Is an Apple Hard Disk better than any of the others ???
Mike Houle (version .6 beta)
Since there has been a rash of hard disk faileurs in the recent past,
I have a question that must be addressed before I discide to buy a brand new
Mac IIci (if I can afford it :-).. (drool of antisipation) if not a IIcx)
and put my Tired Old Mac Plus to pasture...
Aside from the aspect of Apples Hard Disks are TOO expansive (I
do not want to worry about the cost yet) are they more or less reliable
than the 3rd party Disk makers.
In other words...
If I am going to by a IIc[ix], should I get it with a Apple HD (~40meg)
or should I get it w/o Apple HD and buy a 3rd party internal HD.
I do not want money to be an issue here, I just want to know what is
the most reliable. I have heard it said that the HD is one of the most
important accessories to the computer, and I want to get a good one.
Thanks
Mike
P.S. Please E-mail to me.
Yes, I will summaries the responses
--
Mike Houle |
m...@linus.mitre.org | 90% of a project is making mistakes
! UUCP -> decvax!linus!mdh | the other 90% is covering up those
! ARPA -> mdh%linus@mitre-bedford | mistakes
Scott Truesdell
There is a high likelyhood that the 3rd party drive you may purchase
is manufactured by the same company that the Apple brand drive is;
Quantum. These are excellent drives despite recent problems with
"sticktion" in high humidity environments. Hopefully the sticktion
problem will get ironed out.
Buy a Quantum from Apple, you get a 90 day warranty.
Buy a Quantum from anybody else, you get a 2 year warranty.
This is, unless you are getting a GOOD educationaly discount from
Apple.
BTW, 40 megabytes is too small for a Mac II. 80 is dead minimum
unless you plan to run a bare minimum of applications. As an example,
my System Folder has 13MB (some fancy background screens) and my
Utilties folder has 17MB. I'm probably atypical in my lust for power,
but 80MB is awfully cramped...
--scott
--
Scott Truesdell
Alex Pournelle
>There is a high likelyhood that the 3rd party drive you may purchase
>is manufactured by the same company that the Apple brand drive is;
>Quantum.
>Buy a Quantum from Apple, you get a 90 day warranty.
>Buy a Quantum from anybody else, you get a 2 year warranty.
>This is, unless you are getting a GOOD educationaly discount from
>Apple.
Beg to differ. CMS drives are usually Seagates; Micro-Nets are usually
CDCs (the larger ones). Some CMSes, many lesser-known companies have
MiniScribe or Micropolis mechanisms. The higher-performance mechanisms
(high-performance=US-made, in SCSI drives) are more money, but well
worth it. Few companies use the Quantums.
Micro-Net drives are my favorite, by far. They have the best tech.
support and tech. people. And the CDC mechanisms don't break.
Alex
Scott Truesdell
statement by saying that there was actually a high likelyhood that the
3rd party drive would, in fact, NOT be a Quantum:
>>There is a high likelyhood that the 3rd party drive you may purchase
>>is manufactured by the same company that the Apple brand drive is;
>>Quantum.
Sorry for the quick statement. I'll qualify it here.
1st, since this is for a IIcx (if I remember correctly), the original
querier is limited to 3.5" drives UNLESS he gets a CDC from MicroNet
who have fabricated a replacement molding for the drive bracket that
replaces the standard Apple bracket and allows for mounting 5.25"
mechanisms.
2nd, I presummed (probably wrong) that the querier wants performance
and reliablity. Alex, you see more of these things than I do, but,
besides the "stiction" problems which appear well on the way to a cure,
the little Quantums are the fastest and most reliable 3.5" drives, yes?
3rd, I probably should have worded that statement "...3rd party drive
you may CHOOSE or SELECT..." meaning, after he examined the selection
of drives out there, he would arrive at the same conclusion I have,
and buy Quantum drives exclusively in the 3.5" range. When the CDC
Swifts start shipping, I PRESUME they will give the Quantums a good
run for the money.
>Micro-Net drives are my favorite, by far. They have the best tech.
>support and tech. people. And the CDC mechanisms don't break.
I agree wholeheartedly. All my AppleShare servers are using CDC Wrens
except for 4 SEs used to serve 4 15-Mac Plus Pascal programming
networks. These use Quantums. Also, all Mac IIs with drives other than
Apple-supplied (higher ed discount makes these hard to pass up) get CDC
mechanisms. I find it very easy to cost justify these drives to
University purchasers on the following grounds: Reliability means less
money in maintenance, reliability means less downtime, made in U.S.A./
good for economy, and, as an aside, they offer the best performance.
--scott
--
Scott Truesdell
Julian Vrieslander
>true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes:
>>Buy a Quantum from Apple, you get a 90 day warranty.
>>Buy a Quantum from anybody else, you get a 2 year warranty.
>>This is, unless you are getting a GOOD educationaly discount from
>>Apple.
>
>Beg to differ. CMS drives are usually Seagates; Micro-Nets are usually
>CDCs (the larger ones). Some CMSes, many lesser-known companies have
>MiniScribe or Micropolis mechanisms. The higher-performance mechanisms
>(high-performance=US-made, in SCSI drives) are more money, but well
>worth it. Few companies use the Quantums.
GCC and SuperMac are currently using Quantums. I have not had any experience
with GCC, but I have bought drives from SuperMac. Their hard disks come with
an excellent set of software products at no extra cost (SuperLaserSpool,
DiskFit, Sentinel, etc.), and the customer support is generally responsive,
once you get through to a human (I hate voicemail systems).
I would say that the only good reason to buy an Apple hard disk is price,
if you qualify for one of their discount programs. If not, the better
warranties, support, and software that come with other products seems hard
to ignore.
--
Julian Vrieslander
Neurobiology & Behavior, W250 Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853
UUCP: {cmcl2,decvax,rochester,uw-beaver}!cornell!batcomputer!eacj
INTERNET: ea...@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu BITNET: eacj@CRNLTHRY
Alex Pournelle
true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes:
>al...@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) responded to the following
>statement [which, to avoid an infinite recursion error, isn't repeated...]
>by saying that there was actually a high likelyhood that the
>3rd party drive would, in fact, NOT be a Quantum:
>Sorry for the quick statement. I'll qualify it here.
>1st, since this is for a IIcx (if I remember correctly), the original
>querier is limited to 3.5" drives UNLESS he gets a CDC from MicroNet
>who have fabricated a replacement molding for the drive bracket that
>replaces the standard Apple bracket and allows for mounting 5.25"
>mechanisms.
For internal, dis be true. I tend toward external drives on Macs (PCs
too, occasionally).
I don't trust the cx power supply any more
than I trust any Apple power supply--NOT! The Apple supplies are a
constant source of terror and error, have been since the Apple II. Price
pressure (even Apple feels it) means they cut corners, and ask Sony to
do so on the supplies. This is an invisible headache cause which many
people never notice.
Now, most PC power supplies aren't any better--ask anyone with an IBM or
Compaq original supply--unless you buy a PC-Cool [expensive but worth
it--editor]. This has DEFINITELY started to bite PC users, with the $65
Taiwan supply the cause (no overvoltage protection, lousy filtering,
worse regulation). But its day, in high-end 386/486 computers, is on
the wane.
Moral: Power is more a problem than you think.
If your application is critical (and for the price of a high-end
Mac, it is), think hard about external hard-drives. I'm not slamming
Apple's supplies,
except on general observations, but the ones I've had apart don't make me
very reassured. The best indicator, alas, is time.
>2nd, I presummed (probably wrong) that the querier wants performance
>and reliablity.
Obviously, or they would be buying a Mac Plus. I'm not slamming you or your
opinion. You're right.
>Alex, you see more of these things than I do,
Which in no way diminishes your experience
>but,
>besides the "stiction" problems which appear well on the way to a cure,
>the little Quantums are the fastest and most reliable 3.5" drives, yes?
