Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Seagate slapped with class action lawsuit over hard drive failure rate

05 Feb 2016   #21
ThrashZone

Win-7-Pro64bit 7-H-Prem-64bit
 
 

I always though windows accessed drives more than a user most the time


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
05 Feb 2016   #22
Lady Fitzgerald

Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Brds7t7 View Post
How did they fix the issue on newer drives? 8 seconds is still 8 seconds after all. You'll still get an excessively high load cycle count compared to a "normal" drive, unless the drive is hardly ever in use. Didn't the older drives stay parked until you accessed them anyway?
The freenas forum still has reports of excessively high counts even on the more recently manufactured greens. Or did they make them more reliable somehow?
Can't say I've ever actually used any Greens though as the intellipark feature never appealed to me. I've always stuck to Blues and Blacks. Usually the Blues are my go to drive though as they're a decent performing drive for the price.
Pity they won't make the larger storage Blues (2 - 6TB) run at 7,200 rpm. Larger & faster Blues would be a welcome addition.
Agree that 5,400 just isn't good enough for an OS drive.
The first Greens had a bug that caused the heads to repeatedly park and unpark, even when the drive wasn't being accessed; that was what caused them to fail prematurely. Frankly, I felt the author of first article you linked didn't know what he was talking about.

The Greens were never intended to be used for anything other than light duty storage. They are like an inexpensive economy car; to get the energy savings, you have to sacrifice performance and some durability. An economy car is fine for a daily, short distance commuter and as a grocery getter but try to use it for frequent or long distance operation, such as taxi cab, delivery vehicle, or daily, long distance commutes, you will wear it out quickly. The same is true of Greens; they are an economy drive intended for light duty usage, such as low duty cycle storage in computers that run only a few hours a day. Power users, such as myself or businesses, should never use the Greens for anything other than backups. Unfortunately, many users, and even manufacturers, try to cut corners (or, to put more harshly, albeit accurately, cheap out) and use the Greens where they never should have been used, such as in RAIDs or as an OS drive, which helped contribute to the undeserved, continuing bad reputation they still have.

The new WD Purples, which were intended solely for surveillance use, have a similar problem. Many people have tried to use them in their computers for normal storage, and even RAIDs, then complained about data corruption. Drives used for surveillance recording receive a continuous data feed. Most drives, if a glitch occurs, will attempt to rewrite the glitched data. If a drive being used to record a surveillance feed were to do that, there would be occasional dropouts in the video because of the time wasted in error correction. To avoid that problem, the Purples were designed with no error correction. This may result in occasional artifacts in the recorded video but, at least, what is recorded is continuous without any skips or gaps. However, when used to save files, an uncorrected error will result in data loss.

I run my computer 24/7 with multiple processes going on from time to time that give its HDDs a pretty fair workout. I could run Greens in it and would probably be ok but I would be pushing my luck and they wouldn't last as long as a better drive, so I chose instead to use the better, more appropriate WD Blacks. There is a reason why the Blacks have a five year warranty and the Greens have only a two year warranty.

I currently have 12 WD Greens in service that I use for backup drives. Of the two I have that failed, one was an early Green that both had the excessive head parking issue and had been installed in my old XP machine as an OS drive by a reputable computer repair chain (not GweekSquad) that should have known better (that was one of the reasons I decided I better learn more about computers). The other was one that was approaching the end of its warranty period and had started to throw reallocation errors. None of them (including the one that had to be replaced under warranty) are (were) anywhere remotely close to exceeding their rated Load/Unload Cycle Count limit.

5400 rpm HDDs work fine for an OS drive; they are just slower. Many netbooks, notebooks, and laptops came with them to inexpensively reduce power consumption, thus increasing battery life. What make the Greens inappropriate for an OS drive is not their speed, but the head parking feature. An OS drive is accessed far more frequently than most storage drives so, a HDD that parks its heads when inactive will be far more frequently unparking/reparking the heads than a drive that is just used for storage only, shortening its life dramatically.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #23
Lady Fitzgerald

Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ThrashZone View Post
I always though windows accessed drives more than a user most the time
That is true on an OS drive. On a storage drive, not nearly as much.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

05 Feb 2016   #24
Lady Fitzgerald

Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Borg 386 View Post
I have to wonder if during all that flooding they had, that shut down the factories, they didn't ditch the ones that took water damage, just refurbished them & passed them on as new. It would have taken a big chunk of their profits if they would have to throw away a lot of damaged drives.
All the drives that came out after the floods had high failure rates. I read reports that some factories supposedly had workers building drives while standing in water.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by strollin View Post
The high failure rate was only for the 3TB models. I own a mix of 1.5, 2 and 5TB Seagate drives and haven't had any issues with them. I haven't found them to be any less or any more reliable than the WD drives I have.

