Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ???

??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (30 Beiträge, 48 Mal gelesen)

Du bist nicht angemeldet. [ Login/Registrieren ]

Habe vor, mir neue Platte zu kaufen, jetzt zur entscheidenden Frage:

welche würdet ihr nehmen:

1.) IBM Deskstar 120GXP 61.5GB

guckst du: http://www.geizhals.at/?cat=hde7&a=30277

oder 2.) Seagate Barracuda-ATA IV 60GB

guckst du: http://www.geizhals.at/?cat=hde7&a=10542

Vom Preis ists ja gleich, also: WELCHE

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (fraknor am 16.05.2002, 23:04:57)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Hamed am 16.05.2002, 23:05:15)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (KarlToffel am 16.05.2002, 23:27:15)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (kuba2000 am 16.05.2002, 23:39:37)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (DECnotDEAD am 17.05.2002, 11:25:32)

Re(4): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Arnold am 19.05.2002, 10:07:31)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (3io am 17.05.2002, 00:14:00)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (3io am 17.05.2002, 00:14:47)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Geizhals-fake No1 am 17.05.2002, 01:11:05)

Re(4): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Zaphod1 am 19.05.2002, 09:23:45)

Re(5): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Geizhals-fake No1 am 20.05.2002, 12:34:30)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (bad_homsti am 17.05.2002, 08:56:53)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (mischamann am 17.05.2002, 09:00:43)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Zaphod1 am 19.05.2002, 09:27:28)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (bond007 am 17.05.2002, 00:19:40)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Geizhals-fake No1 am 17.05.2002, 01:05:38)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Prophet am 17.05.2002, 06:45:19)

Ahem, ich will IBM ned verteidigen, aber um da mal mit diesen hartnäckigen, hass-tiratitionalen (interessantes Wortkonstruktivum, nicht?

) Gerüchten aufzuräumen.

http://www.storagereview.com/ , in den news 18.03.2002:

IBM claims that, contrary to what we stated on the 6th, they did get back to us in a timely manner via e-mail. Weve run into mail problems several times in the past so we have little reason not to believe them. A spokeswoman has this to say:

Regarding the conversation between the storagereview reader and the unnamed source, IBM does not know who that source is and does not support or confirm the authenticity of those statements. Our position is that users can certainly run the drive more than eight hours a day.
She also adds the following points:

The 333 power-on hours (POH) defined in the 120GXP data sheet is not a new spec for our GXP drives; it is consistent with what we've held our desktop drives to in previous generation drives. The 333 power-on spec is not an indication of a maximum number of power-on hours or limitation of the Deskstar 120GXP.
Our specifications indicate that the 333 power-on hours per month represent typical desktop PC usage. This assumes an 11-hour day based on a 30 day month. Users can and have successfully run the drive more than 11 hours a day and 333 hours per month; the drives have been used successfully in 24x7 environments.

IBM stands by the 3-year warranty for the 120GXP. Power-on hours will not be a determining factor in negating the warranty.

Since SR itself expressed hesitation on 120GXP server usage, I asked this question: What's IBM's official position in using Deskstar products in servers that would remain on 24/7? Though the warranty would be fully honored, is server utilization encouraged, discouraged, or neither?

IBMs response:

Use of the drive 24x7 will not affect or void the warranty. IBM stands by our three-year warranty for the 120GXP. The drive can and has been used successfully in 24x7 operations. Users should not be concerned about running the drive in 24x7 environments beyond concerns typically associated with any drive usage, such as operating temperature, vibration, duty cycle, etc.
This is IBM's side of the issue. Ultimate conclusions when it comes to these nebulous rebiliabity issues are, as always, left to the reader.

Auf gut Deutsch: IBM weiss nichts von alledem.
--
I cannot be held responsible for any contents of this message since my cat learned how to type

Re(4): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (tuko am 17.05.2002, 11:01:14)

Re(5): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (KarlToffel am 17.05.2002, 11:52:00)

Re(6): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (mischamann am 17.05.2002, 11:56:13)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Geizhals-fake No1 am 17.05.2002, 11:08:31)

Re(4): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Motz am 17.05.2002, 12:36:12)

Re(3): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (SchusterHarry am 19.05.2002, 14:28:21)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (ernst am 17.05.2002, 13:04:33)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (User284 am 17.05.2002, 17:58:13)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (noxos am 17.05.2002, 20:13:02)

Re: ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Morieris am 17.05.2002, 20:48:08)

Re(2): ??? 60 GB HDD: IBM oder Seagate ??? (Prophet am 19.05.2002, 09:21:28)

Dieses Forum ist eine frei zugängliche Diskussionsplattform.
Der Betreiber übernimmt keine Verantwortung für den Inhalt der Beiträge und behält sich das Recht vor, Beiträge mit rechtswidrigem oder anstößigem Inhalt zu löschen.
Datenschutzerklärung