Need a new Hard drive

Linas · #1 01-07-2009, 11:51 PM

Im looking for a new hard drive. Im not really sure what to get in terms of brand and size. I download a ton and would eventually fill up a TB, but im not sure if 500gb is more reliable or anything like that. What would you guys recommend. Something sub $100.

Trevorus · #2 01-07-2009, 11:59 PM

IDE, SATA?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136149

Linas · #3 01-08-2009, 12:02 AM

Probably SATA, i think IDE is old tech, no?

Trevorus · #4 01-08-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linas

Probably SATA, i think IDE is old tech, no?

Well, it's called ATA now, often Ultra ATA. 40 pin ribbon cables.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136111

I like the security of ATA cables for main drives. I just have never been a huge fan of SATA connectors, but the drives are just fine.

James Hart · #5 01-08-2009, 12:16 AM

I hear you on the SATA connectors... I never feel they are securely attached!

I just bought a pair of these a couple months ago. One for my DAW and one for the wife's gaming box.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148335
an extra 140gb over a 500 and it's got 2x the cache.

rcarraher · #6 01-08-2009, 12:19 AM

As far as what size is more reliable, as a pro there's no corelation between size and reliability. Brand is another matter. Lately, I find the Seagates failing a bit to often. Maxtors have gotten more reliable lately. Price wise, for under $100 you should be able to get a good 500G you'll pay somewhere just over $100 for a 1T. SATA and IDE will depend on what the interface is in your PC. Some older mother boards will have both, but I find that SATA, while being harder to cable with the drive in the box is faster now a days as far as access times.

James Hart · #7 01-08-2009, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcarraher

Lately, I find the Seagates failing a bit to often. Maxtors have gotten more reliable lately.

I haven't seen any real issues with Seagate... and I I've mostly bought / recommended / installed Maxtor stuff for the last 10+ years with no issues.

I've only had drive failure of a young drive 2x myself. a Western Digital and an IBM... but they were a few years back.

Linas · #8 01-08-2009, 12:33 AM

My mobo supports both style drives. Can you explain what cache for a HD means?

Trevorus · #9 01-08-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linas

My mobo supports both style drives. Can you explain what cache for a HD means?

This is where it loads data that is accessed often, in order to speed up the perceived data transfer. Chips are faster than platters as it were.

Tsal · #10 01-08-2009, 04:49 AM

www.tomshardware.com has some HDD transfer speed tables etc. for further information.

MCBTunes · #11 01-08-2009, 11:19 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822152102

That looks like a pretty good deal to me. I'd definitely go for a TB. Western Digital and Seagate are the other big players.

LongHairFreak · #12 01-09-2009, 12:17 AM

Here's a synopsis of what I came across a couple days ago. It may not meet your immediate needs, but it's something to think on.

-------
Martyn Williams, IDG News Service
Monday, January 05, 2009 01:40 PM PST

Seagate has begun volume shipments of a new desktop hard-disk drive that offers 1TB of storage space across two disks.

What makes the drives special isn't the capacity -- a 1.5TB drive from the same company is already available -- but the density at which data is stored on each of the disk platters inside the drive. Seagate's 7200.11 drives spread the 1.5TBs across four disk platters but the new Barracuda 7200.12HD drives manage to store 1TB of data across just two platters.

','300','250','1','1',1165716,603906,'0','324');" onmouseout="if(typeof(prRoll)=='function')prBExit( event);" shape=RECT coords=0,0,300,250 href="#"

That works out to a storage density, called areal density in the industry, of 329GB per square inch -- the highest yet for any hard-disk drive, according to Seagate.

The 7,200 rpm new drive is targeted at desktop personal computers, desktop RAID systems and external storage and has a Serial ATA 3G bps (bits per second) interface. Versions of the disk drive will also be available in 750GB and 500GB capacities, said Seagate.

1998-2008, PC World Communications, Inc.
---------------------------------

Unlikely it's under $100 though.

rcarraher · #13 01-09-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hart

I haven't seen any real issues with Seagate... and I I've mostly bought / recommended / installed Maxtor stuff for the last 10+ years with no issues.

I've only had drive failure of a young drive 2x myself. a Western Digital and an IBM... but they were a few years back.

I work for a state agency and we replace about a quarter of our PC's every year as policy. We just phased out all our IBM desktops (8305's) had had probably a 85% HD failure rate over the 4 years they were in service (thats like 370 drives out of 500 PC's!) The IBM drives were so bad we renamed them Death Stars from Desk Stars. IBM would replace their drives with Western Digitals which were'nt much better. Lately we get HP boxes, the first couple hundred came with Seagates and even tho' the failure rate comes no where near the Death Stars, it's still high. on the other hand tthe Maxtors have proven reliable. A few years ago I wouldn't have recommended a Maxtor for anything and loved Seagate, but it seems the tables have changed lately.

i_got_a_mohawk · #14 01-09-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hart

I haven't seen any real issues with Seagate... and I I've mostly bought / recommended / installed Maxtor stuff for the last 10+ years with no issues.

I've only had drive failure of a young drive 2x myself. a Western Digital and an IBM... but they were a few years back.

A friend of mine had one fail recently, and one of the seagates in my computer could be the cause of a pile of problems (but not sure yet).

However, I do agree with the Maxtor thing, I have never understood why they have always had such a bad name. Ive had 7-8 Maxtors over the past 10 years or so, and have never had a failure.

Only full on failures I have had, have been with 2 (out of 3) Western Digital drives.

Just my experiences tho.

James Hart · #15 01-09-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcarraher

The IBM drives were so bad we renamed them Death Stars from Desk Stars.

yeah... that's what we called them in 2000-2001 when mine failed. I had at least 5 friends with Deathstars... lots of lost data between us all.

Georynn · #16 01-09-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hart

yeah... that's what we called them in 2000-2001 when mine failed. I had at least 5 friends with Deathstars... lots of lost data between us all.

I had the drive replaced about 6 times...

I used to consult for IBM, they were transitioning to Hitachi storage when these came out, and I read a report that gave one model of "death star" over 150% fail rate... they were sending out drives as replacements that would fail within 24hrs of receiving them...

My suggestion

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822152100