From: Charles McDaniel (cmcdaniel_at_cableone.net)
Date: Sat Jan 08 2000 - 19:43:26 EST
One note here about seagate's hard drives.
Seagate's hard drives are no longer seagate hard drive's they are actually
Conner hard drives seagate bought conner a few years ago and conner made
really cheap drives. so seagate took over the operations and desided at make
their drives as cheap as possible.. now i don't know about the high end SCSI
drives this is IDE home and office drives. I know this for a fact because i
to have a had to replace several harddrives for customers in the past few
years and a service rep from seagate told me this..and a friend of mine
bought a seagate harddrive about the time this deal went though and it
showed up in the Bios and on all check programs as a conner but the case
said seagate..it is now D.O.A. but seagate warrany was 5 years at that time
i'm going to see about getting a replacement this week..i put him a 10.1 WD
in it about 2 weeks ago..no problems YET..
Charles McDaniel
1971 Firebird
1977 Trans Am
1992 Ford (ugh) Mustang LX Convertable 5.0
written on a IBM TP 755cx old but usable
fav quote: Somewhere in the Darkness..
Quake quote:don't worry about EVERYONE dies sooner or later..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steffan Henke" <henker_at_informatik.uni-bremen.de>
To: <THINKPAD_at_cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Big hard drives for ThinkPads
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, I Lee Hetherington wrote:
> Interesting. Network Appliance uses Seagate 10,000rpm Cheetahs in their
> high-end fileservers (we have two with a total of 57 drives). Perhaps
> Seagate's high-end drives are better than their low-end drives?
This MAY indeed be true, but I donīt use Seagates anymore. I actually
have good experiences with the new WD EIDE drives (2 megs cache).
Seagate drives have failed too often for me.
Regards,
Steffan
-- ... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:43 EST