>be me >buy new Seagate 2 tb 2.5 inch external hdd >dies

>>56969623
>buy new Seagate
>buy Seagate
>Seagate
What are you, new?

>>56969655
i didn't expect it to actually be that crap

File: image.jpg (20KB, 407x286px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 407x286px

>Buy cheap 2.5 chink enclosure from ebay
>Only works with one random USB cable I own and only when plugged into my monitor

File: Backblaze-2015.jpg (35KB, 500x521px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x521px

>>56969714
It's not a secret that Seagate are the worst out there.

File: crystaldiskinfo.jpg (105KB, 656x538px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 656x538px

Isn't Seagate facing a lawsuit for it's 3tb internal drives having a 300x shitcan rate?

>>56969824
That backblaze article and results don't count.
They're using consumer drives in a way that consumers would NEVER use them in. Neverminding that, most of their drives are refurbished, RMA'd, or had been previously used skewing the results.

>buy toshiba external hdd
>it lasts for fucking ever
Thanks

>torrenting to an external hdd

Just use them for pure storage retards.

>>56971425
How long has lasted for you?
Should I buy a 1TB HDD from Toshiba?

>>56971403
Seagate is known for shitty drivers especially the 3TB ones

>have about 10 Seagate drives, from 3GB IDE to 1TB SATA
>all work fine
>not even reallocated sectors after 10-30k hours

>External 2.5" HDD
Why

>>56971512
True. However and the backblaze study DOES show this.

However the study would over-exaggerate failure rates of other drives because of their use of RMA'd, and previously used drives. Nevermind the fact they're using their own drive enclosures of which previously were vibration whores.

>>56971654
but isnt the doing good thing to hard test HDDs like no consumer will ever did?

>>56971695
Testing consumer HDD's in a way that consumers never ever will? How is that useful?

>>56971580
Because they're comfy as fuck and don't require external power. Speed is irrelevant if you're using them for storage/backup only.

>>56971798
they just speed up life time of hdd, you can't use hdd wrongly

>>56971425
I've had a 1.5TB one for like 3-4 years myself

>>56971879
>>56971695
Using HDDs like a consumer wouldn't is inherently a different stress test then. Using consumer drives as enterprise drives will only test how good a consumer drive does at enterprise tasks...

That being said, this isn't even a good test for that since they're using
>RMA'd
>Refurbished
>Used
drives... skewing the results.

>>56971480
I used to torrent directly to an external hdd for years and never had any issues.

>>56972231
Don't forget they always use at least more than 10 times more seagates in comparison to WDs, their studies aren't too trustworthy statistically.

>>56969623
the store had a batch of drives, somewhere along transit, someone who isn't paid enough to care dropped the box, fucking the drives.

long story short, if the drives had real world fail rates anywhere fucking close to 15% there would be a recall.

I got bit in the ass with 1.5 tb drives when they were new, had both the drives i had fail, then had their replacements fail, then had another replacement fail before they were good for the next 6 years, the drives were bought from bestbuy as emergency i need a hdd and i need it now situations, the replacements were failed due to ups seeing how fucked up a box could get before someone complained, and the next one failed due to misalignment and vibrating itself to death.

after the initial fucked drives, like i said, have been going for 6 years, everyone gets a fucked shipment at some point.

currently have a 250gb drive for lols, its from an old computer, and is currently the last remaining part of that build. 1 1.5tb, the second one had to be taken out for a bluray drive a few months back, 1 hitachi 4tb gotten when new, 1 seagate 4tb gotten when almost 100$ for the drive (its my game drive, nothing of value lost if it goes tits up) and a 120gb intel ssd, gotten when it was on a massive fuck off sale when 120gb was around 1.50 a gb

>>56969714
>didnt expect it to be crap
anon, we dont make memes for no reason.

>>56969780
How do you even find this combination out?
what are the odds of actually trying that one cable on your monitor of all things?

>>56969824
what ceo actually thinks a 43% fail rate is acceptable?
What company/retailer actually thinks its ok for 43% of their customers to loose 3 terrabytes of data?
why do I still have 2tb of data on a seagate? whats wrong with me??

>>56971484
4 years
Yes

>>56972640
>What company/retailer actually thinks its ok for 43% of their customers to loose 3 terrabytes of data?

because that 'study' is fucking wrong, at the very least a failure rate of that would make a recall mandatory, if not a class action lawsuit.

The highest the fail rates ever got was up to 15% on the 1.5tb drives, barring transportation damage.

>>56969623
#2016
Not buying an external Samsung t3 ssd

>>56971580
its useful when all sata ports are already in use.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 413x395px

>seagate is known for having shitty drivers
>using western digital
Literally fucking kill yourselves.

>>56969623

never buy seagate

>>56971580
Mousepad base in online gaming! FEEDBACK LOOP LOO LO LO L OL O L O L OP is a fag

>Falling for the Seagate is bad meme

Literally retarded. A Seagate never failed on me. Even my 40GB IDE hard drive from '2000 still works with possibly over hundred thousand hours of usage.

>>56969623

>no buying HGST

You deserve this!

>>56973426
>it works on MY pc