A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help with buying new hard drive



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 13th 15, 02:24 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.


Citation?


A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

I just noticed that the article is 1 year out of date, mind you it mentions the Crucial M4. I've used lots of M4s and M500s (its successor), and both have about the same reliability. They both will on occasion disappear without warning. The M4s needed a firmware update to stop it happening. The M500s become fussy about the disk controller, sometimes preferring a SATA2 or a SATA3 controller for some reason - timing presumably.

While writing this post I thought, "I wonder if the M500 has an update", and it does. Maybe that will fix my problem :-) (One of my SSDs keeps changing its mind as to what disk controller it will work on). Trouble is the blasted firmware update program won't work through the RAID controller. I guess I have to do them with RAID switched off and hope that the RAID array doesn't get broken.... I'll do one at a time!

--
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."
Ads
  #62  
Old March 13th 15, 03:52 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Help with buying new hard drive

Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.
Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer


Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.


Just stay away from the TLC flash. If it says MLC or SLC, buy it.

The Samsung that had the 32 layer MLC stacked flash
was a keeper, but they've stopped making it as far
as I know. The remaining ones of that model at retail, have
elevated prices.

As for actual endurance, this article is fun. This page
contains the links to the followup articles (as the test
progresses).

http://techreport.com/review/24841/i...e-experiment/5

Paul
  #63  
Old March 13th 15, 12:18 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?


A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer


Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.


Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

--
I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me.
  #64  
Old March 13th 15, 12:22 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 02:52:07 -0000, Paul wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.
Citation?
A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer


Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.


Just stay away from the TLC flash. If it says MLC or SLC, buy it.

The Samsung that had the 32 layer MLC stacked flash
was a keeper, but they've stopped making it as far
as I know. The remaining ones of that model at retail, have
elevated prices.

As for actual endurance, this article is fun. This page
contains the links to the followup articles (as the test
progresses).

http://techreport.com/review/24841/i...e-experiment/5


Ok, I give up. I'll take the same attitude as I do with rotary hard disks and cars. All makes are equal. They all break for different reasons, usually bad luck.

--
Warren wanked William while Wendy wildly wobbled Wayne's Willy within warm water.
  #65  
Old March 13th 15, 01:04 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.


Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.


Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)


Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png

--
Capitalism: Man exploiting man.
Socialism: The reverse.
  #66  
Old March 13th 15, 01:07 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.


Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)


Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png


Ooooh.... 35% Mtron returns, no wonder they went bust.

--
Billy bashed bandy Brian's ******** because bandy Brian broke Billy's big brown blowup boy before breakfast began.
Bigtits Beryl bit Barry's boner because Barry banged black Barbara's bare bruised bottom beside Brighton beach's battered blue bandstand.
  #67  
Old March 13th 15, 01:40 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.


Citation?


A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

I just noticed that the article is 1 year out of date, mind you it mentions the Crucial M4. I've used lots of M4s and M500s (its successor), and both have about the same reliability. They both will on occasion disappear without warning. The M4s needed a firmware update to stop it happening. The M500s become fussy about the disk controller, sometimes preferring a SATA2 or a SATA3 controller for some reason - timing presumably.

While writing this post I thought, "I wonder if the M500 has an update", and it does. Maybe that will fix my problem :-) (One of my SSDs keeps changing its mind as to what disk controller it will work on). Trouble is the blasted firmware update program won't work through the RAID controller. I guess I have to do them with RAID switched off and hope that the RAID array doesn't get broken.... I'll do one at a time!


Update: I downloaded the ISO from Crucial that makes a bootable CD to do the firmware update, tried it without disabling RAID (for some reason I thought this might cause less problems with disabling something I've set up on the RAID controller), and for some reason it worked. Only having Windows running was blocking the firmware update - perhaps the Windows RAID driver? Anyway, the bloody thing went ahead and updated both firmwares without asking for confirmation - it actually said "type yes to continue" then typed it for me! The one that's been problematic had firmware 2, and the other firmware 3. Both are now updated to firmware 5. The problematic one is now detected on all SATA controllers which is wasn't previously, but I can't be sure if the firmware did that or the rebuild which happened yesterday did that.

