|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
January 23rd 14, 07:20 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:55:59 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:14:54 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:01:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. Sounds like it is indeed a good idea to avoid Seagate and to buy either Hitachi or Western Digital if I'm in the market for a hard disk (though I prefer SSD technology myself). Every drive maker takes their turn at the bottom of the barrel. Even when they ride high, they can deliver a bad batch or a bad sample within a good batch. Even if the advice right now is to avoid Seagate, which is doubtful, a month or 6 months from now it will be someone else's turn to be avoided. Does a manufacture have a lemon from time to time? Of course. I'm talking about more than "a lemon". But does most companies Yikes, somewhere an English teacher is rolling over in his/her grave. It's hard to take you seriously when you do that, and you do it often. sell off known defective units and then say they are not responsible after the sale, hardly! This seems to be the standard operating procedure from Seagate. You mean like IBM and their Deathstar (Deskstar) line, among lots of other examples? Why would you single out Seagate? 
|
| Ads |
|
#32
January 23rd 14, 01:41 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
Char Jackson wrote:
I never heard of CMD, but GVP (Great Valley Products) was a big player in the Amiga hard drive space. All of my GVP drives were Quantums inside. Ha! I had a Quantum HD on my A1000. They made the entire thing, actually - the controller that attached to the side expansion port, and the box containing the HD that was almost as large as the A1000 itself. $500 for 50MB, and well worth it! 8) -- "MS is installed for a reason : people wanted it." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
|
|
#33
January 23rd 14, 03:38 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:45:40 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
What do you mean? Does Seagate make some junk? Yes! Does Seagate make some really good drives? Yes. I am not all over the board, Seagate is. So the lesson is that if purchasing from Seagate, one should pay a high amount if he expects to keep the drive longer than three years. -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is Communism The intellect and maturity of GNU/Linux advocates: "Does Snot's penis taste salty, Silver Slipper?" - Onion Knight v3.0 "Isn't it time you went home to alt.suicide.holiday?" - Nobody
|
|
#34
January 23rd 14, 03:44 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 02:20:42 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
You mean like IBM and their Deathstar (Deskstar) line, among lots of other examples? Why would you single out Seagate? I actually had one of those 30 gig IBM Deskstar drives that a friend sold me. It was 10,000RPM if I remember correctly. Fast but unreliable. Died soon thereafter (a year or so). -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is Communism The intellect and maturity of GNU/Linux advocates: "Does Snot's penis taste salty, Silver Slipper?" - Onion Knight v3.0 "Isn't it time you went home to alt.suicide.holiday?" - Nobody
|
|
#35
January 23rd 14, 06:23 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On 2014-01-23, BillW50 wrote:
In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:14:54 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:01:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: [deletia] Even if the advice right now is to avoid Seagate, which is doubtful, a month or 6 months from now it will be someone else's turn to be avoided. Does a manufacture have a lemon from time to time? Of course. But does most companies sell off known defective units and then say they are not responsible after the sale, hardly! This seems to be the standard operating procedure from Seagate. Sounds like Ayn Rand Capitalism 101 really. I wouldn't get to fixated on one particular corporation and try to hold it up above the others or even do the reverse. They are all scum by default and they are actively encouraged to behave that way by the current consumer culture. -- This is a consumer product. ||| World domination simply isn't necessary. / | \
|
|
#36
January 23rd 14, 06:45 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:35:59 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote: Every drive maker takes their turn at the bottom of the barrel. Even when they ride high, they can deliver a bad batch or a bad sample within a good batch. Even if the advice right now is to avoid Seagate, which is doubtful, a month or 6 months from now it will be someone else's turn to be avoided. For what it's worth, this article says Hitachi is the best http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21...-should-i-buy/
|
|
#37
January 23rd 14, 08:24 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
|
|
#38
January 23rd 14, 10:08 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit wrote:
On 1/23/14, 12:32 PM, in article lid, "owl" wrote: You joke but there may a be a good chance that your washing machine runs Linux if it is newer. That's just the state of things. MacOS lost, Windows continued it's desktop dominance from the days of MS-DOS, and Linux seems to be thriving everywhere else. When has Apple tried to get OS X on a washing machine and been beaten out by Linux? I would be very interested in evidence for your claim of OS X losing on this one! If they did, they would have to pay for another trademark license, otherwise it wouldn't be UNIX. If they had an Intel CPU would it not be UNIX? They would probably have to call the refrigerator a "Mac" or "Macintosh." I admit I do not know, but I think they merely need to have it running on Intel. I do not think what trademrk they use matters... but, in the absurd world where Apple is thinking of doing this, they could just call it the iWasher (powered by a Mac) or (powered by OS X) and be OK. No, "i*" does not imply "Macintosh." It would have to be a "Macintosh Washer." Another curiosity is that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." So I guess if you make any changes to your Mac, OS X is no longer a UNIX. Well, if you remove the parts that make it a UNIX and replace them with other non-certified components that makes sense. If I change the settings to have my mouse scroll in an intelligent way it is not making my system no longer be a certified UNIX machine.  No, if you change settings, it is no longer in "Default configuration," so you won't be running "UNIX."
