Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:45 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote: > > If you are saying that a catastrophic failure of a storage device does not > reflect poorly upon the manufacturer, I suggest you rethink your position. Okay. Hmmm.... no. I still say that you're wrong. A single failure is statistically insignificant. > If I were driving home in a Kia and it died with no symptoms, i.e. was > running perfectly with no "check engine" light as well as properly > maintained, would you NOT blame the manufacturer? I'd blame the car, not the manufacturer. That is a single fault with a single mechanical device. If, say, 35% of all Kias failed the same way at about the same point in their use lives, then I would blame the manufacturer because that is a statistically significant figure. But just one? Insignificant. Talk to me about reliability after you've put fifty thousand through the wringer and come up with twenty thousand dead within 2 years. > I say that I had the drive for less than 2 years, it was lightly used. The > drive died catastrophically. It had no trouble codes and there were no > issues in the log. I've had Seagate and WD disks fail just like that after less than a year. No warnings, no trouble codes, nothing. Just up and died. Does that mean all Seagate and WD disks are bad? Of course not. But I repeat myself. I don't care what the manufacturer of the disks I buy is. Not really. I see disks as consumable materials. They're going to wear out, they're going to fail, and they're going to be replaced, same as the belts, hoses, brake pads and tires on a car. --Rich P.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |