On Sep 4, 2011 1:28 PM, "Doug" <dmcgarr...@optonline.net> wrote: > > On 09/04/2011 03:41 AM, shawn wilson wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2011 3:23 AM, "Miles Bader" <mi...@gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> > lina <lina.lastn...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > just guess ... might be wrong, might lots of people coming for WD, >> > > so the stores only sold WD. >> > >> > Dunno, but I've had extremely good experiences with WD drives in the >> > past, so I'd definitely favor them when I buy a new one... >> >> I have absolutely no oppinion. I was merely pointing out that the OP was presenting his oppinion as fact and I thought that pretty messed up. >> >> Grented, due to the inciteful the subject was, I'm sure this thread will keep going for at least a week and most of us will remember something bad about WD the next time we go buy a disc. Oh well. The OP probably got his wish :) > > > It's been a few years since I retired, but I remember the IT guys replacing a _lot_ of Western Digital drives. I guess the > company bought them because they were cheaper, but I don't think they saved any money. For my own use, I have been using Seagate and > Hitachi, and have had no trouble in quite some time. Obviously, YMMV, but what I saw sould not encourage me to buy WD.
So, if I have 1000 computers with 1000 WD discs and nothing else in them, how many Seagate discs will fail? Discs do fail and I look forward to someone posting the fail rate of different manufacturer discs. However the above statement doesn't seem to be based on logic.
