HD upgrade.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
questions, if I may, to help me decide:

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
is going in a biggish desktop case.

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.
28 answers Last reply
More about upgrade
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    How old is the motherboard, what is the date on its bios ?
    Staying under 137GB would be safe

    "Fantrace" <fantrace@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:40f1bc9d$0$13679$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk...
    > My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as
    part
    > of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
    > Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
    > system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
    > questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >
    > What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    > better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >
    > Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >
    > Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
    > is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >
    > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    > The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    > drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as
    I
    > can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    > depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
    That's
    > about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
    > Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    www.storagereview.com great source of info for HDD purchasers - the Hitachi
    7K250 is top of their leaderboard at present for non-SATA drives.

    "Fantrace" <fantrace@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:40f1bc9d$0$13679$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk...
    > My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as
    part
    > of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
    > Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
    > system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
    > questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >
    > What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    > better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >
    > Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >
    > Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
    > is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >
    > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    > The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    > drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as
    I
    > can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    > depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
    That's
    > about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
    > Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Fantrace <fantrace@aol.com> wrote:
    > My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
    > of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
    > Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
    > system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
    > questions, if I may, to help me decide:

    > What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    > better than the rest or any to avoid?

    > Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

    Yes, massively. Not at first, but FDBs don't get lounder.

    > Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
    > is going in a biggish desktop case.

    You should have airflow around the disk. If it is only this single
    disk in the case and it is firmly attached to metal sides it may
    be o.k. without airflow.

    > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

    Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
    seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
    people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
    explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
    the people in Redmond did not get it right.

    One other aspect is that if you buy Maxtor, you will get 3 years
    warranty only if you get 8MB cache and a disk at least 120GB in size.
    But since you get at least the 2 years EU standard warranty on any
    drive, this is not so important.

    > The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    > drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
    > can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    > depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
    > about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
    > Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.

    I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
    the series of failed disks ("deathstar"). Until they do I do not
    trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely get lound.
    If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
    both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
    centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Fantrace <fantrace@aol.com> wrote:
    >> My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as
    >> part of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a
    >> 40GB Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of
    >> my system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A
    >> few questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >
    >> What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    >> better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >
    >> Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >
    > Yes, massively. Not at first, but FDBs don't get lounder.
    >
    >> Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for?
    >> It is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >
    > You should have airflow around the disk. If it is only this single
    > disk in the case and it is firmly attached to metal sides it may
    > be o.k. without airflow.
    >
    >> Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    > Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
    > seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
    > people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
    > explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
    > the people in Redmond did not get it right.
    >
    > One other aspect is that if you buy Maxtor, you will get 3 years
    > warranty only if you get 8MB cache and a disk at least 120GB in size.
    > But since you get at least the 2 years EU standard warranty on any
    > drive, this is not so important.
    >
    >> The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    >> drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far
    >> as I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    >> depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
    >> That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option
    >> locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several
    >> possibles inbetween.
    >
    > I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
    > the series of failed disks ("deathstar").

    Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
    convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
    hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
    class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward. Since the Fujitsu
    suit that was initiated about the same time went to completion a couple of
    years ago that seems pretty convincing evidence that there isn't any case
    there.

    > Until they do I do not trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely
    > get lound.

    Which is why Hitachi hasn't used them in ages.

    > If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
    > both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
    > centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.

    My Seagates make no more noise than my Samsungs. My Hitachis are just as
    quiet except for a very soft kind of "catcall" they make when they
    recalibrate, which happens maybe a couple of times a day.

    > Arno

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fantrace wrote:

    > What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    > better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >
    > Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >
    Definietely. I've just bought a Samsung drive based on fluid bearrings
    (SP1614N) and I can hardly tell if it's on or off (as far as the noise is
    concerned of course; it does his job well :> )

    > Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
    > is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >
    Generally 7200 rpm drives are said to generate much more heat than the 5400
    ones. My samsung (after performing some large read/write operations and
    with the fan switched off) has warms up to 41 C so the situation isn't
    critical (normally I use the fan, and the temperature is generally below
    28C)
    > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    Yes, without any doubts. I'd even say, that it's more important than the
    difference in capacity (I mean it's better to buy 120G with 8MB cache than
    160G with 2MB). It's the matter of comfort of everyday work.

