Opinions/Experience re: Maxtor Onetough II external drive?

[Doc]

That's excellent price. I was thinking of getting one. Who is the
seller?

Best Buy but nevermind, it's turned into a Bait 'n Switch, false advertising
scam. I went back tonight figuring I'd pick one up, but the tag is now
mysteriously gone from the shelf.

I talked to the General manager of the store (was told the store manager was
leaving for the day) and after consulting with the department manager, I was
told it had only been a two-day sale. Horseshit, I saw the dates on the tag
on the shelf. Regular price $299, after an instant rebate and a mail in
rebate, it was supposed to be $69, sale through 12/17. As if I would have
just pulled the dates and numbers out of my ass. Not a mistake on my part. I
had the tag in my hand, the floor rep even checked the sku number against
the tag to verify the price.

Of course, when I asked what would have been done with the shelf tag, I was
told it would have been thrown out. She had no intention of checking to see
if it could be located.

I attempted to see if the dates the rebates were supposed to be honored
could be back-tracked through the rebate center, but after talking to a
Filipino girl who could barely speak English and hung up on me when I asked
to speak to a supervisor and some kid name Tien who I had to repeat
everything to 4 times, I realized it was an exercise in futility. I got
this manager's name and the name of her boss but I imagine there's not a
snowball's chance I'll get anywhere with the higher ups.

It's only false advertising if you can prove it was advertised.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

The only creativity involved was the setting in OE that broke your
posting on the basis where the first space was in the remainder of
your lines when that part of the line exceeded the linebrake setting.

Actually, I use a very old, text-only version of Netscape for newsgroup
browsing. I've never use OE in my life before on the PC.


Odie

 

[P.C. Ford]

Actually, I use a very old, text-only version of Netscape for newsgroup
browsing. I've never use OE in my life before on the PC.

Ya! I think I know which one you are talking about. It's about the
best newsreader ever. Of course Netscape screwed it up.

Have only used Outlook on employers' machines. Sucks bigtime.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Woops.

Nice posting. You obviously proofread it a few times before you sent
it.

Yeah, obviously he couldn't stop his lines properly because his linebrakes were failing.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

So that's the excuse, Netscape made you do it.

I've never use OE in my life before on the PC.

Yeah, should have written newsclient instead of OE. After all, it isn't
exclusively OE users that fail to setup their newsclients properly.

Ya! I think I know which one you are talking about.

Can't be because it is obviously broken.

It's about the best newsreader ever.

Even someone as braindead as you can see that his post was obviously broken.

Of course Netscape screwed it up.

Yeah, it is obviously not his fault. Netscape did it.

Have only used Outlook on employers' machines. Sucks bigtime.

Works like a charm here, (that is OE, NOT Outlook) no broken lines.

Which can't be said of the posts of most people complaining
about OE and then are using other broken newsclients.

 

[Ritz]

A local vendor has what seems to be a great deal on a Maxtor Onetouch II 300
gig external drive w/USB 1.1/2.0 as well as Firewire in/output for $69 after
rebates. That would provide all the space I could conceive of needing in the
forseeable future for temporarily moving stuff off my work drive (different
than my OS/Programs drive) a/or archiving things, with an eye primarily on
video/audio.

Does having an external drive get around issues of the whole drive not being
recognized by your mobo? The requirements listed on the box are relatively
modest - PIII, 500mhz, Win98SE, or XP. I'm running XP Home on a Compaq
Deskpro En PIII 933mhz.

However, seems like I've read things in the not too distant past about large
drives having problems with longevity. I've also never used an external
drive, so am wondering about any other issues to be aware of.

Any thoughts?

I have one of these, though in a 160gb capacity. I primarily used it to
lug around large audio/video files for use on demonstrations with my
laptop. It's not bad, though I feel it is a bit slow on the USB
interface (I'm running XP on an athlon 64 3400+ notebook). The firewire
interface is much more reliable and seems a bit faster. You'll need the
special (supplied) drivers for the firewire to work. USB will work
without any special drivers....just plug and play. I have since
replaced the Maxtor unit with a Hitachi 7K100 notebook drive (only
100gb) in an external USB enclosure. The 2.5" drive seems just as fast
(or maybe even a tad faster) and is *substantially* smaller and lighter.
It also has the benefit of taking power right from the USB cable so
you don't need to lug around a wall wart for it. These issues probably
don't matter to you since you're using it for a desktop system.

Sounds like a great price for the Maxtor for your intended usage. Just
don't rely on it for backups.

Cheers,

 

[Diver_Doc]

I have a number of these Maxtor drives now. I have had no compatibility
problems with Windows98 to XP or Linux 2.4 to 2.6, either on firewire and
USB

Do you use Retrospect - that comes with the drive for a back up
utility?

I did for a while but recently switched over to Acronis True Image.

Doc

 

[Curious George]

If anyone thinks of using external disk drives for anything else as backup,
a nasty surprise might be waiting just around the corner.
Do not use them for archiving, moving data, temporary storage etc., unless
you can stand losing all information stored there.

How in the world could it be suitable for backup yet not good enough
for "temporary storage etc., unless you can stand losing all
information stored there" ??? Completely mind-blowing.

By your description its a useless device that only "resembles"
storage.

 

[Peter]

If anyone thinks of using external disk drives for anything else as
backup,

How in the world could it be suitable for backup yet not good enough
for "temporary storage etc., unless you can stand losing all
information stored there" ??? Completely mind-blowing.

I consider external hard drives (like Maxtor OneTouch II) less reliable than
internal hard drive. That is why I would never put any valuable data on it,
unless it is a copy. I consider external drive reliability similar to
reliability of a tape system. It is not a disaster if I loose a tape from
time to time.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

How in the world could it be suitable for backup yet not good enough
for "temporary storage etc., unless you can stand losing all
information stored there" ??? Completely mind-blowing.

By your description its a useless device that only "resembles"
storage.

To wit, you twit.

You're compiling a load of MP3s into a certain folder structure, after
which you will be burning to CD or DVD. You need to do this on your
external drive, as there is insufficient space on your current, internal
drive, to fit both original data and compilation.

Once you have burnt the DVD and verified it, you can safely delete the
temporary work on the external drive.

You say you are curious; is that something to do with your sexuality, or
are you genuinely curious?

Either way, try to stretch those mind particles a little. You may
satisfy your "curiosity."


Odie

 

[Curious George]

I consider external hard drives (like Maxtor OneTouch II) less reliable than
internal hard drive. That is why I would never put any valuable data on it,
unless it is a copy. I consider external drive reliability similar to
reliability of a tape system. It is not a disaster if I loose a tape from
time to time.

Problem is that's somewhat apples to oranges. It's not a big deal to
loose a tape ONLY when there are frequent backups across many media in
rotation. Most ppl who use USB or FW HDDs have one possibly with rare
exception two or several. There are very few ppl who try to port a
full tape rotation scheme to ext HDDs.

The other problem is that logically, if it can't be trusted for
"moving data, temporary storage etc" than it's absurd to even think of
relying on it for backups. You make backups so you can restore them
later when your screwed. If it doesn't matter whether the data is
there later on, its not worth backing up. It makes "backup" an
exercise in futile time & money wasting.

 

[Curious George]

To wit, you twit.

You're compiling a load of MP3s into a certain folder structure, after
which you will be burning to CD or DVD. You need to do this on your
external drive, as there is insufficient space on your current, internal
drive, to fit both original data and compilation.

Once you have burnt the DVD and verified it, you can safely delete the
temporary work on the external drive.

he said it's unsuitable for "moving data, temporary storage etc"

You say you are curious; is that something to do with your sexuality, or
are you genuinely curious?

Why? Do you like to catch?

Either way, try to stretch those mind particles a little. You may
satisfy your "curiosity."

Try reading posts more carefully. K?

 

[Peter]

How in the world could it be suitable for backup yet not good enough

Problem is that's somewhat apples to oranges. It's not a big deal to
loose a tape ONLY when there are frequent backups across many media in
rotation. Most ppl who use USB or FW HDDs have one possibly with rare
exception two or several. There are very few ppl who try to port a
full tape rotation scheme to ext HDDs.

The other problem is that logically, if it can't be trusted for
"moving data, temporary storage etc" than it's absurd to even think of
relying on it for backups. You make backups so you can restore them
later when your screwed. If it doesn't matter whether the data is
there later on, its not worth backing up. It makes "backup" an
exercise in futile time & money wasting.

Nothing can be trusted 100%. That does not mean that it should not be used
at all.
I trust internal hard drives more than I trust tapes or external drives. And
I use them in a way according to how much I trust them.
Also I will try to use their unique features, which make my system more
reliable (trusted) as a whole.

 

[Curious George]

Nothing can be trusted 100%. That does not mean that it should not be used
at all.

