markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (07/24/90)
Well, up to about a year ago I worked in an Apple repair shop. Having swapped out about 3 dozen SCSI hard drives that I have failed, here are my thoughts. When Apple first shipped the 40MB 3.5" SCSIs they used Seagate ST-157Ns. That lasted about 3 weeks. In those three weeks, we swapped out 5 of these drives that died. After three weeks Apple send out a "Priority Notice" saying that Mac products would no longer use the ST-157Ns and we should return any existing stock for a "new" vendor. The new Vendor was Quantum and the drives were ProDrives. After that we only had ONE Quantum drive go bad, and it was one of the drives with a "stickion" problem. Quantum shipped Apple one bad lot of about 1,000 40MB drives with too much lube on them. To fix it, Apple sent out a replacement PROM for the drive that would "exercise" the drive for about 3 weeks during normal use, and then return to normal. The extra head action was supposed to even out the execess lube, and it did work and this customer didn't have to replace a drive or lose any data. In general, I am convinced that Quantums are better and considering the importance of your data, and the expense and hassle of having an HD die, spend the extra $$ on a Quantum. If you go over the specs on Quantums-vs-Seagates you begin to see the differnce. Some ones from memory: MTBF (this is an important spec): Quantum 70,000 hours, Seagate 25-35,000. Non-Operating Shock: Quantum 40 Gs, Seagate 15-20Gs. (If you do some math, the earlier joke about dropping it out of a building isn't as much of a joke as you might think). Etc, Etc. One important note though, Quantums are 11-12ms Access on READs only. This is because of their built in 64K look ahead *read* cache. They are 19ms (their physical rating) on writes. At the low level Quantums fully support automatic bad block detection and mapping and have some other neat features. So, I can say, I'll go for a Quantum over a Seagate any time. (Although my two current 20MB drives are Miniscribes and have been well behaved.) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Gooderum Only... \ Good Cheer !!! Academic Computing Services /// \___________________________ University of Kansas /// /| __ _ Bix: markgood \\\ /// /__| |\/| | | _ /_\ makes it Bitnet: MARKV@UKANVAX \/\/ / | | | | |__| / \ possible... Internet: markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) (07/25/90)
In article <25018.26ac29cd@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >So, I can say, I'll go for a Quantum over a Seagate any time. >(Although my two current 20MB drives are Miniscribes and have been >well behaved.) Well, in spite of the fact that all the repair shops consider them highly reliable, I just paid to have my 2 year old Miniscibe 3650 (40mb) repaired. Electonics failure (track-zero detect). The Lynx group at Epyx used Seagate drives almost exclusively, and although I can't speak for the rest of the company, our group never had any problems. Seagate is one of the highest volume small disk drive manufacturers. I'm not surprised that they also have the highest volume of complaints. It would be interesting to see some real honest figures in terms of % of drives sold. (I, too, would go for a Quantum over a Seagate, all things being equal. 30% higher price is far from equal, though.) -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes