On Sep 4, 2011 1:28 PM, "Doug" <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> On 09/04/2011 03:41 AM, shawn wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2011 3:23 AM, "Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > lina <lina.lastname@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > just guess ... might be wrong, might lots of people coming for WD,
>> > > so the stores only sold WD.
>> >
>> > Dunno, but I've had extremely good experiences with WD drives in the
>> > past, so I'd definitely favor them when I buy a new one...
>>
>> I have absolutely no oppinion. I was merely pointing out that the OP was presenting his oppinion as fact and I thought that pretty messed up.
>>
>> Grented, due to the inciteful the subject was, I'm sure this thread will keep going for at least a week and most of us will remember something bad about WD the next time we go buy a disc. Oh well. The OP probably got his wish :)
>
>
> It's been a few years since I retired, but I remember the IT guys replacing a _lot_ of Western Digital drives. I guess the
> company bought them because they were cheaper, but I don't think they saved any money. For my own use, I have been using Seagate and
> Hitachi, and have had no trouble in quite some time. Obviously, YMMV, but what I saw sould not encourage me to buy WD.
So, if I have 1000 computers with 1000 WD discs and nothing else in them, how many Seagate discs will fail?
Discs do fail and I look forward to someone posting the fail rate of different manufacturer discs. However the above statement doesn't seem to be based on logic.