Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

WD Ships 750 GB 7200RPM HDD for Notebooks

Last response: in News comments
Share
January 5, 2011 3:01:44 PM

Main issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?
Score
0
January 5, 2011 3:06:41 PM

cybrMain issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?


Quick search on WDC.com says no. its 9.5mm high.
Score
5
Related resources
January 5, 2011 3:10:39 PM

cybrMain issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?

This is a 9.5mm Z-Height Drive at least according to this site: http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=6278494663

It is chinese but you can easily see the dimension numbers.

Edit: mikem_90 found it on Western Digitals Site.
Score
3
January 5, 2011 3:53:52 PM

The 750GB Blue is also 9.5mm. Just seems the 1TB versions are 12.5mm height.
Score
1
January 5, 2011 4:01:05 PM

too much. the 500gb models go for 70$.
Score
0
January 5, 2011 4:15:52 PM

I'm still pondering swapping my current drive in my laptop with either the Seagate 500GB XT, or this one. Its nice to see that high capacity doesn't have to be as slow. Hmm maybe after prices fall a bit.
Score
0
January 5, 2011 7:36:50 PM

Kahless01too much. the 500gb models go for 70$.


It's mainly a matter of whether or not the laptop has two hard drive ports internally at that point imho although many come with eSATA these days. Still, that wouldn't be internal.
Score
0
January 5, 2011 7:38:35 PM

mikem_90I'm still pondering swapping my current drive in my laptop with either the Seagate 500GB XT, or this one.

Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice...
Score
0
January 5, 2011 9:56:26 PM

"Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice... "

There is nothing wrong with Seagate in my experience... On average they seem to last about the same as WD....
Score
1
January 5, 2011 10:07:19 PM

teflon2287"Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice... "There is nothing wrong with Seagate in my experience... On average they seem to last about the same as WD....


So much this talk is based on anecdotal evidence, a tiny sliver of how many drives are out in the field and operating. By the time we really know concretely what failure rates are across a run of the drives, its been discontinued for years. Its like MTBF, just a guess based on a small sample.

I've heard the talk from all camps. Some people say WD's suck, some people say Seagates suck. Me, I'll just keep good backups instead.
Score
4
January 6, 2011 11:48:07 AM

I'm not some home user who had one failed drive. My company used early 7200.10 series half TB drives which had an over 60% failure rate in the field within a year (based on a pool of over 400 drives). Seagate never admitted the problem and never did anything other than do warrantee replacement of failed drives, though we found out they did have a preventive replacement policy for at least one large customer (based on a report from our supplier). Newer Seagate drives may be solid, but this has soured me on them for, at least, a while. They deserve it from me for their poor handling of the problem.
Score
0
January 7, 2011 3:06:59 AM

I can find a use for 750GB and more performance. Waiting until it is $50.

Oh and let me add my experience with Seagate. Horrible. New 500GB 7200.12 died in 2 months, its replacement died in 2 weeks. Third is the charm but I'm now freaked out and checking SMART every 4-12 hours.
Score
0
January 8, 2011 12:37:28 AM

I've used all major brands of HD, enterprise, desktop, and laptop, except Samsung drives. All have failed. Some models from each manufacturer have had high failure rates (for at least one batch of drives), and all have had drives last for 5-10 years. In general, I've had excellent reliability from Seagate, WD, Hitachi/IBM, and Fujitsu laptop drives (I haven't used Toshiba laptop drives for long enough to make any useful statements about reliability).

Performance however has been a very different story. With very few exceptions (many years ago), I've always had excellent performance from Seagate and WD drives, while performance from Hitachi and Fujitsu has varied from mediocre to very good, depending upon model. While I haven't used any of the recent Toshiba drives, performance on the older models was always mediocre to poor. The newer Toshiba drives are reported to be much faster, but I haven't tried them.

For power usage/battery life, the Fujitsu and Hitachi drives have generally been excellent, while the Seagate and WD drives have varied more between models.

Except for the reliability experience, all of the above is confirmed by the Tom's HW 2.5" HD charts.

Given that performance and reliability are always important to me, I prefer the Seagate and WD drives. Still, I usually wait until I've read a thorough review of a new model before buying one, just to make sure the performance is as expected and that the power usage is as specified. And since I've had plenty of HD failures over the years, I always maintain recent backups.
Score
0
!