Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Power-Off Retract Count raw value 2293768
291 views
Skip to first unread message
AndyHancock
Jul 30, 2012, 1:43:59 AM7/30/12
to
My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now. I
just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for a
rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
Temperature_Celsius as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the RAW_VALUE
figure. This edits are attempts to keep text rows below 80 characters
in order to avoid wrap-around.
What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
well, and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed
relevant is http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-detection-issues/td-p/359927,
which reports a raw value of 63.
The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high, but Wikipedia says typical
HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
Further googling says that some linux systems can drive up the count,
but this is Windows 7.
Is the large raw number ignorable considering the healthy-looking
normalized number?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following needs to be viewed in nonproportional font. If using
Google Groups, this is accessible via the Options link at upper right
corner.
smartctl 5.43 2012-06-30 r3573 [i686-pc-cygwin-win7(64)]
(cygwin-5.43-1)
Copyright (C) 2002-12 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Device Model: TOSHIBA MK6476GSXN
Serial Number: Y1DQC0GOT
LU WWN Device Id: 5 000039 3a3f854e2
Firmware Version: GB001M
User Capacity: 640,135,028,736 bytes [640 GB]
Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
ATA Version is: 8
ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated
Local Time is: Thu Jul 26 01:09:18 2012 EDT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
<...snip...>
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED
RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
2 Throughput_Performance 100 050 Pre-fail Offline -
0
3 Spin_Up_Time 100 001 Pre-fail Always -
2025
4 Start_Stop_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
106
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
8 Seek_Time_Performance 100 050 Pre-fail Offline -
0
9 Power_On_Hours 099 000 Old_age Always -
405
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 030 Pre-fail Always -
0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
106
191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 100 000 Old_age Always -
1
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
2293768
193 Load_Cycle_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
3871
194 Temperature_Celsius 100 000 Old_age Always -
38
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
197 Current_Pending_Sector 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 100 000 Old_age Offline -
0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 000 Old_age Always -
0
220 Disk_Shift 100 000 Old_age Always -
8255
222 Loaded_Hours 100 000 Old_age Always -
213
223 Load_Retry_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
224 Load_Friction 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
226 Load-in_Time 100 000 Old_age Always -
305
240 Head_Flying_Hours 100 001 Pre-fail Offline -
0
SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num Test_Description Status Remaining
LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error
# 1 Short offline Completed without error 00%
125 -
<...snip...>
the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now. I
just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for a
rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
Temperature_Celsius as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the RAW_VALUE
figure. This edits are attempts to keep text rows below 80 characters
in order to avoid wrap-around.
What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
well, and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed
relevant is http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-detection-issues/td-p/359927,
which reports a raw value of 63.
The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high, but Wikipedia says typical
HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
Further googling says that some linux systems can drive up the count,
but this is Windows 7.
Is the large raw number ignorable considering the healthy-looking
normalized number?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following needs to be viewed in nonproportional font. If using
Google Groups, this is accessible via the Options link at upper right
corner.
smartctl 5.43 2012-06-30 r3573 [i686-pc-cygwin-win7(64)]
(cygwin-5.43-1)
Copyright (C) 2002-12 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Device Model: TOSHIBA MK6476GSXN
Serial Number: Y1DQC0GOT
LU WWN Device Id: 5 000039 3a3f854e2
Firmware Version: GB001M
User Capacity: 640,135,028,736 bytes [640 GB]
Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
ATA Version is: 8
ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated
Local Time is: Thu Jul 26 01:09:18 2012 EDT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
<...snip...>
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED
RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
2 Throughput_Performance 100 050 Pre-fail Offline -
0
3 Spin_Up_Time 100 001 Pre-fail Always -
2025
4 Start_Stop_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
106
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 100 050 Pre-fail Always -
0
8 Seek_Time_Performance 100 050 Pre-fail Offline -
0
9 Power_On_Hours 099 000 Old_age Always -
405
10 Spin_Retry_Count 100 030 Pre-fail Always -
0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
106
191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 100 000 Old_age Always -
1
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
2293768
193 Load_Cycle_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
3871
194 Temperature_Celsius 100 000 Old_age Always -
38
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
197 Current_Pending_Sector 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 100 000 Old_age Offline -
0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 200 000 Old_age Always -
0
220 Disk_Shift 100 000 Old_age Always -
8255
222 Loaded_Hours 100 000 Old_age Always -
213
223 Load_Retry_Count 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
224 Load_Friction 100 000 Old_age Always -
0
226 Load-in_Time 100 000 Old_age Always -
305
240 Head_Flying_Hours 100 001 Pre-fail Offline -
0
SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num Test_Description Status Remaining
LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error
# 1 Short offline Completed without error 00%
125 -
<...snip...>
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2012, 3:01:33 AM7/30/12
to
AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
> I just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except
> for a rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
> extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
> the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
> Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194, Temperature_Celsius
> as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the RAW_VALUE figure.
