|
|
Posted by Charlie S. on 02/25/07 15:04
"Tadeusz Krzeminski" <krzemien@onet.pl> wrote in message
news:C2065AA4.1BDB1%krzemien@onet.pl...
> 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
>
> --
I thank everyone for your feedback. Going to return the 160Gb unit and
exchange it for a 320Gb.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|