[filmscanners] Re: keeping the 16bit scans

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Gee, I guess it's just me then. ;-)

I have both CDs that have gone bad (also using Plextor writer) and I
have had numerous HD failures (although I did have them spinning down,
and I do turn my system off every day... well, I use Windows, so several
times a day... ;-) And all were those name brand types, both SCSI and
IDE (Maxtor Diamond plus, Seagate Barracuda) etc.

Art

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
>
>>I've never seen a CD go bad,
>>
>
> I have...I have a box of them, and I have Plextor writers.
>
>
>>but you've got to expect
>>that hard disks will go bad in a couple years on average, if you keep
>>them spinning 24/7 like I do.
>>
>
> You EXPECT that?  I have not had a hard disk (Seagate Barracuda/Cheetah) go
> bad on me, and I have over 20 of them, and some of them are 7 or more years
> old.  The MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of them is something like 25
> years if I remember correctly, if kept on for 24/7/365.  I'll check their
> web site and see...OK, Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP, which is an Ultra160 15k
> spindle speed drive...1,200,000 hours.  OVER ONE MILLION HOURS!  That comes
> out to 50,000 days or 7,142.8 weeks or 137 years.  That's what they claim.
> I'm fine with 25 years my self ;-)
>
> Now, I have seen the cheapo IDE drives go bad.  Well, you get what you pay
> for.  I have stuck with Seagate Barracuda/Cheetah drives since they were
> introduced, and never had a problem that wasn't Microsoft "bad OS behavior"
> related.
>
>
>>If you shut your machine down when you're
>>not using it, they should last five years, even the new ones that are
>>only guaranteed for a year.
>>
>
> I'd expect high end drives to last 10+ years 24/7/365, at least and it
> appears they will last even longer.  They tend, in my case, to obsolete
> themselves long before they die.
>
>
>>There is no evidence for the lower reliability, however. The reason the
>>warranties are being reduced is because it's such a cutthroat business.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>It is to keep overhead costs down. Disks in general are as reliable as
>>they ever have been, although an occasional model gets a bad rep, like
>>the 75 gig IBM drive. But they apparently corrected their problems with
>>the 120.
>>
>
> I have seen the same as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body