I used to buy Maxtor, WD or Seagate based on price. Then, for reasons I
can't remember, I dropped Maxtor from the list. Then I ended up buying
a WD and Seagate of identical capacity at nearly the same time and ran
both of them through their respective utilities to create a bootable
drive copy from old to new. I was so disgusted with the poor quality of
the WD software that I vowed not to buy any more WD products and used
the Seagate software to configure the WD. I figured if WD software QC
was that bad perhaps it would rub off on the hardware side of the business.
Anyhow, I'm only buying Seagate at the moment and it has nothing to do
with speedy seek times or minimal rotational delays.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> ...........
>> Specs aren't everything. The Seagate 750GB drives are the fastest I own.
>> Their density allows for a performance beyond seek times. The throughput is
>> amazing.
>>
> Perhaps you should download HDTune, run a benchmark and send to their
> database. http://www.hdtune.com/ Had there been one with much better
> performance than the 500 gb drives when I was researching, I might well
> have bought that.
>
> There are no benchmarks there yet for 750 gb disks. I was looking at 500
> gb and WD is a slightly better performer overall than the Seagate @ 500
> gb, with much more even performance, better average and max rates and a
> much higher lowest transfer rate. Benchmark seek time is little
> different, with the WD only about 5% faster.
>
> The Seagate burst rate is much higher and the WD CPU usage is much
> lower, but I have no idea what practical effects these differences might
> make in usage.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|