On Jun 27, 8:18*am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:
> In article <d6e144c5-c299-4e9d-a343-809ba6a83...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups..com>, "William R. Walsh" <wm_wa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >The Samsung drives aren't as well known as Seagate, WD or Hitachi, but
> >they are very good. I have Samsung drives from 3GB (yes, 3) to 250GB
> >in size and have been satisfied with all of them. The later models are
> >very quiet and fast.
>
> Samsung drives have also been getting pretty good testimonials here in
> Oz (in aus.computers for example) in recent months.
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> ppnerkDEL...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
A few yrs back...Samsung and Maxtor had bad failure rates.
Once bitten...twice shy.
Phred wrote:
> In article <d6e144c5-c299-4e9d-a343-809ba6a83447@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> The Samsung drives aren't as well known as Seagate, WD or Hitachi, but
>> they are very good. I have Samsung drives from 3GB (yes, 3) to 250GB
>> in size and have been satisfied with all of them. The later models are
>> very quiet and fast.
>
> Samsung drives have also been getting pretty good testimonials here in
> Oz (in aus.computers for example) in recent months.
In PCWorld as well, was their top rated internal HDD for a while. Most
recently the WD SE16 HDDs have been rated #1. I bought a 320GB WD Caviar
SE16 drive a week ago to be the boot drive for me XPS720 and it's the
best performing drive I've ever seen by far (per: HDTune). I've never
seen a drive before for which HDTune adjusted its scale to > 100 MB/sec.
Its average transfer rate was half again as much as the Seagate &
Samsung drives:
Boot drive (320GB WD SE16):
HD Tune: WDC WD3200AAKS-75B3A Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 60.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 120.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 99.5 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.8 ms
Burst Rate : 141.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.0%
Capture1:
HD Tune: ST3750640AS Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 37.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 77.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 63.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 13.6 ms
Burst Rate : 161.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 1.3%
Capture2:
HD Tune: ST3500630AS Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 39.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 69.6 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 61.6 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.1 ms
Burst Rate : 143.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.4%
FG:
HD Tune: ST3750640AS Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 37.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 76.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 62.8 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.2 ms
Burst Rate : 164.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.5%
Samsung:
HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD501LJ Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 38.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 81.3 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 64.0 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.0 ms
Burst Rate : 134.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.5%
Maxtor is made by Seagate. I tried one (Seagate 750) in my XPS 420. Totally
wouldn't work. Messed up Vista.
"William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6e144c5-c299-4e9d-a343-809ba6a83447@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi!
>
>> Any I should stay away from?
>
> Only Maxtor, which is not on your list...
>
>> Any other drive you would recommend?
>
> You've pretty well covered the bases of what's available. I have a
> 750GB Western Digital drive that I transplanted from its My Book
> enclosure to one with a fan. (The My Book enclosure is convection
> cooled--no fan--and under heavy access it would get hot enough to
> concern me.) I back computers up to it and have had no problems.
>
> The Samsung drives aren't as well known as Seagate, WD or Hitachi, but
> they are very good. I have Samsung drives from 3GB (yes, 3) to 250GB
> in size and have been satisfied with all of them. The later models are
> very quiet and fast.
>
> William
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:44:25 -0400, "Cdlsrn" <NOSPAM@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Maxtor is made by Seagate. I tried one (Seagate 750) in my XPS 420. Totally
>wouldn't work. Messed up Vista.
>
>
If it totally wouldn't work in the first place, how did mess up Vista?
More than likely the drive you posted about was going bad and began to
corrupt files or perhaps you did something wrong. And if memory
serves me right, maxtor was bought out by Seagate only about 2.5 years
ago so the earlier Maxtor posts may have meant before the buyout???
In my experience, hard drive brands change quality over time and tho
brand "a" may be the best now, later on brand "b" will be better so
you really have to keep up with the reviews or opinions of each brand.