I'm not claiming that anything is 100% reliable or that ext HDDs
should never be used. Only that the comment:

<Quote>
Do not use them for archiving, moving data, temporary storage etc.,
unless you can stand losing all information stored there.
</Quote>

infers that there is EXTREMELY LOW CONFIDENCE in such devices which
logically implies they are unreliable/unsuitable for "backup" purposes
as well.

I trust internal hard drives more than I trust tapes or external drives. And

I'm not sure I'd put external HDDs & tape in the same category. Tape
is an EXTREMELY broad category. Furthermore the best tapes are
significantly more trustworthy than consumer internal HDDs, at least
when looking at error rates. But then again usage is very different-
so these aren't straightforward comparisons.

I use them in a way according to how much I trust them.

Aye, there's the rub. I wonder how realistic your expectations are.
"Getting by" with things that in your gut you seem to not trust (but
then vacillate about how much you trust them) is dangerous. Unless,
of course, the things you're backing up aren't important enough to do
so - so that any restore is a "bonus." Then I'd still argue that
backing up these things is a waste of your time & money; only
providing an illusion of security - providing your assessment of their
trustworthiness for "temporary storage" is correct.

Also I will try to use their unique features, which make my system more
reliable (trusted) as a whole.

Unique features?

 

[Peter]

Nothing can be trusted 100%. That does not mean that it should not be
used

I'm not claiming that anything is 100% reliable or that ext HDDs
should never be used. Only that the comment:

<Quote>
Do not use them for archiving, moving data, temporary storage etc.,
unless you can stand losing all information stored there.
</Quote>

infers that there is EXTREMELY LOW CONFIDENCE in such devices which
logically implies they are unreliable/unsuitable for "backup" purposes
as well.

No need to shout. I have a limited confidence in consumer external hard
drives.
My principle is simple: backup serves as an additional copy of valuable
data, not as a single copy of data.
For example I wouldn't rely on single backup alone to perform data storage
reconfiguration.

And

I'm not sure I'd put external HDDs & tape in the same category. Tape
is an EXTREMELY broad category. Furthermore the best tapes are
significantly more trustworthy than consumer internal HDDs, at least
when looking at error rates. But then again usage is very different-
so these aren't straightforward comparisons.


Aye, there's the rub. I wonder how realistic your expectations are.
"Getting by" with things that in your gut you seem to not trust (but
then vacillate about how much you trust them) is dangerous. Unless,
of course, the things you're backing up aren't important enough to do
so - so that any restore is a "bonus." Then I'd still argue that
backing up these things is a waste of your time & money; only
providing an illusion of security - providing your assessment of their
trustworthiness for "temporary storage" is correct.

Keep wondering,.... You won't get much attention if you keep that attitude.

Unique features?

Portability?

 

[Jim]

I use DVD-RWs for back up. Havent trusted magnetic (tape or disk) since I
got my first CD burner. Now with the larger storage of DVD and the ability
to use it like a eraseable hard drive partition I feel a lot safer this way.
Initial start up was a load but I havent lost any data since.

 

[Curious George]

No need to shout. I have a limited confidence in consumer external hard
drives.

Sorry didn't mean to shout. Only meant extra emphasis on the level of
perhaps an underscore.

My principle is simple: backup serves as an additional copy of valuable
data, not as a single copy of data.

Umm you think?

But this is still very simple indeed. Operating with only one
additional copy on a single media offers little protection against
common problems that make one turn to backup in the first place.

http://www.taobackup.com/

For example I wouldn't rely on single backup alone to perform data storage
reconfiguration.

That's why you need more than one backup copy at all times. You don't
always know in advance when a disk is to fail, a virus hits, there's
accidental deletion, a malicious user gains access, your ex-girlfried
pours coffee in your machine, etc. You don't know in advance that the
copy of the file you need was in the backup 3 months ago- and the one
from last week won't do, or that a backup media has failed since the
last test.

Keep wondering,.... You won't get much attention if you keep that attitude.

I'm not posting for "attention". Apparently you are, as this is the
only logical explanation of your continued confused defense of absurd
posts.

Portability?

That's just _one_ feature. You've used the plural "features" to make
the obvious observation that "portability" is unique to "portable
media." Wow.

I still don't understand how this would make your "system more
reliable (trusted) as a whole" when you're talking about very limited
backup strategies (to be polite) on media you don't really trust to
preserve your data. You should either recant your prior statement or
quit while your behind.

 

[Chel van Gennip]

Nothing can be trusted 100%. That does not mean that it should not be
used at all.