That's not really all that bad with a laptop.
> This edits are attempts to keep text rows below 80 characters
> in order to avoid wrap-around.
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is well,
Likely its just some quirk with how Toshiba chooses to do that
particular value, its not a simple count like some of the others are.
And according to wikipedia its likely the number of head retracts
that don't involve powering off the drive, so that's not at all unusual
for a laptop drive given that they do tend to do that for safety.
> and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed relevant is
> http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-detection-issues/td-p/359927,
I don't see that one as relevant, because its not a Toshiba drive.
> which reports a raw value of 63.
> The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high,
Not for a laptop its not. They do power down
the drive to increase the time on the battery.
> but Wikipedia says typical HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
Specially with laptop drives.
> Further googling says that some linux systems
> can drive up the count, but this is Windows 7.
But is a laptop, nothing surprising about that with a laptop.
> Is the large raw number ignorable considering
> the healthy-looking normalized number?
Yes, it's ignorable.
That's a fine, the drive is doing fine.
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
> I just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except
> for a rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
> extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
> the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
> Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194, Temperature_Celsius
> as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the RAW_VALUE figure.
> This edits are attempts to keep text rows below 80 characters
> in order to avoid wrap-around.
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is well,
particular value, its not a simple count like some of the others are.
And according to wikipedia its likely the number of head retracts
that don't involve powering off the drive, so that's not at all unusual
for a laptop drive given that they do tend to do that for safety.
> and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed relevant is
> http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-detection-issues/td-p/359927,
> which reports a raw value of 63.
> The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high,
the drive to increase the time on the battery.
> but Wikipedia says typical HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
> Further googling says that some linux systems
> can drive up the count, but this is Windows 7.
> Is the large raw number ignorable considering
> the healthy-looking normalized number?
Robert Nichols
Jul 30, 2012, 9:24:16 AM7/30/12
to
On 07/30/2012 12:43 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
>
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
> well,
2293768 = 0x230008, which suggests that the actual count is 8 and
>
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
> well,
something else (decimal 35) is being stored in the high-order bits.
--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"
Arno
Jul 30, 2012, 8:38:52 PM7/30/12
to
AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now. I
> just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for a
> rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
> extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
> the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
> Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
Higher is better.
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now. I
> just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for a
> rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached an
> extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column preceding
> the WORST column because all the figures were the same except for #10,
> Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
> Temperature_Celsius as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the RAW_VALUE
> figure. This edits are attempts to keep text rows below 80 characters
> in order to avoid wrap-around.
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768.
tricky. I suspect the drive would long be dead otherwise and
it would definitely not have a coocked value of 100 (i.e.
perfectly fine).
> The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
> well, and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed
> relevant is http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-detection-issues/td-p/359927,
> which reports a raw value of 63.
> The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high, but Wikipedia says typical
> HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
> Further googling says that some linux systems can drive up the count,
> but this is Windows 7.
e.g. at WD) is that Linux accesses disks every 30 seconds or
so. If the disk does a head retract after 25 secs, it gets
a lot of head-loads. I just barely caught one of my 2.5"
drives at 800'000 of them. Also google wdidle3 in this
group for more on that stupidity.
> Is the large raw number ignorable considering the healthy-looking
> normalized number?
drive is perfectly fine. There is absolutely nothing
even slighly suspicuous I can see.
But note that depending on the nature of problems, your
disk may be entirely innocent, even if it looks like
disk trouble. Bad RAM, overheating of other components,
bad power, etc. can all look similar to disk troubles.
Arno
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
Arno
Jul 30, 2012, 8:40:39 PM7/30/12
to
Robert Nichols <SEE_SI...@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/30/2012 12:43 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
>>
>> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
>> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
>> well,
> 2293768 = 0x230008, which suggests that the actual count is 8 and
> something else (decimal 35) is being stored in the high-order bits.
I agree. And the cooked value of 100 suggests it is fine.
