|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
10-29-2004, 12:31 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 193
|
hard drives
which one do you guys think is better i think the seagate is better becuase of the 8.5 seek time but on the other hand maxtor is popular
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...44-359&DEPA=1\ http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...148-033&DEPA=1 |
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 12:39 PM
|
#2 |
|
Blizzard Fanboy
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northrend
Posts: 1,411
|
I would get the Maxtor because of it's 16 MB cache vs 8 MB on the Seagate.
__________________
EVGA 750i SLI - EVGA 9800 GX2 - Intel Q6700 - 4GB Corsair PC6400 - 1TB Seagate HDD - X-fi Gamer - Logitech G51 5.1 - ViewSonic 22" WS - Vista Premium |
|
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 01:06 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 500
|
You have 100 more gigs of space on the Maxtor and a bigger cache but it's seek time is slower. I'd probably go with the Maxtor, but I'm not totally sure cuz they vary too much. Do you need the extra 100gigs?
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 01:13 PM
|
#4 |
|
Served with Pride
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: near the left coast of Michigan
Posts: 14,538
 |
Seagate's are known for being very quiet and they offer 5 year warranty while the Maxtor is 3 year. You aren't really comparing two identical drives tho, so the size and cache may mean more to you.
__________________
Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns. |
|
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 01:18 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Premium Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 12,594
|
Seek time is only a part of the equation, and the buffer is another part. The few articles I've read on the drive state it is fast... very fast... and they even give the famous Raptors a good run for their money.
That Maxtor is my drive of choice and is already on my "wish list." |
|
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 02:25 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 193
|
thanks guys for all of the repsonese but does the 16meg cache make a big difference?
the 100 gig extra i guess would be a better value sense its 80 more for 100 gig and 8 more meg of cache buts i would think the maxtor is slower correct and the seagate is faster? |
|
|
|
|
10-29-2004, 03:48 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member (14 bit)
Premium Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 12,594
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 12:29 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 193
|
i had a friend who had 2 maxtor hard drives go bad on him the first one was almost brand new the other i dont know about
just wondering if this had happened to anyone? |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 12:35 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 500
|
Quote:
Maxtor is one of the better hard drive makeers. If you keep it to Seagate, Maxtor and Western Digital, you should be fine. It is not impossible for these drives to fail but it is less likely. Besides it has a warrenty. As for the Hard drives that your friend had that went bad, could have been coinsidense or something done/hooked up/used etc. wrong. Drives from these companies have a better reputation. I think though that WD has been having more problems lately than usual. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 12:43 AM
|
#10 |
|
Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 7,835
|
Although I can attest to the quiestness of the Seagate, which I have been fortunate enough to have in my computer, I'd say the Maxtor's 16MB cache is kinda hard to beat.
kram
__________________
"For today, goodbye. For tomorrow, good luck. And forever, Go Blue!"
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 01:07 AM
|
#11 | ||
|
Member (14 bit)
Premium Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 12,594
|
Quote:
You can't condem a manufacture for a failure. The proof of the proverbial pudding is their overall track record, and Maxtor has an excellent record. IBM had a good rep until the "Deathstar" and it was bad for them. Maxtor, WD, and Seagate don't have one "bad" model and are all good drives. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 01:26 AM
|
#12 |
|
Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 7,835
|
At one point, even Seagate had a bad record. They've recovered marvelously though as one of the quietest fastest HDD out there. Supposedly, Hitachi/IBM "Deathstars" have come across this same recovery but to me, it only lies in one statement of principle - if something works and works well, why switch.
kram |
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 02:42 AM
|
#13 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 193
|
thank your guys again for all of the posts
so in conclution i guess the maxtor is the better vaule and deal and my plan was to get two segate 200 s and raid 0 them but i guess i will just get one maxtor drive now just curious which will out perform which  lol
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2004, 08:51 AM
|
#14 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 777
|
I was thinking of adding another drive when my WD 800JB went bad. It was within a couple months of being out of warranty. They replaced it without a hitch and I'm up and running again. My Dell has a maxtor and I haven't had any problems with it all.
__________________
Intel i5 2500 Quad core 3.3, ASUS P8P67, ASUS EAH 6850 GPU, corsair XMS 4GB 1333, Corsair 750W PSU, WD Caviar 500 7200 RPM, Windows 7 Home Premium, Lite-on 24X DVD SATA, Cooler Master 690 2 case |
|
|
|
|
10-31-2004, 11:18 AM
|
#15 |
|
Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 7,835
|
RAID 0 has its risks, which most people work with, but is unrecommended if you at all value what's going to be on your HDD. Good choice - the 16MB cache should show great performances.
kram |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
