On Sat, Oct 11, 1997 at 08:38:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Simon Karpen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Which WD drives have you had good luck with? > > I have yet to see a recent one last more than a year... > > I have several (3) old Caviar drives. One is a 170 meg and the other > two are 540 meg. One is six years old; the other, probably about 5; > and the third is about the same. All worked fine for at least the > first 4-5 years of their life even though they were powered up > 24/7/365. The 170 developed some bad sectors about 1/2 year ago; the > younger 540 meg had the same problem at about the same time. The > 5-year-old 540 meg is still going strong. > > Considering that they were all cheap IDE drives, originally installed > in a poorly-ventilated case, it is not bad.
I have similar good experiences with WD. I have a 730mb which is nearly 3 years old (light load, 24/7 operation) which works fine; actually come to think of it I have an old 340mb from about 4-5 years ago which has been running 24/7 for the last two years with no problems. The 730 has a bad sector or two and is quite noisy now but is otherwise fine. I have a 1.6GB in my workstation which is nearly two years old. I also have a Quantum 3.2Gb of about one year in this machine and I find the Quantum to be a bit slower. I would probably buy WD again, although I would want ultra DMA next, or maybe even SCSI (which WD don't do?) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT. http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [***** ] 56% The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