--
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason -- Mark Twain
  #68  
Old March 13th 15, 01:45 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:32:21 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)


Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png


In the USA, Crucial's SSD warranty is only three years. Samsung and Intel's
warranty are both five years.

The major parameters I use to evaluate drive type storage, including SSDs a

1. Reliability
2. Overall speed
3. Cost per MB/GB/TB
4. Warranty period and terms.

A lengthy, full warranty from a reputable company with advance replacement,
coverage for all shipping costs and no receipt requirements is a tremendous
enticement.

With drive storage, as long as one establishes and maintains a reasonable
back-up routine the only loss one should incur during the reasonable life of the
product is the time expended in exercising the warranty and the time for
replacing and restoring the drive. Losing a drive is never any fun, but it is a
lot less distasteful when the manufacturer stands behind their product.


I put your number 1. as the only thing to look at. I'd rather have a reliable slow drive than a broken fast one, I mirror my drives as restoring from backup is never 100% no matter how well you do it. Even if you back up every day, you can lose a day's work. As for returning them, I don't like sending back drives with my data on them. You never know what a technician might look at. I only send them back if I can persuade the drive to do a secure wipe, otherwise they get hit with a sledgehammer and binned.

--
Keep your nose to the grindstone, your shoulder to the wheel, your eye on the ball, and your ear to the ground. Then see how much work you get done in that position.
  #69  
Old March 13th 15, 02:28 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:04:51 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:45:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:32:21 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)

Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png

In the USA, Crucial's SSD warranty is only three years. Samsung and Intel's
warranty are both five years.

The major parameters I use to evaluate drive type storage, including SSDs a

1. Reliability
2. Overall speed
3. Cost per MB/GB/TB
4. Warranty period and terms.

A lengthy, full warranty from a reputable company with advance replacement,
coverage for all shipping costs and no receipt requirements is a tremendous
enticement.

With drive storage, as long as one establishes and maintains a reasonable
back-up routine the only loss one should incur during the reasonable life of the
product is the time expended in exercising the warranty and the time for
replacing and restoring the drive. Losing a drive is never any fun, but it is a
lot less distasteful when the manufacturer stands behind their product.


I put your number 1. as the only thing to look at. I'd rather have a reliable slow drive than a broken fast one, I mirror my drives as restoring from backup is never 100% no matter how well you do it.


All of my in-house systems store user data to the servers which employ redundant
protective measures.

Even if you back up every day, you can lose a day's work.


Our portable systems all utilize continuous cloud backup for user data.

As for returning them, I don't like sending back drives with my data on them. You never know what a technician might look at. I only send them back if I can persuade the drive to do a secure wipe, otherwise they get hit with a sledgehammer and binned.


All of our drives utilize encryption. If you are not the NSA or US Air Force,
you are not accessing data on one of our drives.

I am confused, yesterday you were telling me that Intel drives are the most
reliable, now you have said you are going to purchase Crucial drives and that
you are only concerned with reliability. This seems a little paradoxical if not
fickle. Why today are you now promoting Crucial over yesterday's Intel?


Because of the RMA return rate in the graph I showed, I believe Crucial to be the most reliable. The Intel reliability was based on some strange non-real-world tests designed to cause the drive to fail or throw up recoverable errors.

--
A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.
  #70  
Old March 13th 15, 02:33 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:32:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:28:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:04:51 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:45:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:32:21 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)

Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png

In the USA, Crucial's SSD warranty is only three years. Samsung and Intel's
warranty are both five years.

The major parameters I use to evaluate drive type storage, including SSDs a

1. Reliability
2. Overall speed
3. Cost per MB/GB/TB
4. Warranty period and terms.

A lengthy, full warranty from a reputable company with advance replacement,
coverage for all shipping costs and no receipt requirements is a tremendous
enticement.