    > The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    > drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as
    > I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    > depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
    > That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option
    > locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several
    > possibles inbetween.
    I think, that unless you're going to _really_ make use of such big
    capacities, you should rather stick to things like bearrings and cache than
    to the capacity (it really doesn't matter for normal user if he has 120 or
    160G - it'll take much time before he suffers from lack of space).
    Best regards and have a nice day
    --
    This sentence is false.
    Pozdrawiam
    wieniuszka
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    >
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Fantrace <fantrace@aol.com> wrote:
    > > My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
    > > of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
    > > Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
    > > system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
    > > questions, if I may, to help me decide:

    I have one of these drives and it is the quietest part of my system, but my other two drives are SCSI and I have two noisy fans to keep things cool.

    >
    > > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    > Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
    > seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
    > people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
    > explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
    > the people in Redmond did not get it right.

    The Microsoft people have decided that an OS should have a big read cache but no write cache. The advantage of having a larger cache on the disk controllers is that part of it is write cache.

    --

    When replying by Email include NewSGrouP (case sensitive) in Subject

    Mike Walsh
    West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    wieniuszka <wieniuszka_tego_nie@gazeta.pl> wrote:

    >> Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than
    >> 2M?
    >>
    > Yes, without any doubts. I'd even say, that it's more
    > important than the difference in capacity (I mean it's better
    > to buy 120G with 8MB cache than 160G with 2MB). It's the
    > matter of comfort of everyday work.


    But if the drive was just used to store data which was used only
    occassionally then the reverse choice might be better.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:18:02 +0100, "Fantrace" <fantrace@aol.com>:

    >What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    >better than the rest or any to avoid?

    Western Digital is really bad.
    I have three WD hard disks (40 GB, 120 GB, 250 GB), and each one of
    them is far noisier than my Maxtor 120 GB.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:26:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid>:

    >> I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
    >> the series of failed disks ("deathstar").
    >
    >Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
    >convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
    >hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
    >class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward.

    Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but there is a
    doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Fabien LE LEZ <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:

    >>> I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not
    >>> explained the series of failed disks ("deathstar").
    >>
    >>Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have
    >>also not yet convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me
    >>either that the law firm hasn't come up with a case or they
    >>haven't gotten enough takers on their class-action suit to
    >>make it worthwhile to go forward.
    >
    > Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but
    > there is a doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.

    That sums it up nicely.

    Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.
    http://www.sheller.com/PDF/2004.01.09_Maximum_P1.pdf

    Furthermore, the very way IBM handles the tidal wave of complaints
    about the Deskstar 75GXP (60GXP too?) was an example of
    disrespecting consumers with a problem.

    In addition IBM was most probably *knowingly* shipping duff
    drives. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6292
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:18:02 +0100, "Fantrace" <fantrace@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
    >of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
    >Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
    >system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
    >questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >
    >What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    >better than the rest or any to avoid?


    All have decreased noise levels a lot. There are still some
    older tech drives in the channels that have ball-bearings- avoid
    them.


    >Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

    Exactly


    >Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
    >is going in a biggish desktop case.

    With any drive you choose, make provisions for cooling it,
    whether that be a group of holes or open area for passive intake
    or an active fan pushing air though the drive bay. The amount of
    airflow needed to cool rest of system exceeds what it is
    necessary to cool the drive(s), providing they aren't stacked
    directly atop each other, that there's at least (roughly) 10 mm
    between them and airflow though that gap. With this cooling
    strategy any drive will stay cool enough except in extreme high
    ambient temp enviroments, where you'd have other component
    cooling problems before the drives were a factor.


    >Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

    Yes, because that premium usually is a small difference, but the
    performance gains are proven.


    >The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    >drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
    >can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    >depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
    >about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
    >Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.

    Many people jump to conclusions of drive "quality" based on
    failure(s) they had in past models. One thing we can be sure of
    is that if a drive had a true flaw signficant enough to deviate
    from typical failure rates, the company will be aware of it and
    correct problem... if a different model had problems it is quite
    unlikely to have a bearing on problems generations later. We
    cannot predict reliability or lifespan relative to different
    makes and models except in retrospect, long after those models
    aren't current. Choose whichever seems to fit your needs based
    on features offered, including warranty.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:05:26 +0100, "Mark: csiphs"
    <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid>:

    >Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.

