What's everyone's favorite 1TB drive?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
JazzJackRabbit
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:53 pm
FRY's and Microcenter both have been running promotions lately selling WD10EACS for $99. At that price point that's an excellent choice. Of course I bought mine for much more than that. Still...
Now if only I could get raptor or 256GB+ SSD for cheap, that would be the perfect two drive setup. One drive for OS, second for storage.
Now if only I could get raptor or 256GB+ SSD for cheap, that would be the perfect two drive setup. One drive for OS, second for storage.
A slight word of warning:
I had to pick up a 1TB drive *quickly* out of the 'on the shelf' options due to an impeding HD failure.
Ended up with WD1001FALS aka Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB.
Yes, it's quite spiffy, but also not anywhere near as quiet as my WD 10EACS WD Green 1TB drives, which - granted - are 5400rpm.
It's not particularly horrendous, but if you have a decently quiet system already, I'd avoid this drive myself, based on this single sample I have.
My favourite? The WD green so far for me. It could be faster, but for what I use it for, it's enough.
I had to pick up a 1TB drive *quickly* out of the 'on the shelf' options due to an impeding HD failure.
Ended up with WD1001FALS aka Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB.
Yes, it's quite spiffy, but also not anywhere near as quiet as my WD 10EACS WD Green 1TB drives, which - granted - are 5400rpm.
It's not particularly horrendous, but if you have a decently quiet system already, I'd avoid this drive myself, based on this single sample I have.
My favourite? The WD green so far for me. It could be faster, but for what I use it for, it's enough.
I've been happy with 4 WD10EACS drives purchased from 3/2008-9/2008. These are all 4-platter models. I've just purchased a 3-platter WD10EADS. Time will tell if it will hold up.
Reading through this thread, I can say that almost anyone who upgraded drives over the years is likely to come across one that failed on them at the most inopportune time (this is inevitable due to law of numbers since no drive has a 0% failure rate). Where one places a failed drive on the their blacklist depends on how much time was lost in restoring the data (more likely how much 'cussing was said in the process
). Anyway for me the drive company (who will remain nameless) I swore I would never buy from was no longer in business (it was bought by another company).
BTW, since box makers are big buyers of drives, it's not unreasonable to gauge what the most reliable drive is at a given time by looking at what they are shipping (or better yet, looking at what they are replacing failed drives with). It is in their best interest in getting the most reliable drive. A user who lost data on a system might not necessary know or care what brand of disk drive it came with; they only associate data loss with the box brand.
Coincidentally (or maybe not) I did not see certain 4-lettered box maker ship another system equipped with a drive made by a 6-lettered manufacturer around the time I experienced my first of a string of failures to the time the drive company was sold. The drives were all 250GB IDE model.
Reading through this thread, I can say that almost anyone who upgraded drives over the years is likely to come across one that failed on them at the most inopportune time (this is inevitable due to law of numbers since no drive has a 0% failure rate). Where one places a failed drive on the their blacklist depends on how much time was lost in restoring the data (more likely how much 'cussing was said in the process
). Anyway for me the drive company (who will remain nameless) I swore I would never buy from was no longer in business (it was bought by another company).BTW, since box makers are big buyers of drives, it's not unreasonable to gauge what the most reliable drive is at a given time by looking at what they are shipping (or better yet, looking at what they are replacing failed drives with). It is in their best interest in getting the most reliable drive. A user who lost data on a system might not necessary know or care what brand of disk drive it came with; they only associate data loss with the box brand.
Coincidentally (or maybe not) I did not see certain 4-lettered box maker ship another system equipped with a drive made by a 6-lettered manufacturer around the time I experienced my first of a string of failures to the time the drive company was sold. The drives were all 250GB IDE model.
In terms of quiet operation, I think Seagate had seen better days with their 'Cuda-IV's (I owned both the 80GB and 160GB varieties). I believe they were the first to introduce FDB (fluid dynamic bearing) drives. I was a buyer of Seagates for a long time (up to 750GB) before I switched to WD after reading a review of the WD Caviar 500GB in SPCR. I've been buying WDs ever since.
My last Hitachi drives (a pair of 500GB 2-platter P7K500s) were the quietest, most efficient 3.5" drives I've owned. The newer Hitachis seem to based on the P7K500 philosophy--not that I have owned one.Matija wrote:Hitachi drives are power hogs and aren't so quiet.
Seagate has had 5400rpm 3.5" drives. I have a 40GB Seagate U6.whiic wrote:Didn't Seagate have one [a 5400rpm drive]?