I've even seen the same brand where one size was rated highly but
another size was rated so-so. And then of course even the best brand
and best drive can be defective on arrival or thereafter. Further,
they say all drives (mech. in nature) are meant to fail eventually.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:07:33 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:44:25 -0400, "Cdlsrn" <NOSPAM@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Maxtor is made by Seagate. I tried one (Seagate 750) in my XPS 420. Totally
>>wouldn't work. Messed up Vista.
>>
>>
>
>If it totally wouldn't work in the first place, how did mess up Vista?
>More than likely the drive you posted about was going bad and began to
>corrupt files or perhaps you did something wrong. And if memory
>serves me right, maxtor was bought out by Seagate only about 2.5 years
>ago so the earlier Maxtor posts may have meant before the buyout???
>
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:07:33 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>In my experience, hard drive brands change quality over time and tho
>brand "a" may be the best now, later on brand "b" will be better so
>you really have to keep up with the reviews or opinions of each brand.
>I've even seen the same brand where one size was rated highly but
>another size was rated so-so.
Good points RnR. It's very true that quality often changes by
manufacturer and size, so when I look for a new drive I can't always
go by "Seagate is best" like I did for a while, or "Western Digital"
has gone downhill.
I rely very heavily on user reviews and research esp. on the highest
capacity drives out at any given time.
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:jl6f64hbcddkr4suo8njgdkdo3v3dhju3c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:44:25 -0400, "Cdlsrn" <NOSPAM@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Maxtor is made by Seagate. I tried one (Seagate 750) in my XPS 420.
>>Totally
>>wouldn't work. Messed up Vista.
>
> Perhaps you might have made an error.
Perhaps. I'm running dual Seagate 320gb drives in a RAID1 (WinVista HP) in
my XPS420.....
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:10:06 -0500, journey <journey@merr.com> wrote:
>It's time for me to replace one of my 250GB internal hard drives in my
>XPS 410 with a 750GB drive. 750GB seems to be the best value right
>now -- 1 TB drives are a little too pricey for me.
I like to follow up with what I actually ended up doing or in this
case buying. I ended up going with a 1TB drive because I have been
using my computer for a lot of video and the space gets taken up fast.
I liked the description (aka marketing) of the drive -- dual
processor, 32MB cache, and other technology mentioned in the
description. Sounds fast and solid but only time will tell, esp. with
the newest high-capacity drives.
If it ends up being a good drive I will replace my other three 250GB
drives with TB drives as I need them but it will be "just in time"
replacements because prices are bound to come down and delivery from
newegg is fairly quick.
I don't know anything about using internal hard drives externally by
buying an enclosure so I will do some Googling about that to see if
it's worth the cost and effort.
The input from this thread put Western Digital on the
drives-to-consider list again which helped influence my decision.
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:00:41 -0500, journey <journey@merr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:10:06 -0500, journey <journey@merr.com> wrote:
>
>>It's time for me to replace one of my 250GB internal hard drives in my
>>XPS 410 with a 750GB drive. 750GB seems to be the best value right
>>now -- 1 TB drives are a little too pricey for me.
>
>I like to follow up with what I actually ended up doing or in this
>case buying. I ended up going with a 1TB drive because I have been
>using my computer for a lot of video and the space gets taken up fast.
>
>Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA
>3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - Retail
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136284
>
>I liked the description (aka marketing) of the drive -- dual
>processor, 32MB cache, and other technology mentioned in the
>description. Sounds fast and solid but only time will tell, esp. with
>the newest high-capacity drives.
>
>If it ends up being a good drive I will replace my other three 250GB
>drives with TB drives as I need them but it will be "just in time"
>replacements because prices are bound to come down and delivery from
>newegg is fairly quick.
>
>I don't know anything about using internal hard drives externally by
>buying an enclosure so I will do some Googling about that to see if
>it's worth the cost and effort.
>
>The input from this thread put Western Digital on the
>drives-to-consider list again which helped influence my decision.
I haven't done video for years but as I recall it DOES eat up a lot of
space so I understand the desire for 1TB drives. I do have an
external hd enclosure (sata) for a couple of 500 gig drives I bought a
while ago and it works nice.
Re: OT: Best choice of 750GB hard drive 
Linear Mode
