Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: Worked reliably for 7 years before failure.
Cons: Failure was without warning. One minute you could access the drive, next you couldn't. It didn't do any clicking or weird spin-ups, it just died.
Other Thoughts: Even though I wrote more in the cons than pros, instant failure after 7 years shouldn't be seen as a con for anyone doing regular backups (especially on a drive that old).
After the failure I was able to read the drive again using a very stubborn PATA-USB converter but it took a long time to even be able to recognize the disk. So there is hope for anyone experiencing a similar failure that didn't do regular backups.
Owned for over 7 years, operated in occasional high heat conditions, ran continuously... and still only 106 bad sectors.
Outlasted a PATA 250GB WD of the same age and a 1.5TB Seagate that was 3-4 years newer... and still running strong.
Cons: Ubuntu has been requesting disks checks often, but not finding any errors. So it might only make it to 8 years... but is that REALLY a con? :P
Other Thoughts: I wish all Seagates were this durable. This is the first SATA drive I ever bought and it's still running very well. My newer Seagate failed last year and I remember them stiffing me on the rebate (wasn't bought on NewEgg, think TD ;-).READ FULL REVIEW
Pros: Worked reliably for 4 years.
Was fast enough to stream HD videos from.
Cons: Failed in 4.5 years (click of death).
Performance started to degrade after about 3.75 years.
Warranty is only 2...
Other Thoughts: When SMART starts to report bad sectors, you have about 3 weeks to evacuate the drive before failure.
When it starts clicking, you will have lost a significant amount of data. I was fortune that I had backed up and only lost about 30 GB of replaceable files.
I think it's pathetic that a hard drive can't last 5 years or more. This is the first drive that I have ever bought new to fail in under 6 years. I have a Seagate 2 TB from about a year later that doesn't even have a single failed SMART test.