|
|
#39
January 23rd 14, 11:26 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
Todd wrote:
On 01/21/2014 06:58 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: Looks like buying a Seagate is asking for your data to be lost. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-are-equal/#p3 Stick with "Enterprise" level hard drives Even with fluffy articles like this, I remain unconvinced we're being told the whole story. http://download.intel.com/support/mo..._drives_ .pdf Many of the materials and techniques have to be common between enterprise and consumer drives. Similarities in the specs hint at that (similar shock rating in G's). It would be the details of platter plating and stackup, or perhaps head construction materials, that nobody talks about. Platter plating only matters, if humidity coming through the breather hole on the drive, affects stability of the media. In the old days, there were pictures of the inside of a drive, where the filters in the air path, were coated with debris that had come off the platters. Hardly a class 10 environment at that point in time. What I'm waiting for, is what difference the new helium-filled drives are going to make. As they'll be sealed, and the field failure rate characteristics just might be entirely different. I'm more than a little curious, as to why the helium wants to stay inside one of those drives :-) That'll be the magic part of the design. Paul
|
|
#41
January 23rd 14, 11:49 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit wrote:
On 1/23/14, 3:08 PM, in article lid, "owl" wrote: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit wrote: On 1/23/14, 12:32 PM, in article lid, "owl" wrote: You joke but there may a be a good chance that your washing machine runs Linux if it is newer. That's just the state of things. MacOS lost, Windows continued it's desktop dominance from the days of MS-DOS, and Linux seems to be thriving everywhere else. When has Apple tried to get OS X on a washing machine and been beaten out by Linux? I would be very interested in evidence for your claim of OS X losing on this one! If they did, they would have to pay for another trademark license, otherwise it wouldn't be UNIX. If they had an Intel CPU would it not be UNIX? They would probably have to call the refrigerator a "Mac" or "Macintosh." I admit I do not know, but I think they merely need to have it running on Intel. I do not think what trademrk they use matters... but, in the absurd world where Apple is thinking of doing this, they could just call it the iWasher (powered by a Mac) or (powered by OS X) and be OK. No, "i*" does not imply "Macintosh." It would have to be a "Macintosh Washer." I did not the "powered by Mac" to it... but maybe it would need to be more. I think the lawyers would have to decide. More likely Apple would be able to go back to the Open Group and get the certification extended to the iWasher with little effort (assuming it actually ran a full copy of Darwin and whatever else is needed to fulfill the requirements of being a UNIX). But the real point here as that it is idiotic to say Linux won and Apple lost when it comes to the washing machine market. Apple has never, that anyone has shown, even considered trying to make a washing machine. Given the amount of cash they have, though, maybe they want it to launder their money. Another curiosity is that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." So I guess if you make any changes to your Mac, OS X is no longer a UNIX. Well, if you remove the parts that make it a UNIX and replace them with other non-certified components that makes sense. If I change the settings to have my mouse scroll in an intelligent way it is not making my system no longer be a certified UNIX machine. No, if you change settings, it is no longer in "Default configuration," so you won't be running "UNIX." The license is for "OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computer": http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1200p.pdf. Not only does changing settings not make it where I am not running OS X 10.9, I am willing to bet that this includes updates to the OS such as 10.9.1. I have not heard anything suggesting only the 10.x.0 version are the ones actually certified and the others are not. I think that would be a silly claim. Here you will see that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." http://www.opengroup.org/csq/reposit...XY1%252F7.html As for whether or not patches and updates might trigger a re-certification, you will note here http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ that other operating systems specify a certain minimum patch level, but say something like "or later" "an on" etc. "IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWERâ„¢ processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards" "Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems" Apple's certification does not say OS X 10.9 "and later."