    And after all, IBM did get rid of their "hard disk" section.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:

    [...]
    >> I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
    >> the series of failed disks ("deathstar").

    > Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
    > convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
    > hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
    > class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward. Since the Fujitsu
    > suit that was initiated about the same time went to completion a couple of
    > years ago that seems pretty convincing evidence that there isn't any case
    > there.

    Well, yes. But since I ever had 5 hdds fail in 20 years of computing
    and all three of the three "deathstars" I owned among them, I feel
    rather entitled to this opinion. Of course it is just that: An opinion.

    >> Until they do I do not trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely
    >> get lound.

    > Which is why Hitachi hasn't used them in ages.

    >> If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
    >> both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
    >> centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.

    > My Seagates make no more noise than my Samsungs. My Hitachis are just as
    > quiet except for a very soft kind of "catcall" they make when they
    > recalibrate, which happens maybe a couple of times a day.

    My seagates are a bit louder. But they are also a bit older.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Walsh <mikew137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    [...]
    >> Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
    >> seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
    >> people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
    >> explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
    >> the people in Redmond did not get it right.

    > The Microsoft people have decided that an OS should have a big read
    > cache but no write cache. The advantage of having a larger cache on
    > the disk controllers is that part of it is write cache.

    That would explain it. Linux (being a server OS) sees this differently
    and does extensive write-buffering. For protection against data loss
    on power failure it uses journalling or an UPS. For a server OS
    this makes eminently sense. For a desktop OS it depends. Of course
    having 8 MB write buffer in the disk gives you a mixed solution
    on MS, that neither has the full speed increase of OS write buffering
    nor the added safety of no write buffering. Hmmm.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Mark: csiphs <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote:
    > Fabien LE LEZ <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:

    >>>> I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not
    >>>> explained the series of failed disks ("deathstar").
    >>>
    >>>Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have
    >>>also not yet convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me
    >>>either that the law firm hasn't come up with a case or they
    >>>haven't gotten enough takers on their class-action suit to
    >>>make it worthwhile to go forward.
    >>
    >> Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but
    >> there is a doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.

    > That sums it up nicely.

    Yes , it does. And I admit freely that I am still pissed
    at IBM for not admitting anything while I had to do
    emergency moves of my installation to other disks.

    > Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.
    > http://www.sheller.com/PDF/2004.01.09_Maximum_P1.pdf

    > Furthermore, the very way IBM handles the tidal wave of complaints
    > about the Deskstar 75GXP (60GXP too?)

    Yes. 2 dead 75GPX, one deas 60GXP here. 100% out of 100%.

    > was an example of disrespecting consumers with a problem.

    > In addition IBM was most probably *knowingly* shipping duff
    > drives. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6292

    I think it was a relatively small engineering failure that
    met with a huge management failure. If they had admitted
    the problem and told me how they fixed it, I would still
    buy IBM disks. I rather liked them until the problem.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > Previously Mark: csiphs <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>Fabien LE LEZ <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>>I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not
    >>>>>explained the series of failed disks ("deathstar").
    >>>>
    >>>>Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have
    >>>>also not yet convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me
    >>>>either that the law firm hasn't come up with a case or they
    >>>>haven't gotten enough takers on their class-action suit to
    >>>>make it worthwhile to go forward.
    >>>
    >>>Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but
    >>>there is a doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.
    >
    >
    >>That sums it up nicely.
    >
    >
    > Yes , it does. And I admit freely that I am still pissed
    > at IBM for not admitting anything while I had to do
    > emergency moves of my installation to other disks.
    >
    >
    >>Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.
    >>http://www.sheller.com/PDF/2004.01.09_Maximum_P1.pdf
    >
    >
    >>Furthermore, the very way IBM handles the tidal wave of complaints
    >>about the Deskstar 75GXP (60GXP too?)
    >
    >
    > Yes. 2 dead 75GPX, one deas 60GXP here. 100% out of 100%.
    >
    >
    >>was an example of disrespecting consumers with a problem.
    >
    >
    >>In addition IBM was most probably *knowingly* shipping duff
    >>drives. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6292
    >
    >
    > I think it was a relatively small engineering failure that
    > met with a huge management failure. If they had admitted
    > the problem and told me how they fixed it, I would still
    > buy IBM disks. I rather liked them until the problem.
    >
    > Arno

