Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (
More info?)
"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jUSPd.41492$EG1.30421@lakeread04...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37a8jnF5b75nsU1@individual.net...
>>
>
>
>> > Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
>> > on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.
>
> Read what WD actually says
http
/support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp
>
> " All Western Digital-branded retail hard drive kits, with the exception of
> WD Raptor drives, carry a Standard Warranty Period of one (1) year unless
> indicated otherwise on the package."
Pity about the 3 year warranty for Caviar SE bare drives
> Presumably, "all" includes Caviar drives with 8MB cache.
Nope, not the Caviar SEs which have the 8MB cache.
>> > Apparently OEM drives are different.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> > You can't compare apples with oranges.
>>
>> Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
>> caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.
>
> See above.
>>
>> > The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
>> > - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.
>>
>> Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.
>
> Link?
>
>>
>> > The one I bought last month did not.
>>
>> Then you got dudded.
>>
>> >>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>>
>> >> You must have got dudded somehow.
>>
>> >> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
>> >> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>>
>> >> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>>
>> >> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year
> warranty.
>> >>
>> >> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> >> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache
> size.
>> >>
>> >> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>> >>
>> >> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> >> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
>
http/www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-118&depa=0
>> >> >>
>> >
>
http/www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-107&depa=0
>> >>
>> >> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>> >> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>> >>
>> >> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> >> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate
> sample'
>> >>
>> >> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>> >>
>> >> >> I never said you did.
>> >>
>> >> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
>> > storagereview.com.
>> >>
>> >> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> >> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>> >> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>> >> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>> >> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>> >> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>> >> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>> >> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>> >> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> >> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> >> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
>> >> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>> >>
>> >> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>> >>
>> >> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>> >> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>> >>
>> >> >> I'll take the record on that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>> >> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>> >>
>> >> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> >> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> >> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>> >>
>> >> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
>> >> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>> >>
>> >> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
>> >> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>> >>
>> >> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
>> >> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>> >> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>> >>
>> >> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> >> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> >> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>> >>
>> >> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
>> >> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
>> >> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>> >>
>> >> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
>> >> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>> >>
>> >> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
>> >> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>> >>
>> >> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.
>>
>> > My original comment only mentioned the last few years
>>
>> Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.
>
> You apparently don't understand the concept of "peak" in a curve.
>
>>
>> > and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> > I presented some data to support that.
>>
>> Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
>> ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
>> on the general question because you only included WD drive data
>> and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
>> drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.
>>
>> > You have made counterclaims
>>
>> Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
>> dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
>> claim that drives are getting less reliable now.
>>
>> > - if you have some reliability numbers to
>> > back them up, please share them with us.
>>
>> Dont need any.
>
> Translation: you don't have any.
>>
>> YOU made the claim.
>>
>> YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.
>
> I provided data on drives I have experience with. You just shout and wave
> your arms.
>
>
Facebook
Twitter