OP7iK said: In for 4 ..lets see how these puppies do in raid 0 Really? better off with a couple newer drives, and probably cheaper too for more space and better performance. That AT review may be enthusiastic, but it is over 2 1/2 years old.
Main use for these IMO is a system for your parents or other family member that wouldn't need even 160GB in a 100 years.
DriverDan
Member
posted: Aug. 15, 2008 @ 7:31p
$0.21875 / GB
No thanks. I wouldn't pay over $0.15 / GB and that's pushing it.
No thanks. I wouldn't pay over $0.15 / GB and that's pushing it.
If a drive is 10GB, the price wouldn't be $1.50. The more capacity a hard drive holds, the cheaper "per GB" it is. Since this is only a 160GB, $35 is a good price for it. Some people don't necessary want to spend $80 on a 500GB drive even if it is $0.15/GB.
Just bought 3 of the the SATA 300's. 1/2 the people I build for won't use over 20Gigs their whole lives and it would only be a waste of money for them to have a bigger drive. The Seagate's a step up in quality and warantee from WD and Max. Thanks OP!
AznMaverick
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 2:54a
Man...looking for a 2.5"...
xxaiphaxx
Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 4:30a
iranerd said: Just bought 3 of the the SATA 300's. 1/2 the people I build for won't use over 20Gigs their whole lives and it would only be a waste of money for them to have a bigger drive. The Seagate's a step up in quality and warantee from WD and Max. Thanks OP! Technology is not as up to par as it could and should be. The drive is overpriced, consider a better alternative.
0babybear0
Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 6:04a
Thanks OP! Just in time. Picked one up for an Aunt's computer that has a dieing hard drive. Didn't need to be anything massive and as cheap as possible was the order of the day. This fits that bill perfectly. Would have picked one up to replace my even older Boot drive, if I had a spare $35 lying around. Free shipping is nice, they did charge tax for Illinois, $2.19 per drive.
xxaiphaxx said: iranerd said: Just bought 3 of the the SATA 300's. 1/2 the people I build for won't use over 20Gigs their whole lives and it would only be a waste of money for them to have a bigger drive. The Seagate's a step up in quality and warantee from WD and Max. Thanks OP!
Technology is not as up to par as it could and should be. The drive is overpriced, consider a better alternative.
Overpriced and technology not up to par - compared to what?? Please enlighten me - what "alternate" new brand-name 160 SATA II drive with a 5 year warantee can I buy today for $35 (including shipping)? Tech reviews show overall performance of this drive compared to the highest performance 7200 160 gig drive made to be less than 10% for most functions - imperceptable to the low-demand people I build inexpensive computer systems for (under $175 - I live near Frys and read FW daily!)
I don't need a pseudo authority to validate that this is the right drive for them - I already know that - but I always remain open a link or reference to a "better alternative". That's how we FW people constructively communicate deals to each other.
iranerd said: xxaiphaxx said: iranerd said: Just bought 3 of the the SATA 300's. 1/2 the people I build for won't use over 20Gigs their whole lives and it would only be a waste of money for them to have a bigger drive. The Seagate's a step up in quality and warantee from WD and Max. Thanks OP!
Technology is not as up to par as it could and should be. The drive is overpriced, consider a better alternative.
Overpriced and technology not up to par - compared to what?? Please enlighten me - what "alternate" new brand-name 160 SATA II drive with a 5 year warantee can I buy today for $35 (including shipping)? Tech reviews show overall performance of this drive compared to the highest performance 7200 160 gig drive made to be less than 10% for most functions - imperceptable to the low-demand people I build inexpensive computer systems for (under $175 - I live near Frys and read FW daily!)
I don't need a pseudo authority to validate that this is the right drive for them - I already know that - but I always remain open a link or reference to a "better alternative". That's how we FW people constructively communicate deals to each other.I think what xxaiphaxx meant is it's over-priced in a per/GB sense, as the total is obviously on the low end. It's like I said earlier. If you're doing something like a RAID you're proabably still better off with a couple 320s or 500s. BUT, if the system you're buying for is never going to use anywhere near 160GB, let alone more than, then this is a good deal. Getting cheaper $/GB is pointless if the total is more and the extra space is never used.
Just a comment that the EIDE drives are good for an older generation (non HD) TiVo. This equals about 140 hours of recording...I am buying a couple for spares while you can still get EIDE.