With drive storage, as long as one establishes and maintains a reasonable
back-up routine the only loss one should incur during the reasonable life of the
product is the time expended in exercising the warranty and the time for
replacing and restoring the drive. Losing a drive is never any fun, but it is a
lot less distasteful when the manufacturer stands behind their product.

I put your number 1. as the only thing to look at. I'd rather have a reliable slow drive than a broken fast one, I mirror my drives as restoring from backup is never 100% no matter how well you do it.

All of my in-house systems store user data to the servers which employ redundant
protective measures.

Even if you back up every day, you can lose a day's work.

Our portable systems all utilize continuous cloud backup for user data.

As for returning them, I don't like sending back drives with my data on them. You never know what a technician might look at. I only send them back if I can persuade the drive to do a secure wipe, otherwise they get hit with a sledgehammer and binned.

All of our drives utilize encryption. If you are not the NSA or US Air Force,
you are not accessing data on one of our drives.

I am confused, yesterday you were telling me that Intel drives are the most
reliable, now you have said you are going to purchase Crucial drives and that
you are only concerned with reliability. This seems a little paradoxical if not
fickle. Why today are you now promoting Crucial over yesterday's Intel?


Because of the RMA return rate in the graph I showed, I believe Crucial to be the most reliable. The Intel reliability was based on some strange non-real-world tests designed to cause the drive to fail or throw up recoverable errors.


You forgot to type something.

--
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives.
  #71  
Old March 13th 15, 03:22 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:48:51 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:28:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:04:51 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:45:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:32:21 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)

Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png

In the USA, Crucial's SSD warranty is only three years. Samsung and Intel's
warranty are both five years.

The major parameters I use to evaluate drive type storage, including SSDs a

1. Reliability
2. Overall speed
3. Cost per MB/GB/TB
4. Warranty period and terms.

A lengthy, full warranty from a reputable company with advance replacement,
coverage for all shipping costs and no receipt requirements is a tremendous
enticement.

With drive storage, as long as one establishes and maintains a reasonable
back-up routine the only loss one should incur during the reasonable life of the
product is the time expended in exercising the warranty and the time for
replacing and restoring the drive. Losing a drive is never any fun, but it is a
lot less distasteful when the manufacturer stands behind their product.

I put your number 1. as the only thing to look at. I'd rather have a reliable slow drive than a broken fast one, I mirror my drives as restoring from backup is never 100% no matter how well you do it.

All of my in-house systems store user data to the servers which employ redundant
protective measures.

Even if you back up every day, you can lose a day's work.

Our portable systems all utilize continuous cloud backup for user data.

As for returning them, I don't like sending back drives with my data on them. You never know what a technician might look at. I only send them back if I can persuade the drive to do a secure wipe, otherwise they get hit with a sledgehammer and binned.

All of our drives utilize encryption. If you are not the NSA or US Air Force,
you are not accessing data on one of our drives.

I am confused, yesterday you were telling me that Intel drives are the most
reliable, now you have said you are going to purchase Crucial drives and that
you are only concerned with reliability. This seems a little paradoxical if not
fickle. Why today are you now promoting Crucial over yesterday's Intel?


Because of the RMA return rate in the graph I showed, I believe Crucial to be the most reliable. The Intel reliability was based on some strange non-real-world tests designed to cause the drive to fail or throw up recoverable errors.


I don't understand. Most manufacturers of storage do not release their RMA
data.


They probably got it from retailers. For example, I had a quick search and found a French retailer had released these figures: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

- Samsung 0,05% (contre 0,48%)
- Plextor 0,16% (N/A)
- Intel 0,37% (contre 0,45%)
- Crucial 1,12% (contre 1,11%)
- Corsair 1,61% (contre 1,05%)
- OCZ 6,64% (contre 5,02%) / 2,92% sans les Petrol/Octane SATA 2 (contre 3,05%)

No idea what the contre means (against?!?), but it's clear that they think Samsung are very good. I guess it varies from year to year. Both the graph I showed you and the above French link are out of date. I guess you can never get up to date failure rates, as the current model hasn't been out long enough to find out if it breaks!