Hmmm. If you have to have 3-1/2" form-factor, I'd go with ST-157N.
Speed is slightly lower, though (stepper drive). Remember, Quanta are
voice-coil drives (fast) but not yet caching (not as fast as they will be).
I am not encouraged by the Apple/Quantum "cure" pronouncement. A ROM
change doesn't
make up for the fact that *Quantum isn't plating the media well enough*.
And then they don't lube them well enough, either. No amount of
post-manufacturing shenanigans is going to cure stiction--they can't add
torque to the motor. If they run it harder at start-up they risk
burning the coils--almost invariably fatal. As with all Quanta, (&
Seagates, and many other drives) the drives run hot, too. Their sealed
construction doesn't dissipate well, either.
I suspect history will show that Quantum got stuck with huge price
pressures and compromised on the media fabrication.
Priams don't stick; CDCs don't stick. Maxtors don't seem to (not big
personal knowledge pool there). Seagates, MiniScribes, Plus HardCards
and Quanta do. The first two are easy for us to rescue, the last
two--not so easy.
Call me prejudiced against Quanta; I've seen entirely more than my share
come through the door. And their tech. support hasn't been very
helpful, I'm afraid (love to change that!). Parts are essentially
unavailable.
>3rd, I probably should have worded that statement "...3rd party drive
>you may CHOOSE or SELECT..." meaning, after he examined the selection
>of drives out there, he would arrive at the same conclusion I have,
>and buy Quantum drives exclusively in the 3.5" range. When the CDC
>Swifts start shipping, I PRESUME they will give the Quantums a good
>run for the money.
Erm, didn't know CDC was STILL in the teething stage on those. Even
Apple might use 'em.
I might suggest Conners but my experience with the Compaq Conners has
been--uninspiring.
>>Micro-Net drives are my favorite, by far. They have the best tech.
>>support and tech. people. And the CDC mechanisms don't break.
>I agree wholeheartedly. All my AppleShare servers are using CDC Wrens
>except for 4 SEs used to serve 4 15-Mac Plus Pascal programming
>networks. These use Quantums. Also, all Mac IIs with drives other than
>Apple-supplied (higher ed discount makes these hard to pass up) get CDC
>mechanisms. I find it very easy to cost justify these drives to
>University purchasers on the following grounds: Reliability means less
>money in maintenance, reliability means less downtime, made in U.S.A./
>good for economy, and, as an aside, they offer the best performance.
'Sides, the Mitsubishis and Fujis of the world haven't got into SCSIs in
a major way.
Have to see your lab sometime. Sounds fun....
Alex
Joseph N. Hall
>
>I don't trust the cx power supply any more
>than I trust any Apple power supply--NOT! The Apple supplies are a
>constant source of terror and error, have been since the Apple II. Price
>pressure (even Apple feels it) means they cut corners, and ask Sony to
Well, I doubt that Sony (or any Japanese manufacturer) would willingly
"cut corners" on a product, or would ship one with a known defect.
Certainly not Sony. But in any event, the last IIcx we bought had a GE
supply in it.
v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive
v v s s || j...@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606
v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist
-----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
Scott Truesdell
> I tend toward external drives on Macs (PCs too, occasionally).
Well, for dozens of reasons, external drives make sense. Ease of
swap-out in case of repair, sparing the inadequat power supplies
of most microcomputers, et. al.
But EMOTIONALLY and for convenience and neatness, the reasons for
internal H.D.s are more compelling for the majority of microcomputer
users. I've got a Mac SE/30 with the internal Quantum 80 and ethernet
card and it's just so CONVENIENT to tote it all over the place. Of
course, when I took it to Boston in August, the Quantum became stuck
several times, including in Logan Airport when the security people
wanted be to turn it on to assure them it wasn't a bomb. (I had a
bootable floppy!). I guess humidity is the big culprit with this
Quantum stiction problem. Absolute reliability in dry ol' So. Cal.
> Apple supplies are a
>constant source of terror and error, have been since the Apple II. Price
>pressure (even Apple feels it) means they cut corners, and ask Sony to
>do so on the supplies. This is an invisible headache cause which many
>people never notice.
The sad part is it's not that expensive to build 'em a little better.
From the OEM's reference, it'd add $1 or $2 to build 'em robust, no?
> The $65 Taiwan supply the cause (no overvoltage protection,
> lousy filtering, worse regulation). But its day, in high-end
> 386/486 computers, is on the wane.
Praise whatever dieties are currently in vogue for this favor!
>Moral: Power is more a problem than you think.
I believe it! Your description of this as an invisible headache is so so
true. re: the computer boots so the PS must be ok... what to look at next?
Unless the PS actually shuts itself down, it never comes under suspicion.
>[ref to Apple's power supplies], but the ones I've had apart don't make me
>very reassured. The best indicator, alas, is time.
^^^^
ackkk!!! there's that word again!
Seriously, though, even power supplies from "quality" vendors are
subject to this pricing pressure. Case in point: One of our favorite
OEMs, MicroNet, uses minimum PS technology in the external units. The
only RMAs I've had with MicroNet have been PS related and it's
(unfortunately) a higher average than I would like.
>Hmmm. If you have to have 3-1/2" form-factor, I'd go with ST-157N.
Really? I tend to shy away from Seagates when given an alternative.
Knowing the nature of your work, I value your opinion and will
reevaluate my policy on these drives.
>I am not encouraged by the Apple/Quantum "cure" pronouncement.
Me neither.
> A ROM change doesn't
>make up for the fact that *Quantum isn't plating the media well enough*.
>And then they don't lube them well enough, either. No amount of
>post-manufacturing shenanigans is going to cure stiction--they can't add
>torque to the motor. If they run it harder at start-up they risk
>burning the coils--almost invariably fatal.
I thought about that. Throw more juice at it and watch it fry. As far
as remedial fixes go, it's a hack. I can only hope this hack isn't going
to the production line but rather they implemented a cure at the source;
better media, lube, and motor.
>Priams don't stick; CDCs don't stick. Maxtors don't seem to (not big
>personal knowledge pool there). Seagates, MiniScribes, Plus HardCards
>and Quanta do. The first two are easy for us to rescue, the last
>two--not so easy.
Hmmm Plus HardCards are made by Quantum, right? Or at least they are made
and engineered by the same mother company. So this is an interesting
coincidense.
>Call me prejudiced against Quanta; I've seen entirely more than my share
>come through the door. And their tech. support hasn't been very
>helpful, I'm afraid (love to change that!). Parts are essentially
>unavailable.
They're selling all they can make, I'll bet.
>> When the CDC Swifts start shipping [...]
>Erm, didn't know CDC was STILL in the teething stage on those.
Charles McConnethy told me they have been working with Imprimis on
these teething problems. I forget the precise nature of the problem[s]
though I remember that they were slight and almost solved.
>Even Apple might use 'em.
Hurray! They use the Wren V 173 megger for their 160MB drive. I love
that drive for the size range. Fast, quiet, and relatively cool.
>I might suggest Conners but my experience with the Compaq Conners has
>been--uninspiring.
Is that with the special ultra-power-miser version of the Conners? I
haven't used Conners personally, but one thing that stuck in my mind
when first reading about them in Computer Design several years ago was
(a) the depth of experience behind their engineering dept. (starting
with old man Conners himself) and (b) their method of designing in
reliability and low cost by making up for RELATIVELY low tolerance
parts compensated with intelligent firmware. In a production environment,
the relaxation of a few ten thousandths of an inch translates into
big long-term cost savings.
>>good for economy, and, as an aside, they offer the best performance.
>'Sides, the Mitsubishis and Fujis of the world haven't got into SCSIs in
>a major way.
:^)
>Have to see your lab[s: 4 to 6 depending how you look at 'em]
>sometime. Sounds fun....