    I still believe there was a problem with them, and I know
    that a failure of one caused me problems. Until then I was
    buying them regularly and recommending them to others;
    no more.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    You meany FEED the kitty its hungry and a saucer of milk, iam getting
    a kitty soon as well :)

    A 120gig SATA kitty :)


    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:26:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >Arno Wagner wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Fantrace <fantrace@aol.com> wrote:
    >>> My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as
    >>> part of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a
    >>> 40GB Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of
    >>> my system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A
    >>> few questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >>
    >>> What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    >>> better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >>
    >>> Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >>
    >> Yes, massively. Not at first, but FDBs don't get lounder.
    >>
    >>> Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for?
    >>> It is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >>
    >> You should have airflow around the disk. If it is only this single
    >> disk in the case and it is firmly attached to metal sides it may
    >> be o.k. without airflow.
    >>
    >>> Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >>
    >> Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
    >> seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
    >> people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
    >> explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
    >> the people in Redmond did not get it right.
    >>
    >> One other aspect is that if you buy Maxtor, you will get 3 years
    >> warranty only if you get 8MB cache and a disk at least 120GB in size.
    >> But since you get at least the 2 years EU standard warranty on any
    >> drive, this is not so important.
    >>
    >>> The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
    >>> drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far
    >>> as I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
    >>> depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
    >>> That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option
    >>> locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several
    >>> possibles inbetween.
    >>
    >> I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
    >> the series of failed disks ("deathstar").
    >
    >Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
    >convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
    >hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
    >class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward. Since the Fujitsu
    >suit that was initiated about the same time went to completion a couple of
    >years ago that seems pretty convincing evidence that there isn't any case
    >there.
    >
    >> Until they do I do not trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely
    >> get lound.
    >
    >Which is why Hitachi hasn't used them in ages.
    >
    >> If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
    >> both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
    >> centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.
    >
    >My Seagates make no more noise than my Samsungs. My Hitachis are just as
    >quiet except for a very soft kind of "catcall" they make when they
    >recalibrate, which happens maybe a couple of times a day.
    >
    >> Arno
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fantrace wrote:
    > My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it,
    > as part of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing
    > drive is a 40GB Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the
    > noisiest part of my system so looking for one that is significantly
    > quieter if possible. A few questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >
    > What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    > better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >
    > Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >
    > Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking
    > for? It is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >
    > Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >
    > The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB
    > / 8M drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but
    > as far as I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid
    > bearing which, depending on the answer to the above, may not be such
    > a good choice. That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The
    > cheapest option locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and
    > there are several possibles inbetween.


    Seagate is known for quiet, cool, hard drives, both IDE and SCSI.
    http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=2FZV

    The WD 1200JB, not BB or AB, would be my second choice, given your criteria.
    http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=18HF

    Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
    support 48-bit LBA.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:21:45 GMT, "S.Heenan" <sheenan@wahs.ac>:

    >Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
    >support 48-bit LBA.

    However, 120 GB is not much, and a IDE controller (like the Promise
    Ultra133 TX2) is rather cheap.
    Note that it's highly advised to break a more-than-120GB hard disk
    into several less-than-120GB partitions.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fabien LE LEZ wrote:

    > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:21:45 GMT, "S.Heenan" <sheenan@wahs.ac>:
    >
    >
    >>Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
    >>support 48-bit LBA.
    >
    >
    > However, 120 GB is not much, and a IDE controller (like the Promise
    > Ultra133 TX2) is rather cheap.
    > Note that it's highly advised to break a more-than-120GB hard disk
    > into several less-than-120GB partitions.
    >
    I assume that's a Windows-specific piece of advice?

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fabien LE LEZ wrote:

    > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:21:45 GMT, "S.Heenan" <sheenan@wahs.ac>:
    >
    >>Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does
    >>not support 48-bit LBA.
    >
    > However, 120 GB is not much, and a IDE controller (like the Promise
    > Ultra133 TX2) is rather cheap.
    > Note that it's highly advised to break a more-than-120GB hard disk
    > into several less-than-120GB partitions.