|
|
#42
January 24th 14, 12:09 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On 1/23/14, 4:49 PM, in article lid, "owl"
wrote: .... No, if you change settings, it is no longer in "Default configuration," so you won't be running "UNIX." The license is for "OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computer": http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1200p.pdf. Not only does changing settings not make it where I am not running OS X 10.9, I am willing to bet that this includes updates to the OS such as 10.9.1. I have not heard anything suggesting only the 10.x.0 version are the ones actually certified and the others are not. I think that would be a silly claim. Here you will see that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." http://www.opengroup.org/csq/reposit...XY1%252F7.html Hard to say exactly what they mean by "default configuration", but looking on their site I find this: http://www.opengroup.org/infosrv/TET3/Old_releases/patch3.3e-3.3f ----- Solaris 8 detected. (using solaris7.mk) The default configuration assumes 32-bit, with POSIX Threads, Sun Workshop C compiler and no C++ compiler. Edit the defines.mk file if you need to enable 64-bit mode, or change other configuration as per the comments. ----- I did not find a similar file speaking of OS X, but I think you are assuming a much finer level of configuration when you assume changing mouse settings is going to stop UNIX certification! As for whether or not patches and updates might trigger a re-certification, you will note here http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ that other operating systems specify a certain minimum patch level, but say something like "or later" "an on" etc. "IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards" "Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems" Apple's certification does not say OS X 10.9 "and later." I take this to mean 10.10 does not have automatic certification but I see nothing suggesting Apple had to get recertified for 10.8.1, 10.8.2. 10.8.3, etc... nor anything suggesting they needed it for 10.9.1 nor the soon to be released 10.9.2. -- Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner
|
|
#43
January 24th 14, 12:47 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit wrote:
On 1/23/14, 4:49 PM, in article lid, "owl" wrote: ... No, if you change settings, it is no longer in "Default configuration," so you won't be running "UNIX." The license is for "OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computer": http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1200p.pdf. Not only does changing settings not make it where I am not running OS X 10.9, I am willing to bet that this includes updates to the OS such as 10.9.1. I have not heard anything suggesting only the 10.x.0 version are the ones actually certified and the others are not. I think that would be a silly claim. Here you will see that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." http://www.opengroup.org/csq/reposit...XY1%252F7.html Hard to say exactly what they mean by "default configuration", but looking on their site I find this: http://www.opengroup.org/infosrv/TET3/Old_releases/patch3.3e-3.3f ----- Solaris 8 detected. (using solaris7.mk) The default configuration assumes 32-bit, with POSIX Threads, Sun Workshop C compiler and no C++ compiler. Edit the defines.mk file if you need to enable 64-bit mode, or change other configuration as per the comments. ----- The text you quote from that patch is part of a case statement pattern being added. I did not find a similar file speaking of OS X, but I think you are assuming a much finer level of configuration when you assume changing mouse settings is going to stop UNIX certification! As for whether or not patches and updates might trigger a re-certification, you will note here http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ that other operating systems specify a certain minimum patch level, but say something like "or later" "an on" etc. "IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER? processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards" "Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems" Apple's certification does not say OS X 10.9 "and later." I take this to mean 10.10 does not have automatic certification but I see nothing suggesting Apple had to get recertified for 10.8.1, 10.8.2. 10.8.3, etc... nor anything suggesting they needed it for 10.9.1 nor the soon to be released 10.9.2. Well, since the cert for 10.8 also did not say "or later," my take would be that 10.8.1, .2, etc are not certified. Not only that, but the 10.8 brand certificate specifies an issue date of 10 July 2012 and a "Next renewal date" of 10 July 2013. Apparently Apple did not renew the certification for 10.8 (else it would say next renewal 10 July 2014), so I don't believe 10.8 is a certified UNIX anymore.
