WD Suck

[LiamC]

I purchased a WD600JB for use and hoped to use it in an article.

I hadn't seen them before and the specs on the WD site state that these use 60GB platters. Get it home, bench it and the transfer rate is identical to to WD400JB I have - so it must use two 40GB platters -> I can't tell you how much I really hate WD drive nomenclature!

 

[Buck]

I purchased a WD600JB for use and hoped to use it in an article.

I hadn't seen them before and the specs on the WD site state that these use 60GB platters. Get it home, bench it and the transfer rate is identical to to WD400JB I have - so it must use two 40GB platters -> I can't tell you how much I really hate WD drive nomenclature!

LOL - sorry for the laugh LiamC, it's not at you, but at WD. I wonder who the retard was that posted 60GB Areal Density information for a WD600JB?

 

[LiamC]

It was on the WD spec sheet for the 600JB two weeks ago, 1 platter, 2 heads and the same

Buffer To Disk 736.0 Mbits/s (Max)

as the 200/180GB series.

http://www.westerndigital.com/products/Products.asp?DriveID=39

I should note that now the number of heads has been changed to 4, which doesn't gel with a 2 platter design!

 

[Buck]

That is even better! :mrgrn:
Prime WD600JBs are 2 disks and 3 heads.

 

[Tea]

WD's technical information in recent timez, az pozted on their zite, leadz to one pozzible concluzion and one concluzion only: WD zuck.

 

[blakerwry]

funny.. didn't i post almost the exact same thing a month or two ago? maybe that was at the other forum...

this was of course not the 600JB