WD1200JB vs Maxtor DM9+ 120GB

[Goi]

Hi guys,
I'm wondering if there are any reviews of the new Maxtor DiamondMax 9+ 120GB with 8MB cache, especially comparing it to the reigning performance champ, the WD1200JB? Where I am, the 2 of them are going for the same price, and I'm in the market for a new system, which includes a HDD of course, so I'm wondering which one I should get.

Thanks!

 

[ScrewFace]

I'd go with the Western Digital hard-drive. I have one and it is fast and reliable. Western Digiital also offer 3-year warranties on thier JB (8MB cache) drives as opposed to 1-year for the BB (2MB cache) drives.

 

[Goi]

I figured as much. I only found 1 comparison pitting the WD2000JB, IBM 180GXP, Maxtor DM9+ and the Seagate Barracuda V, all with 60+GB/platter and 8MB cache, together. The IBM 180GXP came up tops slightly in most benchmarks, with the WD2000JB a close 2nd. The Maxtor seems to be tuned for large file transfers, but was subpar for small file transfers. The Seagate is the exact opposite, excelling in small file access but underperforming in large sequential file transfers.

Since the 120GB 180GXPs w/8MB cache aren't available where I am, I guess I'll go for the WD1200JB.

 

[tedinde1]

go to storage review.com. the maxtor isnt up for review yet but they do have it in their database to compare. WD is still faster on some.

 

[pillage2001]

I have both the drives you listed. The maxtor FEELS faster but I don't think both have much difference.

 

[obeseotron]

I would never get a drive with a one year warranty, I have had many drives, especially maxtors die on me. That aside I would still get the WD, their JB drives are the fastest around according to storagereview.

 

[Ilmater]

Get the WD for two reasons: 1) I hate Maxtor, 2) I hate Maxtor, 3) 3-year warranty on the WD, and 4) Maxtors made me lose the ability to count.

OK, you can ignore reason 2 and 4, but 1 and 3 still stand. Why do I hate Maxtor? Simple: ATA-133. Instead of trying to innovate to sell drives (ie. WD's 8MB cache that EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER is now doing), they used this standard because they claimed it was faster (a lie; it is rare in benchmarks and almost non-existant in the real world) and was neccesary for bigger drives over xGB (also a lie, though I forgot what they claimed the limits were).

I hate you Maxtor.

Oh, by the way, I have two Maxtor drives and 3 WDs, so I do have some experience with them.

 

[Sunner]

ATA133 was a necessary step to take, ATA100 tops out at 127 GB.

Me I'd go with the 8 MB 180GXP, mostly since it's got better seek times than the WD, and to me better seem times is worth far more than STR.
But if the 180 GXP isnt available, by all means, the 2000JB would be my second choice.

 

[buleyb]

I have the WD drives, and I love them, but I would have loved to get the IBM or Maxtor drives with the fluid bearings...

 

[RazeOrc]

WD all the way, I started as an IBM fan, tried out Seagate and liked thier noise/heat ratio but performance was lacking so I picked up 2 80BBs and that's where it all started. even the 2MB WDs were ahead of their game and since I've purchased 2x120JBs and another 80BB, they are very fast, quiet, but the one thing you have to worry a bit more about is heat, these things get noticeably warmer than my seagate, IBM or Maxtor drives.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Sunner
ATA133 was a necessary step to take, ATA100 tops out at 127 GB.

You see why I hate Maxtor now? They've even fooled people in these forums that you would otherwise believe to be knowledgable. So drives over 127GB won't be recognized as such unless they're ATA133, eh? Gee. Then explain to me how WD's new 2000JB 200GB drives are ATA100 and work just fine. Strange, isn't it?

Damn I hate Maxtor.

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Sunner
ATA133 was a necessary step to take, ATA100 tops out at 127 GB.

You see why I hate Maxtor now? They've even fooled people in these forums that you would otherwise believe to be knowledgable. So drives over 127GB won't be recognized as such unless they're ATA133, eh? Gee. Then explain to me how WD's new 2000JB 200GB drives are ATA100 and work just fine. Strange, isn't it?

Damn I hate Maxtor.

It's not maxtor's fault. And ATA100 doesn't mean you won't see all 200Gb. The 200Gb needs a newer revision of adderssingand ATA100 controllers did not have it at that time. I believe they can address 48bit Lba now or was it lower.

Another thing, the Maxtor's drive that I got were all 3 years in warranty. So, I don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

[Sunner]

Yeah, 48 bits it is, the old limit was 28 bits, but with ATA133 48 bit addressing is a standard feature.

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Yeah, 48 bits it is, the old limit was 28 bits, but with ATA133 48 bit addressing is a standard feature.

Yeah, I thought it was 48bits which will last us longer than we live. I was just stating that newer ATA100 controllers supported 48bit addressing cause someone was beating Maxtor because of the 127gb limit.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: pillage2001

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Sunner
ATA133 was a necessary step to take, ATA100 tops out at 127 GB.

You see why I hate Maxtor now? They've even fooled people in these forums that you would otherwise believe to be knowledgable. So drives over 127GB won't be recognized as such unless they're ATA133, eh? Gee. Then explain to me how WD's new 2000JB 200GB drives are ATA100 and work just fine. Strange, isn't it?

Damn I hate Maxtor.

It's not maxtor's fault. And ATA100 doesn't mean you won't see all 200Gb. The 200Gb needs a newer revision of adderssingand ATA100 controllers did not have it at that time. I believe they can address 48bit Lba now or was it lower.

Another thing, the Maxtor's drive that I got were all 3 years in warranty. So, I don't know what you guys are talking about.

First of all, you can't tell me that a major hardware manufacturer like Maxtor didn't know that 48Lba's were being developed. The newer Lba's inculded with the ATA133 spec are just a reason to claim that ATA133 is a necessity.

I'll say it again: If Maxtor knew that 48bit addressing would be standard enough when larger drives came out (which it did, and it is), then it also knew that ATA133 would not be a neccessity, but rather a marketing point that would make you think that its drives were faster.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: pillage2001

Originally posted by: Sunner
Yeah, 48 bits it is, the old limit was 28 bits, but with ATA133 48 bit addressing is a standard feature.

Yeah, I thought it was 48bits which will last us longer than we live. I was just stating that newer ATA100 controllers supported 48bit addressing cause someone was beating Maxtor because of the 127gb limit.

Although I would be inclined to agree, the "640kb ought to be enough..." quote always makes me chuckle at statements like yours

Maybe we'll be seeing 144Petabyte drives in our lifetime

 

[warrenpeace]

I have the 80 gig versions of these two drives and saw no real performance difference between them when doing a little testing, and they are both extremely quiet drives.

I currently have them striped together in a RAID0 array, and performance is excellent (maybe even amazing).

The maxtor ALSO has a three year warranty, but i would suggest the WD over the maxtor if only because it has a more proven track record at this point.