Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!silver
From: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: about Seagates...
Message-ID: <7785@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 89 21:19:08 GMT
References: <92.23EB72B5@muadib.FIDONET.ORG> <6135@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <681@sactoh0.UUCP> <88899@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Andy Silverman)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 24

In article <88899@sun.uucp> jborza%burgundy@Sun.COM (Jim_Borza) writes:
>There's been a lot of "Seagate-Bashing" lately but the complaints
>are mostly anecdotal - not statistical.  Does anyone have a REAL feel for
>the relative reliability of these things?  I suspect it's possible to 
>find a large number of dissatisfied Seagate users out there because of
>the ENORMOUS numbers of those drives on PCs.  The price of Seagates seems
>to be about $10/Mbyte - about the same as the "better" brands.  The rea-
>son I'm curious is that I've used several Seagates in the past with lit-
>tle or no problem but continue to hear horror stories - maybe only the
>negatives reach the net.
I'm inclined to agree with you- people are always much more vocal when they're
dissatisfied with a product.  I've had my Seagate ST238 RLL drive for about
2 years.  It came with ZERO hard defects, and no soft errors have ever shown
up even after 2 years of relatively heavy use.  I have no complaints about it
at all.  Incidentally, the ST238 is based on 225 technology.  I wonder if the
changes for RLL control made it any more reliable?





Andy Silverman
Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
CompuServe: 72261,531