WD is for cucks

>Anything other than HGST

File: chrome_2017-07-06_16-53-33.png (258KB, 1182x1093px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1182x1093px

>>61267025
>hgst
>relevent

>>61267019
I wonder how much money WD puts into the anti seagate shilling on amazon customer reviews, it's the most evident case of shilling i've ever seen, it's off the charts.

>>61267035

>being unaware of their legendary reliability rating
>I don't know shit about anything: the post

File: 1495909531975.jpg (151KB, 400x463px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 400x463px

>>61267037
TURBO OVERSHILL

but seriously Seagate is faster, cheaper, and now more reliable then WD and the numbers show it, WD is overpriced shit that no one buys despite the amounts of shilling

>>61267059
WD shill detected

>>61267025
>Not knowing WD owns HGST

>using userbenchmark

>>61267059
Who says they're the most reliable?

File: IMG_3605.jpg (58KB, 560x781px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 560x781px

Seagate anything: DOA

File: hard drive failure rate.jpg (83KB, 720x820px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x820px

>>61267467
Here's the 2014/15/16 values. HGST are still the best. 2016 version of seagate HDD are bit more acceptable now.

>>61267483
Note, one of the reason why other HDD failure rate has been going down is due to HGST licensing its technology to others.

>>61267483
Is that data based on their annualized failure rate statistic?

>>61267578
Yes.

File: Capture.jpg (100KB, 554x892px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 554x892px

>>61267578
Just so you know,
>>61267467
>>61267483
That's from blackblaze, they often use consumer driver in pretty harsh enterprise environments.

Hence why hgst normally come out on top.

Not really indicative of consumer failure rates.

Hardware.fr have a decent sample of consumer return rates, although they do not include returns to the manufacturer. nobody really knows what their actual return rates are, pic related

>>61267510
It seems like choosing a brand for reliability is pointless now.

File: _45184330_alanpartridge_203.jpg (17KB, 203x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 203x300px

>>61267025
HGST 4 lyfe. I've got 4 HGSTs, two of them for more than 5 years and none of them show any SMART signs, or even concerns thereof.

Okay then, I'll bite, what quality HGST drives can you guys recommend me that go GREATER than 2TB for NAS, and around that amount for internal data storage?

>>61267782
Not quite pointless, but if you want to make it more meaningful, you can say Seagate/WD are twice as more likely to fail than HGST. HGST may license its technolgy to the partners but it also means some companies wont have the proper factories to make them effective. Some will take shortcuts and make it shitty.

Still I think banking on HGST is the best for the forseeable future.

>>61267447
Do you know what HGST even stands for? Hitachi Global Storage Technologies.

Anybody over the age of 25 should be able to confirm that Hitachi used to be the king of hard drives. They were eventually priced out of the market, hence why HGST was sold off of Hitachi to WD, but HGST is still great. They're like the modern Thinkpad. It's still better than anything else out there, even if it is meme-tier to say its like old HGST.

HGST is owned by WD and the drives have never been good. Overpriced enterprise garbage.

As of now
Barracusa Pro offers five years warranty and is much cheaper and safer than any WD/HGST drive.

>>61269053
HGST is independent of WD i think due to its legal contract/management

If anything WD will license off HGST tech and make their own HD better.

>looking for a new harddrive
>look up reviews on all these brands
>HGST reviews are awful
who is lying here

>shilling for seagate
Why you do it?

>not using maxtor
stay pleb

ibm deskstar 4 lyfe

>>61270934
Raw data with ~20-50k hard drive vs random review

>>61267019
WTF i hate WD now

>>61271035
well i won't be running a fucking datacentre in my house will i
won't be putting the same strain on any of the drives they do

>>61267119
/thread

>>61267059
Fuckin this

>>61267483
>my all wd and seagate hdd long dead
>3 x 10y+ Hitachi still alive

Dunno why but I'm only buying hitachi hgst or samsung

>>61268944
>used to be
>is not anymore

worst shill ever

>>61267483
The sample sizes for Toshiba here are so dreadfully small that they may as well not even be listed and the sample size for WD is also several times smaller than HGST and Seagate.

>>61267780
>That's from blackblaze, they often use consumer driver in pretty harsh enterprise environments.Hence why hgst normally come out on top.Not really indicative of consumer failure rates.


Who gives a shit, usage is usage.

>>61267908

Yeah I agree but HGSTs are double the price of similar hdds, at least in my country.

>>61273802
t. retard

>>61273877

I'm starting to believe there are literal paid Seagate shills in this thread. You faggots got burned hard in the last years and you're trying to compensate by hiring brigades of shills to spam on the net.

>>61267019
implying that your seagate drive wont blow up at a random time just like every seagate does

Once Samsung hdds died out/was bought the entire market went to shit. They were kings of reliability and WD was somewhat close but cost way more. Seagate was the value brand, but has shit QC. Now they're all the same hard drives and equally shit.

All current hard drives are just shit.