Sure. Any time. A lot of rather vanilla implementations with the odd
mighty Mac (8MB/173MB/24-bit color/19" screen/video I/O, etc) work-
station thrown in.
--scott 714/856-5697
--
Scott Truesdell
Alex Pournelle
I'm willing, eager even, to hear from other people (hint hint) on this
subject. I would like very much to talk to more tech. engineers at
hard-drive companies mentioned, too. I want to work *with* and not
*against* to help their customers get their data back when it's not
currently retrievable.
'Scuse the edits, but this discussion is reaching Mammoth proportions
already; you want the original text, read it in the previous messages...
true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes:
>al...@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes:
>> I tend toward external drives on Macs (PCs too, occasionally).
>Well, for dozens of reasons, external drives make sense. Ease of
>swap-out in case of repair, sparing the inadequat power supplies
>of most microcomputers, et. al. {then on to the 'neatness' factor of
having everything in one box: SE/30}
Agreed absolutely. The Mac has it all over the PC for true
dragability--size and weight too. But I get a mite worried about the
power supplies with all that in there. If your 5 and 12 Volts don't
vary (usual first sign of power supply error in "classic" [?!] Macs is
the screen jitters) much (1/2%? 1%?) with all that plugged in--go for
it. I would if I had the money!
>> Apple supplies are a
>>constant source of terror and error, have been since the Apple II. Price
>>pressure (even Apple feels it) means they cut corners, and ask Sony to
>>do so on the supplies. This is an invisible headache cause which many
>>people never notice.
>The sad part is it's not that expensive to build 'em a little better.
>From the OEM's reference, it'd add $1 or $2 to build 'em robust, no?
Utterly correct. The poster who said Sony Would Never Cut Corners Like
That is--misguided. I have to differ. We're talking razor-thin price
margins. If GE is building 'em--great for GE, but the same comments
apply.
Maybe I just don't like anything that small that doesn't say "Sigma" or
"Lambda" on it.
>>[ref to Apple's power supplies], but the ones I've had apart don't make me
>>very reassured. The best indicator, alas, is time.
> ^^^^
> ackkk!!! there's that word again!
You caught me. Now I have to pay royalties.
>Seriously, though, even power supplies from "quality" vendors are
>subject to this pricing pressure. Case in point: One of our favorite
>OEMs, MicroNet, uses minimum PS technology in the external units. The
>only RMAs I've had with MicroNet have been PS related and it's
>(unfortunately) a higher average than I would like.
All you CMS users out there, beware: CMS was, for over 8 months, using a
35-watt power supply in their external 80meg (Seagate ST-277N) drives,
which take about 75 Watts at startup. The result is predictable:
KA-BLOOIE! drives. Fried beyond repair.
They kept it pretty quiet, no recalls or anything.
If you have one of 'em, see if it's got a Skynet supply board. If so,
you should contact CMS.
>>Hmmm. If you have to have 3-1/2" form-factor, I'd go with ST-157N.
>Really? I tend to shy away from Seagates when given an alternative.
>Knowing the nature of your work, I value your opinion and will
>reevaluate my policy on these drives.
(backpedal backpedal, sounds of coughing and shuffling) I have re-
re-considered this. The Seagates are,
despite my constant grotching about commodity drives, not bad. But they
are not the equal of the price you pay for a high-end Mac. Until CDC's
3.25" SCSIs are ready, I don't know WHAT to recommend; the Seagates work
the best (note caveat) of the ones I've tested. But I have NOT tested
the Conner SCSIs, the new new Rodime SCSIs, the "next-wave" sub-3"
drives from PrarieTek or Areal, etc. And my friends at the repair
places have essentially no experience with 3.25" SCSIs; too new. The
Seagates are NOT as good as the MiniScribe 3.25" SCSIs, but they make
much larger ones. At that, the largest is the 157N, though rumours of a
new line of 3.25" drives from Seagate will likely become true at ComDex
(nope: no inside bits. Just market watching.)
