"Viktor Pilpenok"  wrote in message
news:40913EF8.248.fidotech{at}artikbre.synchro.net...
> Hello All!
>
> Here is some interesting question i've got: Why in different regions of
the
> world different hard drives manufacturers are percieved totally different?
for
> example:
>
> Some people in the US say that fujitsu drives are good and maxtor are bad,
> while in israel fujitsu are considered total crap and maxtor are one of
the
> best hd brands. Or for example Seagate - in russia they are considered one
of
> the most long-living drives while i had something like 6 of those crashing
on
> me, mostly while they are still on guarantee period (ie 1-2 years since
they
> were purchased).
>
> I also heard many people from the US say they like IBM drives. But both in
> Israel and in Russia there are considered crap.
>
> Anyway why do those differences occur? Maybe it's the climate or
something? Or
> the drives sold here are not quite the same drives sold elsewhere? Anyway,
this
> looks odd...
>
> Best Regards, Viktor (aka BlackDew)
>
> --- np: Wizard - The First One

It all boils down to the design specs and more importantly in the Qualtiy
Control.

Seagate are known as rock steady. Like military tanks. They aren't fast but
they lasted forever. (20+years)

In 1994 Hitachi produced cheap and fast harddrives. They were known as the
best.
In 1994 Fujitsu producing drives that failed almost out of the box, but they
were cheap. They got the reputation as junk.
In 1995 Fujitsu got their quality control up, their HD's beat Hitachi's
drives.
In 1995 Hitachi lowered its quality control in an effort to compete with
Fujitsu. That was when Hitachi drives started to be known as junk.

In 1993 when I ran a computer store. I bought a program that would diagnose
low level the various hardware components of the PC's. (Microscope 2000.
$600.00USD) They also produced a $50.00 program that would boot from a
floppy, it had it's own OS, and would give you the specs of the various
components, CPU (central processor unit), FPU (Floating Point Unit [math]),
Video, Harddrive. It was usefull in rating different systems in the stores.

I used it to rate some harddrives. For my own info.

I put a Hitachi 520meg HD in a 486. The seek time was rated at 12ms. The
live seek times went between 9ms an 12ms. The average was closer to 9ms. The
drive exceded the mfg specs. The data Transfer rate was around
850megs/second. It was only a little bit slower than the IDE specification.

I put a Maxtor 520meg HD in the exact same 486. The seek time was rated at
12ms. The live seek times went between 12ms and 14ms. The average was closer
to 14. The drive bairly met the drive specs. The data transfer rate was
around 375megs/second. Way below the IDE spcification.

Both drives were rated at 12ms average seek time. The Hitachi exceded the
rating. The Maxtor bairly met the rating.

The big difference between both drives was the data transfer rate. While the
Hitachi was close to the IDE transfer rating of 900megs/second. The Maxtor
wasn't even 1/3rd. The average data transfer rate is not one of the things
that are mentioned in the drive specs. Everyone assumes it will be somewhere
close to the IDE standard.

IMO the 520meg Maxtor was junk. The Hitachi was only $20.00USD more and well
worth it. The Hitachi was much faster.

Of course that was 1993-4.

Which one is the best today? I have no idea. The competition is fierce. Each
year the best manufacturer changes. To keep up you have to ask a person who
works for a system integrator. They get to see first hand the level of
failures of the various brands/models. It constantly changes.

This may be what your seeing.
-- 
Artiken - Sysop of Artik Breeze BBS artiken{at}artikbre.synchro.net
   http://artikbre.synchro.net/00index.html  ftp://artikbre.synchro.net
telnet://artikbre.synchro.net
--- SBBSecho 2.00-Win32