What is the source of this data and why would you consider it reliable?


I can't remember what website I got it from, it was a couple of years ago. I just saved the graph for later use. I consider it reliable because I can't see them just making up RMA data.

Also, based upon the graph, Samsung has the lowest percentage of drives which
have "died".


Less died, but more RMAd. Presumably not dead but intermittent.

There must be a narrative which goes along with this graph?

There is just too much information missing to place any credibility in the data
presented.


The numbers of RMAs aren't enough?

I expect to order another 1/2 dozen Samsung drives within the next sixty days. I
would enjoy perusing some reliable data which might sway my purchasing decision.


Looking up the French link, I've now decided Samsung are probably best.

The trouble is, a lot of these companies change the memory type they use, or use each other's innards, etc.

--
Saturday morning I got up early, quietly dressed, made my lunch, and slipped quietly into the garage. I hooked up the boat up to the van, and proceeded to back out into a torrential downpour. The wind was blowing 50 mph, so I pulled back into the garage, turned on the radio, and discovered that the weather would be bad all day. I went back into the house, quietly undressed, and slipped back into bed.. I cuddled up to my wife's back, now with a different anticipation, and whispered, "The weather out there is terrible."
My loving wife of 5 years replied, "And can you believe my stupid husband is out fishing in that?"
And that's how the fight started...
  #72  
Old March 13th 15, 03:55 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:40 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:22:17 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:


I don't understand. Most manufacturers of storage do not release their RMA
data.


They probably got it from retailers. For example, I had a quick search and found a French retailer had released these figures: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

- Samsung 0,05% (contre 0,48%)
- Plextor 0,16% (N/A)
- Intel 0,37% (contre 0,45%)
- Crucial 1,12% (contre 1,11%)
- Corsair 1,61% (contre 1,05%)
- OCZ 6,64% (contre 5,02%) / 2,92% sans les Petrol/Octane SATA 2 (contre 3,05%)

No idea what the contre means (against?!?), but it's clear that they think Samsung are very good. I guess it varies from year to year. Both the graph I showed you and the above French link are out of date. I guess you can never get up to date failure rates, as the current model hasn't been out long enough to find out if it breaks!

What is the source of this data and why would you consider it reliable?


I can't remember what website I got it from, it was a couple of years ago. I just saved the graph for later use. I consider it reliable because I can't see them just making up RMA data.

Also, based upon the graph, Samsung has the lowest percentage of drives which
have "died".


Less died, but more RMAd. Presumably not dead but intermittent.

There must be a narrative which goes along with this graph?

There is just too much information missing to place any credibility in the data
presented.


The numbers of RMAs aren't enough?

I expect to order another 1/2 dozen Samsung drives within the next sixty days. I
would enjoy perusing some reliable data which might sway my purchasing decision.


Looking up the French link, I've now decided Samsung are probably best.

The trouble is, a lot of these companies change the memory type they use, or use each other's innards, etc.


I have seen so many manufacturers and retailers lie through their teeth about
anything and everything. Like they say, don't believe everything you read on
the Internet. Mark Twain, one of my favorite philosophers / satirists once
said:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

I have lived by those words ever since he said this to me personally...... ;-)
OK, I stole flavor of the line from Reagan.


I like and use that quotation often aswell. But we have to pick the make of SSD somehow.

--
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
  #73  
Old March 13th 15, 04:02 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:58 -0000, Char Jackson wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer


Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.


+1

No issues here, so far, with any of the Samsung SSD's that I've installed, a
mix of 840's and 850's of varying sizes. I have no experience with any other
brand.


I've installed about 20 OCZ and 30 Crucial. 10 OCZ (yes half of them!) were returned as completely dead. 0 Crucial returned, although a few have required firmware to stop them being flaky (disappearing from the BIOS). I'll give Samsung a shot (price permitting). I installed an Intel recently, but it was quite a small one, so the absurd extra price on it didn't make much difference.

Just checked the prices and Samsung, Crucial, Kingston are all similar. I'll go for Samsung then.