And M/S has some problems outside the scope of this
exercise. So I'm stuck for a recommendation within my experience. So
I mentioned Seagate.
>>Erm, didn't know CDC was STILL in the teething stage on [The Swift
>>3.25" SCSIs]
>Charles McConnethy told me they have been working with Imprimis on
>these teething problems. I forget the precise nature of the problem[s]
>though I remember that they were slight and almost solved.
>>I might suggest Conners but my experience with the Compaq Conners has
>>been--uninspiring.
>Is that with the special ultra-power-miser version of the Conners?
"Compaq Conners" says what I'm talking about: it all: the 40-pin "AT"
or "direct" interface drives that Compaq buys from Conner. They're
essentially impossible to get diagnosed or fixed (this may change in a
month--stay tuned).
They have some brilliant engineers. I'm just not sure they let them
make engineering decisions.
Is anyone interested in this stuff, or should Scott and I take it to
mail?
Alex
Scott Truesdell
>dragability--size and weight too. But I get a mite worried about the
>power supplies with all that in there.
<Ulp!> Hear! Hear!
> If your 5 and 12 Volts don't
>vary (usual first sign of power supply error in "classic" [?!] Macs is
>the screen jitters) much (1/2%? 1%?) with all that plugged in--go for it.
I don't know about the Pluses, but the SEs may be adjusted for output
under load: a good idea after even such a small modification as a
memory upgrade.
>All you CMS users out there, beware: CMS was, for over 8 months, using a
>35-watt power supply in their external 80meg (Seagate ST-277N) drives,
>which take about 75 Watts at startup. The result is predictable:
>KA-BLOOIE! drives. Fried beyond repair.
>They kept it pretty quiet, no recalls or anything.
>If you have one of 'em, see if it's got a Skynet supply board. If so,
>you should contact CMS.
See, everybody? This is just one more horror story in a [still]
emerging consumer market. Until there gets to be a Good Computing Seal
of Approval or some kind of watchdog agency to declare products at
least reasonably engineered, we'll always experience goofs like this.
<flame> <flame>
In the Golden era of computing, or even today, still, in the mainframe
and technical and business oriented machines (you know, the ones
costing over 6 digits?) the mfgs wouldn't dream of letting their
reputation be smirched by something so trivial to deal with. From an
engineering standpoint, THESE ISSUES ARE TRIVIAL.
>(backpedal backpedal, sounds of coughing and shuffling) I have re-
>re-considered this. The Seagates are,
>despite my constant grotching about commodity drives, not bad.
Case in point: all those cheap ST-225s out there in PC clones that
basically just keep on tickin'.
> [various comments about experience and where the state of the art
> lies in small drives...] So I'm stuck for a recommendation within my
> experience. So I mentioned Seagate.
McConnathy repeated states to me and others that, when not DOA, the
Seagates remain the most reliable in their price range. Their solution
at MicroNet: burn the daylights out of them on the test bench before
they ship 'em. Results: very few returns (says Charles).
>[Conners has] some brilliant engineers. I'm just not sure they let them
>make engineering decisions.
Hear! Hear! Engineers DO NEED Marketing to tell them when it's soup.
The demands of the marketplace in ANY industry will always carry out
this tug of war between Engineering and Marketing. For engineers, the
journey is the reward, and what they learn in the process of bringing a
product to life usually instantly obsoletes the current project. They
understand this and look foreward to the next project where they can
bring their newfound knowledge and experience to bear.
Marketing, on the other hand, no matter what the industry, tends to
lean towards the used car salesman mentality. That's why when "we" go
into computer stores (or wherever) we tend to shun places where the
salespeople decend on us like greasy pirranah and instead gravitate
towards the back where the tech is busy burning his or her fingertips
on a soldering iron. :^)
>Is anyone interested in this stuff, or should Scott and I take it to
>mail?
Yea! <babble> <babble>
Anyway, I would guess we've about thrashed it to death anyway.
--scott
--
Scott Truesdell