Seagate 6TB Desktop HDD SATA 6Gb/s @ amazon $174

[SirNumbers]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013JPKYQC

 

• Ideal for everyday desktop and computing storage
• 6TB capacity 720 HD video, or 1,200,000 photos, or 1,500,000 songs
• 7200 RPM
• Store data faster with SATA 6GB/s interface
• 2 year warranty. 128MB cache

[Guest acdcman200]

5 minutes ago, SirNumbers said:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013JPKYQC

 

• Ideal for everyday desktop and computing storage
• 6TB capacity 720 HD video, or 1,200,000 photos, or 1,500,000 songs
• 7200 RPM
• Store data faster with SATA 6GB/s interface
• 2 year warranty. 128MB cache

Its a Segate drive so it will probably fail within 2 years.

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, acdcman200 said:

Its a Segate drive so it will probably fail within 2 years.

I'd be interested to see where you're getting this notion from. 

[Paul_VB]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

I'd be interested to see where you're getting this notion from. 

Just google "seagate failure rate". Segates fail many times more than WD's, which is why i go with WD exclusively for my HDD needs

[Guest acdcman200]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

I'd be interested to see where you're getting this notion from. 

Read the reviews on it, and look at this:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

I am a computer repair tech and it seems like a lot of the computers that have a failed drive are seagate, most are under the 2 year mark of manufacturing on the hdd. I rarely see wd drives fail.

[Guest acdcman200]

Just now, Paul_VB said:

Just google "seagate failure rate". Segates fail many times more than WD's, which is why i go with WD exclusively for my HDD needs

Exactly my point

[Dionyz]

6 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

I'd be interested to see where you're getting this notion from. 

Or better yet the system image placed on the Segate drive cannot be read for some odd reason. Then you go reinstall an fresh version of windows 7. Only to get partioned (When you have a bunch of data that is worth a ton of money) get's erased because this piece of **** couldn't read your system image. Also note that early versions of windows 7 cannot read 2tb+, so I believe that's why it was partitioned. 

 

Happened to me when I wanted to revert back from windows 7 (Using 10)

[Guest acdcman200]

1 minute ago, Dionyz said:

Or better yet the system image placed on the Segate drive cannot be read for some odd reason. Then you go reinstall an fresh version of windows 7. Only to get partioned (When you have a bunch of data that is worth a ton of money) get's erased because this piece of **** couldn't read your system image.

 

Happened to me when I wanted to revert back from windows 7 (Using 10)

I am talking were he drive fails and you loose all your data, Segate drives are awful for that reason they fail way more than Western Digital counter part

[Clyne]

6 minutes ago, acdcman200 said:

Read the reviews on it, and look at this:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

I am a computer repair tech and it seems like a lot of the computers that have a failed drive are seagate, most are under the 2 year mark of manufacturing on the hdd. I rarely see wd drives fail.

Taking about useless data

That source should be ignored as it's inaccurate. 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

http://www.zdnet.com/article/trust-backblazes-drive-reliability-data/

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2fx0iw/psa_please_stop_referring_to_the_tweaktown_debunk/

Hear it from Linus

 

 

[Oshino Shinobu]

11 minutes ago, Paul_VB said:

Just google "seagate failure rate". Segates fail many times more than WD's, which is why i go with WD exclusively for my HDD needs

The only thing you get is backblaze, which is completely useless. 

11 minutes ago, acdcman200 said:

Read the reviews on it, and look at this:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

I am a computer repair tech and it seems like a lot of the computers that have a failed drive are seagate, most are under the 2 year mark of manufacturing on the hdd. I rarely see wd drives fail.

Backblaze's data is terrible. If you want to see how Seagate's external drives hold up to data centre environments, then I guess it's useful.. Kind of? They use external, desktop, referb and pretty much any of the cheapest drives they can get, then shove them in a data centre environment (with very little information on the case revisions they use, so who knows what the vibrations are like). 

If you look at the amount of drives they have from Seagate compared to WD and other manufacturers, then consider how they're pulling drives out of external enclosures, you can get an idea of what kind of drives they're using: Seagate's cheapest drives (as mentioned, some referbs). If Seagate really did have a 15%-40% failure rate, do you really think they'd still be in business? Not to mention that WD's failure rates are 10%, which just goes to show how un-representative their data is. 

The link you provided is specifically for one of Seagate's 3TB models, which has been known to have issues. Revisions to the drives have fixed the problems. 

Do you have data for the amount of Seagate drives vs WD vs Hitachi etc. in PCs? Without that, saying that you see a lot of Seagate drives fail doesn't mean anything. For example, where my dad works, he only ever sees WD drives fail. So that means WD is bad, right? Without the data that shows that his work place uses almost exclusively WD drives, you could conclude that WD is unreliable. 

EDIT: While Seagate may not be the BEST drive manufacturer (Going by numbers, Hitachi is the "best" I believe), they certainly don't have 15% fail rates, or anything close to that, when the drives are new and used in the correct environments. Any company that had failure rates that high would be long out of business. 

[Clyne]

4 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

The only thing you get is backblaze, which is completely useless. 

Backblaze's data is terrible. If you want to see how Seagate's external drives hold up to data centre environments, then I guess it's useful.. Kind of? They use external, desktop, referb and pretty much any of the cheapest drives they can get, then shove them in a data centre environment (with very little information on the case revisions they use, so who knows what the vibrations are like). 

If you look at the amount of drives they have from Seagate compared to WD and other manufacturers, then consider how they're pulling drives out of external enclosures, you can get an idea of what kind of drives they're using: Seagate's cheapest drives (as mentioned, some referbs). If Seagate really did have a 15%-40% failure rate, do you really think they'd still be in business? Not to mention that WD's failure rates are 10%, which just goes to show how un-representative their data is. 

The link you provided is specifically for one of Seagate's 3TB models, which has been known to have issues. Revisions to the drives have fixed the problems. 

Do you have data for the amount of Seagate drives vs WD vs Hitachi etc. in PCs? Without that, saying that you see a lot of Seagate drives fail doesn't mean anything. For example, where my dad works, he only ever sees WD drives fail. So that means WD is bad, right? Without the data that shows that his work place uses almost exclusively WD drives, you could conclude that WD is unreliable. 

EDIT: While Seagate may not be the BEST drive manufacturer (Going by numbers, Hitachi is the "best" I believe), they certainly don't have 15% fail rates, or anything close to that, when the drives are new and used in the correct environments. Any company that had failure rates that high would be long out of business. 

Any drive can fail at any moment without any cause, but Backblaze's testing method is like not the same as other testing methods.

Not to mention using consumer grade HDDs in a server use, so like using a WD Blue or Green in a server at 100% load 24/7. 

Funny how Backblaze had a promotion to give a discount for users who would buy cheap hard drives from Costco or any tech store and send them to Backblaze.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, Bubblewhale said:

Any drive can fail at any moment without any cause, but Backblaze's testing method is like not the same as other testing methods.

Not to mention using consumer grade HDDs in a server use, so like using a WD Blue or Green in a server at 100% load 24/7. 

Funny how Backblaze had a promotion to give a discount for users who would buy cheap hard drives from Costco or any tech store and send them to Backblaze.

I don't really question their way of doing business. They go for the cheapest possible drives so they can replace them when needed, rather than going for the most reliable, but expensive drives. It does work out cheaper for them, but they really shouldn't be using their failure rates as a representation of drive reliability (at least, not without making it clear that the drives are from external, referb and desktop class drives)

If they had broken down the drives into specific models, ages and states, then it could be a little more useful, though still un-reliable. 

[Psykomantis00]

10 hours ago, Paul_VB said:

Just google "seagate failure rate". Segates fail many times more than WD's, which is why i go with WD exclusively for my HDD needs

 

10 hours ago, acdcman200 said:

Read the reviews on it, and look at this:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

I am a computer repair tech and it seems like a lot of the computers that have a failed drive are seagate, most are under the 2 year mark of manufacturing on the hdd. I rarely see wd drives fail.

 

 

 

Fanboy alert. It's obvious neither of you have done any real research, so here you go. 

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/backblaze_how_not_to_evaluate_disk_reliability/

 

 

[Paul_VB]

8 hours ago, Psykomantis00 said:

 

 

 

 

Fanboy alert. It's obvious neither of you have done any real research, so here you go. 

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/backblaze_how_not_to_evaluate_disk_reliability/

 

 

the backblaze thing isnt really a factor in my disklike of seagate. One of my personal friends has had horrible experiences with segate drives failing quickly, the 2 month old computer lab machines having their seagate drives failing all the time at my college, and the fact that most people on LTT go with WD are all reason i shy away from seagate

 

Its not fanboyism at work here. I simply dont want to deal with the hassle of drives failing

[Paul_VB]

double posted when i meant to edit a grammar mistake in my last post... derp

[adrtho4]

Segate. They are  like the "HP" of Hard drives and ssd's. 

[Unhelpful]

Gotta love dipshits who know nothing about HDDs, or hardware in general.

[Bhav]

I have two 4 tb Seagate drives ATM and they are more than 2 years old with no problems.

[Samfisher]

On 01/03/2016 at 8:58 AM, Paul_VB said:

Just google "seagate failure rate". Segates fail many times more than WD's, which is why i go with WD exclusively for my HDD needs

 

On 01/03/2016 at 8:58 AM, acdcman200 said:

Read the reviews on it, and look at this:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

I am a computer repair tech and it seems like a lot of the computers that have a failed drive are seagate, most are under the 2 year mark of manufacturing on the hdd. I rarely see wd drives fail.

Backblaze data is notorious for being utter shit and unreliable... If Seagate failures and returns are anywhere NEAR those rates, the company would be bankrupt 10 years ago.  The sole problematic HDD was the 720.11 and that has been at least 5-7 years ago.

[shibbs]

Everyone bantering between Seagate and WD....  To hell with both of them.  HGST/Hitachi FTW.