> On 07/30/2012 12:43 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
>>
>> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
>> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
>> well,
> 2293768 = 0x230008, which suggests that the actual count is 8 and
> something else (decimal 35) is being stored in the high-order bits.
Arno
AndyHancock
Jul 30, 2012, 11:32:36 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 1:43 am, AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
> I just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for
> a rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached
> an extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column
> preceding the WORST column because all the figures were the same
> except for #10, Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
> Temperature_Celsius as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the
> RAW_VALUE figure. This edits are attempts to keep text rows below
> 80 characters in order to avoid wrap-around.
>
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
> well, and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed
> relevant
> ishttp://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/HDD-and-BIOS-dete...,
> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
> I just managed to do a SMART report, and all seems normal except for
> a rather large number that I'm not sure what to make of I already
> followed the wikipedia breakdown of the parameters). I've attached
> an extract of the report below, and I removed the VALUE column
> preceding the WORST column because all the figures were the same
> except for #10, Spin_Retry_Count (102 instead of 100). Also, #194,
> Temperature_Celsius as the note "(Min/Max 24/53)" after the
> RAW_VALUE figure. This edits are attempts to keep text rows below
> 80 characters in order to avoid wrap-around.
>
> What I really caught my attention was Power-Off Retract Count raw
> value, 2293768. The normalized values seem to indicate that all is
> well, and I tried googling typical values. The only hit that seemed
> relevant
> which reports a raw value of 63.
>
> The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high, but Wikipedia says
> typical HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
>
> Further googling says that some linux systems can drive up the
> count, but this is Windows 7.
>
> Is the large raw number ignorable considering the healthy-looking
> normalized number?
<...snip...>
>
> The Load_Cycle_Count 3871 also seems high, but Wikipedia says
> typical HDs can sustain 300K to 600K.
>
> Further googling says that some linux systems can drive up the
> count, but this is Windows 7.
>
> Is the large raw number ignorable considering the healthy-looking
> normalized number?
Boy, my attempts to avoid wrap-around failed miserably.
Sigh.
Thanks to you all, Rod, Robert, Arno.
Neat speculation on 2293768 = 0x230008 and the possibility that the
higher order bits might be used for something else.
I was think that the short idle times before standby might contribute
as well, but not in the order of millions!
AndyHancock
Jul 31, 2012, 12:46:30 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 30, 3:01 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>started when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place.
>Horrible 8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba
>had me ship it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it
>took 3 returns to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of
>the problems that occurred was due to rough handling during shipping.
>So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap
>shoot when you use UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging
>seriously on the first time was probably a contributing factor
>though.
I paid for the shipping the last 2 times. When you consider that the
only thing originally wrong was the HD....if only I had known, I would
have gladly dished out the heightened prices at that time to replace
it myself. That's how I would do it now. The reinstallation alone
for just one repair would have been worth it (I think I reinstalled
5~7 times times this year, including the 2 trips to the local place
and the temporary replacement machine they kindly provided).
Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm faulting Toshiba, they did good
despite mistakes. I had a good agent. For a while there, I had a
temporary stand-in who I didn't even understand (I mean on the
phone). I feel lucky despite the misfortunes.
> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit
>>> over the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over
>>> them now.
>>
>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
>
>Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself. All my problems
>>> over the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over
>>> them now.
>>
>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
>
>started when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place.
>Horrible 8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba
>had me ship it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it
>took 3 returns to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of
>the problems that occurred was due to rough handling during shipping.
>So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap
>shoot when you use UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging
>seriously on the first time was probably a contributing factor
>though.
I paid for the shipping the last 2 times. When you consider that the
only thing originally wrong was the HD....if only I had known, I would
have gladly dished out the heightened prices at that time to replace
it myself. That's how I would do it now. The reinstallation alone
for just one repair would have been worth it (I think I reinstalled
5~7 times times this year, including the 2 trips to the local place
and the temporary replacement machine they kindly provided).
Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm faulting Toshiba, they did good
despite mistakes. I had a good agent. For a while there, I had a
temporary stand-in who I didn't even understand (I mean on the
phone). I feel lucky despite the misfortunes.
AndyHancock
Jul 31, 2012, 12:41:48 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 30, 3:01 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
>> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
>
> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
>> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
>
> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself. All my problems started
when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place. Horrible
8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba had me ship
it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it took 3 returns
to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of the problems that
occurred was due to rough handling during shipping. So even though I
don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap shoot when you use
UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging seriously on the first
time was probably a contributing factor though (possibly the sole
when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place. Horrible
8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba had me ship
it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it took 3 returns
to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of the problems that
occurred was due to rough handling during shipping. So even though I
don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap shoot when you use
UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging seriously on the first
factor -- I don't know).