That is a correct statement. If you want reliability, be prepared for
hardware, software and operator failure. Hardware failure includes fire,
storm, and other hazards. Operating/software failures includes the use of
virus sensitive operating systems.

I trust internal hard drives more than I trust tapes or external drives.

Why do you trust internal drives more than external drives?

I don't trust (after a lot of experience) tapes very much, especially the
helical scan devices. I would never trust a written tape before a complete
verify on the data has done. I have seen a lot of verifies fail.

And I use them in a way according to how much I trust them. Also I will
try to use their unique features, which make my system more reliable
(trusted) as a whole.

Trust should be based on measurements, incorporating intuitive/emotional
elements in your chain of trust, makes your reliability unpredictable and
less trustworthy. I've seen a lot of people making backups without ever
verifying the result or testing the restore operations. This leads to
unhappy surprises.

If you want a more reliable system, work on duplication of data, safe
storage, and verification (e.g. md5sums on your files) and procedures.

I see no reason to trust external drives less than internal drives, a
great benefit is the that drives are accessable/replacable without opening
your system. System repair actions are a major cause of component failure.
If you want a reliable system the screwdriver is one of your biggest
enemies!

 

[Rod Speed]

Peter wrote

That is a correct statement. If you want reliability, be prepared
for hardware, software and operator failure. Hardware failure
includes fire, storm, and other hazards. Operating/software
failures includes the use of virus sensitive operating systems.

And recognise that some things are easy enough
to replace without bothering with a backup.

Why do you trust internal drives more than external drives?

Externals fail at a significantly higher rate, mainly
because the housings are significantly worse for
power and cooling, and because its a lot easier to
physically damage an external when its running.

The technology is significantly less mature too.

I don't trust (after a lot of experience) tapes very much, especially
the helical scan devices. I would never trust a written tape before a
complete verify on the data has done. I have seen a lot of verifies fail.

Yes, external drives are a lot better in that regard, but they
have downsides of their own too. I prefer to use internal
drives on other systems on the lan instead of externals.

And have the most important stuff on
removable media like DVD for offsite backup.

Its just a nuisance if someone loots the entire place and steals
all the PCs or the place burns down. I'd have a significant amount
of work to do replacing all the hardware anyway, no big deal to
have to install all the OSs and apps again in that situation.

Trust should be based on measurements,

Not really feasible with personal desktop system.

The technical term is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

incorporating intuitive/emotional elements in your chain of trust,
makes your reliability unpredictable and less trustworthy.

Not if you cover all the bases and you
can recover gracefully whatever happens.

I've seen a lot of people making backups without ever verifying the result
or testing the restore operations. This leads to unhappy surprises.

Sure, but thats easily avoided.

If you want a more reliable system, work on duplication of data, safe
storage, and verification (e.g. md5sums on your files) and procedures.

And dont bother with some approaches to backup like tapes and
external drives except to say use an external drive for minimum
effort recovery and have the data you will slash your wrists if
you lose on something else like offsite DVDs so if the external
does turn out to be unusable when you need it, its just a nuisance.

I see no reason to trust external drives less than internal drives,

More fool you. Have a look at the manufacturer's warrantys for starters.

a great benefit is the that drives are accessable
/replacable without opening your system.

You dont need to open anything if you
use an internal on another PC on the lan.

System repair actions are a major cause of component failure.

Bullshit. Not if you know what you are doing.

If you want a reliable system the screwdriver is one of your biggest enemies!

Bullshit. Not if you know what you are doing. I've never killed a
system yet and that is likely since before you were even born.

 

[Chel van Gennip]

Externals fail at a significantly higher rate, mainly because the
housings are significantly worse for power and cooling,

Do you have statistics to support that statement?

and because its a lot easier to physically damage an external when its
running.

The technology is significantly less mature too.

What technology? The Diamondmax inside or an external case with it's own
ventilation without a very hot processor or graphics card in the same
enclosure? Never seen a toasted drive because a ribbon cable blocked the
airflow?

Not if you cover all the bases and you can recover gracefully whatever
happens.

"Whatever happens" is to broad. When the WTC was still standing it would
have been a good solution to have a system in tower 1, a hot backup in
tower 2 and safety backups in a vault in the cellar.

Sure, but thats easily avoided.

The problem often exists, even in professional environments.

Bullshit. Not if you know what you are doing.

I have seen statistics on system failure shortly after or during
preventive maintenance.

Bullshit. Not if you know what you are doing. I've never killed a system
yet and that is likely since before you were even born.

Those are the worst engeneers, overestimating themselfes and making the
wrong assumptions.