Are their drives really THAT bad?

in my experience, yes.
Join the lawsuit if you can.

I have a Seagate barracuda that I had for over a year. Haven't had any problems with it and it's quiet.

>>56248854
what lawsuit.

>>56248813
Will last for probably 3 years which is fucking tiny

>>56248813
imho op ~ they are actually great drives have had like 10 of them and none have gone bad all 160gb and above

>>56248813
I've had drives of all manufacturers fail. There is a reason they're considered a commodity.

Two 1TB seagate drives here without problems. They're over 6 years old.

Don't fall for the seasonic is bad meme.

[anecdote about how bad they are]
[anecdote about how good they are]
Saved you the trouble of reading the thread, OP

100 GB is not enough.

>>56248813
In my experience, yeah, had a Seagate external hard drive, 120 GB, died after a year of use from overheating despite rarely being plugged in longer than an hour.

I wouldn't even consider a Seagate hard drive as a second or third backup of a backup.

>>56249218
It's not a meme if there are hard numbers, anon.

"Works for me so must be fine" is the real meme here.

>>56248813
Since 1994 I have had

Maxtor
Seagate
WD
Fujitsu
Toshiba
Samsung
Sony
Siemens
Hitachi

I had 2 Maxtors die.
I had the Fujitsu die.

Every other drive worked for years until I sold them or changed them.

I had 3 × 400 GB Seagates I can't remember then models.

They lasted 6 years until I sold them.

>>56248813
yes

>>56248813
Only buy smaller capacity drives with few platters and they will be more reliable

File: borrowedtime3.png (13KB, 396x338px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 396x338px

>>56248813
mine has never gave me any problems.

also this pic is a year old

>have been using 2 1TB deskstars since 7 years
>Both of them make a horrible screeching noise and loud click every X minutes, have been doing this since the beginning
>No issues whatsoever

>>56248868
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/seagate

literally 10 seconds to type in seagate lawsuit into google

I own a seagate expansion plus hard drive and I have never had any problems however I have had harddrives from Western digital, toshiba and adata fail on me after 5+ years under typical use. That's just hard drives in a nutsheel they last 5~10 years depending on use, And no I am not advocating for any Meme.

File: wdshillsbtfo.jpg (79KB, 720x820px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x820px

>>56248813
no

>>56248813

I built my PC in 2011

I've got a Seagate main drive.

Not having the same experience as most people.

Think I had a Toshiba laptop from '08 that also had a Seagate that lasted ironically, until 2011.

>>56251210
>a western digital company
based WD

>>56251210
>posting a horribly unscientific study that's literally just as good as random anons going "it's good" "It's shit"
None of those drives were tested under the same conditions, neither were they all of the same usage class.

File: 91494894.jpg (24KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x451px

>>56251435

So who would -YOU- recommend people go to for Aggregate Hard Drive reliability reviews nigga?

Don't just blast shit, provide a fucking opposing data source.

>>56251435
>it doesnt say wd is best so its a bad test
WD shill leave

>>56251489
Actual reviews from actual consumers. The 2016 results are a lot more accurate but it's still not equivalent to a normal person's use.

>>56251569
I don't own a single WD drive.

>>56248813
I'm running 4 1TB seagates that are all close to 5 years old and still working fine. Luck of the draw, like all tech.

>>56249218
Mostly been using seagate drives and I havent had a single one fail on me during my lifetime. I usually switch them out every 4-5 years and I in general take a good care of my shit.

>>56251435
>horribly unscientific study
What's wrong with it?

>>56251210
>no source

Even if they've improved recently, it's worth the extra few bucks to get a WD/HGST/Toshiba

It's the same problem as AMD, people just associate Seagate with budget products, so people keep thinking of it as the lower quality product. I've used seagate and hgst drives and they haven't failed me since.

>caring about which brand of drives is better
you have to make backups anyway, so it doesn't really matter if one is slightly more or less likely to die

>>56251738
No control group, usage conditions changed drastically depending on the model, ie, some were stuffed into an array with very, very little padding with 48 drives vibrating each other to death while others had significant vibration dampening. In the case of seagate, the vast majority were the cheapest models they could find, external drives meant for occasional backups and such, not 24/7 server duty.

>>56251753
>too retarded to read the graph

>>56248813
They are going down fast. Huge layoffs, they're done

>>56252241
>WD shill: the post

>>56252241
Seagate is the first company to release helium drives with 10tb capacity, their drives are also very competitively priced and they have hybrid drives which are nice. I don't know if seagate is actually going down, but I'd be pretty disappointed to see such a great company go.

>>56251347
that just means they bought hitachi, hitachi still runs it which is why it's based and why WD's own shit is still shit

my WD Caviar Black is loud and clicking. I think my next drive will be a Semengate, I've heard they're fast now?

>>56248813
I had one in my first pc (prebuilt); no issues until it started overheating and failed after nearly 10 years. Now I'm using a WD Blue, but I just got another Seagate to put in a media server build because why not.