I'am goin to buy a hard drive but don't

I am going to buy new hard drive and i have 2 for choice :

Maxtor 80.0GB DiamondMax 7200RPM 2M buffer (OEM Version) ATA-133 IDE model # DiamondMax Plus 9

Western Digital 80.0GB Caviar 7200RPM (OEM Version)
(special Edition 8M Buffer)
ATA-100 IDE

but i don’t know which should i choice between these two so if somebody can give me his opinion about which should i choice between these 2
thanks in advance
Ps: my motherboard support ATA/133 and ATA/100 so i can connect any of thos

If you want to read lots on harddisks, be sure to read this very recent thread.

To ease the choice a little:

-Maxtor seems nowadays to be the company with the lowest failure rates
-The 8MB cached drive from WD beats the Maxtor when it comes to speed…

So Maxtor adds a little more reliability (if I may believe the statistics), WD some more speed…

thanks a decide for wd 8m buffer i just fill out the oder for it thanks and see how long he will last a hope for longgggggg time and by the way i have a maxtor 30g 72000 and a wd 13g 72000 for about 4 years and so far so good thanks again for u help !!

That’s what we are here for, isn’t it?

Btw, if you want more opinions, try our search function (in the upper right of the screen) so you can read what other ppl think and experienced in the past…

I have 2 WD 80GB 8MB cache drives, they’re really fast, quiet, and yes even reliable. As has been stated elsewhere, the cheap WD drives have had some reliability issues, but not the 7200RPM models.

I just picked up a WD800JB last Sunday from Circuit City, I’m pretty satisfied with it. I also chose if for the 3 year warranty option.

You should also consider Maxtors DIAMONDMAX+9 80GB DMA133 7200RPM 8MB. It has Fluid bearing (=very quiet) and it´s FAST.

I’m using some WD 1200JB’s (120GB, 8MB cache) and Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9 (120GB, 2MB cache).
Both types seem to be pretty quiet. I haven’t speed-tested them yet, but I guess we could thrust on the reviews if they state that WD is slightly faster (with the 8MB).

However, I noticed another (minor?) difference. After formatting (NTFS; 1 partition), the Maxtor has 3GB more space than the WD. The Maxtor’s true size is 114GB, while the WD is “only” 111GB. 3GB on 120GB isn’t really that much, but still, it’s a difference :slight_smile:

And I don’t know if this difference is also present in the 80GB discs.

Originally posted by Wannes
However, I noticed another (minor?) difference. After formatting (NTFS; 1 partition), the Maxtor has 3GB more space than the WD. The Maxtor’s true size is 114GB, while the WD is “only” 111GB. 3GB on 120GB isn’t really that much, but still, it’s a difference :slight_smile:

And I don’t know if this difference is also present in the 80GB discs.

Same with Maxtor 40GB and 80GB. Their 40GB drives are bigger than Seagate’s 40GB and IBM’s 40GB. :slight_smile:

I used Maxtor mainly in 1999 and 2000 but all Maxtor distributors in South Korea wanted to leave the market at once after making great profits (no more warranty for the 3-year warranty drives already sold). Maxtor Korea and LG took the place but most people moved to Seagate, Samsung, and Western Digital.

By the way, when are we going to see 16MB and 64MB buffered 10,000-RPM and 15,000-RPM Serial ATA drives? :wink:

Kenshin: the tradition learns us, that the 10.000rpm ATA disc will be released after the release of a 20.000rpm-25.000rpm SCSI :wink:

No, I’m just kidding, but that’s the way it was with 7200rpm and previous discs; ATA seems to be one step behind :slight_smile:

I can imagine replys now like “SCSI is dead” and “ATA has catched up on SCSI already”. And that’s the same thing people already said 3 years ago but in the mean time, SCSI is still used in servers. So only time will tell :slight_smile:

Originally posted by Wannes
No, I’m just kidding, but that’s the way it was with 7200rpm and previous discs; ATA seems to be one step behind :slight_smile:

Yep, me too. I don’t expect to see a 10K IDE drive anytime soon. More space (like 200GB per platter) is more important to me than higher RPM. Serial ATA 150 is not meant to replace SCSI. It is just to succeed Parallel ATA.