Western Digital or Seagate

[Dhruv]

Ohhh yes it is there caviar black 2TB... 3.18% return rate
And as far as elements goes... Look up western digital website... 3TB drive is the desktop version and 1TB is portable. I have the catalogue and I have seen it.

And about Samsung... Unfortunately my country doesn't have it's supply so I will most probably go with Western Digital. But I do have a Seagate 2TB and it is working quite well.

[limefc]

Oh yeah they do have WD Elements desktop, don't know how I missed it but they still have WD greens inside. Or maybe AV-GPs. Nothing noteworthy.

Blues only go up to 1TB and Blacks are practically never (if even) used in externals.

[Dhruv]

If they had started using Blacks in externals then selling them at the current prices would be as simple as asking for going Bankrupt.
So which drive do you recommend from Western Digital considering that my country doesn't get those Samsung drives.

[limefc]

If you buy the external, you'll get a WD green one way or another. So that, basically. You are looking for external aren't you?

Take the 2TB Elements if you don't absolutely need 3TB since 2TB drives are more reliable than 3TB drives. (have 1 less platter) And in case it breaks, you lose less data.

[Dhruv]

I usually keep the drives in a safe place. So what kind of breaking are you talking about?
I'll probably go for Elements myself... Tatsujin said My Book Essential isn't a very good drive and all of his my book essentials have failed.

So probably 2TB or 3TB elements it will be.

[limefc]

They both contain the same kind of WD green drive, though.

What do you think I mean when I say break? A hard drive, or anything else for that matter, breaking means it doesn't work anymore. Doesn't matter how it breaks, head crash, you throw it in a swimming pool, same result. You lose data on it.

[Dhruv]

I wonder why do the people say Green is a bad drive... Bad for playing games that is. And they say no such things about Elements or My Book Essentials.

What I meant by breaking is falling down and breaking into pieces. I usually do not move a drive from place to place so chances of atleast that is reduced.

[limefc]

It's most likely because people don't have externals connected to their computer 24/7. Like for instance, all but one of my external drives only works maybe 1 hour a month.

[Dhruv]

It's most likely because people don't have externals connected to their computer 24/7. Like for instance, all but one of my external drives only works maybe 1 hour a month.

My external is connected 24x7 from my computer for seeding purposes. Is that bad?
Or wait... Was it you who told me to use it 24x7?

[limefc]

We had a discussion on WD Greens and their power management already.

And yes it was me. WD Greens defeat any benefit you get from that due to internal power management features.
WD Green long term reliability issues stem from the spindle speed manipulation and start/stop cycling it does automatically while being powered on - if you use it once a month it wears the thing down a lot less.

[Dhruv]

Or alternatively like you said keep using it 24x7 that will wear it down a lot less too....

[limefc]

That is impossible. WD Greens shut down on their own accord if there are no reads/writes going on.

[Dhruv]

Eh.... i keep seeding.... that probably is reading...

[limefc]

Depends on if there is uploading or not. On bakabt I have 0kb/s UL most of the time.

If there is upload, then sure.

[Dhruv]

Depends on if there is uploading or not. On bakabt I have 0kb/s UL most of the time.

If there is upload, then sure.

I usually seed 3-4 torrents on BakaBT and all of them are bonus torrents at some point of time.... i don't seed more because i don't download anything... i haven't downloaded anything from BakaBT since March this year.
I seed on external trackers they can take up almost any amount of upload speed... so the drive is always in use...

[xShadow]

xShadow, because you aren't putting much effort into your posts, neither will I.

Oh, you finally noticed? D:

Rest is just theory as to why a hard drive might be dead which will earn the HDD a 1 egg rating but is irrelevant of the HDD quality/age.

The chance of any of those happening probably isn't that high.

Only one drive I ever owned failed from "clicking". Seagate back when it was considered to be the absolute best by the way. Rest still spin up today and act as if nothing is wrong.

Customers don't know why shit fails. They can write an elaborate article and could have owned it for 20 years and still say nothing useful.

They don't need to. That's not the purpose.

One more thing, if a massive reliability problem plagues drives then you will hear about it and it won't be from the idiots at newegg feedback section because data on return rates is published. Something like a 2.5-10% return rate from a single brand or model is going to be noticed.
That's why everyone knows that Hitachi shit lives up to the Deathstar name right now.
And that WD Black 2TB (and all other 2TB drives) had high return rates... except Samsung EcoGreen and surprisingly WD20EARS.

Return rates are interesting but the problem is that it's difficult to get a page that's up to date and accurate.

CASE IN POINT

INSERT THE REST OF limefc's POSTS ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD GET AT 2TB AND ABOVE HERE

You've failed to take into account one very critical thing here.
December 20, 2011:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/109825-seagate-finalizes-deal-with-samsung-to-purchase-hard-drive-division

Now, read what your own article says in the introduction:

The returns rates given here concern the products sold between April 1st and October 1st 2011 for returns made before April 2012, namely after between 6 months and a year of use. Over the lifetime of a product the returns generally form a spread out U on the graph, with the end virtually flat. Our figures therefore cover the early part of the lifetime of products, where returns rates are high.

Guess what December 20 + 6 months is? It doesn't matter, because that's far past the time this study ended. I'm also a bit skeptical about "French etailer" being the sole source of all of this, but whatever.

In other words, the idiots that made this thing totally forgot that Seagate was acquiring Samsung's hard drive division DURING THEIR TESTING (fyi, they started acquisition around or before the time the study started). The only thing this is a good measure of is how hard drives USED to be. Now, Samsung practically equals Seagate (literally, even made at a different factory and whatnot, and a 1 year warranty), and WD Black is literally the only choice you have that's worth a damn.

