PDA

View Full Version : Wester Digital vs Seagate



Growly
24-02-2004, 08:03 PM
Hi, looking a new SATA Hard drive for my computer. I want it to be atleast 120 GB, and decided to look around.

Upon doing so found that the 120 GB Sata Seagate and Wester Digital drives differ in price by about $80, but both the specs appear to be the same (i quickly browsed the spec sheets).

Does anyone know why this may be? Is it quality? quantity?

Thanks

Kenshin
24-02-2004, 08:22 PM
Well, I have the Seagate Serial ATA 120 GB and it works fine ...nothing spectacular since SATA is only a lil bit faster than normal PATA.

TBH, I don't think you will really see the difference between the 2 drives ...and since 80 bux is quite a bit of money ... I ll save it ..and perhaps get a second Seagate and have a RAID 0 set up ; P then u will REALLY see some performance gain!!

Ciao.

Elephant
24-02-2004, 09:01 PM
I have no idea about later Western Digital drives as I haven't bought and used one for yonks. When I bought my last Western Digital ( Caviar ) drive it failed after 18 months.

After that I have bought and used 1 Maxtor drive ( very quiet and fast ) and I was loath to sell it but I did to replace another persons Western Digital which failed. I have no idea about current Western Digital drives.

I use two Seagate 120 Gig drives in my system at the moment. One drive I use to back up the first drive using Ghost on a removable caddy. Beats the poo out of backing up to a writable CD. The second Seagate drive is NOT in my system at the moment as I imaged the first drive this morning and took the image elsewhere.

When I build systems for others I exclusively use Seagate drives. I have never yet had a Seagate drive fail on any system I built. Bear in mind that some of these Seagate drives are about 6 years old. Quantum drives come to mind too. My Mother had one for six years and it still works.

Now I would like to point out that Western Digital drives may be fine now.

My motherboard is now capable of putting in SATA drives and if I was going to do so then I personally would opt for a Seagate. Can't see the point at the moment. What I have works for me.

Please don't think I am bagging Western Digital but I won't buy one of these drives due to past experience and I have NEVER had a problem with the Seagate drives.

Terry Porritt
24-02-2004, 09:54 PM
I think all the hard drive manufacturers go through bad patches at times. Not so long ago Maxtor had a run of bad drives, but most of my drives are Maxtor and are ok. Before that, in fact quite a bit before that Seagate had a problem with noisy clacky drives.
I must say that $80 is quite a big difference between drives if they have the same specs. Maybe pay to check around and compare different suppliers prices

Elephant
24-02-2004, 10:13 PM
Fair comment Terrey. I am just going on my own experience.
As far as I know Western Digital, IBM and Maxtor drives are fine these days. I just wanted to point out that I personally have never had a problem with a seagate drive. The original post didn't mention which of the Western Digital or Seagate drives were the more expensive either.

I also mentioned that I used a Maxtor drive and was quite happy with it.

However I have not used a SATA drive yet of any brand. When ( or if ) I change the drives I have I will be buying a Seagate SATA. Just my humble opinion.

Dave
25-02-2004, 06:31 AM
I have 2 Seagate 120GB drives set up in a Raid configuration on my system and have had no problems, actually find them very quiet.

Dave

Sb0h
25-02-2004, 03:45 PM
I have a Seagate 120GB drive and it is fast, very quiet and backed by a three year warranty.

Pete O\'Neil
25-02-2004, 06:01 PM
the WD PATA drives kick the crap outta any other PATA drive on the market even the Maxtors with ATA133, and have been known to beat out the Seagate SATA drives. There isnt much difference between SATA drives at the moment, unless you take into account the WD Raptors. IF you go to any american hardware site they'll reckonmend WD's over any other drive. The seagates are cheap and reliable but dont offer the best preformance. If you want good preformance get a WD.

Growly
25-02-2004, 11:30 PM
Sorry bout that elephant and everyone else, The western Digital drives are alot more expensive. (My bad, forgive and do not smite me :( )

You say that WD has higher performance, but i looked at the sites, and from the little information i could decipher from seagate, the seagate appeared to have a lower seek time. So in what ways do you mean?

I have a WD PATA Hdd, and it is REALLY noisy (noiser than all 5 of my fans). It had a bad sector, and it crapped out. (Missed warranty by one day).

and one other thing:

Though I've studied raid and should know it (silly me), it isnt possible to raid 0 with two different sized drives is it? (ofcourse not, theoretically, they told me). I guess one may reduce disk size to match the other.

