PDA

View Full Version : IBM vs. WD(8mbcache) ??



E^vol
08-27-2002, 10:29 AM
Which hard drive should I buy ??
An IBM Deskstar or a Western Digital Caviar SE 8mb cache ?
Both would be of the 80Gb variety..

E^vol
08-27-2002, 10:33 AM
next question...

When will the SERIAL ATA hard drives be available ??
And how much $$$ ???

Birdkiller
08-27-2002, 10:34 AM
i would get the WD

SegiY
08-27-2002, 11:02 AM
From what i have heard the WD's are very good drives, and the IBM's are awfully unreliable

FLaCo
08-27-2002, 11:10 AM
Don't even think about it twice...WD 8MB

WD's 8MB cache HDD have SCSI performance and WD's reliabilty.

IBM has 2 MB cache and IBM's reliabilty...WHICH SUCK!

Darthtanion
08-27-2002, 11:19 AM
Go the Western Digital. Since you're looking at the 8MB cache model, it has been turning in some of the best overall performance speeds of any IDE drive currently on the market. IBM has earned themselves a horrible reputation for not being reliable... and I currently have a non-working 40GB paperweight to prove this. :(

As to SerialATA, wait for Rev2.0 to come about. While it shows some definite promise as far as speed is concerned, I'd imagine that it will have some serious growing pains like the other new technologies that hits the streets.

Mr. C
08-27-2002, 11:43 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with everything Darthtanion stated.
To that I will add that by all accounts IBM is leaving the hard drive business - that's all any of us needs, 1 more piece of unsupported hardware.

SegiY
08-27-2002, 01:17 PM
To that I will add that by all accounts IBM is leaving the hard drive business - that's all any of us needs, 1 more piece of unsupported hardware.

At least it's stopping people for making the same mistake as so many before them, now how do we get rid of maxtor :?:

E^vol
08-28-2002, 07:11 AM
i have a WD and a Maxtor right now...i'm selling one with most of my current system...
my bro-inlaw has an IBM and he swears by it.
the WD is a 20Gb and the Maxtor is a 30Gb. so i was going to keep the Maxtor...for the size...and get a 80Gb drive as my new "media storage drive". what do you guys think..?
my current drives are usually full.
the smaller of the two will always be the drive for progs and games, and the bigger for music/video/movies/musicvids/misc storage...:rolleyes2

E^vol
08-28-2002, 07:11 AM
SegiY
is that your case ?? (avatar)

E^vol
08-29-2002, 06:15 AM
WD 8mb 80Gb it is...

zeradul
08-29-2002, 01:33 PM
I would definatly keep the smaller WD.

Gilad
08-31-2002, 12:19 AM
I'd keep the faster of the two.

Gilad
08-31-2002, 12:21 AM
Use the WD80 as the disk your system boots from.

E^vol
08-31-2002, 08:34 AM
nope...the smaller of my drives, will always be for programs only

drpeterbright
08-31-2002, 09:50 AM
No question - nix the IBM & go with WD.

wdr2wdr
08-31-2002, 03:37 PM
You can use an IBM Deathstar for a paperweight,
but the WD will function as a hard drive. Go with
a WD if you care about your data.

E^vol
08-31-2002, 09:58 PM
You can use an IBM Deathstar for a paperweight,
but the WD will function as a hard drive. Go with
a WD if you care about your data.

LOL !
ROTFL !
:laugh: :laugh:

drpeterbright
09-01-2002, 12:17 AM
I have enough paperweights at the moment.

FLaCo
09-01-2002, 03:46 AM
Paper for what doe syour A?C blow that hard... i don't why so many PP weights...

drpeterbright
09-01-2002, 05:26 AM
FLACO It's not the A/C. I'm talking too much & need to keep the papers from blowing around.

E^vol
09-01-2002, 11:39 PM
FLACO It's not the A/C.
FLACO, it's the wind generated by the good doctor's fingers as he types all his posts...

