The Hate on Seagate...

[annoyingmoments]

51 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

A lot of the hate spawns from misinformation by BackBlaze, who put refurbished and external Seagate drives into data centre environments, then claim that Seagate drives are bad because they have 30%+ failure rates. If their statistics were accurate, Seagate would be long out of business. 

Seagate has had some issues with 1.5TB and 3TB Barracuda models, but for the most part their issues are fixed. Their other drives are just as good as other manufacturers and have no reason to be avoided. 

Just the day before yesterday I read about a quarter report of BackBlaze.

 

To be honest I was manipulated by those reports, although I rethink a lot, it came yesterday to my mind, that this reports are BS. 

 

They use consumer grade drives for 24/7 server services. Sure drives will be failing much sooner.

 

Somehow it still impacts your own opinion. Maybe because this report is covered by many tech sites?

 

Furthermore, the only drives I had to replace so far, is one WD HDD in a PC from 2007, which is normal and another faulty drive that made problems on my parents notebook since they bought it. Also by WD. Now they have a SSD, but man I had to reinstall Windows every few weeks for a whole day....

[annoyingmoments]

24 minutes ago, Djole123 said:

...Then why this chart exists:

Because BackBlaze= server use of non server drives 24/7. You will never use normal hard drives like that as a normal user. Plus the 1.5TB Seagates are fairly old (5 years as I remember or so)

[Oshino Shinobu]

28 minutes ago, Djole123 said:

...Then why this chart exists:

 

BackBlaze's business model is to take the cheapest drives they can get and shove them in data centre environments. Instead of reliability, they go for cheap and quantity, so they replace drives when they fail. They got banned from buying drives from Walmart, so they were paying normal people to buy the drives for them. A lot of the drives are ripped from external enclosures or are refurb drives. If you look at the difference in numbers of drives used (thousands of Seagate drives to only a handful of Hitachi and a bucket of WD drives), it's pretty clear that the majority of their drives are Seagate's cheapest drives, which obviously won't hold up well in datacentre environments. Their testing methodology is also extremely vague and unreliable. 

One of the most compelling reasons to completely disregard BackBlaze's "testing" is the fact that any tech company with 15% failure rates would be long out of business. Even the 3-4% failure rates on WD drives is unacceptable to drive manufacturers. The only thing those results are somewhat useful for showing is what happens if you put external and desktop drives in datacentre environments. Even then, the documentation on which drives were used is very vague, so the results are unreliable at best. 

[victor de souza]

Every seagate drive i have bought died and without hard use.

I have a deskstar about 10 years a it works fine and the funny thing is i bought it used.

[Oshino Shinobu]

15 minutes ago, annoyingmoments said:

Just the day before yesterday I read about a quarter report of BackBlaze.

 

To be honest I was manipulated by those reports, although I rethink a lot, it came yesterday to my mind, that this reports are BS. 

 

They use consumer grade drives for 24/7 server services. Sure drives will be failing much sooner.

 

Somehow it still impacts your own opinion. Maybe because this report is covered by many tech sites?

 

Furthermore, the only drives I had to replace so far, is one WD HDD in a PC from 2007, which is normal and another faulty drive that made problems on my parents notebook since they bought it. Also by WD. Now they have a SSD, but man I had to reinstall Windows every few weeks for a whole day....

Graphs can be powerful persuaders, even if they're completely made up. Something about them often makes people feel they're somewhat official. I could probably create a graph using some Nvidia logos and colours, showing the performance of the 1080Ti is going to be 3x that of a Titan Z. It would most likely put that idea in people's heads, even if they know it's made up. 

To be honest, I would lean more towards WD drives if I were given a choice between Seagate and WD, but only if price wasn't involved. For desktop storage, I just use 2TB Seagate Barracuda drives. I have two of them running for 4 and 3 years with no issues. It's not a reliable test for Seagate's quality, but I've had no issues with Barracuda drives, so I continue to use them (along with knowing that the difference in failure rates is small between different companies, otherwise bad ones would be out of business). For NAS drives, I would always go for WD, though, just because I know the benefits and quality of their NAS drives first hand. 

[another random person]

1 hour ago, Djole123 said:

...Then why this chart exists:

 

hopefully that doesnt apply for seagate 2.5 external drives. if so then im going to have to backup my backup drive

[daniellearmouth]

I'm untrusting of Seagate's Barracuda drives.

 

My 2TB died just days after the warranty had expired, so I couldn't RMA it. As you can imagine, that severely burned me.

 

Granted, I use an external, a portable, and 2.5'' PS4 drive from Seagate, but I'm probably gonna avoid them in desktops for a while just so I can let the salt ease over time easier.

[Sintezza]

They are all a piece of spinning rust.

It doesnt matter a whole lot which brand you take nowdays.

I have seen multiple drives die over the years from multiple manufacturers, that also includes WD´s.

If i have to pick one brand in particular, which i have seen die more frequently then others.

Then it would be Maxtor, but Maxtor doesnt even exists anymore.

 

If i have to award the best mechanical hdd ever made.

Then it would be a Quantum Bigfoot.

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

I had a 300GB Maxtor DiamondMax 10 with my first build. I think I bought it on a computer hardware review recommendation or that I remember another drive I used was a Maxtor. Anyway, the thing was a champ until I gave it away in an external enclosure to a friend about 4 years or so down the road. And the Maxtor I used before was still running as far as I knew for 5 years. So in that sense, I'm wondering where all the hate for Maxtor came from.

