F
Flasherly
Interesting.
Say I've never had hard drives fail, at least good hard drives. Say
again I'm able to find or at least know a good from a bad drive. Both
statements could be saying the one thing I -do not- want to say about
hard drives: My experience with drives which have failed, and whether
there was anything preventative, on my part, I could have done better
to prolong their longevity.
Heat and usage are the only two subjective factors Google alludes to
in otherwise a statistical or objective skew of livespan. On that
skew the correlation is three factors: 1) the chance of premature
failure, the chance of long-term failure, and the chance either is
predictable.
Elsewhere. Newegg. What I'm seeing over a widest distribution of
responses to having purchased a particular drive model is that 1 in 4
are at extremes, that 1 is totally dissatisfied, whereas another 3,
for the most, are variously satisfied.
There's only one exception, a Seagate 500G model priced for a 5-yr
warranty, at entry 2T drives in other brand makes, with a stipulation
Seagate is touting for higher specifications and quality in
specifically addressing longevity. (The number of response returns I
recall high, although perhaps not as large as some of the other
models.)
The salient factor, however, is one in four, 25% is quite a larger
discrepancy from Google's potential 9%. A hard drive either works or
not. Nobody is really complaining about noise, or 5400 green drive
wouldn't match higher performance 10K or 7200 black. In order to give
it a 1 or zero, the drive was, for them, is "broken" upon delivery.
Not necessarily an impression every IT specialist runs back to provide
upon installing cases of 50 drives, although for a "figure" among
abstracts, one neither wholly dismissible.