|
|
#44
January 24th 14, 12:57 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On 1/23/14, 5:47 PM, in article lid, "owl"
wrote: .... Here you will see that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." http://www.opengroup.org/csq/reposit...XY1%252F7.html Hard to say exactly what they mean by "default configuration", but looking on their site I find this: http://www.opengroup.org/infosrv/TET3/Old_releases/patch3.3e-3.3f ----- Solaris 8 detected. (using solaris7.mk) The default configuration assumes 32-bit, with POSIX Threads, Sun Workshop C compiler and no C++ compiler. Edit the defines.mk file if you need to enable 64-bit mode, or change other configuration as per the comments. ----- The text you quote from that patch is part of a case statement pattern being added. The point is I think you are taking the idea of configuration out of context when you say changing a mouse setting alters UNIX certification. I did not find a similar file speaking of OS X, but I think you are assuming a much finer level of configuration when you assume changing mouse settings is going to stop UNIX certification! As for whether or not patches and updates might trigger a re-certification, you will note here http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ that other operating systems specify a certain minimum patch level, but say something like "or later" "an on" etc. "IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER? processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards" "Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems" Apple's certification does not say OS X 10.9 "and later." I take this to mean 10.10 does not have automatic certification but I see nothing suggesting Apple had to get recertified for 10.8.1, 10.8.2. 10.8.3, etc... nor anything suggesting they needed it for 10.9.1 nor the soon to be released 10.9.2. Well, since the cert for 10.8 also did not say "or later," my take would be that 10.8.1, .2, etc are not certified. The view of the involved parties is far more important that your "take". Not only that, but the 10.8 brand certificate specifies an issue date of 10 July 2012 and a "Next renewal date" of 10 July 2013. Apparently Apple did not renew the certification for 10.8 (else it would say next renewal 10 July 2014), so I don't believe 10.8 is a certified UNIX anymore. Again: I would love to see the involved parties make any comment like that. I am guessing any major updates past that date would need to be re-certified... but that is just a guess. -- Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner
|
|
#45
January 24th 14, 01:06 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit wrote:
On 1/23/14, 5:47 PM, in article lid, "owl" wrote: ... Here you will see that their "Conformance Statement" specifies an environment of "Macintosh computers" in "Default configuration." http://www.opengroup.org/csq/reposit...XY1%252F7.html Hard to say exactly what they mean by "default configuration", but looking on their site I find this: http://www.opengroup.org/infosrv/TET3/Old_releases/patch3.3e-3.3f ----- Solaris 8 detected. (using solaris7.mk) The default configuration assumes 32-bit, with POSIX Threads, Sun Workshop C compiler and no C++ compiler. Edit the defines.mk file if you need to enable 64-bit mode, or change other configuration as per the comments. ----- The text you quote from that patch is part of a case statement pattern being added. The point is I think you are taking the idea of configuration out of context when you say changing a mouse setting alters UNIX certification. Here's a blank conformance statement: http://www.opengroup.org/csq/csqdata/blanks/XY1.html In the Environment Specification "Configuration Instructions" box, if you click on the blue "?", you will get a popup that says: quote CONFIGURATION INSTRUCTIONS Please describe any special product ordering or system installation instructions needed to configure the product to meet all the conformance requirements of the Product Standard for the given binary-compatible family. /quote Apple's answer here was "Default configuration." I did not find a similar file speaking of OS X, but I think you are assuming a much finer level of configuration when you assume changing mouse settings is going to stop UNIX certification! As for whether or not patches and updates might trigger a re-certification, you will note here http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ that other operating systems specify a certain minimum patch level, but say something like "or later" "an on" etc. "IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER? processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards" "Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems" Apple's certification does not say OS X 10.9 "and later." I take this to mean 10.10 does not have automatic certification but I see nothing suggesting Apple had to get recertified for 10.8.1, 10.8.2. 10.8.3, etc... nor anything suggesting they needed it for 10.9.1 nor the soon to be released 10.9.2. Well, since the cert for 10.8 also did not say "or later," my take would be that 10.8.1, .2, etc are not certified. The view of the involved parties is far more important that your "take". Yeah, but they are not here to ask. What's "your take" btw? Not only that, but the 10.8 brand certificate specifies an issue date of 10 July 2012 and a "Next renewal date" of 10 July 2013. Apparently Apple did not renew the certification for 10.8 (else it would say next renewal 10 July 2014), so I don't believe 10.8 is a certified UNIX anymore. Again: I would love to see the involved parties make any comment like that. I am guessing any major updates past that date would need to be re-certified... but that is just a guess. The view of the involved parties is far more important that your "guess."
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
