Printable View
Several have commented that, unlike the 75GXP, the 60GXP is ok.
Can't prove it by me. I've had 2 60GXP's fail on me in the last 6 months in 2 different boxes. :(
I'm finished with IBM. :D
Given the fact that every HD brand has its Fans, I've come to the conclusion that buying a HD is like pulling the handle on a one armed bandit, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.
Man, I almost bought one (an IBM). Talk about good news and bad news at the same time! In the mean time, my Samsung SV600/4H (60gb-5400rpm) keeps chuggin' along...
I lost one DTLA drive. That was enough for me. I replaced it with a WD 400BB and never looked back. I used IBM's replacement as a slave/backup drive and I will not risk using the IBM as a boot device.
The WD BB series is just as quick as the DTLAs and dead reliable. It even looks like an IBM drive. Not surprising, considering that WD and IBM collaborate on drive development. Apparently, WD's implementation is a wee bit better. :p
I had a 45GB 75GXP drive that started having problems after about 6 months. Intermittent clicking noises on boot - then Disk Boot Failure.
Just had it replaced with a 40GB 60GXP model. Just have to see what happens.
I bought a backup WD400BB as well. I'm using this for storage, and a permanent GHOST image if the other drive dies.
One thing. A bit fed up that IBM gave me a lower capacity drive (about 10%). This drive wasn't cheap when I bought it. In fact its probably the most expensive part in my PC at the moment.
Can anyone substantiate a claim that 7200RPM drives have a higher failure rate than 5400RPM models because they 'burn out quicker'?