 

However the other thing is bad news travels fast and good news rarely gets spread around. People will tell you avoid AMD because their drivers sucks, but people will also tell your NVIDIA's drivers suck.

 

So really... it's probably best to take all these user reviews with a grain of salt.

[Sintezza]

53 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

So in that sense, I'm wondering where all the hate for Maxtor came from.

 

Which particular hate towards Maxtor are your refering to?

I dont see any hate towards Maxtor mentioned in this topic.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Sintezza said:

Which particular hate towards Maxtor are your refering to?

I dont see any hate towards Maxtor mentioned in this topic.

Maxtor was pretty much hated in general before they went belly up. They were the butt monkeys of the HDD world much like Seagate appears to be now.

[Sintezza]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Maxtor was pretty much hated in general before they went belly up. They were the butt monkeys of the HDD world much like Seagate appears to be now.

Maxtor is exaly Seagate nowdays since 2006.

But in my opinnion, its just a matter of luck with hard drives realy.

Statistics are just statistics.

 

[LordLeewee]

Had a 3tb barracuda for a couple of years, was originally my boot drive and is now a secondary drive which is being streamed from for hours every day. Been fine.

[terrytek]

really, i don't care about the hate. all my seagate drives work fine. however, all my western digital drives all seem to be flawed. i had like 3 die within a week. and i bought them a month before. let them run 24/7, and then 3-4 weeks later, one shit on me, 3 days later, another one goes, and like 4 days later the last one gave up the ghost. to me i think wd has shittier product quality than seagate #fuckwesterndigital

[Centurius]

It's mostly because of some testing done with horrible methodology and people jumping on that bandwagon. 

[Godlygamer23]

14 minutes ago, terrytek said:

really, i don't care about the hate. all my seagate drives work fine. however, all my western digital drives all seem to be flawed. i had like 3 die within a week. and i bought them a month before. let them run 24/7, and then 3-4 weeks later, one shit on me, 3 days later, another one goes, and like 4 days later the last one gave up the ghost. to me i think wd has shittier product quality than seagate #fuckwesterndigital

None of my drives from WD have failed, and my only Seagate drive hasn't failed either. The only drive that has failed was one that I wrecked. 

[terrytek]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

None of my drives from WD have failed, and my only Seagate drive hasn't failed either. The only drive that has failed was one that I wrecked. 

probably just my bad luck with wd drives. i don't have a single wd drive that still works. though all my seagate drives work, even my barracuda 20gb ide drive from 2003 works.

[0ld_Chicken]

Hopefully the 3tb cudas aren't that bad anymore. I just got one for a new build cause I paid 80$ new. It'll be secondary anyways

[xentropa]

8 hours ago, thatguyyouknow75 said:

What about Toshiba and Hitachi? I've personally never used Seagate drives so I dont have a strong opinion. But the drives Linus used were server designed drives, consumer grade drives typically aren't as hardy

Hitachi is western digital.

[annoyingmoments]

3 hours ago, xentropa said:

Hitachi is western digital.

They are independent concerning their fabs and processing as far as I remember, please correct me, if they started to use synergies. Let us see what SanDisk will deliver as for SSDs. It was approved by the FTC or something, that WD can buy SanDisk, maybe the breakthrough in "long-term-high-capacity-low-cost-high-quality" SSDs is right before our doors

 

[Automobili3XF]

Must i say i never had a problem with Seagate drives, i got my 7200rpm 2TB Barracuda for almost 3 years now, silent HDD, average performance.

However, my friend has a similar 1TB Barracuda HDD, that one sounded like a Gorilla and died a few weeks ago, just one year after he bought it...

[Coaxialgamer]

Im really happy with my seagate drive.  Last time i tested it,  i got speeds OVER 210MB/s in both sequential read and write speeds. 

On a seagate barracuda 3tb

[maulemall]

why all the surprise that things that are designed to wear out actually exceed their design specs and actually wear out sooner?

 

[Prysin]

13 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Graphs can be powerful persuaders, even if they're completely made up. Something about them often makes people feel they're somewhat official. I could probably create a graph using some Nvidia logos and colours, showing the performance of the 1080Ti is going to be 3x that of a Titan Z. It would most likely put that idea in people's heads, even if they know it's made up. 

To be honest, I would lean more towards WD drives if I were given a choice between Seagate and WD, but only if price wasn't involved. For desktop storage, I just use 2TB Seagate Barracuda drives. I have two of them running for 4 and 3 years with no issues. It's not a reliable test for Seagate's quality, but I've had no issues with Barracuda drives, so I continue to use them (along with knowing that the difference in failure rates is small between different companies, otherwise bad ones would be out of business). For NAS drives, I would always go for WD, though, just because I know the benefits and quality of their NAS drives first hand. 

A Titan Z is worse then a Titan X... seriously, its 2x 780Tis with lower clocks and rampant thermal throttling. A 1080 is most certainly actually 3x a TitanZ

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

A Titan Z is worse then a Titan X... seriously, its 2x 780Tis with lower clocks and rampant thermal throttling. A 1080 is most certainly actually 3x a TitanZ

That really wasn't my point. 

 

However, the Titan Z isn't too much worse than a Titan X (in terms of FPS, let's not get into how bad the card really is). The 1080 isn't even 2x that of a Titan X, so is certainly not 3x a Titan Z. However, like I said, actual performance numbers wasn't my point, I was just using it as an example.