Im also concerned about RAID 0. When i first built this PC, i had serious troubles with the drive controller, and am afraid to push it....

Pete O\'Neil
26-02-2004, 09:04 AM
if you go to this link you'll see the WD's out preforming all other PATA drives:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200205/20020529WD800JB_1.html

they may have slower average read access time's but still offer better preformance due to their 8mb of cache and firmware optimized for desktop usage.

Sb0h
26-02-2004, 10:38 AM
My Seagate 120Gb has an 8MB cache. I'd suggest checking Tom's Hardware for latest reviews on drive speeds, manufacturers have been known to tweak the specs. My money's on the Seagate drives at the moment, if only for reliability and warranty length especially if looking at operating a fast RAID 0 setup.

Susan B
26-02-2004, 01:01 PM
> I have a WD PATA Hdd, and it is REALLY noisy (noiser than all 5 of my fans). It had a bad sector, and it crapped out. (Missed warranty by one day).

Missing the warranty by one day does not mean that you have no right to claim on goods that have failed. Under the Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 goods must be fit for the purpose of which they were designed for a reasonable length of time under normal use and you could argue that 12 months is not a reasonable lifespan for your hard drive.

Check out Jester's post (http://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=32504&message=141375&q=goods#141375) for more details on the Act. If your HDD died fairly recently I would be doing something about it if I were you. ;-)

Pete O\'Neil
27-02-2004, 08:55 AM
hmmmm.... checking Tom's Hardware, but then again they are not known for for their accurate reviews, they're generally quite bias.

Pheonix
27-02-2004, 09:30 AM
I have had both and as far as I can tell, there is no difference in performance. (XP2100 512M )
I had a Seagate 80Gig for 7 months and it failed. Couldn't wait for the test/return of the drive, so brought a WD 80Gig with 8Meg cache.

The WD is just as quiet, but makes a "clunk" noise on closing down the PC. Enquired with supplier and it is normal.

But I did like the 3year warranty for WD (8Meg cache models) verses the Seagate 1 year warranty. Worth the extra $ for that piece of mind for me.

PoWa
27-02-2004, 11:58 AM
The premium seagate models (ones with 8mb cache) all have 3 year warranties now.

I had a 120Gb seagate going for 7months and it has just died. Its still at data recovery and I'm waiting to hear back from them about what the story is (this was 3 weeks ago I sent it in). Why so long?

So now I actually have to buy the data recovery guy a 160Gb drive so he can copy the data from the old one to the new one. Then I can try sending the faulty drive in for warranty and get it replaced. Sometimes they don't even accept it if its been worked on by data recovery specialists! Anyway this will cost me about $800 this ordeal. Having a hard drive die is practically the second worst thing that can happen to your pc, short of #1 worst thing of electricity frying everything in your computer.

I guess 1:1 backups of everything are expensive to get started, but they might save you a load of cash in the long run. I'm going to place my vote with WD but I've never used one of their drives. The seagate 120Gb was quite fast and I couldn't hear it at all.

Terry Porritt
05-03-2004, 05:17 PM
Steve Askew suggested I update the thread :)

Yesterday morning I bought a Maxtor 60GB 7200rpm drive from DSE to load Xandros onto, and it wouldnt partition or format properly.

Back down to Lower HuttI & got it changed, lo and behold the replacement had a faulty boot sector, and that wouldnt boot :(

I ran the Maxtor diagnostics and printed out the results to show it wasnt just finger trouble. Back down to Lower Hutt again.

So I ended up with an 80GB Western Digital WD800, and that's running ok.

So at this time I've gone right off Maxtor, even though I have 4 that are ok.

Growly
05-03-2004, 06:30 PM
Ahaha - I can't hear my WD because it makes so much noise when NOT doing anything!

And alas, I sooo can't be bothered. It was at the end of october last year, and I've moved on (*cries a river)

JJJJJ
05-03-2004, 09:22 PM
I've been useing a 120 gig Seagate SATA drive for a couple of months and have no complaints about it. I agree that if Sata has a speed advantage over Pata it is to small to notice.
The big advantage of them (as far as I'm concerned) is that the narrow gutted cables don't interfere with the air flow and the comp definately runs cooler.
Jack