Rod Speed
Jul 31, 2012, 2:09:39 AM7/31/12
to
AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote
> All my problems started when I brought it into an authorized
> 3rd party repair place. Horrible 8 months. After bringing it
> back without success, Toshiba had me ship it to their own depot.
> They did a good job, though it took 3 returns to them to get rid
> of all problems.
This one worked fine the first time.
> I think most of the problems that occurred
> was due to rough handling during shipping.
Sounds plausible.
> So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust
> them, it's crap shoot when you use UPS. The fact
> that they didn't take packaging seriously on the
> first time was probably a contributing factor
> though (possibly the sole factor -- I don't know).
Not clear what happened here, it was returned
by the retailer to get the warranty repair.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
>>> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
> Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself.
No, had to use Toshiba because of the warranty claim.
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit over
>>> the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over them now.
>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
> Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself.
> All my problems started when I brought it into an authorized
> 3rd party repair place. Horrible 8 months. After bringing it
> back without success, Toshiba had me ship it to their own depot.
> They did a good job, though it took 3 returns to them to get rid
> of all problems.
> I think most of the problems that occurred
> was due to rough handling during shipping.
> So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust
> them, it's crap shoot when you use UPS. The fact
> that they didn't take packaging seriously on the
> first time was probably a contributing factor
> though (possibly the sole factor -- I don't know).
by the retailer to get the warranty repair.
Rod Speed
Jul 31, 2012, 2:14:46 AM7/31/12
to
AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote
> When you consider that the only thing originally wrong was the HD....
> if only I had known, I would have gladly dished out the heightened
> prices at that time to replace it myself. That's how I would do it now.
Yeah, I would have with a mega disaster like that.
> The reinstallation alone for just one repair would have been worth it
> (I think I reinstalled 5~7 times times this year, including the 2 trips to
> the
> local place and the temporary replacement machine they kindly provided).
> Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm faulting Toshiba, they
> did good despite mistakes. I had a good agent. For a while
> there, I had a temporary stand-in who I didn't even understand
> (I mean on the phone). I feel lucky despite the misfortunes.
Just had someone else buy an i7 Toshiba, it will be interesting to see how
that goes.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit
>>>> over the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over
>>>> them now.
>>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
>> Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself. All my problems
>> started when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place.
>> Horrible 8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba
>> had me ship it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it
>> took 3 returns to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of
>> the problems that occurred was due to rough handling during shipping.
>> So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap
>> shoot when you use UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging
>> seriously on the first time was probably a contributing factor though.
> I paid for the shipping the last 2 times.
Legally they have to pay for it here.
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> My Toshiba Satellite A660 has been in for servicing quite a bit
>>>> over the last 8 months for ongoing problems, and it seems over
>>>> them now.
>>> I've since had another Toshiba Satellite with a hard drive failure,
>>> replaced under warranty, only just by one week, quite literally.
>> Hopefully, you could replace the HD yourself. All my problems
>> started when I brought it into an authorized 3rd party repair place.
>> Horrible 8 months. After bringing it back without success, Toshiba
>> had me ship it to their own depot. They did a good job, though it
>> took 3 returns to them to get rid of all problems. I think most of
>> the problems that occurred was due to rough handling during shipping.
>> So even though I don't trust the locals and I trust them, it's crap
>> shoot when you use UPS. The fact that they didn't take packaging
>> seriously on the first time was probably a contributing factor though.
> I paid for the shipping the last 2 times.
> When you consider that the only thing originally wrong was the HD....
> if only I had known, I would have gladly dished out the heightened
> prices at that time to replace it myself. That's how I would do it now.
> The reinstallation alone for just one repair would have been worth it
> (I think I reinstalled 5~7 times times this year, including the 2 trips to
> the
> local place and the temporary replacement machine they kindly provided).
> Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm faulting Toshiba, they
> did good despite mistakes. I had a good agent. For a while
> there, I had a temporary stand-in who I didn't even understand
> (I mean on the phone). I feel lucky despite the misfortunes.
that goes.
andymh...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2012, 12:41:21 AM8/6/12
to
My next model will in no way be by this vendor, and if the "k" key is any indication, this will happen sooner rather than later.
*Spits.* Freaking POS.
0 new messages