--
I imposed a declaration in opposition to your motion to modify the preliminary injunction in support of the cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. So noted by the Federal Court of Justice proceeding preliminary declaration.
  #74  
Old March 13th 15, 04:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:29:21 -0400, Cy Burnot wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 3/12/2015 7:58 PM:

There is so little need for optical discs these days


Really? How about for troubleshooting/repair/etc.?


Like someone else said, a USB thumb drive is way more convenient and
durable.

The laptop that I'm typing on is coming up on 3 years old and I don't think
I have ever used the optical drive. I've pressed the button to pop open the
tray a few times, just out of boredom during a long meeting, but that
shouldn't count as using the drive.

My main desktop system and my file server both don't have internal optical
drives installed. I needed those bays for hard drives. I have an adapter
cable that should allow me to use an internal type of optical drive
externally via USB, but I've never had to use it.

On a related note, each of my vehicles has a CD player, but I can't remember
the last time I've played a CD in either of them. Both vehicles can play
music directly from a USB thumb drive, which again, is way more convenient
and durable.

  #75  
Old March 13th 15, 04:35 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Help with buying new hard drive

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:28:45 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:55:48 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:40 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:22:17 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:


I don't understand. Most manufacturers of storage do not release their RMA
data.

They probably got it from retailers. For example, I had a quick search and found a French retailer had released these figures: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

- Samsung 0,05% (contre 0,48%)
- Plextor 0,16% (N/A)
- Intel 0,37% (contre 0,45%)
- Crucial 1,12% (contre 1,11%)
- Corsair 1,61% (contre 1,05%)
- OCZ 6,64% (contre 5,02%) / 2,92% sans les Petrol/Octane SATA 2 (contre 3,05%)

No idea what the contre means (against?!?), but it's clear that they think Samsung are very good. I guess it varies from year to year. Both the graph I showed you and the above French link are out of date. I guess you can never get up to date failure rates, as the current model hasn't been out long enough to find out if it breaks!

What is the source of this data and why would you consider it reliable?

I can't remember what website I got it from, it was a couple of years ago. I just saved the graph for later use. I consider it reliable because I can't see them just making up RMA data.

Also, based upon the graph, Samsung has the lowest percentage of drives which
have "died".

Less died, but more RMAd. Presumably not dead but intermittent.

There must be a narrative which goes along with this graph?

There is just too much information missing to place any credibility in the data
presented.

The numbers of RMAs aren't enough?

I expect to order another 1/2 dozen Samsung drives within the next sixty days. I
would enjoy perusing some reliable data which might sway my purchasing decision.

Looking up the French link, I've now decided Samsung are probably best.

The trouble is, a lot of these companies change the memory type they use, or use each other's innards, etc.

I have seen so many manufacturers and retailers lie through their teeth about
anything and everything. Like they say, don't believe everything you read on
the Internet. Mark Twain, one of my favorite philosophers / satirists once
said:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

I have lived by those words ever since he said this to me personally...... ;-)
OK, I stole flavor of the line from Reagan.


I like and use that quotation often aswell. But we have to pick the make of SSD somehow.


When I have absolutely no basis for make a comparative choice of products, I
will frequently turn to customer reviews on Amazon. I have posted numerous
reviews of products I have purchased and they have never been adulterated by
Amazon.

I usually skip directly to the 1 star reviews. I try to determine if the person
who wrote the review has the IQ of a pet rock, if they have written the review
in such a way as to indicate they have a vested interest or is they are a sock /
shill.

If I have absolutely no basis for comparison, the reviews can be very
enlightening. It is certainly better to consider thousands of reviews from
verified purchasers than it is to accept a review published on an obscure
website and written by a 28 year old who is writing articles for the web because
he couldn't handle the math to become an engineer.


Good idea. Although I'd never actually buy from Amazon, I prefer Ebay. Amazon's website looks like a 2 year old designed it, and the amount of companies on there with more than 50% of the reviews bad, yet they're still trading? And the fees they charge sellers are twice as high as Ebay. I don't know why Amazon is still in business.

--
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.