PDA

View Full Version : New HDD for MB : WD or Seagate



womble
6th February 2008, 02:34 PM
Hey guys


just wondering if i should go WD or seagate, a couple of ppl have told me seagates run a little hot sometimes, but some knowledge from ppl with them could be very helpful

thanks

jason

Huy
6th February 2008, 02:36 PM
WD: 3 year warranty.
Seagate: 5 year warranty.

That's what I based my decision on. Seagate. :)

JonoNZ
6th February 2008, 02:37 PM
WD's of recent times run a little cooler and quieter -- things that are important to me at least.

leon
6th February 2008, 02:38 PM
I replaced the 60GB 5400rpm drive in my Macbook with a Seagate 100GB 7200rpm drive. I didn't notice any difference in heat output, noise or battery life degradation.

iSlayer
6th February 2008, 02:46 PM
WD all the way

womble
6th February 2008, 04:58 PM
should i get 5400 or 7200 as well guys thanks

jason

Huy
6th February 2008, 05:07 PM
7200 for performance/speed.
5400 if you don't need it to be superfast and want more storage space.

I'd go 7200.

womble
6th February 2008, 05:11 PM
hmm well im having alot of problems findint a 7200 any suggestions for adelaide

ta

Huy
6th February 2008, 05:58 PM
http://www.adelaideonlinecomputers.com.au/catalogue/?tier4=145949

About $150 to $300 for 80 to 200GB 7200, 2.5" SATA by Seagate.

wanger123
6th February 2008, 08:02 PM
Check this out. Don't think you'll find much cheaper in OZ

http://www.msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf

Currawong
6th February 2008, 09:09 PM
Neither: I'd get a Hitachi.

scritch
6th February 2008, 10:14 PM
Or you can go the 320gb 5400rpm Samsung drive.

$292 at Mwave (http://www.mwave.com.au/newAU/mwaveAU/productdetail.asp?CartID=&sku=22070058).

Regards,
Shane.

scritch
6th February 2008, 10:25 PM
7200 for performance/speed.
5400 if you don't need it to be superfast and want more storage space.

I'd go 7200.

I believe 7200rpm is going to use more power when on battery than the 5400rpm, so keep that in mind too.

Might be the difference between 3hrs 15mins and 3 hrs 16mins ;)

Regards,
Shane.

Huy
6th February 2008, 10:42 PM
From what I have heard, 7200rpm runs no hotter than a 5400 and does not suck more battery.

You can argue that a faster drive will be faster in performing operations, hence SAVING battery life? (More productive per second/time interval).

stuey_boy
7th February 2008, 07:13 AM
Seagate bought out Maxtor right?

Worried regarding seagate as maxtor drives I wouldn't touch, and there could be the chance they might rebrand maxtor's as seagate... Although that would most likely be a very bad move on seagates front...

Reason I mention it and purely coincidental, I bought WD drives for years without issues, then bought a seagate (as the supplier stuffed up my order and I couldn't be patient to wait) and the thing died on me within 9 months...

Huy
7th February 2008, 07:23 AM
Yes Seagate did buy Maxtor.

Wally
7th February 2008, 07:25 AM
Do we really need another one of these topics? Theres already 1003012345 of them here already :)

Anyway my .02c, I recently bought and installed a 250GB WD to my MacBook and its running a lot faster / cooler than with the Seagate, possibly b/c of the issues with head locking.

I find Maxtor pretty reliable, i have had two Maxtor drives and have installed Maxtor drives into client PC's and they work fine.

The only drive that I wouldn't touch are the Quantum Fireball range (problem possibly ironed out) that problem was that exactly the same chip blew in the same place on about 10 in the same era. What does this tell you? ;)

mac_man_luke
7th February 2008, 08:28 AM
Id never buy a seagate 2.5" drive after the number i have seen fail

100% of the drives iv seen fail in the past few years have been 2.5" seagates

mwidjaya
7th February 2008, 08:54 AM
WD. Haven't had a failure on these so far. Had Toshiba in macmini failing; had Seagate in Macbook failing but WD has been very good.

scritch
7th February 2008, 09:12 AM
From what I have heard, 7200rpm runs no hotter than a 5400 and does not suck more battery.

