Like I said before, the sample sizes most of us work with are utterly irrelevant. My Seagate drives (7200.9, 7200.10) generally run hotter than my WDs, and have had a higher failure rate (especially those pre-7200.9). But, for my part, I discount my experience when someone asks "which drive is the most reliable" because I appreciate the fact that my sample size is too limited to be applied generally.
Frankly, I find myself buying more and more based on support experiences. I've had excellent experiences dealing with WD returns/support, so that's a preferred manufacturer for me. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Tapia > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:47 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] My PC Build for January > > I've actually had quite the opposite. After loosing my final WD drive > last > year (Dec) (400gb sata) I have sworn off WD. A buddy of mine also > loves to > buy WD, raptors for speed, but has had the same type of problem where > they > just wear out quickly or just go bad. It could be because they tend to > run > hotter imho. As for my seagates, the oldest one I currently own is > from > 2001, and it's still humming along just fine. > > On Jan 3, 2008 12:33 PM, Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd go Western Digital over Seagate. I replaced a lot of dead and > > dying Seagates, and very few Western Digitals. I only sell WD, and I > > have a very low failure rate. As an added plus, WD will cross ship > > and Seagate won't. > > > > T
