Utility to burn in new hard drive?

Phat Bytestard wrote

Wrong, as always. And he used the word parts anyway.

Irrelevent to your pig ignorant claim about PARTS.

Nope, you are.

Easy to claim, child.

Pity there is no such animal with mass market commodity drives, child.

In your eagerness to 'one up' Phat you misrepresent what I said.

Nothing was said about 'one company', or any number of companies for that matter.

And nothing was said about 'certain parts'.

And one of those bounds is the operating temperature range so you can use an oven or, as I explicitly said, "some other way [to] elevate the temperature" making your attempt to harp on the word 'oven' unfounded.

yes, and it's not what you think it means.

DISCRETE component is the applicable term in electronics. "Subsystem" sometimes, to diffentiate between groups of discretes that are function specific vs. the whole product, but merely stating "component" is not suggestive of a discrete component until you have built the context previously which was not the case in several computer hardware groups.

Yes, a hard drive is a component in a PC, of HARDWARE, etc, etc. I didn't call it a component though, I called it a part, and if you're too clueless to accept it, that's your problem.

It has a specific GENERIC meaning. It does not define the testing parameters which vary per device.

Depends on what's being tested, I mean the part. Oops, you're too anal to know what a "part" is, so I'll make this one concession and write "whole product".

Maybe they can get kony to referee!

LOL

|Path: border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!67420556!not-for-mail |Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.engineering.electrical |Subject: Re: Utility to burn in new hard drive? |From: John Doe |References:

|Message-ID: |User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 |Lines: 47 |NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.62.159 |X-Complaints-To: snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net |X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1154226760 ST000 69.153.62.159 (Sat, 29 Jul

2006 22:32:40 EDT) |NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:32:40 EDT |Organization: SBC |X-UserInfo1: TSUGGX[DRJTUR_HXOBOVOQH@USXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIEL_NTKAH_[JTXDX_KI\VB]JBVMS^YT_G[CZVWAOS\DHFWEH]@KGXYHB\_CMDSFABP^J[AHHRKARLE_JDBLJ\XA[JRMEI]MGJSPB\Y]^KG\@S^@VQKI_Q[G@@_ACSARASDEFLBJ]S\GFNTUAVBL |Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:32:40 GMT |Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:320487 alt.comp.hardware:323274 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:487735 alt.engineering.electrical:180197 |X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0630-4, 07/29/2006), Inbound message |X-Antivirus-Status: Clean | |Phat Bytestard wrote: | |> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:37:32 +1000, "Rod Speed" |> Gave us: |> |>>> The bit striped array I described carries with it a much higher throughput. |>>

|>>Bullshit it does. In spades when you are stupid enough to use laptop drives. |> |> |> You're an idiot. | |You two were meant to be together. | | | | | | | |> |> A raid 3 array has the potential to have 8 times |> the throughput, placing the bottleneck on other subsystems. |> |> |> Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!10c73d3e!not-for-mail |> From: Phat Bytestard |> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.engineering.electrical |> Subject: Re: Utility to burn in new hard drive? |> Organization: Big Digital Dudes |> Message-ID: |> References:

|> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 |> MIME-Version: 1.0 |> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii |> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit |> Lines: 10 |> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.140.122.154 |> X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net |> X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1154223931 ST000 71.140.122.154 (Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:45:31 EDT) |> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:45:31 EDT |> X-UserInfo1: SCSYQNON]RE]RV [BJKXOTTDFZ\ FXLM TDOCQDJ _ FNHCYFWUQBKZQLYJX\_ITFD_KFVLUN[DOM_A_NSYNWPFWNS[XV\I]PZ BQ[ CDQDPCL^FKCBIPC KLGEZEFNMDYMKHRL_YYYGDSSODXYN [\BK[LVTWI AXGQCOA_SAH TPD^\AL\RLGRFWEARBM |> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:45:31 GMT |> Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:375052 alt.comp.hardware:315766 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:472487 alt.engineering.electrical:179930 |> |

So you are educated by Wikipedia ! read this from Wiki (your URL):

"When possible, it is better to eliminate the root cause of early failures than doing a burn in."

Yes.... remove the last wagon from the train, as it is always the one that is most damaged in an accident.

Of course the solution is the very best, if the value-component in the decision is limited to preventing damage, but... well... the factual component should get some consideration too.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:11:09 +1000, "Rod Speed" Gave us:

You are obviously unaware of the new perpendicular recording drives hitting the market.

That output times eight. You do the math, dipshit.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:20:12 +1000, "Rod Speed" Gave us:

What? Do you think they just turn them on for three minutes and call them "ready"?

You have no clue, chump. You are a PC assembly twit, at best.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:22:11 -0400, kony Gave us:

I always find it interesting to watch folks that would claim to be intelligent jumping on the "stupid, immature twit" bandwagon on a whim.

You guys fit that mold perfectly.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:43:43 -0500, Teh White Recluse Gave us:

Top posting Usenet twit with less than nothing to say.

Hell, one cannot even determine whom you were referring to. More proof that top posting is utterly retarded.

Phat Bytestard wrote

Odd, bit hard to explain how I have actually commented on them if I was actually unaware of them, child.

And those STILL dont have as good a thruput as 3.5" drives, child.

Pity there is more involved than that, child.

Phat Bytestard wrote

You deaf, child ?

Yep, thats what happens with mass market commodity drives, child.

Osiris wrote

Nope I just use it to rub the noses of the pig ignorant in thanks.

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

Irrelevant to his pig ignorant claim about ELEVATED TEMPERATURES and burn in tests.

Yes it was Roddli. No point in writechecking the drive for a short period if it had been thouroughly exercised already.

Read at a minimum and possibly also write, what else.

Nope, meant exactly what I said. The writechecking helps prevent the drives from showing bad sectors and thus from early returns by people who do not know what the significance of that is.

Bad sectors do not necessarily make a dying drive.

Gave us:

Pity about harddrives being targets that can't send data by themselfs, Roddles. They have to be polled, they can't "transmit "condition data" to the mobo/OS constantly".

Gave us:

False. Drives map out only 'to become' (ie recoverable read error) bad sectors automatically, that's under ideal circumstances. Drives do NOT map out unrecoverable read error bad sectors automatically. That requires a write to such sector. OSes could be more helpful in offering choices to the user on what to do when such unrecoverable bad sectors are encountered. Either in offering a ignore/retry/fail strategy or offering to (destructively) take care of the problem so it doesn't reappear.

|On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:43:43 -0500, Teh White Recluse | Gave us: | |>Troll with malfunctioning synapse. | | Top posting Usenet twit with less than nothing to say. | | Hell, one cannot even determine whom you were referring to. More |proof that top posting is utterly retarded.

LMFAO You didn't get it. I was torlling john-doe-the-f****it. He top posts headers of anyone he disagrees with. Wasn't a great torll, all I came up with was a phat bastard.

|Phat Bytestard wrote

| |> A stupid user will inordinately exercise a piece of equipment when |> it is not even necessary, further reducing its overall "in use" |> lifespan, and wasting a lot of personal time. | |And made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself again with that bit. |

It never ever could bullshit it's way out of a wet paper bag. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If something does not run it does not wear out.