    Having had my first exposure to computing in the days when 100 meg was a
    huge mainframe shop, I can't help laughing at "120 GB is not much". I
    don't disagree with the statement, but still, how far we have come.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:33:16 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>:

    >I assume that's a Windows-specific piece of advice?

    This advice is for Windows, since it's the OP's OS. However, I don't
    know how other OSes handle that.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:33:16 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>:
    >
    >
    >>I assume that's a Windows-specific piece of advice?
    >
    >
    > This advice is for Windows, since it's the OP's OS. However, I don't
    > know how other OSes handle that.
    >
    Actually, the OP doesn't say.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:
    >
    > Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
    > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:33:16 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I assume that's a Windows-specific piece of advice?
    > >
    > >
    > > This advice is for Windows, since it's the OP's OS. However, I don't
    > > know how other OSes handle that.
    > >
    > Actually, the OP doesn't say.
    >
    > --
    > The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    > minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.


    Hello, CJT:

    No, but, check the full headers of the original poster's ("Fantrace"
    <fantrace@aol.com>) message, which began this thread. They contain an
    obvious clue, as to his type of operating system:

    "X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409"


    Cordially,
    John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:55:37 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>:

    >Actually, the OP doesn't say.

    Well, he wrote:

    >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409

    That's quite enough for me to have a clue ;-)

    Of course, he could talk about another PC, under Linux, but IMHO a PC
    user experienced enough to use Linux, knows how dangerous it is to use
    Outlook Express.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    Fabien LE LEZ wrote:

    > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:55:37 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>:
    >
    >
    >>Actually, the OP doesn't say.
    >
    >
    > Well, he wrote:
    >
    >
    >>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
    >
    >
    > That's quite enough for me to have a clue ;-)
    >
    > Of course, he could talk about another PC, under Linux, but IMHO a PC
    > user experienced enough to use Linux, knows how dangerous it is to use
    > Outlook Express.
    >
    Good point!


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:03:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid>:

    >Having had my first exposure to computing in the days when 100 meg was a
    >huge mainframe shop, I can't help laughing at "120 GB is not much".

    He he... I learned programming on a TO7, a machine with a little bit
    of RAM, a Basic interpreter on a ROM, and audio tapes to store
    programs.
    So, I was pretty happy to get my PCW 8256, with a floppy drive (with
    170 KB floppies) ;-)

    >I
    >don't disagree with the statement, but still, how far we have come.

    Yup, in 10 or 15 years, hard drives' capacity was multiplied by more
    than ten thousand...
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:21:45 GMT, S.Heenan <sheenan@wahs.ac> wrote:

    > Fantrace wrote:
    >> My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it,
    >> as part of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing
    >> drive is a 40GB Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the
    >> noisiest part of my system so looking for one that is significantly
    >> quieter if possible. A few questions, if I may, to help me decide:
    >>
    >> What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
    >> better than the rest or any to avoid?
    >>
    >> Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
    >>
    >> Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking
    >> for? It is going in a biggish desktop case.
    >>
    >> Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?
    >>
    >> The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB
    >> / 8M drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but
    >> as far as I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid
    >> bearing which, depending on the answer to the above, may not be such
    >> a good choice. That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The
    >> cheapest option locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and
    >> there are several possibles inbetween.
    >
    >
    > Seagate is known for quiet, cool, hard drives, both IDE and SCSI.
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=2FZV

    COOL? COOOOOL???? Barracudas are the hottest things I've ever used. The noise protective sponge is a nice insulator!

    > The WD 1200JB, not BB or AB, would be my second choice, given your criteria.
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=18HF
    >
    > Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
    > support 48-bit LBA.


    --
    FOURTEEN - CHECK OUT THE BABY! parrots and rising http://www.petersparrots.com
    93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
    1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
    Served from a pentawatercooled dual 2.8GHz silent Athlon with half TB RAID.

    In 1999 the creators of KY Jelly created a new product. It was called "Y2K Jelly." It allowed you to get four digits in your date instead of two.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware HD Storage