- ST380013A = 7200.7

- SP0812N = SP.P80

- 6B080P0 (6L080P0) = DM10

- 6Y080P0 = DM9

That's all, just complete listing!

Unfortunately, DM10 (especially these low-capacity models) is not in SR reliability database.

Still, from all the data available here and there the WD800JB can be a proof choice today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you a Samsung. Their 80GB drive is available with 8MB of cache and according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability.

Be careful... here in the SR reliability database this Samsung P80 series has just below-average reliability, only 34%. Hitachi is better. WD 80GB is much better.

A reliability database which is basically worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reli DB is a great idea, but with sample size well below 100 for most drive models and not being a random sample, you have to question its accuracy. Someone who knows statistics better than I could probably calculate that the error on that database is probably anywhere from 30%-70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SR Reliability Database is not scientific, and that fact is readily acknowledged. :)

80GB drives are a common size where I work for certain products, although we are beginning to transition to 200GB drives. Reliability has not been a problem, and additional cache doesn't matter too much unless you are counting the seconds you wait. ;)

Edited by continuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
The SR Reliability Database is not scientific, and that fact is readily acknowledged. :)

Readily acknowledged to a certain extent, that is. I would call it less "worthless" than a poster that says "according to many reports I've read, their drives have an above-average reliability." Smatterings of posts from a variety of readers across forums on the net are certainly not scientific either.

Threads asking "which brand/disk is most reliable?" on any forum results in obligatory replies from various individuals, solicited in a setting just as non-random if not more so than the reliability database. The aformentioned "34th percentile" comes from the aggregate of 809 results from over two hundred individuals over about 5000 calendar quarters of use.

Self-selecting? Yes. Non-random? Yes. Non-scientific? Yes. Worth less, more self-selecting, more non-random, more non-scientific than an individual saying "I've heard x drive is pretty reliable and y drive is not"? I would dispute this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now