E^vol
09-01-2002, 11:43 PM
we all have to pray that Wiggo and the good Doctor don't get together for a LAN-posting fest, we'd have an "F6" tornado...

Anonymous
09-02-2002, 09:58 AM
is there a prefered amount of gb's in the wd 8mb caches?
is the 80 100 or 120 faster ?
nervagent55
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P4 1.8 ghtz - intel d845bg mobo
512 mb pc2100
Gforce4 Ti4400 128mb AGPx4
creative audigy gamer EAX
5.1 DD w/5300 speakers
250mb internal zip drive
24x10x40 cd-rw
16x dvd drive
3.5 floppy! (woo-hoo)
19' nec flat display multisync fe950

:shoot3:

drpeterbright
09-02-2002, 10:38 AM
From what I understand they are similar. Note: I do not use my fingers to type as my hands are in casts. Use chopsticks at the moment.

E^vol
09-03-2002, 08:04 AM
chopsticks ? damn you're good !
hands in casts ? what the keyboard fought back ?
:clap:

drpeterbright
09-03-2002, 08:35 AM
After having a bout of foot in mouth disease, had to switch to hands - OUCH. With chopsticks, I can be further from the keyboard.

E^vol
09-04-2002, 06:58 PM
hahahahaha:laugh:

Gilad
09-19-2002, 07:51 PM
Nerv, There isn't a preferred amount of gb's their speed is more or less the same the difference is in the capacity and what you pay for it.
However, Maxtor have come out with a new line of hard disks of good performance with 8mb cache on them they are now selling a 320 Gb disk.
These disks are fast enough and support ATA 133. I know that it is not much an improvement over ATA 100 but it does give you a slight improvement in speed. I've seen serial ATA at work and I think it will still take at least 6 months until they will really be worth considering (I'd wait for the second generation).

Gilad
09-27-2002, 06:53 PM
I've seen something about this problem somewhere, just one moment ...

Gilad
09-27-2002, 07:08 PM
On IBM's site there is a file named d120gxp_com.pdf that gives a compatibility summary of the deskstar 120. Look at the specific notes at the end of the summary, it may help you find the reason.

Waylorne
10-02-2002, 12:21 PM
ata 133 gives no boost to performance at all
the average burst is 85 so going from 100 to 133 does nothing for u in that respect the only thing 133 does for you is allow you to use the new generation of extremely large hard drives
there is a reason that maxtor is the only HDD manufacturer to adopt the ata 133 standard

:shoot:

SegiY
10-02-2002, 01:08 PM
I think seagate has a 133 drive ready, but if your buying at the moment the WD 8MB buffer is still the best by far.

bigjackusa
10-02-2002, 01:32 PM
I guess I've just been lucky. I've probably used close to a hundred hds over the years (built many boxes for friends, family, co-workers). I have used Toshiba, Fujuitsu, Samsung, Conner, Quantum, IBM, WD, Maxtor, Seagate, etc.. I have had only 4 drives die. 1 Maxtor, 1 WD, 1 Seagate (the only one under warranty), and 1 cheapo brand that was only around for a couple of years (it had letters for a name J-something I think). The newest, huge drives are going to be trouble for everybody for a while. I think that if you run a cool box, hooked up to a ups, any major brand has as much chance of surviving as any other.

Gilad
10-02-2002, 07:46 PM
I have had some 15% of the drives installed die within the first 3 years since they were installed. If they survived them they usually continued to work without any problems until disposed.

SegiY
10-03-2002, 10:11 AM
You also have to taking other factors like transport, workload and dust.
If dust gets in though, it reflects on bad design.

Gilad
10-06-2002, 06:02 PM
The disks have an airtight seal. If it wears out humidity will usually destroy the disk. If dust enters that is a major flaw in design.

Gilad
11-01-2002, 07:00 PM
Some may prefer a faster disk. If you compare the lost Mb to a faster disk it is cheaper to buy a larger disk and use larger partitions. Faster disks have less Mb per $ and that is the price you pay for the speed. Disk speed effects the overall performance of your system. But ... there are always the perfectionists ;)