My first hdd was a Seagate. A 20MB ST-225. Cost me $500 in 1985.
I read on another forum a post that said the poster had read that 3TB drives were actually 4TB drives that failed inspection due to too many bad sectors and were rerated. If true (keep in mind this is third hand information), that could explain why the 3TB drives in all brands get poorer reviews than the other sizes. It makes me wonder about the 5TB drives although I haven't observed a trend in poorer reviews for them.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #25
Layback Bear

Windows 7 Pro. 64/SP-1
 
 

I personally try to stay away for these so called Green (save energy) hardware.
If one had 10 of these Green drives installed, the energy you would save couldn't buy a Happy Meal. At the very top of my list when it comes to any computer hardware is reliability.
Whether or not it saves a $1.00 a year on energy is no concern to me. Turning off a light not needed will save more than that. Look around your house at night and see how many lights are on in rooms no one is in.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #26
Lady Fitzgerald

Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Layback Bear View Post
I personally try to stay away for these so called Green (save energy) hardware.
If one had 10 of these Green drives installed, the energy you would save couldn't buy a Happy Meal. At the very top of my list when it comes to any computer hardware is reliability.
Whether or not it saves a $1.00 a year on energy is no concern to me. Turning off a light not needed will save more than that. Look around your house at night and see how many lights are on in rooms no one is in.
I totally agree. I prefer reliability over meager energy savings. The reason I use the Greens for my backup drives is they get extremely light usage and cost considerably less than the Blacks, which would be way overkill for backups.

If I were to buy all the backup drives I have now at today's prices, WD Blacks would cost me $1880.88 whereas WD Blues (which have replaced the Greens) would cost me $1679.88, a difference of $201. At the times I bought my drives, the price difference was even greater.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #27
Brds7t7

Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64-Bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Layback Bear View Post
I personally try to stay away for these so called Green (save energy) hardware.
If one had 10 of these Green drives installed, the energy you would save couldn't buy a Happy Meal. At the very top of my list when it comes to any computer hardware is reliability.
Whether or not it saves a $1.00 a year on energy is no concern to me. Turning off a light not needed will save more than that. Look around your house at night and see how many lights are on in rooms no one is in.
That's exactly the same reason I haven't bought one. Minimal energy saving benefit.

And Lady F, I know what you mean about manufacturers cheaping out. Friend of mine bought a PC from one of these custom build online shops (I could have built it for him at a fraction of the cost, but that's the route he chose to go). He paid extra for a "performance" drive and was pretty pee'd off to find it had a Green drive installed. He expected a Black for the price he paid.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #28
margrave

Size 12
 
 

Shame on them for using consumer hard drives and pawning that off as a cloud solution.
You buy cheap, you get cheap.

Remind me not to use Backblaze as a cloud provider.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #29
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18 MATE, W10IP VM, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 

The WD Green HDDs are inexpensive.
The power saving isn't really much of a selling point.

The parking timer could be disabled completely in the older Green HDDs (I have 2 of those).
I have my newer Green HDDs set to 5 minutes and I run KeepAliveHD to keep them spinning.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Feb 2016   #30
Borg 386

Win 7 32 Home Premium, Win 7 64 Pro, Win 8.1, Win 10
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald View Post
All the drives that came out after the floods had high failure rates. I read reports that some factories supposedly had workers building drives while standing in water.
Now why does that not surprise me.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Seagate slapped with class action lawsuit over hard drive failure rate




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Microsoft's New Terms of Service to Block Class Action Suits
Read more at: Microsoft's New Terms of Service to Block Class Action Suits | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
News
Seagate external hard drive not accessible as a drive
I'm having trouble getting Windows 7 x86 RC Build 7100 to recognize my Seagate 3.5" External Hard Drive 500GB (Model ST305004EXA101-RK). It is connected through a USB 2.0 port on my Asus K8V SE Motherboard - running an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 GHz) and 1 GB of RAM. Currently, this hard drive...
Hardware & Devices
Anyone get an email about Seagate class-action lawsuit
(from memory, I deleted the email) Seems some attorneys are suing Seagate since the user gets 8% LESS disc storage than they advertise on their specs. I'd love to be an attorney and be able to generate my own money-grab. Actually, I'd prefer not to be an attorney (or know any).
Chillout Room
Judge nixes class-actions in Microsoft WGA lawsuit.
Source - Judge nixes class-actions in Microsoft WGA lawsuit
Chillout Room


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:20.

Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App