You can argue that a faster drive will be faster in performing operations, hence SAVING battery life? (More productive per second/time interval).

Whilst there may be something to your argument re faster drive possibly not affecting battery life as much as it is reading/writing the data faster, I'm pretty sure that due to the laws of thermodynamics, something that runs faster produces more heat (friction) and uses more power. It may be minimal in such a small device, but I am sure it applies.

Regards,
Shane.

JimWOz
7th February 2008, 10:07 AM
Interesting, - I've been reading this thread for the past few days and so far there hasn't been a post mentioning Fujitsu drives. - Notwithstanding that the OP was after a comparison between WD and Seagate, I'm surprised.

I believe they have a range up to 320G 2.5 inch 5400RPM SATA disks and 160G 7200RPM. 3 year warranty.

(I have 3 IDE Fujitsu disks, 20G 4200RPM early 2002 upgrade for a G3 PB, 60G original in a 12in PBG4 early 2003, and a 120G 5400RPM in an external case early 2007. All of them are still running fine.)

So are there any Fujitsu fans or critics out there ?
I seem to recall there have been some big views both ways in old threads about notebook HD's.

scruffie
7th February 2008, 10:43 AM
Yes yes - i would like to know too. Im at the mwave website and they've got a fujitsu hd 160 gb going for $114.20. Good value imho.

mac_man_luke
7th February 2008, 10:45 AM
Im currently running a 5400 250GB samsung in my macbook and iv got no problems with it so far

Alec Fraser
7th February 2008, 11:41 AM
After 2 or 3 weeks of shopping around and looking up reviews of various makes, I dropped a 200gig Seagate 7200rpm drive into my MB last week. I noted down my battery times before and since, and there's been no change with normal use. Performance wise t feels quicker...but that might be my imagination ;)

Alec Fraser
7th February 2008, 11:43 AM
Interesting, - I've been reading this thread for the past few days and so far there hasn't been a post mentioning Fujitsu drives. - Notwithstanding that the OP was after a comparison between WD and Seagate, I'm surprised.

I believe they have a range up to 320G 2.5 inch 5400RPM SATA disks and 160G 7200RPM. 3 year warranty.

(I have 3 IDE Fujitsu disks, 20G 4200RPM early 2002 upgrade for a G3 PB, 60G original in a 12in PBG4 early 2003, and a 120G 5400RPM in an external case early 2007. All of them are still running fine.)

So are there any Fujitsu fans or critics out there ?
I seem to recall there have been some big views both ways in old threads about notebook HD's.

Out of all the drives I've had, the two Fujitsu's were the ones that crashed the hardest and quickest :P That'd be why I personally won't recommend them. As usual your mileage may vary...

scritch
8th February 2008, 09:09 AM
After 2 or 3 weeks of shopping around and looking up reviews of various makes, I dropped a 200gig Seagate 7200rpm drive into my MB last week. I noted down my battery times before and since, and there's been no change with normal use. Performance wise t feels quicker...but that might be my imagination ;)

A true comparison would be between two 200gig drives from the same manufacturer, one 5400rpm, one 7200rpm. Comparing battery usage vs your old drive may just show that the new drive is more energy efficient.

Regards,
Shane.

stewiesno1
8th February 2008, 09:48 AM
I have two late model ( well a year old and six month old ) IDE Fujitsu drives in two of my G3 Powerbooks and they seem fine. No more heat or noise than others , although I don't use these two laptops everyday and even then for only light duties. I also have a Toshiba drive in another Powerbook that seems pretty good too.
Re : the 7200 vs 5400RPM drives , I put a Seagate 80Gb 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and it made a big difference to the performance from the original HD. It cost me $130 as opposed to probably $90 for the same size 5400 speed but is definitely worth it. Like putting in another 512mb Ram in my opinion.

Stewie