Nice find OP. Thanks
jmace
xxaiphaxx
Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 8:05p
Danzilla said: iranerd said: xxaiphaxx said: iranerd said: Just bought 3 of the the SATA 300's. 1/2 the people I build for won't use over 20Gigs their whole lives and it would only be a waste of money for them to have a bigger drive. The Seagate's a step up in quality and warantee from WD and Max. Thanks OP!
Technology is not as up to par as it could and should be. The drive is overpriced, consider a better alternative.
Overpriced and technology not up to par - compared to what?? Please enlighten me - what "alternate" new brand-name 160 SATA II drive with a 5 year warantee can I buy today for $35 (including shipping)? Tech reviews show overall performance of this drive compared to the highest performance 7200 160 gig drive made to be less than 10% for most functions - imperceptable to the low-demand people I build inexpensive computer systems for (under $175 - I live near Frys and read FW daily!)
I don't need a pseudo authority to validate that this is the right drive for them - I already know that - but I always remain open a link or reference to a "better alternative". That's how we FW people constructively communicate deals to each other.I think what xxaiphaxx meant is it's over-priced in a per/GB sense, as the total is obviously on the low end. It's like I said earlier. If you're doing something like a RAID you're proabably still better off with a couple 320s or 500s. BUT, if the system you're buying for is never going to use anywhere near 160GB, let alone more than, then this is a good deal. Getting cheaper $/GB is pointless if the total is more and the extra space is never used. Thank you for clarifying, that's precisely what I was saying. To add to what you're saying, I simply believe it's worth spending the few extra bucks to upgrade to a larger capacity drive (even if you're doing a RAID config) solely on a long-term investment basis. Hard drives, as you probably know, can easily be removed from one rig and be put to use in another (or used for other purposes). Keep in mind, when I took my time to respond to this thread, I did it to assist the people reading this thread. Obviously, if you're in a money crunch and the few extra bucks would make a difference, then by all means, $35 for a HD is not a bad deal. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and not have to explain it like I'm teaching the ABC's. If you're open to alternatives, do a simple topic search and see what the other available options are.
bspahn
Thrifty Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 8:16p
I received my order for the SATA version and it was the 7200.10. The box said the drive was a ST3160812AS-RK but it was actually a ST3160815AS.
Thanks.
bigfootpi
Member
posted: Aug. 16, 2008 @ 9:05p
drive is not overpriced. its priced what it should be. its value depends on application. (like was mentioned before) If you are a system builder it is a waste of money to buy, for example, $52 Seagate SATA 16MB cache drives when you can get 160GB 8MB drives for $35, when your customers want as cheap as possible and will never use the space.. ps- and these are RETAIL BOXED with cables. pps- I have bought 5 before. Plan to buy more if enough people can hold out as they might drop these to $29
RedLance said: FYI for anyone needing a single larger drive check out my post here.
Basically, its a 320gb sata hdd with AMD processor combo for $80 shipped!
EDIT: Promo code in the other thread does not work with combos. So the price is $80 for a $320 gb hdd and AMD CPU.
Great find Redlance. I didn't end up getting the 'combo' you flagged (I already have a hard disk from this deal), but they also listed another combo deal giving $30 off the BE2400 including Coolermaster case and power supply all for $65. That's just what I needed. Thanks!
Experts out there. Can Seagate Barracuda 160GB Internal Hard Drives (SATA & Ultra ATA) - $35 shipped be used for the Dish TV PVR Upgrade mentioned here?
It says it supports Seagate IDE 7200RPM with ATA-3 support. Is this drive compatible?
Think I'm jumping in on the SATA version. I bought an Antec SATA enclosure a while back and it's just been sitting there, cause I didn't have any extra SATA drives around. This will be good to plop in there and use for some backups and a nice portable drive.
Slvbeard said: How quick is Seagate with the shipping?
VERY quick.
Ordered 160GB SATA drive late Fri afternoon and they shipped it Fri via UPS from Ft Worth, TX.
Looks like free shipping is gone on all internal and external drives.
webley
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 25, 2008 @ 9:31p
Wow Seagate raised the price on the 160Gb PATA drives by 85% to $65 overnight and the SATAs are no longer available. I thought that was their normal price as it's been listed unchanged for weeks. Is hope they will sell them again for the lower price as $65 is definitely overpriced. Guess I need to look elsewhere for an affordable small internal hard drive..
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
