Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 2nd IBM 60GXP bites the dust

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Right Here
    Posts
    87

    2nd IBM 60GXP bites the dust

    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.

    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.

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member x51out's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Tucson AZ, 22 Dec. 2012
    Posts
    1,434
    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...

  3. #3
    Extreme Member! BipolarBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Norton Noo Joisey
    Posts
    41,522
    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.
    MS MCP, MCSE

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    264
    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'?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •