|
|
Posted by Tadeusz Krzeminski on 02/24/07 20:12
On 24-02-07 1:39, in article oPLDh.5324$t2.3119@trndny05, "Charlie S."
<CharlieStam@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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?
Maybe a little OT but you could be interested in reading this:
Hard disk test 'surprises' Google
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6376021.stm
--
Pozdrawiam / Best regards
Tadeusz Krzemiński
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|