Originally Posted by EricN
If you don't see a difference, then you didn't notice that the two graphs have different scales. The Seagate one has to go 3.5% just to fit all the data points, while the WD one stops at 2.8% The percentage of drives that get claimed under warranty is about 1.5x greater for Seagate than WD. The number of actual warranty claims for Seagate drives (red dots/claims) has been frequently higher than the predictions (green dots/accruals). For WD, warranty claims have consistently been below predictions.
These are long-term historical trends. This is hard data from from an insurance industry trade magazine that reports on all manufacturers across all industries. It weighs more than your "Claim WD sucks. Rinse. Repeat." argument we keep seeing.
Arguing reliability or pretending we can know or predict it is like argueing one religion is better than the other. Our converstation will turn into semantics if we go down that road.
For the record- I think all hard drives are generally the same reliability and the small difference between brands, or product lines it not significant. It's a really poor reason to make a purchase decision.
My beef with WD isn't that they make drives that suck in a reliability sense, it's that they have no good options in big sizes. They don't have good performance, and they don't have good pricing. They don't even offer 4TB RED or GREEN drives yet, and it's been over a year since they said they would. Seagate and Hitachi have been available for a year.
Reliability is not the problem with WD these days. It's not really a problem with any MFG, the entire industry has slightly better reliability than historical. Reliability is not a problem unless you buy a "bad" model or batch that has problems, which is often isolated incidents and happens from time to to time. I've seen Hitachi Deathstars with issues, I remember the Seagate 7200.11 issues, and I remember the WD GREEN issues. But those all get fixed, and one issue doesn't mean the MFG sucks. All MFG are trying to make the most reliable drive they can at given price points, and it's reasonable to think they might do better or worse at that over time.
WD sucks because they don't have an affordable large capacity good performance drive. The only good line they have these days seems to be RED, and even that is not available in 4TB sizes. Plus, it's 5400rpm
and so it's not exactly the greatest performance or speed drive. It is also a NAS specific drive, so it's not like it's a good HTPC drive or a desktop drive either. There is a whole in the WD product line of products that consumers today actually are looking to buy. People want affordable 4TB drives with good performance IMO. If your going to go with smaller it's more likely your looking for great performance. I see little reason to choose a smaller WD these days at a higher cost..
I'd love to see a $149 BLUE to compete with the 7200.14 Seagate, and a 4TB RED to compete with the Seagate 4TB 5900rpm NAS. Then we might have a dog fight on our hands and actually have something to talk about.
WD fanboys are resorted to talking about nonsense and really insignificant issues because there is little real hard evidence to like about WD these days. They don't have good prices, They don't have good performance, and they don't even have good products to choose from. Resorting to arguing over reliability when all hard drives are under 5% defective on a historical level seems stupid to me. No one buys a HDD and expects it to break, and even if you bought the best HDD you might still get a failure. I'm worrying about stuff I can actually see, feel, and control to make a decision. Reliability is as much luck as anything else.