|
|
Posted by Toby on 02/24/07 09:40
"Charlie S." <CharlieStam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:oPLDh.5324$t2.3119@trndny05...
> Today, I bought an external hard drive based on its smaller size because I
> thought a larger drive would more likely fail sooner. I'm wondering if
> that was faulty logic and that maybe I should have bought a larger drive
> for better cost per storage unit. I can afford the extra cost... I'm more
> concerned about failure.
>
> I'm new to digital editing and needed some sort of external storage.
> Since the LaCie brand is a favorite of many Mac users, I decided to buy
> the 160 Gb LaCie 2d Extreme. It sold for $150. I could have bought the
> 320Gb model for $200. Or, the 500 Gb for $260. The economy of scales
> pointed to buying the bigger hard drive. However, I thought the bigger
> drive would more likely would fail on me. I don't know anything about the
> mechanics of hard drives. My logic being the bigger the drive the larger
> the parts, or more mechanisms...etc., the more likely it would fail.
>
> Was this faulty thinking? Or, is hard drive size not a factor in hard
> drive failure rates?
>
> For now, I really don't need a huge storage drive. I'm just shooting
> local community events and eventually I'll do short documentaries and/or
> wedding type ceremonies.
AFAIK as long as the larger drive is in a good enclosure that doesn't allow
it to get too hot the reliability is basically the same between smaller and
larger capacity disks. Larger disks have more platter and more heads, but
mechanically they are pretty much the same.
Toby
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|