Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>Well, take your pick. In 23 years of (personal) hard drive use I've had
>two failures. The first was a Seagate and the second was an
>IBM/Hitachi. I thought the Maxtor had failed at one time but it turned
>out to be a bad controller on the motherboard.
>
>
I think the anecdotal experiences on forums, etc. on the net don't
really mean anything. Those who have had a problem will far outnumber
those who post about how they don't. With such a small, skewed sample
and no data on total units out there for each brand, there is just no
statistical meaning there.
>I don't think I've had any drive fail in less than 3 years of farily
>constant usage so maybe the solution is to keep multiple backups and
>replace them every 2-3 years whether they need it or not.
>
>
Same thing for operating systems!
>My last couple of drive purchases were 160GB drives at $40 each after
>rebates. One is a Seagate, the other a Western Digital and I just saw a
>Toshiba advertised at CompUSA this morning at the same price.
>
>
Everybody keeps talking about these small drives! :-) I have
something over 200gb of image data before even considering backing up
anything else. You folks who what to scan everything at high resolutions
need to consider storage needs! Guess I need a separate RAID box with
several drives. Yeah, I know I need to do some housekeeping, but.......
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|