[limefc]

Oh, you finally noticed? D:

Not something to be proud of.

The chance of any of those happening probably isn't that high.

Misleading vividness.

They don't need to. That's not the purpose.

They do for you to have a point.

Return rates are interesting but the problem is that it's difficult to get a page that's up to date and accurate.

It's impossible because day one returns are an useless statistic and values must be collected for products sold at least 6 months before publishing because otherwise you'll just record all damaged/defective products that go out of the gate and bad QC/handling is not that telling.

You've failed to take into account one very critical thing here.

Means nothing in short term.

Now, Samsung practically equals Seagate

Nope.

And by that Logic, WD makes the most unreliable drives now because they bought Hitachi.
You could further reinforce the validity of that logical train of thought by referencing Seagate's acquisition of Maxtor. Maxtor made what were universally considered bad drives and after acquiring Maxtor, Seagate was the one quickly becoming known for bad drives.

Then, perhaps, if you applied that logic over to the acquisition of Samsung by Seagate - clearly Seagate must make the most reliable drives right now because they bought Samsung, the previous king of reliable drives.

Stupid logic like that isn't going to work and it's easy to twist it to support even more retarded conclusions than the one you managed to come up with.

Also I'd like to point out that those "idiots" never tested anything, they took returns data for products sold 6 months to a year ago from the date of publishing the article and compiled it into statistics.

[xShadow]

Misleading vividness.

It's called thinking realistically, not pessimistically.

They do for you to have a point.

No, for the last fucking time. All they need to know is that it did fail, and then report it. I didn't ask for a click of death.

It's impossible because day one returns are an useless statistic and values must be collected for products sold at least 6 months before publishing because otherwise you'll just record all damaged/defective products that go out of the gate and bad QC/handling is not that telling.

Yep.

Means nothing in short term.

You don't know that.

Nope.

Yep.

And by that Logic, WD makes the most unreliable drives now because they bought Hitachi.
You could further reinforce the validity of that logical train of thought by referencing Seagate's acquisition of Maxtor. Maxtor made what were universally considered bad drives and after acquiring Maxtor, Seagate was the one quickly becoming known for bad drives.

WD's drives are still made the same way they always have been. Samsung's are not.
Totally different.

Then, perhaps, if you applied that logic over to the acquisition of Samsung by Seagate - clearly Seagate must make the most reliable drives right now because they bought Samsung, the previous king of reliable drives.

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Stupid logic like that isn't going to work and it's easy to twist it to support even more retarded conclusions than the one you managed to come up with.

And I suppose the one you came up with, based on no up to date evidence, is completely reliable.

Also I'd like to point out that those "idiots" never tested anything, they took returns data for products sold 6 months to a year ago from the date of publishing the article and compiled it into statistics.

I know.

[limefc]

No, for the last fucking time. All they need to know is that it did fail, and then report it. I didn't ask for a click of death.

And what is this information if it's not checked by a technician? Anecdotal at best.

WD's drives are still made the same way they always have been. Samsung's are not.
Totally different.

I am taking the liberty of replying to what you said with something else you said. Behold.

You don't know that.

Truth is, I actually do know to which you replied with that - and so should you.

And I suppose the one you came up with, based on no up to date evidence, is completely reliable.

It seems to me like you completely missed the implication of that paragraph.

Besides, you don't have any evidence, up to date or not, to back up your statements.

I know.

Then you shouldn't imply otherwise. You even put the phrase "during their testing" in all caps as to emphasize it.

[xShadow]

No, for the last fucking time. All they need to know is that it did fail, and then report it. I didn't ask for a click of death.

And what is this information if it's not checked by a technician? Anecdotal at best.

Apparently you have such a low opinion of common people that you think they don't know something's wrong when files on their hard drive are constantly getting corrupted or something. Moreover, to tell if there's something truly wrong with a drive (and further, to be able to tell what it is) it would take a lot more than a simple "technician". Lol.

You realize this is the internal drive division, right? People that put these things in are either good enough to fuck around with computer parts themselves, or know someone they can. Guess what they'll do when their hard drive is fucking up? They'll either know or call someone that knows.

Please stop thinking that you're so far above an average person when it comes to noticing that your hard disk is failing.

It seems to me like you completely missed the implication of that paragraph.

It was a silly one.

Besides, you don't have any evidence, up to date or not, to back up your statements.

I suppose you missed the entire part where I was talking about reviews, yeah?

    N/A
    7/5/2012 8:09:05 AM
    Tech Level: High
    Ownership: more than 1 year
    Verified Owner

   
1 out of 5 eggsBait and Switch

Pros: None

Cons: I am running several of the Samsung HD204UIs in a storage environment, and none have yet failed. I ordered three more from Newegg, and much to my disappointment, I was sent rebranded Seatgate (ST2000DL004) hard drives, of which past user reviews have been less than stellar. I would not have made this purchase if I had known these were not the real HD204UI from Samsung.

Other Thoughts: Shame on Seagate (and Newegg) for selling a product as something else. I have been buying from Newegg since the early 2000s, and this is the first time I have been disappointed by their actions. Newegg, you need to wipe the user reviews clean for this product so that it accurately reflects the product now being sold.

16 out of 18 people found this review helpful.

Yes, it's one of your much-hated reviews, but it's a hell of a lot more than you have, which is an outdated study whose testing period practically started a year back.

Then you shouldn't imply otherwise. You even put the phrase "during their testing" in all caps as to emphasize it.

"during their testing" = "during their data collection period"